In the 19th century the fossil fuels justnlying around might have been more accessible (but at this point most of the world lived without them), but since the middle of last century it has been concerted effort to externalise the costs and widely documented conspiracy and violence used to destroy alternatives with externalised benefits.

Electrified rail (even if running on coal) uses a few % of the fossil fuels of trucks + roads, but top-down decisions by governments on the take were made to dismantle rail.

Same with trolley busses and trams.

Just building houses slightly taller and closer together reduces oil consumption by about 50%, but that was literally banned because it makes everyone owning a car impossible.

Wind + pumped hydro has been an option since the 40s (much cheaper than coal + lung disease), and would have come down the cost curve with even a tiny fraction of the subsidies fossil fuels get. The first large scale wind farm was abandoned because it cost 60% more than unfiltered, acid-rain-spewing coal as if that was a failure rather than an overwhelming success.

Trillions were spent securing oil. This isn't paid back at the pump though.

Solar thermal has always been a viable option for low grade heat everywhere and was proven viable for mechanical work in 50% of the planet in the 1910s. Coal soot makes it a lot worse.

The ones holding the deeds to the coal mines and oil wells don't murder, send armies, fund coups, buy the entire media, own most major political parties in the global north, purchase and dismantle transit systems, and strongarm universities because their product is better on technical merit.