So close. The only acceptable solution to them is less consumption. They don't really think through the consequences.

For example, they have cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, but simply do not think about the additional fossil fuel that will be burned transporting that oil via train instead. They dream of less consumption and ignore the actual real world consequences.

No, the point is that shipping by train is more expensive. The point is to drive up the price of oil and hasten the time when it becomes uncompetitive with renewables.

That's a good point. But is it better to raise taxes on fossil fuel, or decide to ship oil via train instead of pipeline? I'm not sure what the exact tradeoff would be if train delivered oil was a little more expensive. A little more expensive would lead to a little less usage while the delilvery would pump more pollution into the air. The math might work out out your way or my way.

If I could snap my fingers, I would raise the tax on oil dramatically, and ship oil via pipeline until renewables actually take over and the demand for fossil fuel actually goes down. It seems to me that it would be better for the environment than other alternatives.

If I could snap my fingers I would just copy the strategy by the anti-nuclear movement. As an strategy, theirs were both a great success, market friendly, easy for politicians to support and economical.

First step is to forbid creating new fossil fueled power plants for increased capacity. This has zero impact right now on the grid, but sets the road for the industry. Projects created before this date is not impacted.

Second step is to set a deadline where existing plants need to be demolished. The date get set around the time of existing plans for investments to be recovered. This makes current investors happy, while we also get a definitive date where the plants will be gone.

At this point we are done. New investors will look at the market and see an opportunity for increase demand for energy down the road, and at the same time see old capacity that will need to be replaced. There is no tax nor tax politics involved. No decisions regarding pipelines, trains or ships. Just two political decisions that has zero impact on anyone right now.

I agree this is optimal, however politics is a thing and you went and used the word tax.

I think the real reason goes farther back. The environmentalist movement grew out of the peace movement, which was anti-nuclear because all they saw were the military applications. A few decades down the line, they've forgotten why they don't like it, but they still don't like it.