> The solution to climate change is not to make energy producers like oil and gas companies go out of business.
They're going to go out of business in several decades because there won't be any more oil and gas to extract (or rather, there will be a lot less and it'll be difficult and expensive to extract).
> The way these companies became so successful was by providing something of value at a low cost.
The cost is not low if you consider the decades of suffering by people in the middle east and other oil-producing countries due to oppressive regimes put in place so that oil and gas could be extracted at "low cost".
But even regardless of that - so what?
> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good?
1. If the alternative is even worse climate change, meters of sea level rise, destruction of huge natural habitats etc. then - yes.
2. If you account for the costs of climate change, it's not more expensive to use renewable energy. And there's the cost and detrimental effects of immediate environmental pollution...
3. Renewable energy is no longer that expensive, and it's getting cheaper. In fact, it's become quite competitive:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-...
> The government can impose a cost ... it can incentivize...
Yeah, well, maybe those were relevant solutions 40 or 30 years ago. The time is up for that kind of stuff. Far-reaching action is required immediately, since we are on overtime w.r.t. climate effects, and markets be damned.