>
Higher oil prices makes renewables even more competitive, so this is another situation where the extreme left and extreme right may agree.Another way would be to introduce carbon pricing, which folks like Greenspan, Volker, Bernanke, Yellen, etc endorsed:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...
You add a surcharge on carbon emissions, they raise the prices of carbon-intensive activities, which get passed onto end consumers. Companies which reduce their carbon footprint would be able to sell products/services for less money and where many people would choose because it's cheaper.
The key: the money collected is returned to consumers (why it's labelled "dividend") on an average basis. So if you use less carbon than average your refund will be more than your surcharge outlay and you'll come out ahead. If you use more than average, then it's more money out of pocket.
Sadly when Canada tried this under the Trudeau Liberals the Conservatives—which tend to be (federally) concentrated in the O&G-dominant western provinces—attacked it as a "tax" (regardless that the money was refunded), even though it's probably the most market efficient mechanism—which Conservatives even testified to: "Scott Moe says Saskatchewan considered carbon tax alternatives, but found them too costly":
* https://nationalpost.com/news/scott-moe-says-saskatchewan-co...
The gradual increasing of the price would put continued, increasing pressure to reduce emissions, but would not (net) cost people more out of pocket.
The other market efficient solution would probably a cap-and-trade, which is how Canada and the US (under Bush 41) dealt with acid rain.