As the article alludes, it is a political problem. Many powerful governments are controlled to some degree by fossil-fuel tycoons (including the US), and these vastly wealthy people won't allow their governments to switch.
Anyway, we don't need to use 0 fossil fuels to stop climate change.
I'm not saying they aren't part of the solution. But, we need to recognize the scale and complexity of the problem. Solving or at least weathering it will require multiple angles of attack, significant time, effort, engineering work and quite likely scientific advancement.
Actually the chemical industry made huge amounts of $$$ from each transition. For instance, you can't get a generic asthma inhaler now because all of the CFC-free formulations are patented and by the time those go off patent they will have finally determined it is safe to puff fluoroketones and they will ban HFCs and there will be another decades of paying extra for asthma inhalers.
Sometimes big industries suffer due to policy decisions. Sometimes they take advantage of change and make money. Sometimes they use their money to fight the change instead.
Oil companies happen to fall into the last category with no sign things will change.
The tax system was insane long before Turbo Tax came on the scene. Sure they may have a vested interest in the status quo but they didn't create the insanity and they are not the primary cause it's not being reduced.
The public wants to go green, but only if nobody has to be inconvenienced with it.
*There are cases, but they're mostly in the past and in the wake of the rebalancing during the post-WWII era.
It is a problem of alternatives; the alternatives aren't really in place yet. Ironically, the wealthy can afford them.
its this simpleton idea that fixing fossil fuel consumption is a magic bullet. when I see these articles I usually get part way through and think, okay it would be nice if he read more than the top to search results in google before writing this tripe