The only sensible thing would be to have a pipeline, with zero trucks doing that work in its place, plus a carbon tax on top of that oil to adjust the price.
The carbon tax could be applied uniquely to oil brought on the pipeline so as to equalize the cost of that oil with that which will instead be brought over on trucks.
Which means no misaligned incentives to increase oil consumption but also no inefficiency from trucks doing the work in its place. That tax revenue is effectively new wealth since it represents the saved inefficiency of the alternative of having no pipeline.
On further thought, it would be best if both the pipeline and the oil transport by trucks/trains are taxed out of existence.
From another perspective, you are doing that: fossil fuels will be a necessity to some extent, if not forever, for centuries more. They are used for much more than just generating electricity and transportation. What you advocate will make that necessary use of fossil fuels more expensive, reducing standard of living, and more polluting, harming the environment--that which you claim to care about most.
Absolutism is generally problematic.
But yes, using the word "absolutist" was in bad taste.