Most fossil-based electric generation is not oil; it's either natural gas (reasonably clean, though it does produce a lot of CO₂), or coal (terrible on many counts).
I'd say that killing coal would have a large effect. It would also put entire town populations out of work — a really hard problem, read about how UK tackled it in 1970s and 1980s, it was painful and ugly.
At the end of 2016 there were 50,000 coal miners in the US.[1] Their average annual pay is $29K.[2] We could give each of them one million dollars, invested and paying out 3% annually, and the $50B it costs would be a drop in the bucket compared to the economic benefit of eliminating those carbon emissions.
In fact, it would even be cheaper than the healthcare costs of pollution from coal plants, which amounts to $187 billion in the U.S.[3] And in Appalachia, healthcare costs from coal production are $75B annually, so we'd come out ahead there too, which would be a double benefit for the miners since they'd be both richer and healthier.
Yeah, but that's a logical, pragmatic solution that actually looks at the cost-benefit from a scientifically informed perspective. Most (or at least half) of America would hate it.
The death of UK coal was all to do with economics of importing coal and labour prices and relations, rather than climate change. But also that's why most green parties talk of a "just transition", subsidy to the workers who will lose their jobs.
It was also to do with cleaner energy generation and taking advantage of natural gas resources in North Sea. Dash to Gas was a major enabler of the switch away from coal in the 90s.
I'd say that killing coal would have a large effect. It would also put entire town populations out of work — a really hard problem, read about how UK tackled it in 1970s and 1980s, it was painful and ugly.