> For someone who speak about off-topic, since when did we, the article or anything in this thread talk about the transport sector?

Within the span of the two paragraphs I quoted you went back and forth between "ban fossil fueled energy" and "a law banning fossil fuel", so I inferred that you were talking about a ban on fossil fuels for all applications.

The transport sector just made for an easy example. The same is also true for many applications in the energy sector, e.g. diesel generators on remote islands, or as backup generators. Entirely banning these fuels would be a stupid idea, we should just charge for the externalities they cause.

> How is keeping the coal and natural gas in the ground going to cause needless pollution? Nonsense.

Because as you yourself claim a complete conversion of the grid war-footing amounts of political will would probably take at least 10-20 years, meanwhile we're burning coal as we transition. If we have price incentives to not only phase out coal demand, but also to shift it we'll keep more of it in the ground.

So yes, we agree that keeping more fossil fuel in the ground generally speaking results in less pollution.

I'm pointing out that to do so you not only need to work on energy production (build power plants), but shift energy demand (taxes, energy credits etc.).

I'm basically summarizing what I understand from the PR material from the relevant EU institutions, you're making claims that would either win you a Nobel price if they were true, or at least get you on the front page of most European newspapers ("Internet man saves EU billions of Euros by getting rid of lots of pointless institutions, processes etc.").

> [...]I can fully see the data which says that the fossil fueled pollution in the power grid is going up, not down. It pretty basic logic that when the method which claim to decrease pollution is increasing it then the method is flawed.

I haven't seen the numbers you're alluding to, but I don't see how that's a violation of basic logic, it's trivial to show that all of the following can be true:

1. Fossil fuel use is going down as a proportion of overall energy use.

2. Fossil fuel use is going up in absolute terms.

3. We have some system in place (say energy credits or a carbon tax) that's reducing fossil fuel use.

You just need to have a situation where the growth in energy demand is outpacing the pace of your energy source transition.

In such a situation it would be a mistake to say "absolute use is going up, any mitigation we have in place must be doing nothing".

Maybe those mitigations are doing nothing, or maybe the situation would be a lot worse if they weren't in place.

> Denmark is a pretty good example[...]

No it's not. My point several replies above this one has been that energy credits help with the overall problem, not that they're guaranteed to solve it. Clearly an example of a problem that isn't fully solved isn't a refutation of a mechanism that's suggested to contribute to an overall solution.

This would be like saying that speeding fines aren't an effective method of helping with overall traffic safety because people still speed on public roads.

That's all I've been maintaining here. There's a common misconception about energy credits that they're not only ineffective, but that they're some sort of sham. I think that's a misunderstanding of people who don't know how they work, and you continuing to drag up examples that have nothing whatsoever to do with that point isn't a convincing counterargument.