"Your opinion also seems to indicate a degree of climate scepticism but perhaps I'm reading too much into this?)."

It's not my "opinion": I'm merely stating what seems unremarkably factual to me.

Rapidly shrinking the present levels of oil and fossil fuel use will result in an energy shortage that will impact the lives of working people dramatically. Asking the people who have the least to be happy with even less is no motive for a revolution or even popular support amongst working people.

And yea, it would be the first time I've ever been accused of being a climate sceptic but accusations of "unbeliever!" are a get-out for avoiding the huge element of denialism and the quite massive blind spots in the green movement itself.

On that, righteous sloganizing: "...No to fossil fuels' and 'Just stop oil' simply butters no energy Pasnips for the ordinary folk when the consequence for following such demands is simply penury because there appears to be no serious plan for replacing that energy. When a set of alternatives are proposed: however questionable, like Europe's replacement with renewables using gas as an interim less polluting alternative in a move towards wind turbines and solar, they are thrown into a bonfire at the drop of a hat by the European elite to ensure that the US: the most consumptive and wasteful country on the earth merely remains militarily /economically the top dog over Russia and China. (Remember all those Greens championing Ukraine and supporting this including Greta?)

Aside from sanctioning Russia to effectively destroy their own interim plan, the Europeans (with the support of the Greens) are furthermore keen on sanctioning China: the major world producer of Wind Turbines Solar panels and Battery technology. That's of course without discussing the serious problems these proposed alternatives bring with them, which aside from the energy and environmental destruction involved in getting the the raw materials (Do we even have enough extractable copper in the earth to replace more than a fraction of our energy consumption with wind turbines? ) then provide only intermittent power requiring storage, requiring more energy and mining.

Reducing energy usage and thus CO2 production is imperative but punishing people by the direct economic removal of their energy supply without apparently any real (and massive) plan in place to mitigate the effect (as you note "...none of them are being investigated or planned presently.") when many are already living hand to mouth might get you a class revolution, but it will be one intent on stringing Green politicians up for helping impose even more poverty on them without any regard for what that means for their lives.

Unless you are a Malthusian Green intent on some form of genocide in order to save the planet: and there are indeed a number about, you simply can't have a Green revolution without a class revolution. That would mean CO2 reduction policies which came hand in hand with others offering ordinary peoples the means to maintain and indeed enhance the quality of lives: not ones to immiserate them further.