A bit dry in places but hits on the key that if oil and gas production is reduced before renewables and alternatives can take up the slack, then the oil that will still be needed, will balloon to possibly $400/bbl, forcing governments to subsidize it to try and make it affordable, which will derail investment in renewables (which quite recently has already taken a big hit) with the whole slew of social issues that will ensue, like possibly 30% global unemployment.
The argument, rather than stop investing in oil and gas exploration, stop investing in certain industries and business that depend on oil and gas but already have a viable renewable option, thus reducing the demand for it. Once that demand is under control, then 'naturally' falling oil and gas production will follow. It cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution, so don't force it just because a politician thinks 2035 or 2050 sounds like a 'nice' date and everyone agrees.
https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/s ... 0671499110
If a dry read is more your thing, try this.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/busin ... k-2024.pdf