Take a look at the dT-inventory made by project Drawdown (Yale) under the title: Existing solutions could prevent catastrophic climate change. They calculate per solution emissions avoidance (in Gigaton's CO2 equivalent reduced between 2020 and 2050) as well as the implementation costs. The latter embodies the false true of their prevent clause. Those costs are huge and you have to make them now. Mainly by setting up and operating new production lines. One big energy-consuming happening so. For example (see solution 'efficient aviation'): you can reduce planes' emissions per km by 20% , which costs then 800 billion dollars to make the existing and the next fleet much more fuel-efficient. In the meantime, they assume that the number flight miles increase fivefold until 2050, and then, because of those lower mileage emissions, you'll avoid about 7 gigatonnes of CO2-eq direct emissions whilst flying until 2050.
OK, that's nice, but those costs (mainly energy costs because each production boils down to relocating and reprocessing material using energy) you can actually reason down to a huge mountain of emissions that you now have to commit to get that avoidance done in the long run. This avoidance must also be assessed in perspective of the growth (in air traffic) that is taking place in the meantime. The same criticism (about short-term emissions boost and volume rebound) is true at each of their solutions (for example district heating). By the way: they clearly state that their entire list must be taken into execution at the same time and immediate if total avoidance is to approach what IPCC thinks is necessary to stay below two degrees rise.
So: hastily expand the refineries to supply that enormous amount of extra industrial activity with the necessary power and energy. In short: this highway is a dead end. It is too beautiful and too late.