Such as by enacting environmental laws.
Advocating for boycotts as the only course of action is equivalent to letting the behavior continue, because they hardly ever work. If you want results, you need collective action - i.e. laws.
The article places the blame for the current situation on the oil companies. This is ridiculous. The oil companies started to meet a demand, not because some group of people met and decided to ruin the environment and then convince people they needed oil, which is what anyone accepting the article's main point has to believe.
Same holds for electricity, people don't demand electricity from a specific source. But currently some sources meet the demands more than others. Legislation could lead to alternative sources becoming better at meeting people's demands i.e. becoming cheaper, reliable etc.
Generally, large industries have momentum which keeps them going, and therefore the way the meet demand is not necessarily the optimal way for consumers/the environment.
So the argument here is we can legislate scientific progress?
That's ridiculous
For example, in my area, our electricity is already generated cheaply by renewables, but we end up being required to pay the state mandated electricity company for 'distribution'. This unnecessary intrusion into the free market on behalf of the state is ridiculous, but again, the oil industry isn't to blame. Firstly, because the utility company is not an oil company, and secondly, because the ultimate bad guy is the state, not any private company.