Of course the media says the experiment is unclear. The author knows that the government will not allow a second experiment. Thus, what else can they say. The media cannot say “wow this works really well, but we should not try it again”. The media could say “wow, that was a bad idea because X, Y, and Z”. But in this case, there was no catastrophic results. In fact, there were no negative results at all. I can say that for certain because the Canadian Government only threatened to press charges, but did not press any charges. Thus, they could not find any evidence of any damage.
You need to do your homework. This experiment is not about fossil fuels, it is about lowering atmospheric CO2 levels (the negative effect of the fossil fuel use).
Renewables are the way to decrease fossil fuel use. Every trier 1 and trier 2 university in the US has at least 2 research groups working on renewables (typically one in the chemistry/biology department(s) and one in the chemical engineering department).
As for forcing people to stop using fossil fuels, you should be careful for what you wish for. Almost all our energy comes from fossil fuels. To convert to anything else, in a short period of time, would be extremely traumatic to the point of political suicide for politicians that proposed it. A short turn over time would be in generations not decades.
We could convert quickly if we went nuclear (like France did). But, very few people are suggesting that path (even though we have some really good new generation nuclear technology that we help other countries develop).
Another issue with forcing people into anything is the growing propensity towards a shame culture [see: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/opinion/the-shame-culture.html]. If you give the government the power to force people to stop using fossil fuels, the government may later decide to stop people from doing something else that the majority of the people don’t like. For example, Obama chose to do things by executive order instead of through the legislative path. Now Trump is undoing all the executive orders because he can with a sign of his pen. Obama-care is a law written by the legislature and signed by Obama, and that is proving hard to undo. If the Paris Accord was ratified by the Senate, we would still be in the Paris Accord.
Shortcuts, don’t work. The harder and longer path is the way to make any lasting change. Thus it you want people to stop using fossil fuels, find a better way to explain it to people, be more persuasive with your current arguments, or find a better technology that is cheaper (or better) than fossil fuels.
People used to use Kerosene and Whale Oil to light their homes. Standard Oil became a monopoly by standardizing kerosene to make it safer. Technological advances change peoples behavior by making the alternative easier, faster, safer, or cheaper.