What you describe are major priorities. They are not, though, low-hanging fruits. Full decarbonisation of electricity production is a massive task, and one that will actually create a lot of emissions, which would thus have to be gained back (as would emissions from peaker plants).
But that'd only be the start, as to de-carbonise other activities, electricity production would have to double.

And of course, there are other GHG than CO2.

The point is not just to "keep the program busy for at least a decade". It's to have started reducing CO2 concentrations before the end of the next one. Not emissions. Concentrations.

I don't see how that would be achieved without making sacrifices in terms of availability of air travel (OK, not total disappearance, but enough that visiting my friends once in a decade would be problematic -yes, we are talking Australia, New Zealand, Laos...) during the transition period.
The alternative is to let some catastrophes happen. I believe it is the more likely scenario. We would have needed to start a massive program earlier.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

Where price increases on flying (and better rail connections) can help is in the intracontinental segment. For capital-to-capital, sleeper rail already beats plane + 1 travel day + 1 hotel night, in terms of both cost and comfort. The problem is that the rail connections into the hinterland are so bad that you end up spending a whole travel day anyway. And then you're suddenly looking at a head-to-head plane vs. sleeper rail comparison, and that's not so hot cost-wise.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.