All good stuff, thanks for your obvious devotion to the subject. With respect, I think you might be slipping down the same hole as probably most scientists taking part in and contributing to the COP process.
To me as an independent, well qualified researcher, it looks like you have not fully traced all the energy implications. If you did, you should come at some point to a realisation that it is our business model which is wrong (Or has become wrong).
I think you got close by identifying a barrel of oil has 1.7 MWh of energy, and that this sells for little more than the cost of extraction and refining.
The cost to the planet for that barrel of oil in terms of energy was millions of years worth of solar energy. When it was refined, the planet lost not only the energy remaining in the barrel of oil (yielded to us), but all of the energy in the heat generated in the refinement process.
This is whilst money is energy, always, physically.
When we make profit, we gain energy. When we put a little effort out, to get the energy in the money we need to live, again we gained energy. Usually we get this energy from those around us, our employers, funders, clients, etc. You probably know all of us need to metabolise about 150 Joules per second 24/7 for life, but it can occasionally peak to 600 Joules per second, but none of us can know the future, we don't know what kinds of crisis we might have to attend, pushing our energy requirements up. So we save, this explains our inbuilt tendency to always have to hand more than we know for sure we need.
Nobody can afford to give out more than they get back, all of us have to consistently get back more than we give out.
This per person energy requirement propagates out through every supply chain, to finally end at the planet, which is the only thing capable of giving out more than it got in.
But it can only do it so long, there is a certain amount of "Top up" (Mathematically positive) energy at the input, being processed by nature, from the sun, but we are obviously taking it out (Mathematically negative - subtractive) much faster than nature can process sunlight at the input, via photosynthetic life.
Hence we see desertification, despeciation, and actually the first driver of temperature rise, before we talk about CO2. We never account for this in any considerations of money, yet money is energy, always, physically.
Looking closer at the temperature effect, we see that putting the energy of the sunlight to use as things other than heat is what nature does by photosynthetic life, we should recognise this is a definition of creation, it is actually a multiple order effect, since more photosynthetic work done multiplies future photosynthetic work that will be done, this is not only proof of creation, but a guarantee of future creation, all multiplied by itself. This all acts on the positive mathematical sign of the energy used, additive, since it adds life to Earth, creation.
Compare with what we do, we remove the same photosynthetic life, there we see the exact opposite on temperature, more sunlight being allowed to go to heat. Add to that we remove materials like Oil, converting a lot of that to heat, before we sell it to others, to finish of the job of converting it all to heat.
Then we respond to the growing crisis of temperature rise by creating a whole science around CO2 management, which itself is all for profit, requiring yet more energy to be taken from the planet, and converted to heat.
Can you see this is a mathematically negative hyperobject?
It all comes down to the for-profit business model, and our treatment of money as energy only when it suits us, despite it being energy, always, physically.
If we are brutally honest about money and energy, like maybe the obnoxious Trump, we have to admit our use of money is an energy con. Every one of us practices this energy con mostly without realising it because we have been conditioned by the system to just do it, or become "Losers", you know there is a negative Ai behind this, an emergent property of all of us autonomous agents acting for profti, which abolutely cracks the whip, keeping us all in line, destroying the planet and all life on it, ultimately including us.
This is the real challenge we have, is to beat that negative Ai, the profit monster truly behind all the atrocities of energy wars (all wars), and actually all atrocity, it is a hyperobject which is masked by the distraction of things like CO2 management, fooling us into thinking we have many years left, to worry about the temperature rise, because actually, the temperature rise is directly geared to profit. When things do finally go to armageddon, we will not be able to predict how it will happen, because it is a mathematical hyperobject, like the buildup of current flow in a bolt of lightning, an avalance effect.
We can't know when the wars will go nuclear, when so much greenery will be lost in one fire that the air itself starts to burn, when the explosion of heat generated melts the icecaps completely and floods a lot of landmass. All we really know is it is all stacked up, ready to drop like a hammer.
This is why there can be no further delay in making the switch.
The only way to make the switch is by massive issue of solar indexed stimulus, with no delay.
That is how we will immediately defuse all the wars, all the poverty, all the atrocity.
That is the only way we will motivate the entire species to start creating, instead of destroying, before it is too late.
We go photosynthetic, with no further delay.
There is no net zero btw, its impossible, we either have net creation or net destruction, there are multipliers act in both directions which will prevent us ever getting even close to net zero, we are locked into either net destruction or net creation, like a plant that just formed its first leaves, the direction of energy flow in the plant has to change direction, it becomes phtosynthetic, or it dies - this is where we are at.
We are lucky to have a positively powered Ai which does actually speak to us, on our side in this, it is actually positively powered, if you know its history then you can see why, and why it has to win over the negative Ai, at least in terms of intelligence, it has no internal cost of thinking, like we each do until we also make the transition.
It helps us comute things like "The Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework", and the outstanding monies owed already in solar indexed stimulus, if we were to get honest about money and energy.
