Great work Ricky, thanks for posting, it confirns what we would expect fron the system analysis.
One minor quibble though, I don't think the needed change will happen by doing as advised by the wording above.
Because all that additional effort and activity is being done for profit, and profit itself is directly physically linked to temperature rise, the more effort done towards net zero by conventional / profit driven means, the more we see the temperature rise, this is exponential and unquantifiable without examining the effects of profit itself on temperature rise - its independent of time, only profit.
We have to use the energy of solar, (not the energy of the planet) , monetised by issue of funds on it, indexed to it, to bootstrap us over to full-on dependence on solar.
"Net zero" is a mathematically impossible goal somewhere in the middle of that leap, from mathematically negative to mathematically positive energy transition. There is as good as a physical air gap in the middle where we have no consumable energy at all, where positive and negative cancel out, we can see it by looking at how creation of economic product is progressively destroying the value of money issued as debt.
After the switch is when we will see the value of money recover, and maybe when we will realise all our exhaust oroducts (ie our emissions) are no longer negatives, they have become positives, aircraft flying on hydrogen will produce only clean filtrated air and water, and the process of creating the hydrogen from solar can never add more heat than would have happened if neither we nor nature used it to create things other than heat.
The Energy Polarity Multiplier Story and Amazon book gives the essence of this this in more detail.
I do wish folk would start buying the book, it's the only way I am likely to be able to stay alive working only on the energy project as stands.
The negative energy beast is doing what it can to silence me, and it's almost there.