I agree with you, from having spent more than seven years and significant personal wealth towards researching the problem from PhD candidate work in 2017, since I became aware of what is a global energy problem.
With respect to the researchers you've featured, it looks to me like they still are making some fundamental mistakes, no surprise because without formal systems Engineering techniques and tools, they have not identified the problem as an energy problem, and this means they are missing out on a whole world of corroborating information, and a much more intuitive rigorous, fully workable solution.
Formal Systems Engineering requires we start from a stakeholder analysis to identify the problem.
This just means we take into account everyone's concerns, including the concerns of nature as a primary stakeholder, Earth, sun, then humans, plants, animals etc, not necessarily in that order but ranked hierarchically in terms of energy requirements.
By sufficient refinement of all of that, a picture of the solution forms.
There are powerful graphical modeling tools that help with this but again it's expertise that takes years of application to really start to use with full effect. My own experience was twenty years in various technical capacities after two Engineering degrees, working prior to PhD candidate work as a Systems Engineer doing on industrial aerospace research projects, before academic work.
Economy then fits in, just as we see sustainable economies in the animal and plant worlds, we see the unsustainable place human economy currently is, vs the sustainable place we would like it to be. Further, we see what technical elements and technologies appear to be suited to integrating with it, enabling it.
What they seem to have wrong, is in attempting to use destruction as a metric, without considering creation, there is no monetisation of creation, only monetisation of destruction.
That is the same fault as we have in the existing system. Only destruction is currently monetised, when we need to start monetising creation.
The only way to monetise creation is issue the money for free, nothing asked in return. It's only when returns are demanded or requested, damage has to be done to meet the demands for returns.
We could never have done this before the advent of solar technology, the effect on money value would have been catastrophic.
But now there is massive economic product created from solar, it actually has to be done, to preserve or even increase energy value in money.
Anyhow until we do that, we are not monetising creation therefore not creating, therefore not reducing temperature but increasing it.
That part is just thermodynamics, no need for greenhouse gases theory, which won't help much after oil is quit, to reduce temperature in any case (Just quitting oil won't do it)
Anyhow I can only scratch the surface here.
More is at:
https://eric-bott.medium.com/forget-greenhouse-gases-ef857af9b168