I know you mean well, thanks for posting, but I think you made the classic mistake of identifying emissions as the cause of the problem, whilst emissions are caused by use of extracted energy.
It isn't possible to reduce emissions without reducing use of extracted energy.
Whatever industry is done to try to reduce emissions, using even more extracted energy, causes even more emissions.
Emissions are just a multiplier of extracted energy use, all we need to do to see how it all propagates out, is mathematically sign the energy.
Its negative because it is extracted.
So all multipliers of it are negative.
Even though a minority might profit by it (gaining energy from it), the majority including the planet loses, and most of what it lost is converted to heat.
E=MC squared gives us how much heat in units of Joukes, if we know how much materials or non heat energy was taken.
Suffice to say it was a lot more than the energy gained and put to use by us, and the energy gained and pocketed by whoever profited by it, recalling money is energy in markets, priced in KWhrs, which converts to Joules.
This fundamental temperature rise is what is multiplied mathematically, as effects of CO2.
The multipliers reverse, when the polarity of the energy is reversed.
The only energy source we can use to do that is the energy of the sun, it is the only one we can say is mathematically positive, added to Earth, not subtracted, therefore the only one that can give us positive multipliers.
We need to get energy from somewhere, every one of us adults needs to metabolise at least 150 Joules of energy per second, 24/7, all our lives to stay alive.
The only source we can use, to avoid doing the damage, is the energy of the sun.
The energy from the sun put to use reduces temperature again by E=MC squared, by creating things other than heat. Energy from the sun not used by either us or nature has to become heat.
Notice we already removed a lot of nature, before forest fires became a concern.
Effectively, we've replaced a large part of nature, by a large population of humans.
This is as far as the doomers / degrowthers get, thinking the solution is just to cull the humans, hoping nature will recover. They don't understand the benefits, and actually the necessity of switching to mathematically positive energy.
It's really important we all understand what needs to be done to turn things round.
We have to move our dependence to the energy of the sun.
Then all the multipliers become positive. We won't know them all until we actually do it, but we do know a few of them. Converting the energy to hydrogen gives us a fuel that functionally replaces fossil fuels with none of the pollution. Widespread use of it, even in aerospace, filtrates and circulates both water and air.
It even converts further to human consumable food, which can be used to reduce our burden on the conventional food chain (See "Solein").
Since hydrogen is money in markets, replacing fossil fuels, producing more of it is a way to increase our financial wealth, which gives us more to create more solar hydrogen infrastructure, always on a domestic and community basis, since the energy of the sun is dtributed by nature, the real power of it can only be had on a domestic and community basis.
Notice thus changes also how we should think about hydrogen efficiency, in this case, whatever energy we can put into it, even if it is only twenty percent, is twenty percent less energy that will otherwise become heat, the same heat as if we didn't use it. This is not additional to the heat crated by the sun, whereas heat lost by inefficiencies in negative energy processing does all add to the heat generated by the sun.
So we should not worry so much about efficiency, remember we can scale it for free when money is exchanged for it, to whatever is needed, constrained only by real estate.
What one community lacks, another can supply.
Effectively, like this, it is scaleable to way more than we can ever use, far more than we ever used of fossil fuels.
See how much this resembles the action of a plant?
Anyhow the consequence of not doing it is effectively death at birth, of this new existence we could have by solar.
Since we replaced more of nature by humanity than can support itself without us, we now have a duty to all of nature to make this transition, retaining as many "hands for the pump" as possible.
We have a lot of work to do, to undo the damage done by extraction, which was directly related to profit, and debt.
But it looks like this is the natural outcome, this is what nature always intended, this was always our purpose, to be born into a new form, removing our dependence from the energy of our mother host, moving our dependence to the relatively unlimited enetgy of the environment of our mother host.
Everything born does this.
There is no shame in not understanding this, anyone who never saw it before, it is something not currently taught in science.
It took me thirty years practice as a formal Systems Engineer, with already energy patents in my history, to even start to see the global energy problem coming.
So I know this isn't part of science yet.
But it should be.
Maybe we have to just do it, and let science catch up.
It starts by issue of the money owed to the public to date, for the creation of economic product so far, as a kind of solar indexed stimulus.
There we see the seed investment capital needed.
It should also be subsidised by aerospace, who really need this, their application is the most fuel intensive, and fuel dependent, because batteries will never power large commercial aircraft for thousands of miles.
In fact there we see some more positive multipliers, liquid hydrogen has three to four times the power / mass density of fossil fuels.
So if Concorde was back in the air again in could be going from UK to Australia instead of just from UK to new York.
And it could be carrying just fruit in either direction, we wouldn't bat an eyelid, just smile and wave.