This is so wrong it would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
I suggest a through reading of the science and the politics involved.
1- There are NO low carbon solutions preventing the exploitation of oil. Period. As a matter of fact NOTHING is preventing the exploration of oil except Energy Return on Energy Invested. (EROEI)-see below
2- Increasingly wealthy populations will tolerate anything that will help them keep their wealth as has been demonstrated time and again in human affairs.
3- There are NO CCUS that can scale up to decarbonize a significant portion of fossil fuel use. The largest installation in Iceland that just came online capture less than 900 cars worth.
4- The indoor air quality cited as "unacceptable to stakeholders" are acceptable NOW. Just look a pollution in Beijing, Mumbai and elsewhere. "Unacceptable" is NOT a policy stance, it is a hissy-fit.
5-"Benefits will fade later this century" completely ignores the fact that the "benefits" are fading right now and there won't be any benefits left by 2060 if we carry on like this.
6-Pixie dust and wishful thinking masquerading as a solution. We are SO past the point of "may well gain traction"...
Here is a random list of articles that may guide you further in your research into your skepticism.
This is about Net-Zero
This one from one of the largest reinsurance companies in the world:
This one was written for the Australian government
This is from the Manhattan Institute:
This one about energy use and our modern society,
This is about the oil economy
This one is from the Geological survey of Finland re:EROEI
and if you really want to scare yourself take a gander at Prof. Murphy or Prof Rees' research on what is possible on our finite planet and our present overshoot problem.
And if you've made it this far and would like to know what I think: