A bit pessimistic though right? Carbon capture through both natural and engineered methods is a thing that could have more investment/incentive if that were the case which counters the idea that just because CO2 hangs around a long time doesn't mean there's nothing to be done about it.

Obviously, it'd be great to limit the production of more CO2 going forward but I don't believe that everyone will collectively just give up.

If you're curious about this, the recent IPCC report publications on mitigation have great meta-analysis on the component of carbon capture and as someone who also had put some mental stock in this (don't we all wish we could engineer our way out of this one easily?), I found it sobering. And then consider that many people found the reports too soft on CC.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels. Full stop.

Hitting the 2100 target 70 years early should be a wake up call to us all.

I see little evidence we will even attempt to cut our output and less that we will pay money to solve this issue before we have global disaster.

That just simply isn't going to happen. Next plan?

It's a hell of a carbon loan to take out against future generations.

Not to be defeatist but the solutions have byproducts that are just as counterproductive to our goals

It's the speed of warming that makes our current climate change so harmful. 5 degrees of warming over decades is much more harmful than the 10 degrees of warming over millennia that your link predicts. Over millennia species and ecosystems can evolve.

Not to dismiss your paper, but a lot of people hearing your comment or reading the link will think "If going to zero won't help, let's not bother going to zero".