Full credit to Kohler and agree with your comments but one point sticks in my mind.
A rather long list of people who are not business analysts but who are instead technical experts on various aspects of all this have been saying for an extended period now that the approach being taken will not, cannot, achieve the stated aim.
So what's Kohler's magic secret?
What enables a business analyst to cut through where countless technical people have failed over a period of decades?
That isn't a personal gripe, it's a genuine curiosity.
To the issue itself, ignoring arguments about the importance or otherwise of reducing CO2 emissions and just assuming the need is real (to avoid getting bogged down in that argument), overall we're in one hell of a predicament that I'll summarise with a series of brief points:
Fossil fuels are not the sole source of emissions. Eg cement production releases CO2 regardless of what fires the kiln, then there's methane from various sources, oxides of nitrogen, and an assortment of man-made chemicals. Some of these are easy to eliminate, some there's no fix for at present.
Some uses of fossil fuels have no easy substitute. Aviation, some metal extraction processes, etc.
A very considerable volume of fossil fuel is consumed for purposes where alternatives are technically possible but in practice problematic, mostly due to economics.
Another considerable chunk of fossil fuel use is technically and economically replaceable but faces barriers on account of cultural preferences, ideology, politics, etc.
Another chunk is doable, faces no real barrier, but will happen only slowly for an assortment of economic and practical reasons.
There are things that work and can be proven to work but that do not scale due to technical or resource limitations. Most notably biofuels.
The problem is the whole thing's become ridiculously political. Anyone who points out a problem is promptly labelled as this or that, rather than listening to what they're saying, the reasons for it and considering what solutions are available. To the point it's effectively shut down any real, rational discussion of what needs to happen. One side insists everything's going fine when clearly it isn't, the other insists there's no problem to fix, and from there it's an endless argument.