Elizabeth May, riskng the label of 'catastrophist' underscores the urgency of our situation. Damon Matthews comes closest to at least mentioning that there may be more options than the Net-Zero-Only policy singularity. But he is reticent, referring to direct air capture as a "very" (i.e. too) expensive option with "highly uncertain effectiveness." We should instead implement "available options that can generate more immediate emissions reductions," he argues. So with that, we are back to the Net-Zero-Only energy transition.
The elephant in the room and what's missing in the briefing is any mention whatsoever of geoengineering research and testing, (what's affectionately become known as "the G word") including solar radiation management (SRM) options. Your regular columnist Gwynne Dyer has raised this subject often (and written a book that delves into it in detail). Many climate experts (James Hansen among others) acknowledge that energy transition (and carbon capture) alone cannot stave off the temperature rise and tipping points we now face because we waited too long. Even if we stopped human GHG production entirely in its tracks overnight, that will be insufficient. We need to explore how to increase cloud and ice albedo, and reflect sunlight away from earth, while we proceed with necessary removal of greenhouse gases already in the bubble we call planet Earth. The most urgent (and apparently) unspeakable task is research into this project so it can proceed safely. We could use a policy brief on this subject, around now, if not sooner!