I suppose it's another of those subjects where rational discussion and pragmatic approaches simply don't register on the simplistic (puerile even) media radar. Let's face it it's only the media which has any real sway these days.
I believe in pragmatism, being realistic, and very often the old 80/20 rule. This doesn't cut through today. Mind you, it has always been thus to a great extent, think suffrage 100+ years ago.
I'm in support of reducing emissions of both toxic and detrimental substances into the environment, it'll bite us all in the bum sooner or later. There is always, however, a realistic threshold where cost/benefit (in the broadest sense) tends to reverse for most things. It's the old adage that perfection should not be the enemy of good.
Zero CO2 doesn't actually make practical sense, it really isn't necessary to reach zero, it becomes a dogma which doesn't benefit anyone. If we can reduce emissions by 80% using 20% of the effort, then that's the way to go. Don't cut our noses off to spite our faces and go all out for the last 20%.
My personal bugbears at the moment are the campaigns against domestic gas boilers and diesel trucks. Not to bore everyone with the sums yet again but they are not the villains they are made out to be, or more precisely the remedies are not what they are made out to be.
Domestic gas boilers pretty much match (or better) an electric heat pump powered by a gas fired power station. Diesel trucks are relatively clean these days, outside urban environments, and are pretty fuel efficient in terms of tonne.miles per gallon (or kg/CO2 emitted), better than a typical car by a factor of more than 5.
A 1.2 tonne car does say 50mpg = 60 tonne.mpg, a 44 tonne truck does almost 8mpg (*)= 350 tonne.mpg . Changing the car to electric makes some sense, changing the truck to electric doesn't. Concentrate on the lower hanging fruit.
* =
https://mwtruckparts.co.uk/what-fuel-economy-mpg-does-a-lorry-get