Zero emissions sounds like a silly goal anyway, 80/20 and all that.
The zero net emission (NZE) scenario was chosen because of the effect that it would have on the climate, not because some "guy wants to be a perfectionist". See also: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/...
The climate is a complex matter and we globally have many bright people on the problem. If you see yourself armchairing on that topic, you might consider that you just don't know enough.
It is a bit like doing an emergency break with a train that is about to roll into a pit filled with lava. You need to break way ahead to avoid the lava pit.
80/20 breaking still lands you in the lava pit. And the later you decide to break, the harder that breaking will have to be. Until at some point breaking alone is no longer enough. That is where we are.
Science is not based on agreement or consensus, it is based on evidence. Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific."
That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.
Also: The math on the costs of the consequences of climate change overwhelmingly shows that every proposed measure is a no-brainer from an economic standpoint. But this is also widely known knowledge.