Portfolios of Pleasure?

Sixty percent of global equity's carbon emissions, are said come from companies with a market value of 10%. This appears to give ample scope to pension and asset management funds, to each meet a 2050 target of net zero (as encouraged by the UN and required to counter climate change). It also seems obvious that investment (or lack of it) can be used to increase pressure on major polluters (e.g. oil companies, heavy industry and utilities) to cut their emissions.The London-based Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change have even developed 'tools' to achieve net zero portfolios. So far, so good (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/10/major-uk-pension-funds-worth-nearly-900bn-commit-to-net-zero). I wonder, however, how much of this is real. The accolade of net zero might, in some cases, be actually attained by fancy or imperfect accounting. For example, will investors really fully take into account the emissions generated by air travel? Will they understand that the concrete used in building programmes, is a major generator of carbon dioxide? Will they really do a full costs versus benefits analysis of the impacts of intensive agriculture, sport, travel, food production etc? Even solar panels, electric cars and wind turbines have costs before any benefits are achieved. Perhaps there are easy targets and more subtle polluters?