Net Zero Carbon By 2050?

I'm reminded of the adage that states "I used to be indecisive, but now I can't make my mind up". That seems evident in much of the political thinking about climate change. Climate scientist, Peter Kalmus, has encapsulated what I have been trying to say in some recent posts on the topic (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/10/net-zero-2050-deadly-procrastination-fossil-fuels). Kalmus claims that there are 'only' two things wrong with 'net zero carbon by 2050'. The first is 'by 2050' which pushes the problem into the relatively distant future. It takes the issue out of the immediate concerns of elected politicians, who generally serve terms of between 3 and 5 years. It also means people can place their bets on the possible (albeit unlikely, at the necessary scale) development of 'whizz-bang' technologies that will solve the climate 'difficulty' for us. Kalmus thinks 2035 should be the longest time frame we should be contemplating. Actual action is needed now. The second problem is 'net zero carbon'. This enables the coal, oil and gas companies to carry on burning hydrocarbons, rather than ceasing to add to 'greenhouse gases'. It even suggests we will be able to use hydrocarbons in the future, so long as emissions are 'balanced'. We actually need 'greenhouse gas' levels to substantially decline. Kalmus believes that 'net zero carbon by 2050' is essentially a recipe for procrastination. He points out that we are having problems with climate change now. The planet has 'only' currently heated up to 1.1 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. Are we really going to be safe with an upper limit (not even achievable at the current rate of change) of 1.5 degrees Centigrade? Time to make our minds up?