"Net zero emissions by 2050"

sounds as good as "abracadabra" doesn't it? 
It's absolutely magical isn't it? 
Think about it. If we reach that target we have solved the problem. Really?
The more I hear those words the more I doubt we are going to solve the problem. I doubt it because there is more than one problem to solve. There are a lot of problems. 
There was a news clip last night which mentioned that "renewables" - energy we get from renewable sources - are not without their problems. They have in fact been causing some problems because our energy system has not been set up in such a way that it can deal with the more extreme fluctuations in supply and demand. There are other problems here too.
If we can't deal with the problems then how will countries without basic infrastructure deal with them? The Leader of the Opposition as good as admitted that Downunder will be selling coal to China in 2050. He is admitting this while saying that we will be "carbon neutral" by 2050. 
No, we won't be carbon neutral. We will simply have handed the problem on to China. 
China isn't going to plant the millions, perhaps billions, of trees we need. They will, like Brazil, probably cut down more than they grow. Asia is likely to do the same. They need to feed people.
In the corridors of our Federal Parliament yesterday there was a bit of a stoush between one of our more colourful politicians and another less well known one. The less well known one was trying to suggest that changing our diet could solve the problem of CO2 emissions. Presumably he is suggesting we all go vegan - which would lead to the end of the human race. (No, you don't need to eat meat but you do need other things non-human animals supply if you are going to be healthy and continue to produce children - and that includes vaccines.)
So when are we going to start planting more trees? Why aren't we planning this now? There should be an entire government department devoted to this. The healthy and able unemployed should be out there doing it.
That this is not happening is, to me, far more disturbing than the unrealistic "abracadabra". This is something we could do but apparently do not want to do. Is it because it is too hard? Is it because it is too expensive? Is it really harder and more expensive than "solving the technological issues"? 
Or is the real problem that there is a lot of money invested in technology and that is making a very small number of people very rich?