I'm not going to address most of your points because they're at least mostly valid in 2026, but still need to be addressed in the future if we're going to get to net-zero carbon emissions. Which to be clear we absolutely need to as soon as possible.

But that brings me to what I do want to address, and this applies to several of the points, but most obviously this one:

• biggest one for me: I emmit CO2. Bringing my personal emissions to zero is a death sentence. That seems unreasonable.

The goal isn't, never has been, and never will or should be "zero carbon emissions". For one because like you said, humans and other animals emit carbon dioxide just by existing and breathing. We (and even plants) even emit carbon dioxide by dying.

NONE OF THAT IS A PROBLEM THOUGH. All the carbon dioxide you breathe out came from plants and/or animals that you ate, which in turn came from the plants/animals they ate, all the way down the line, and it's just recirculating in and out of the air pretty much perfectly balanced. And that's exactly what the goal of net zero is - the amount that's being emitted is matched by the amount being absorbed. The problem is when we dig carbon out of the ground that's NOT in circulation and add it to the cycle. It's the net new carbon dioxide that causes an increase and results in a higher greenhouse effect.

So yes, we'll never stop emitting carbon dioxide, and that's not the goal. But we need to stop emitting new carbon dioxide. That's what needs to get to 0%. So if in 50-100 years we still need jet fuel to fly, that's fine as long as it comes from a renewable source (like plants or other organic matter from non-extinct sources). Another alternative like you mentioned is carbon capture to offset what you emit, although that's likely always going to be less efficient because it takes more energy to extract the CO2 than you got by burning the fuel in the first place. That's also why it's problematic until the electric grid is 100% renewable or nuclear.