That's why I said the paper was particularly dark. It's driven from "business as usual" assumptions and the necessity model of non-cooperation between nations, specifically the developing world vs. OECD. Essentially, unilateral actions or failures with bilateral agreements or active treaties in place. (See: Kyoto Protocol/Climate Conferences)

Fossil fuel divestment is a recent trend/fad. I'm not entirely sure how long it'll hold. It's definitely a plea for help from the public.

I also did a bit of research into the carbon recapture (full cycle) when writing the paper, for the future considerations in coal gasification and determined that the industry would find it too expensive to convert fuel types in addition to also reducing energy return by scrubbing CO2 (EROEI). If anything, they would attempt to seek subsidies from their foreign governments (and then still refuse to do it).

A gigantic allegory:

I can describe the feeling of the entire experience like being an astronaut on a trip to Mars. You plot the orbit, you schedule the burns and do all the right things. You're out of fuel now, but everything seems OK.

One year later into your trip and you're much closer to the red planet than you expected. Your orbit now has you on a crash course with no way of slowing it down.

You know exactly when it will happen, more or less because the orbit is fixed. Two years from now, the lander will kiss the dust.

You're just left to watch it happen in horror, in slow motion. You've got two years to think about it, which seems like a long time. The opportunity to change orbits was one year ago, when you still had fuel and the power to do so.

This is very much the situation we find ourselves in. Most scientists are just omitting data at this point because no one is listening anymore.