> For example, automated cars would allow you to park your car outside of the city, but still have car driving to get places.

People aren't limited by available parking anymore, more cars will just drive idly, increasing the traffic issue which leads to non-bus lane busses being more undesirable and active transport on streets (primarily bikes) being more annoying and thus undesirable. Also increases emissions (particulates from tires and brakes even when using electrical propulsion) and power usage.

> Auto cars increase sharing opportunities as well. Reducing car ownership.

Current Auto cars with a human element (called uber) increases greenhouse gas emissions and displaces public as well as active transport (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c01641), exactly the opposite of what was hoped for. (much less air pollutants tho due to less cold starts, but electrification is probably gonna make that a non-issue)

I don't see how auto cars very much increase car sharing opportunities in cities compared to traditional sharing. For common commuter-type transit auto cars bring very little improvement compared to regular car ownership (since everyone needs a car at the same time). Automated cars have some potential for helping with climate change as a small part of the solution, but very much as infill and not a primary mode of transportation. Probably will make congestion worse though and decrease average people in cars much below 1. (there are also other issues when considering a mostly automated car pool, such as rampant jaywalking due to automated safety stops and the reaction to such a thing)

> Smaller / safer nuclear power research would be near totally CO2 emission free

A more wide spread adoption of a new working design now would take > 20 years and the western world is currently having very tough luck while building new nuclear reactors. It's probably not going to help much with climate change, especially considering that alternate technologies such as wind and solar are in a great position and probably (together with storage solutions) will get better much faster than nuclear. Another hard part is that nuclear power is expensive (due to the needed security, probably no matter what since fission is hard) which stems not from the fuel. Thus it makes little sense to use nuclear as a complement to renewables as peaker plants, as opposed to e.g. gas plants which are ideal and might (hopefully) be converted to use non-fossil fuels in the future (but power-to-gas based stuff).

> Carbon sequestration, storage, capture, ideas to drive global cooling

The first three are (afaict) very much received as a positive, but as a measure of last resort due to cost and energy intensity and not as a replacement to moving away from carbon emissions as possible. They're most likely needed no matter what to archive 1.5°. The last one sounds like a bit science fiction, so probably not a really workable idea (especially due to the potential risks).

The issue is that solutions need to be implemented in a large scale in the next ~10 years which is really not enough time to scale up a newly invented technology, both in the transportation sector (due to long replacement cycles), manufacturing sector (also long replacement times as well as uncertainty) and other infrastructure.

Most governments are still funding research in many things that will probably not make sense for solving climate change (e.g. fusion) and if something unexpectedly works much better and can be implemented much faster than can be expected now we can still use it.

(This is getting a bit long, but...)

To further illustrate the point: Most parts of the solution that get propagated and are getting implemented were already commercialized 10 years ago. Transit, electric cars, wind turbines, heat pumps, PV. Most stuff that wasn't isn't ready to get used on a large scale now.

And for most issues we have working commercial solutions either needing to be utilized on a larger scale (mobility, energy production, heating and some production) or in the pipeline and almost certainly succeeding (energy storage with power-to-gas or other methods, hydrogen for steel and airplanes and similar stuff, concrete). The only issue is doing it, which seems to be the hard part.