It all rather depends what you count as successful decarbonisation !  Personally I think your instinct is correct and a true removal of all use of methane and oil is likely impossible, probably by any date actually, and I am not optimistic about the potential for large scale carbon capture, except perhaps by planting trees and then burying them so they neither burn nor rot - I have yet to see a description of any closed cycle method that does not involve impractically vast volumes of lime or similar to scale to be useful at a global level.

However a substantial de-carbonisation from where we are now, to maybe 25- 30% perhaps (based on pidooma figures mind you ) should  be possible, and the use of biofuels and so on to tide us over the calm spots in the wind will help, as will long transmission lines from solar or wind facilities abroad.  Nuclear is probably part of any truly long term solution, but the grown up conversations about "do you want some nuclear  or to sit in the dark  for some weeks each year ?" are yet to be had in earnest.

none of this pessimism means it is not a target worth shooting for, just I expect us to miss somewhat.

Mike.

But we have the lowest levels of CO2 in the history of the planet. We should not decarbonise. 

What?  It's the highest it's been for 40000 years, at least.  Probably more, but it gets increasingly hard to tell beyond a certain point.

What?  It's the highest it's been for 40000 years, at least.  Probably more, but it gets increasingly hard to tell beyond a certain point.