First of all, the person doing the presentation comes across as a bit unsympathetic in my opinion - especially when begging for oil people to "take the olive branch", or while being overly dismissive towards the first person asking a question at the end of the talk. I'm trying to not let that cloud my judgment, but it is what it is.
With that out of the way, trying to go through his points chronologically:
At the beginning, he states how achieving net zero emissions would have basically no effect, because it would just stop the rate of "heat being added" to increase, but not stop the addition in itself. He compares this to a car that stops accelerating but still drives towards a cliff at constant speed.
I'm not sure that this is totally correct. Apparently, there has been a strong correlation between the amount (in ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere and average temperatures in the past. If what he postulated was true, wouldn't we see this correlation not between amount of CO2 and temperature, but between amount of CO2 and the relative change in temperature over some time frame?
Instead, what is probably more correct than his car-vs-cliff analogy is the idea that our climate system is somewhat inert and in a way "lags behind" whatever changes we might be making today or tomorrow. It's more like a ship on the ocean: you might stop the engines, but the ship will continue to move in its current heading for a while. It will eventually stop due to drag - but if you expect it to hit an iceberg before it has stopped that way, you'd better reverse engines instead of just turning them off.
So, his statement of achieving net zero emissions having no effect must be wrong. What it already does is changing the eventual equilibrium of the world's climate - perhaps not from bad to good, but at least from bad to less bad.
What he is right about is the idea that achieving net zero emissions alone is not enough. If, in sum of everything that happens on the planet, down to the last tree that is being planted, we will be at net zero emissions of CO2 and their equivalents, that means that whatever amount of CO2 is in the atmosphere at that point will stay there forever - leading to global temperatures increasing up to some point. If we want to return to the average climate of today, or of 1900, or even of 1800, then we need to bring CO2 levels in the atmosphere down to those past levels. We need to take it out of the atmosphere and do something else with it, whatever that may be.
His idea is to use some carbon-neutral form of energy to create synthetic fuels - although I'm not sure I get his strategy of then selling these fuels to be used instead of fossil fuels. If you perform that whole carbon-neutral process just to then burn the fuel again (and thus emit its CO2 equivalent back into the atmosphere), nothing is won. To actually achieve more than net zero emissions, a good portion of the synthethic fuel created that way would need to be safely stored away forever, not burned. I don't think there's any actual carbon-negative form of energy (not even nuclear), so him casually omitting that part is... weird.
Last but not least... nuclear energy. There are several statements in that part of his talk that raise some eyebrows. I don't know enough to claim that they are wrong, but perhaps someone else can help out here. I will just list the most prominent ones:
- Many nuclear hazards that we're trying to prevent are actually impossible in the first place.
- Not a single person was hurt at Fukushima.
- After Chernobyl, only one of the isotopes released (Iodine-131) led to any health problems at all.
- It is safe to build 40.000 1960s-style light-water reactors across the globe while reducing nuclear safety to an absolute minimum (for example operating each reactor with 30 rather than 800 people).
- Most nuclear waste doesn't need to be dealt with in ways we currently try to do, like permanent, safe storage.
For what it's worth, building 40.000 reactors means that there would be one per ~200.000 people. To put that into perspective, that would be something on the order of 40 reactors in New York City, or over 400 in Germany. I'm not sure that this is either realistic or desirable.