Are net zero targets just a strategy for kicking the can down the road?

Here's a recent video by Greta Thunberg expressing similar concerns:

Both the article and Greta's film are correct. The details are there.
I don't understand why a company would say we will be carbon neutral by 2040 or 2050. Conceptually, with carbon offsetting they could be "carbon neutral" now.
Also, carbon neutral is not enough anyway. It still won't get us there; just like companies committing to stop deforestation in their fully chains have failed. We need to be restorative.
And notwithstanding that it would be double counting at the national level, we need to include and take responsibility for all of our supply chain impacts and emissions. We caused it to happen. And if we did that, we might accelerate things to get there in time.

A dozen years ago I began characterizing these commitments as the 'Kirsty Ally Rule' as in goals are made to be broken. And notice how often the numerical goal is symmetrical - 'Reducing 20% by '20, 30% by '30' etc. Often such commitments are made by office holders who will either be long gone or dead by the time their commitment comes due. I've sat in on a number of these climate plans and the goals are overwhelmingly rationalized on what 'we need to do' as opposed to what we actually can do. One such goal was declared by a consultant from AECOM a couple of years back: "We must have 20% of residence with solar by 2020." At the time a very robust incentive program had only gotten uptake on 4% of LIPA's 1.1M customers. So how was this program to quintuple in 6yrs with contracting incentive? No answer from the rather arrogant consultant, only the notion that it must be achieved. Guess what? Not even close.