This piece is written as if it's covering the event in 2041 as it unfolds, so I read that as just a fictional projection based on what this writer thinks could

This piece is written as if it's covering the event in 2041 as it unfolds, so I read that as just a fictional projection based on what this writer thinks could be in the cards. This tracks with the general tone I get from the Economist's (excellent) climate coverage: unconvinced we'll get where we need to be quickly enough to achieve the best case climate scenarios, but optimistic that we will eventually hit more of a medium-case scenario, and therefore may need some interim solutions (they often allude to geo-engineering) to bridge that gap.