The economy's managers want to continue the current regime and will accept mid-term extinction in exchange for short-term continuity, keeping the current economy going without serious change (their goal).
So, do nothing to curtail fossil fuel use now while continuing to deploy wind and solar, even if we now know (Simon Michaux among others) that there are not sufficient minerals to run this approach to the needed amounts. The hope here is to replace fossil fuels with an equivalent amount of alternative energy that would allow the current economy to continue as is until the physical resources needed would increase in cost, or, as the numbers show, will run out,
Since this approach will fail soon (rising temperatures) we get a proposal for a new ecnomy-based approach: let’s do solar blocking with reflective particles in the atmosphere, in order to block solar input and maintain, maybe even lower, current temperatures. This approach hurts farming by cutting sunlight. When the energy to run the planes/rockets to get the particles in the upper atmosphere runs out, stopping the particle distribution, which has allowed the accumulation of more CO2, will lead to a sudden spike in heating. Hence mid term dieoff.
We will see at COP28 how far the climate problem has been redefined as an economic problem and the economic problem is a need to keep the current economy, with its winners and losers, in place. For example, much of the problem will be presented as -default at COP28 - getting the money subsidized by banks backed with government guarantees, to buy the needed solutions.
The economy leaders would rather have short-term gain and mid-term die-off than mid-term partial die-off with some hope for a survivalable future for some.