Approached correctly, net zero would produce no excess deaths, but that would entail a crash program to build lots of nuclear power plants, only decarbonizing the electrical grid, and planting trees to offset the continued use of fossil fuels for transportation, not this nonsense with "renewables" (i.e. direct and indirect solar energy).

Of course, net zero is almost certainly a pointless goal, as (1) new research suggests that the heat retaining capacity of CO2 is fully saturated, and adding more won't do anything to increase temperatures, (2) the C13 signature of fossil fuel derived CO2 cannot be detected in atmospheric samples, and (3) paleoclimatological records suggest CO2 concentration is a trailing indicator of global temperature, suggesting the excess CO2 is simply cooking out of the oceans.

On the other hand, building lots of nuclear power plants and saving fossil fuels for transport would be useful to adapt to climate changes of any sort (continued warming whatever the cause) or a new Ice Age if the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic shuts down (which is what happened after the warming trend at the end of the previous interglacial period).