[rayiner]

> The article you linked showed that there were improvements among the signatories even though without the fall of the USSR it would have been 2.7% vs. 4.7%.

That's rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. And acting as if that's an important thing to spend political capital on is precisely "posturing and pandering."

[runamok]

Still not seeing your point. The goal is x. We achieve x/2. We still achieved something. We proved we can actually make an international agreement with long term goals and short term sacrifice and make improvements. I don't really blame politicians for taking further credit and trying to spin their success as even more impressive. Do you think the Paris agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement) would ever have happened if not for that initial (however small) success? Reading the aims it seems on the surface to provide reasonable goals that balance growth and fairness with trying to prevent climate change.

What should they spend political capital on? Seems like this section is also going to help develop technological solutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Ensuring_finan...

[ethbro]

The problem I have with pointing to international frameworks as failures because of their less than optimal results is the alternative.

How could we fix the climate more effectively? Elect a world dictator / threaten other countries with nuclear annihilation unless they cut their emmissions.

Would we rather live in that world?