Are binding targets needed to fight global warming?

An article in The New York Times from Reuters entitled "Pacific Rim Nations Agree on Global Warming, Without Targets" highlights that although the proponents of the global warming/climate change political and social movement have "won" in their bid to have mainstream politicians focus on the "topic" of global warming and climate change, they have really lost since the mainstream is not interested in shrill agendas and is much happier and content with watered down compromises such as "aspirational goals" rather than messy approaches such as "binding targets."

The article informs us that:

Leaders of 21 Pacific Rim nations agreed on Saturday to a "long-term aspirational goal" of reducing greenhouse gas emissions — but without binding targets.

Australia's prime minister, John Howard, called the agreement the "Sydney Declaration" on climate change and said it showed "a new international consensus."

The Times also informs us that "Environmental groups called it a failure without binding targets."

I can't blame the global warming/climate change extremists for being upset since this "new international consensus" means mostly "business as usual" with a "green" whitewash. Sure, we are definitely going to see a ton of "green" improvements in energy technology in the coming decades, but without any of the "11th Hour" panic mentality that the extremists revel in.

No sane politician would agree to committing themselves to a "binding target" unless the binding target was likely to be met even without the politician lifting a finger.

In truth, "binding targets" are not tools for politicians and politicians, but tools for extremists who oppose the normal efforts of politicians and the normal trends of technology evolution.

-- Jack Krupansky