> And if it is, why are all the world's governments committed to doing it?

Committed is not the same is doing. Everyone was more "committed" for Kyoto too.

How many have actually done it though?

Because saying you're going to do it and actually doing it are different things? The former buys lots of votes, the latter not so much.

Because it would most likely mean forcibly destroying petrol powered cars, which is pretty economy killing as well as vote killing.

Consider: if you don't do that, you're emitting a lot of CO2. You could wait until everyone upgrades to electric cars but it takes several decades for the vehicle fleet to turn over, so even if everyone started buying nothing but electric now, it would take decades to phase out the old vehicles. And they're not all buying electric cars now. So on the kind of timescales that governments are making these "commitments" the only way to stop people driving petrol powered cars, given how useful they are, would be to seize and destroy them.

As for why they're committing to it, well, they still think academic models are accurate for COVID and are acting as if that's true. Climatology is mostly a modelling based discipline. 2+2 = ...

In bunch of countries phase out of ICE cars is planned for the 2030-2040 time frame.

But the details of that phase out are nowhere to be found. Given today's electric car sales and vehicle fleet turnover rates, if they started in 2030 and were serious it would require not only making all ICE cars illegal to buy, but it would also require seizing and destroying cars that were already in existence, to speed up the turnover rate.

Given that electric cars require new factories and supply chains to scale up, the chances of this being achieved by 2030 is minimal. Not only can't the cars be built fast enough short of some Manhattan-style program (very expensive for all but tiny countries), but neither can the factories that build the cars.

And this evades the whole question of people who like or want ICE vehicles for whatever reason.