If the goal/definition is concrete, then we can plan better and understand what is "enough" once we're caught up.

Alternatively, if you're simply putting out a Vision to inspire enthusiasm or incite fear, then "we're behind" is sufficient and doesn't require anything more because at best, it's the "race to the moon" and at worst, it's the "missile gap."

I mean, I guess I am, but really I'm mostly relaying my understanding of the scientific consensus. I didn't make my comment in some sort of vacuum where readers are supposed to understand the last few decades of climate science just from my comment...

In a situation where "we're behind" and "we're ahead" are both accurate statements point to a significant problem in the approach.

You choosing one of them exclusively means you're playing for "your team" instead of looking at reality of the situation which is neither useful nor honest.