Aren't all the pledges very specifically in a form that reduces to "my country will start behaving responsibly after I retire"?

If you're asking if these forms are non-binding: the Dutch government lost a court case because they ignored the pledges.

Of course, then the cabinet fell in January for completely different reasons, and instead of taking responsibility for that they've been acting in-place until a new coalition is formed. For which they've been dragging their feet (the technically-former prime minister Rutte is on record with saying they're basically free to do whatever because "they can't kick us out any more"). So drunk on nothing-to-lose power they've decided to ignore the fact that they have been ordered by Dutch court of law to do something about the emissions. This is not just my opinion by the way, there's an actual interview where they say that meeting the criteria of the ruling is not a top priority. Because who cares about rule of law? Not the Dutch prime minister, apparently.

The paris agreement is very specific: "Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels." Basically everyone has agreed to that.

It's impossible to interpret this in any other way as that emissions need to be massively reduced within the next couple of years.

For some reason politicians agreed to the Paris target which requires immediate action.

International shame. IMHO, it's what finally pushed nuclear arms control into action in the 60s and 70s.

You forgot a big fat /S.

I almost took you seriously ;-D.

Non-Aligned Movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Tre...

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1968) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferat...

SALT I / ABMT (1969) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Ta...

India has two ballistic missile subs, North Korea has one. The Iranians and Saudis both are within an ace of producing bombs, Pakistan has about 30. Israel about 200.

That non proliferation thing isn't going too well.

I'd say that's a damn good track record for technology that's been around for almost 80 years.

If the 60s had turned into "everyone develops or buys a nuke", we'd be living in a very different world today (if at all).