Not to mention, we're taking about 2.5 degrees of warning by 2100. But the world didn't end there. If we don't go to 0 emissions (and there is currently no realistic path to that that any country even remotely accepts - massive degrowth of the economy), we will eventually reach 5 or more degrees of warming, it will just be a little later than 2100.
A country saying "We will do X" is much more likely to do X than a country that says "We will achieve Y" will achieve Y.
The effects get harder and harder to ignore with each summer that passes. It's easy to dismiss a hypothetical future scenario, harder to miss noticing 45 C heatwaves.
Where are you seeing this? In the last few years alone there has been hundreds of billions if not trillions put into renewable energy.
There's plenty of science looking at those trajectories and arguing about if we are on schedule and what needs to be done to stick to the schedule and if its enough.
But its a bit more sophisticated than, if the line isn't going down today, we should just give up.
Another weird thing is that, it's fairly easy to make fossil fuels less carbon intense to eke them out a bit longer e.g. don't flare or leak raw methane which is much worse than the carbon you'd get from burning it. That's a good change that actually increases fossil fuel production and that we currently subsidize doing the opposite in the US.
Not to mention, we've recently seen things like Germany's Green government approving the construction of new coal-based power plants when they couldn't get enough gas from Russia, which really tells you how likely we are to move to renewables very quickly.
Most of the money going into renewables has been in addition to existing fossil fuel plants, so at best covering growth in energy demands. But to stop global warming at 2.5 degrees, we need a sharp decline in fossil fuel consumption, and that just isn't happening, not globally and not in most places in the world locally either.
Shipping industries plan:
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/getting-to-zero-coalitio...
Aviation's plan:
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/flynetzero/
Road freight's plan:
https://www.weforum.org/projects/decarbonizing-road-freight-...
To be fair, it might at the rate we're going
In India's case it's silly to make a comparison.
Unfortunately things look grim when you look at the state of international relations. It doesn't feel like we'll see progress on international carbon pricing anytime soon.
Carbon taxes are irrational and not a viable alternative.
Why by country? Because that is how we've split the world up for regulating.
When deciding each country's share of that allowed global tonnage, per capita does matter. Other allocations, such as equal amounts per country, lead to absurd outcomes. Here's a comment giving an example [1].
And, while progress has been made, fossil fuels are still by far the cheapest source of energy around, especially if you don't have great expertise. So, in principle, we should be letting the developing nations of the world use much more fossil fuels to power their economies, while those that have been using it for centuries at this point should use far less.
Note that I'm not actually advocating for this, as stopping global warming is far more important than some abstract notion of historical fairness in international politics, which is even more idealistic than world peace.
If we keep our commitments, like the ones various nations have made to ban gas cars by 2035, we'll limit our warming to about 2.5 degrees.
The difference between 2.5 degrees and 5 degrees is the difference between a really bad time and an apocalypse.