It is the same style of congress style of fuzzy math that the US congress uses

Where only your actions for the next 5 years matter but you get to add or subtract karma points via planning on doing things 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, years in the future but each 5 years you get to reset your future goals. Aka all the numbers you are changing in the future are designed to make you feel better even though you did not make any real progress of obtaining your goals in the present.

But in Dec 2015 we stated our goal was a 26 to 28% reduction of the 2005 levels via 2025. Note this is the same goal we had in March 2015 prior to negotiations as our starting offer. Aka we neither lost or gain ground in negotiations.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/12/11/what-is-the-u-s-commitment-in-paris/

-----

I am sorry I did not answer your question exactly Vodalus the first time for I though my fuzzy math answer comparing this to a pledge drive was ultimately the bigger point. The point is not the actual targets for the next 5 years but the theory of creating a karma institution that will keep everyone on track out of goodwill.

Now whether this succeeds or not is a good question. I bet it would have failed at succeeding at its 2 degree centigrade reduction but at the same time I would not be surprised that it may provide some benefit vs no pledge drive at all.

But the argument for pulling out of the Paris Agreement now that it has been reached since Dec 2015 is not whether or not it will succeed on reaching the 2 degree centigrade goal, no the argument for pulling out is you think pledge drives and telephons are stupid and annoying and are a waste of emotional energy and that emotional energy would be better spent someplace else for global warming is not happening and thus it is wasted energy, or global warming is happening and via wasting all our energy on silly things we are displacing that energy from more productive uses.

But the goal was a 26 to 28% reduction of 2005 levels via 2025.

Note I need to look up the current numbers but if I recall we are already at a 40% achievement rate of that 26 to 28% reduction due to the natural gas boom being such a win that we are using less carbon and thus we are almost half way there at meeting our targets yet we have another 8 years out of the 10 year goal we started out with in 2015. We simply use less carbon today in 2017 than we did in the Bush 43 presidency due to technology and natural gas.