As the article says, taking the target seriously would mean drastic rapid changes to try and achieve it. Furthermore, it would require worldwide changes - unila

As the article says, taking the target seriously would mean drastic rapid changes to try and achieve it. Furthermore, it would require worldwide changes - unilaterally restricting yourself would give all the harm but none of the expected benefit. So every country on Earth has seriously decided that they are not willing to take on the cost of achieving that target; they haven't communicated it explicitly to their voters (because, let's be real, voters don't want to hear bad news), but IMHO that's a serious decision, and not an unilateral one but one that takes into account the will of the voters as well - I'm quite certain that if the necessary changes are actually undertaken anywhere, mandating major restrictions to lifestyles and economics, the mass of protesters will overwhelm the environmental activists and replace the government (with violence, if necessary) with someone else who'll "not take the 2 degree target seriously" and roll back the measures.