Happy to hear that courts start calling these ruses out for what they are
Because it's not effective? Or too effective? Haven't read the article, but I'm guessing the former.
Because it only contains "credible policies in place for less than 20% of the emissions cuts needed". The other 80% is all wishful thinking.
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.