Targets for renewable energy is impractical because it is unsustainable at this point of time. The current sources of renewable energy are hydro, solar, wind and geothermal. All these sources require significant technology to convert to electricity. Most nations with the potential to produce energy from these sources cannot afford or sustain the monetary input required to install these technologies on a large scale.

Also the extremely high costs of renewable energy make it an albatross's cross on the nations which might be forced to install it due to targets.

The renewable energy sources are also not developed enough to completely replace coal. They can only reduce the need for coal based power to a certain extent.

One however feels the need to set targets for mandatory carbon sinks in proportion to the amount of power a country generates

Energy production is the prime cause of the problem of the burgeoning production of green house gases which is leading to climate change. If we are to tackle the problem of increasing carbon emissions, then a shift to renewable energy resources is a must.

In the present scenario, when all the countries are passing the buck in terms of setting carbon reduction goals, the vision of mandatory renewable energy targets seems a far fetched dream. However, if the countries agree to such goals then it will indeed be the biggest achievement in climate change negotiations.

In the present scenario we see that if there is no mandatory target for any project, then the governments take a step-motherly attitude to the topic. To ensure that the goals of greater renewable energy usage are fulfilled, the governments need to have mandatory goals no matter how lenient they are. Such goals will ensure that at least some progress is done and the projects do not go to the back burner.

And there is no need for them :P

um, renewable energy will be expensive for buyers(in less innovative poorer countries already bearing the brink of the crisis with flooding,earthquakes,and other natural disasters thus ensuing/escalating food crises and mortality rates) and commercially benefit producers(from technologically savvy better-off developed countries not nearly as economically dependent on farmers/agriculture)

Conclusively, making it mandatory for everyone to achieve the same international standard target would be economically unfair/unwise/unfeasible/nonviable and would further widen the sieve/cleavage/crevice/gap between the rich and the poor.

We can't end carbon emissions: we exhale CO2, hello? and dry ice is used for the latest rejuvenating youth beauty treatments.

Environmental-infatuation-flammable oxygen is not necessarily a good thing,certainly fatal/dangerous in high doses. And Ozone (O3) just like CO(Carbon monoxide) and Sulfur (S) is not fit for breathing.

As is obvious, fossil fuels play a great part in carbon emission. It has to be precisely eliminated to sustain good results. That is why, countries should outcome yearly planned strategies and debate these in international context. Thus, by doing this, strong steps towards more generally approved results can be easily sustained.

Even though some countries with resources are producing renewable energy at their own pace, most countries are noe. An international problem like climate change needs an international solution. A few countries will not do - all countries ned to come together to reach specific targets to make a significant impact. Countries which currently produce significant amounts of renewable energy have been doing so for a while, but the carbon emissions are getting worse. So, mandatory international targets are needed to make sure that countries whose CO2 emissions are steadily on the rise also invest in renewable energy.

If mandatory targets are not set by and international and legally binding treaty, self-issued targets will remain targets, unlikely to come to reality within a good enough timeframe.