[Obebtetibre]

It's not beside the point because you are making a semantic argument against McCain, while making semantic mistakes yourself. You feign surprise at McCain's mistake, yet make similar mistakes yourself. (Even though you have much greater means at your disposal to ensure a mistake isn't made in this forum than he does in a live question and answer.) Except my argument was about how "mandate" was being defined, not whether one used the word "cap" or "target." Specifically, mandate was defined by the questioner as a global (system-wide, not Earth-wide) constraint given the association with the EU's global cap. Equating a "mandate" with a local constraint would be an assumption that has not been substantiated. Again, that is why your interpretation of McCain is bizarre.