Few people on Earth would be under as much heat as the thousands of attendees at COP26 in chilly Glasgow.
The people debating the future of the planet, including New Zealand Climate Change Minister James Shaw, have been put on notice by young and old alike.
The Queen urged them to "rise above the politics of the moment, and achieve true statesmanship". Naturalist and living legend Sir David Attenborough called for a "rewrite" of the script humanity is following "to turn this tragedy into a triumph". And climate activist Greta Thunberg dismissed the conference in Scotland as a "greenwashing festival".
There have been new pledges made in the first week of discussions to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent, on deforestation and coal use. The push on forests includes US$19.2 billion to make it happen. India also said it would get half of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and become net zero by 2070.
The problems still are: whether promises will translate into action; are they extensive enough; and can the need for global change overcome reluctance and resistance within individual countries.
There are credibility gaps between the apparently positive rhetoric and what some countries are actually prepared or likely to do in reality, and also between the targets spoken about and what activists are pushing for.
Afterall, climate talks have been going on for nearly three decades and the planet has heated up considerably in that time. At least countries releasing more than 70 per cent of emissions have pledged long-term goals.
Shaw, of the Greens, reportedly pushed for more stringent cuts than what the Labour side of the Government wanted. New Zealand's new emissions reduction target is to cut net emissions to 50 per cent below gross 2005 levels by 2030.
What are people to make of Brazil signing up to a feel-good promise to end deforestation by 2030 when trees are being destroyed at an aggressive rate in the Amazon?
And while dozens of countries have pledged to move away from coal, Australia, the United States, India and China are not among them.
Global carbon emissions have risen this year after falling because of pandemic lockdowns last year.
The Covid-19 pandemic is showing how domestic pressures and national goals can be counter-productive for the global good. The lack of a concerted, co-operative international approach to stamp out the coronavirus is delaying its end.
Human behaviour has worked against us. Not just through vaccine hoarding and the spread of misinformation, but also with agitation over restrictions amid high health risk, and some people's inability to follow health rules for their own good.
Part of the problem with combating climate change is that while pain from dealing with it will be shared around, responsibility for causing it is more specific.
China and the US are the worst countries for total emissions.
In a study at the weekend Oxfam said the world's richest people produce most emissions. The wealthiest 1 per cent is expected to account for 16 per cent of total global emissions by 2030.
It calculated that each member of that group will emit 30 times more than the 2.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide deemed compatible with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5C.
The poorest 50 per cent on the planet would continue to emit less than that amount per person by 2030.