Wouldn't it be a little clearer if we said,

"Children born today should live to see a U.S. that uses no fossil fuels."

That makes it very clear what we have to do, whereas "no emissions" is a little vague.  But I don't want to get sectarian about this, just a suggestion.  And while I'm at it, how about no fuels, not just no fossil fuels?

Just say no to coal.

I want to speak well of this proposal but problems emerge immediately:

It's too slow by far -- children born in the US today are, for analysis purposes, expected to live about 80 years.  That's about 40 years too long for the bulk of the reductions we need.

The model of climate change politics you paint -- as if it was like moving a heavy dresser or couch (once you finally get it moving, it's got a lot of momentum) -- is attractive because it's hopeful.  The problem is that it ignores the basic physics and the law of diminishing returns.

The sad fact is that it's perfectly possible to have the brutal battles early to change the direction of the supertanker, and THEN have even more brutal battles later as the sheer size of the population makes further reductions exponentially harder to attain.

3) You appear to equate the use of numbers (other than zero) with wonkery -- but significant research on human performance says that SMART goals (specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic, and timed) simply work better than end-point-only goals.  (Although you've actually used a disguised endpoint an time-limit by linking the end state to the lifetime of a child born today.)

Basically, your reframe appears to be "Eat an elephant during your lifetime,"  You actually get more elephants eaten by saying "Eat 1 lb of elephant a day" (or whatever the appropriate amount is).

Naturally, I have an alternative to propose.  I suggest that Grist adopt it and work to have it adopted as the overarching goal you're seeking. It is this:

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Is he one of yours, DR?  It is not impossible, you know, he sort of resembles you around the eyes.

But he also sort of resembles a godson of mine, back when he was that age, so he could be lots of cute kids.  No matter, you make your point well enough about how the lives and health and well-being of our children can be used as markers of global health.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

It is a total cop out. Here we are producing all the GHG emissions we want, using up all the fossil fuels living way beyond our means and then declaring our children should be carbon neutral. That's quite rich.

Lets do everything we can to reduce OUR emissions, set the groundwork needed to allow our children to be carbon neutral but let them make the decision.

Instead of stating it in percentage reductions, which are really confusing because the actual reductions, which is what is really important, are very unclear. It all depends on what year the reduction is from.

Instead, a better target would be say a target of one tonne of emissions per person per year by 2020 (or whatever) for everyone in the world. It is certainly a lot fairer, acknowledging that some people cause a lot more emissions than others. People in developing countries would have more room to improve their standard of living.

People living in the future could also enjoy some of the benefits of fossil fuel use that we are lucky enough to enjoy today.

As well, stating it as an amount that is allowed instead of a reduction, makes it seem more like a right that people gain rather than a reduction, which seems like people are giving up something.

I'd even slap that bumper sticker on the back of my bike trailer.

Plus, I love the optimism. It's a nice break from the doom and gloom from China.

And for the record, it's not a cop out. I would stand with my children for a carbon neutral country. It's not like we were handed a pristine platter from those that came before us.