In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig effectively argue that governance measures, particularly adaptation planning, will fall short if institutions fail to embrace the real possibility that the planet will blow well past 2° Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial temperatures. Further, they argue that 4°C is a better target for adaptation planning because this metric better captures the future risk the nation faces. Ruhl and Craig are keenly aware that serious talk of a possible 4°C future will almost certainly trigger accusations of “doomism” from various critics. This Comment concurs with the authors that the 2°C target is too conservative for adaptation planning and governance, but critiques their call for the development of enhanced foresight capabilities to navigate difficulties ahead and their employment of the 4°C metric, and argues that their recommendations need to be contextualized in light of the country’s current and probable near-term governance predicament.