Let me answer this with an analogy. And I'm really not wanting to explore the analogy directly (so let's not get off topic) but it may help you to understand how this ends.

Why shouldn't there be a binding UN resolution that enforces public transport, and bans the production and use of cars to save us from climate change?

Or here's another even more contraversial one (again, let's not get distracted) why don't we have a UN resolution banning the personal ownership of firearms?

I'm hoping you can see from these why UN binding resolutions would be pointless - they would simply result in the ultimate dissolution of the UN. (uxit?)

Well for starters, the moment (nearly) all other nations dictate the laws of your country, you no longer have a country – and certainly not a democratic one. Your elections become irrelevant because people in distant lands (including those with tyrannical governments) can simply overrule the will of your people.

Codifying the long-term destruction of your own nation into law for the sake of a single issue is a bad idea.

LoL. Whose gets to decide "possible"?