The only deal anyone is really talking about is reduction in emissions based on 1990 (or perhaps some other date) levels. Rich countries make faster, deeper cut

The only deal anyone is really talking about is reduction in emissions based on 1990 (or perhaps some other date) levels. Rich countries make faster, deeper cuts and subsidize cuts in poor countries. Pretty much any variations are within that framework. I think there is also a perceived unfairness or indignation surrounding the issues. Depending on how you present things, it's always possible to present you country as getting screwed. There are always those whos agenda (which might even be legit) it serves to tell people they are being screwed. In every country in the world there are powerful people going around with that message. Rich Countries: * You are expected to make emitting carbon more expensive here then it is in other countries. That means that steel mills, factories & the like will shut down & reopened in China. Jobs will be shipped overseas(embellishment) No emissions are prevented since the factory gets reopened in India/China anyway. * This is a plan to tax US/EU suppliers a& transfer this money to China/India. Poor Countries: * You are expected to pay for the problems created by those countries with over 100 years of industrialized history. * Going by 1990 levels means dividing a world environmental resource. Since we were polluting 1/5 as much as US/EU in 1990, we get a smaller slice in the future. (related) This deal means that whoever polluted in the past is entitled to polluted in the future. *There is a known quantity (whatever it takes to get from 380 to 450 ppm) of carbon we can emmit globally. Divide that by 6 billion. Each one of these arguments is true in a way.