It is clear that any climate change agreement will be acceptable and sustainable only if all participating countries believe that it is fair and equitable. Most observers say that requiring all countries to achieve the same percentage reduction in emissions in the same timeframe would be grossly unfair. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” was established in the Framework Convention. This standard should be employed in designing emissions targets and timetables to ensure an evenhanded solution.

Eighteen percent of global emissions come from land-use changes—a greater share than either global transport or the industrial sector. Most of this is due to deforestation. Addressing greenhouse gas sinks—including potential credits for afforestation, reforestion and avoided deforestation—should be a component of future climate agreements. Improving science and measurement of above-ground and below ground stocks of carbon is an integral part of this process.

Use of market-based mechanisms are favored by economists and welcomed by industry as they reduce the costs of meeting emissions targets.  The Kyoto Protocol created three distinct flexibility mechanisms to reduce the economic burden of target compliance—joint implementation, the Clean Development Mechanism, and international emissions trading.  The advantages and limitations of these approaches, as well as the employment of a carbon tax, should be considered.