In this article from the New York times, the conclusions drawn in Copenhagen are discussed. An agreement was reached between 5 nations, including the United State but Obama says it falls short. In seems like nothing concrete was set, nothing to committ industrialized nations or developing nations to firm up green house reductions. Obama does say that this is the first time that "all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to climate change". But these outcomes were messy and unclear, which reflects how the convention was run. Many thought it was an inconclusive end to a 2 year goal to put together a specific treaty of goals and plans.
It was descried as s good start. Which is what the Kyoto Protocol was described as. It seems like this will solve little. In relation to class discussions, we have talked about unequal distribution of the world's resources. Here it is an unequal distribution of undesirable factor associated with global warming; small countries that do not contribute to rising carbon dioxide very much may feel the effects the most. This is one thing that was solved in Copenhagen: it calls for wealthy nations to compensate them.