India and others did not make much of the CO2 now in the air. US made more than any other country did, but now China, with all its coal fired power plants makes the greatest annual increase. India and some others who did not make much of the problem think they should not pay as much to fix it and I tend to agree. They think those who made most of the problem and enjoyed great economic gains from use of fossil fuels should pay proportionally to the CO2 they released. They feel that they have the same right as US et. al. had to economially advance by using fossil fuels; but would not follow the same path the US did if they were given financial help to advance green energy systems so their economies could advance as if they were following the US's path to prosperity, via use of fossil fuels. Why not have COP21 agree on how much can annually be efficiciently spent to bring "green electic power" to third world, where many have no electric power? Then each year divide that sum up in fractions charged to the creators of the problem? I.e. first year of spending for more green power would have the US with the largest "tax" to pay towards the agreed 2016 spending requirements. US has made great reductions in its CO2 release rate, so perhaps in a few years, Chin would be subject to the greatest annual "green tax." Limiting global temperature rise is a confict between moral obligation and economic cost. History is not very encouraging on how this conflict is resolved - profits usually trump morals. Do you think history will repeat and Earth will become uninhabital for our grand childern or humans can win?