Agreeing mutually acceptable emissions targets will be more effective in tackling climate change than pressing for tough, legally binding targets for every country.

Is any nation really likely to be willing to sign up to something that will make it "accountable to a global Climate Change authority"? Nations dislike anything that intrudes on their sovereignty, especially when it is a body that would in effect have to have powers to intervene in domestic politics in order to hold countries to account over their emissions.

Any creation of a climate change authority would also seem to take the view that adding more bureaucracy is better. It is not. It is best to have one layer of bureaucracy - that created by the state rather than having an international body overseeing this. This body would most likely simply create criticism rather than nations actions or lack of them solve anything.

Globally, each country's stand reflects the fact that they are more concerned about getting others to do the job of cleaning up the planet while themselves staying laid back. In this scenario its highly imperative that a global legally binding treaty be in place, keeping in mind the per capita emissions of each country. Also to be noted is whether the [b]carbon footprint is calculated in terms of manufacturing products or consumerism[/b].

A legally binding target should also keep in mind the [b] economic development [/b] of the country in question as the resultant treaty should not affect severely the progress of the nation. However, the treaty must also not be so lenient as to be harsh on the future of the planet. Only and only when the parties involved are[b] accountable to a global Climate Change authority [/b]will there be any progress towards reductions of Greenhouse gases in the long run.