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

Is it not more positive simply to trust countries to fulfill as much cutting of emissions as they can through emissions targets that are suitable for them? A mutually acceptable agreement would be much more likely to get more participants not less and would be much less likely to end in failure, precicely because everyone feels that they can go as far as they want. This means that the countries that want to have very deep cuts in CO2 emissions and kick start their green economy can while those who feel less able have more time. 
 
Such a mutually acceptable agreement would be likely to slowly get tougher rather than weaker. When some nations show that it is possible to create a low carbon economy the others will follow, both because the economic costs are better known and because they cant afford to be left behind.

I think we could look at this with more positivity,we must understand that there only a few people who are representing the nation as a whole.It might sound stupid to just sign up an agreement,however it happens to be one of the smartest solutions not only to get one nation together but many.This times,perhaps more realistic, practically and conditioned.
Now who would object that?I think its reasonable.