Greetings; I have a number of points to make but I will be biting my tounge, save a few.

Without official access, getting up to speed a medium amount has granted me the following selection of responses:

We will ****not**** be saving the world, in the end result, on the honor system of voluntary action. This has been said but I was thinking it. We should be overshooting – with humanity’s future hanging in the balance – our commitments, not limp.

Root out the causes of this with due understanding of the importance.

Inspect with due diligence.

Enforce with thinkably necessary force required.

This could be our greatest challenge to our survival yet; err on the side of caution for this;

Secondly, again: from without a privileged position of official access: I am told it is rather contested how much rich countries should pay the way through needed changes, being historically more responsible . . . in multiple ways, from invention to use . . . & how much developing countries should pay the way, making up 2/3rds of emissions collectively, now —

I feel it is obvious rich countries should pay a great amount of developing countries needed changes; we are responsible for the majority of their & our need, & they also may not have resources in a number of cases to implement/enforce human survival’s needed changes.

I am sorry if I am accidentally out of time or tune with any great accord on these issues, I am doing my best to survey & respond, with the previous positions.

Last, I think it could only be conceivable to continue planetarily important talks as long as they are needed. There is some deal of truth to “eat when you’re hungry, & sleep when you’re tired.” Please continue productive talks as long as needed & as is reasonable.

I shall hang back on further ideas until a better time – thanks!
Joe Valentyn =D

((Written, ‘in pith,’ early December 2015; before December 10th.

Updated December 11th 2015.))