As with other trans-boundary environmental problems, this one has led to an international agreement, the so-called "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" and the "Kyoto Protocol," in which the nations of the world agree to limit their emissions according to targets and timetables that are designed at least to slow the build-up and resulting warming, and eventually stabilize atmospheric CO2. The Kyoto agreement contains provisions that recognize some important geographical (geo-political) elements of the problem: the most developed countries are asked to cut emissions in the first round of targets because they have caused most of the problem in the first place, and technological solutions are to be made available in ways that recognize that developing countries may not have the wealth or expertise to implement energy efficiency.

• The industrial countries would be required to reduce greenhouse gas (GG) emissions starting right away, the developing countries would be allowed to increase GGs until further negotiations are held. The developing countries (or the Least Developed Countries, LDCs, often referred to as "the South" in the lingo of international development), would be asked to limit the growth in their GGs sometime in the future. This is based on the simple equity principle that those who caused most of the problem have the obligation to fix most of the problem.

• The LDCs would receive favorable terms of trade, and technology transfer from MDCs to LDCs in order to speed up their development of efficient industrial/energy systems. This is part of the LDCs have a "right to develop," either by following the carbon-based path of the MDCs or by getting help to leapfrog to post-carbon energy systems. If they use similar energy paths as the MDCs, then as the economies of the developing countries grow, they will become big (maybe even larger) contributors in the future

• Global warming impacts will probably be worse in LDCs, thus they deserve assistance from LDCs in adapting. The impacts of global warming will not be evenly distributed, and most analysts argue that less developed countries have more to lose (their resource-based economies are more sensitive to climate) and some are in more vulnerable settings (coastal zones like Bangladesh, island states). Also, they have fewer financial resources to devote to adapting to climate change. Indeed, some island states may literally disappear under rising sea level.

• Several MDCs are balking at the GG reduction targets and time-tables. The foot-dragging is especially evident in some key countries with large stakes in the carbon-based economy (e.g., OPEC countries; Russia, and the US)

• Some credible critics claim that the science and the threat are not yet sufficiently certain to make regulatory (rather than market-driven) changes in energy policy. The U.S. administration doubts the need for firm emission reduction targets right now, arguing that the threat remains uncertain (we need more science) and that the reductions threaten economic well-being.