Integrated agreement the only way to resolve climate change

This is a complex problem, though current the debate can be divided into two main camps.

Some parties, including the European Union, the Philippines and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) wish to take a contractual, 'top-down' approach to the 2015 agreement.

This would require a strong agreement that would legally bind all parties to undertake stringent measures and enforce mandatory emission reduction commitments or other equally strong programs.

Other parties, such as the United States and Brazil, instead hope to reach a more facilitative agreement.

This form of agreement would be loosely binding on parties, and require more voluntary action. A completely facilitative agreement would encourage parties to create and pledge their own emission reduction commitments, effectively allowing parties to determine whether to adhere to and implement the pledged changes.

Each extreme holds a number of major flaws. The chief flaw within contractual agreements is that parties often disagree over their allotted commitment requirements. This can make them obstructive and reluctant to either participate in or comply with the agreed measures.

Conversely the main flaw with facilitative measures is that they are seen as 'soft' and are considered to result in ineffective and weak commitment pledges that accomplish little.

Because of this, the most appropriate and practical approach to the 2015 agreement would be that which incorporates elements of both.

Such an integrated, or multi-track, approach to the Durban Platform 2015 agreement would satisfy a great number of party demands and could be implemented in a number of forms.

The most practical form would be a 'dual-band' tracked form. This would encompass a broad overarching agreement that all parties would agree to.

This core agreement could set new stringent transparency standards and reporting requirements, as well as timeframes to ensure a high degree of transparency in conduct.

A multi-tracked agreement could set universal accounting rules that would ensure all countries measure carbon amounts within the same framework using the same method of unit measurement. This would allow for emission targets to be better understood and more flexible than under current methods.