Since the Kyoto Protocol came into force, the Clean Development Mechanism has been criticized because, in most cases, it has not brought significant emission reductions or benefits for sustainable development.  It has also suffered from low prices from Certified Emission Reductions (REFs), which has reduced project demand. These criticisms have motivated the recommendations of various interest groups who, through working groups and reports, have provided new elements that they hope to see in the MDS that will support their success.  Details of the governance structure, the terms of the project proposal and the comprehensive approach should be detailed at the conference of the parties to be held in Marrakech in 2016. [must update] This article proposes an innovative approach that complements existing research on how to ensure equity in international climate policy through the NDCs. Existing research includes the bottom-up approach of Winkler et al. (2018) which examines countries` justifications for equity in CNs. They show that countries have presented a large number of unsubstantiated indicators and approaches. In contrast, the top-down approach of Du Pont et al. (2017), Brown et al.
(2018), Zimm and Nakicenovic (2019) and Climate Action Tracker (n.d.) compare NDC`s ambitions with overall emission reduction targets under different assumptions. Such assessments make normative assessments of restricted emission allowances (Kartha et al., 2018), particularly in the absence of an operational definition of CBDR-RC under the UNFCCC. By examining consistency with the subtle differentiation of the Paris Agreement, we try to offer an informed approach to how to ensure fairness by the NDCs, avoiding normative judgments on what constitutes a “fair” contribution. In the end, all parties recognized the need to “prevent, minimize and address losses and damages,” but in particular any mention of compensation or liability is excluded.  The Convention also takes up the Warsaw International Loss and Damage Mechanism, an institution that will attempt to answer questions about how to classify, address and co-responsible losses.  It was, in simple terms, a logical “We know everything and you don`t” logic logic. However, the developed countries, in particular the United States and the EU, were convinced that they were reaching a new agreement, but unfortunately they left Copenhagen with disappointment. At the 2011 UN Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the ad hoc working group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) were created to negotiate a legal instrument to mitigate climate change from 2020. The resulting agreement is expected to be adopted in 2015.
 The president`s promise to renegotiate the international climate agreement has always been a smokescreen, the oil industry has a red phone at the Interior Department, and will Trump bring food trucks to Old Faithful? These rules of transparency and accountability are similar to those set out in other international agreements.