Well, I'm not a scientist, but we are informed fundamentally in the negotiations by the work of the IPCC, and that, I think, is broadly reflected in governments' broad recognition that holding temperature increases to below 2 degrees is consistent with avoiding dangerous climate change.
The question of the contribution of every country to achieving that global goal is indeed the issue we are negotiating; that is, how will we all share the burden of achieving the very deep reductions that will be required to achieve that goal? And it is recognized in the negotiations that countries will make contributions based on a variety of circumstances: where they began their industrial structure, their population growth, and others, including the tools they may have to use. So I don't think there's an inconsistency in that regard. But clearly there is a debate in the negotiations among all countries of what our respective shares of that burden should be in terms of emission reductions, in terms of financial contribution, and in terms of technological innovation.