English Passage Quiz: 17.03.2021

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Of the many pending issues within the climate change debate, the question of what constitutes equitable international commitments may be the most difficult to address. Long-unresolved divisions about the distribution of resources and equitable access to them must be considered by climate change negotiators in order to agree on a fair and effective global response. Failing to do so may result in the most inequitable outcome of all, by leaving those who have to face the disproportionate burden of the impacts with few options to address the problem.

There are several philosophical approaches to equity, although the concept remains complex and difficult to define. It can be based on allocation of property rights or on the determination of who is most responsible. Some argue for achievement of the greatest good for the most people, while others are more concerned with minimizing the impact on the least fortunate or with plain common sense. There are also many aspects of equity—from maintaining a fair process to ensuring equity for a range of out-comes (baselines, limitations, compliance, monitoring, reporting, etc.). This paper does not review these philosophies in outlining general principles of equity for the climate change debate. Recognizing that pragmatic issues could dominate international discussions, the paper argues for focusing on these principles as early as possible and for using a transparent process.

We propose a new approach to equity, involving three criteria—responsibility, standard of living, and opportunity. Clearly, determining who is responsible for causing the problem is one factor in a fair response to climate change. In line with the “polluter pays” principle, this would include not only who emitted the most in the past, but also who will emit the most in the future. In addition, both national total and per capita contributions are relevant here. A second factor can be represented by national income per person. Looking at relative standards of living might affect who pays for climate change mitigation, who takes action, and when they are required to take those actions. A third, pragmatic, factor would be opportunity. If one country can more cheaply reduce emissions than another, then it perhaps should be asked to do so.

The paper also outlines a set of principles that could guide negotiations:

All nations should be able to maintain or improve standards of living under a global climate change mitigation regime. Consequently, climate change mitigation should focus on alternative low-carbon development paths that don’t reduce economic growth.

More broadly, the outcome of FCCC negotiations should not undermine or hinder progress toward the goal of sustainable development.

The countries most responsible for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be leaders in the effort to reduce emissions.

All nations should work to the best of their abilities — or with help from other countries — to reduce emissions either absolutely or relative to business-as-usual trajectories.

The world should take advantage of emission reduction opportunities where they exist.

These principles and these criteria lead to differential treatment for three—rather than the current two—groupings of countries. They also may lead to different actions being asked of countries within these groups. There is a group of “Must Act Now” countries who score high on both the responsibility and standard of living factors; these should be the leaders. There is a group at the opposite end of the spectrum—” Could Act Now”—who score low on at least two factors who should not be asked to take many actions now. The middle group would consist of those countries who score higher on some factors, but lower on others—” Should Act Now, But Differently.” The principles above will drive what is asked of these countries. We hope that these principles, factors and groupings lead to improved international discussions of equity, at the very least, and, even better, to a solution that all parties believe is fair.