One should note here the inequity worsens during the prolonged negotiations. This way, regardless of whatever is the negotiated strategy, negotiations will conclude faster and policy actions to reduce emissions will begin soon. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, these emissions will be shown against each country respectively and that much less will be available to them in future. This way, the countries taking actions during negotiating period get their rewards and procastinating countries will have to do more later. Equity is a function of how quotas are allocated and not whether they are traded or not.
Trading brings efficiency but has nothing to do with equity.
In return, the investor claims some emission reductions for their country. What is not clear, however are the opportunity costs of this system to developing countries. The developing countries should resist a bilaterally negotiated price for CDM i.e. between project parties. Meanwhile, a global carbon price floor should be announced for emissions trading and the developing countries should not trade below this price. The risks to poor countries should be the primary focus of the climate change debate, rather than the costs to the developed countries.