Compare and contrast class practice (This is NOT homework)

Source 1: “What Doha did” from the Economist magazine

Since 2007 the annual negotiations by the parties to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change have run on two “tracks”. One has been devoted to the Kyoto protocol, which limits the emissions of the rich countries that have ratified it, but nobody else’s. The other tries to set up long-term mechanisms to combat climate change. Doha’s achievement was to sort out this mess. The rich countries still signed up to Kyoto (Japan, Canada, Russia and some others have, in effect, left it) accepted ultra-modest new emissions targets for the period to 2020, which is when the new deal to be agreed in 2015 is meant to take effect. This leaves nothing more to negotiate under the Kyoto protocol. The catch-all second track was closed down. Just one lot of talks will now lead up to the 2015 conference in France.

Source 2: “Why the Doha Climate Conference was a success” by The Guardian (UK) newspaper

The EU wanted Doha to mark the transition away from the old climate regime, where only developed countries have the legal obligation to reduce emissions, to the new system where all countries, developed and developing alike, will for the first time make legal commitments under the new global agreement. Check. This is not a small achievement. Today, the average emission per capita in China is already 7.2 tonnes and increasing. Europe's is 7.5 tonnes and decreasing. The world cannot fight climate change without emerging economies committing. That is why crossing the bridge from the old system to the new system was so important. And we did it.

From sources 1 and 2, to what extent is the Doha Climate Change Conference seen as a successful conference? (7m)