The document contained 3 kinds of agreements.

1. Agreements to hold meetings in the future.

2. Agreements to set up some new committees.

3. Agreements to “urge”, “request”, and “recommend” a bunch of diverse stuff, such as the writing of INDCs.

No actions related to fossil fuel use or CO2 reduction were agreed to, and nothing in it was binding.

Most discussions will be about paraphrases of announcements of what is in it, rather than discussions of its literal text; and references to the fact that it has as many signatories as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, though not in those exact words. The US isn’t going to do anything that requires Congressional approval and funding; analogous statements apply to the other nations as well.

Exactly. Never has so much time been spent with so little positive action. Every country will go back to what they're doing now, looking after themselves, after delegates increasing emmissions by flying over to Paris. It has been pointed out that there they were enjoying power from nuclear, but not a word about nuclear in the communique.
The money being raised for the introduction of new renewable energy technology in developing countries would far better be spent on contraception access for the women in those countries

A very good, eminently readable post. Clear, concise and targeting the 'pith' of the agreement.

Two good outcomes from the COP21 meeting that I can discern.

(A) so much CO2 was injected into the atmosphere through all that air travel, thereby injecting just that much more atmospheric nutrient, making it available for the biosphere and oceans to take up and:

(b) identification of funds from the private sector, supported by some governments, to undertake research for 'green/sustainable' energy, presumably NOT including intermittent solar and wind generators (super batteries sufficient for 'base load' power would be good) or even Rhrostys' thorium power generators and other such ideas she/he has consistently (doggedly) contributed to the debate. (Onya Rhrosty!)

When they have found the reliable power generation capable of out pricing coal, the argument will be over and the 'ferrals' can find something else to bang on about.

Unfortunately, the Paris convention was a resounding success.

It's not about climate, it never was - it's about SUBMISSION.

In Paris, the climate priests saw a procession of heads of state, each bowing down their heads in shame and offering them their allegiance. Nothing could thrill them more and even if the world goes up in flames (or in ice) they will die with a smile on their face!

Boys will still be boys and what those naughty boys actually do afterwards with their CO2 is of no concern for the climate-clergy, so long as they feel ashamed and try to hide the evidence and their blushing faces.

Perhaps the Climate Change skeptics should look at this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/15/this-is-what-happens-when-the-arctic-warms-twice-as-fast-as-the-rest-of-the-planet/
My impression of COP21 is that it was a waste of time and money and energy. It all relies on technology, generally yet to be invented, except for nuclear, and until we embrace that, the temperature will just keep going up.
David

Yes David,

The temperatures will just keep going up for as long as the weatherman is paid to skew their instruments and increase their records while those who refuse are getting the sack.