In addition, and this is very important, Article 2 or, more specifically, „improves“ the UNFCCC`s objective (which was simply to „stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations […]) adding unrestricted (as indicated by the term „including“) „increasing capacity to adapt to the negative effects of climate change“ (point b)) and „mak[e] financial flows in line with a path to low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resistant development“ (paragraph c), indicating a shift in investment from „brown“ to „green“.  Jorge Vinuales, The Paris Climate Agreement: An Initial Examination (Part II of III), Eur. Journal of Int`l Law Blog (February 8, 2016), www.ejiltalk.org/the-paris-climate-agreement-an-initial-examination-part-ii-of-iii/. 1 This article builds on the author`s earlier writings on the UN climate regime, including: A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future UN Climate Change Regime, 43 Ariz. St. L. J. 697 (2011); The Durban Platform Negotiations: Goals and Options (Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, July 2012) [hereafter Bodansky, Durban Platform Negotiations]; The Durban Platform: Issues and Options for a 2015 Agreement (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Dec 2012); and Legally binding vs. Non-Legally Binding Instruments, in Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime, at 155 (Scott Barrett, Carlo Carraro – Jaime de Melo eds., 2015). Unlike previous international climate treaties, the articles of the Paris Agreement on adaptation, loss and differentiation of damage are used as a guide for policy planning and implementation. Countries have different weaknesses and capacities to respond to climate change.
Given the diversity of trends in climate change, it would not be practical to set an overall target for quantitative adaptation or loss and damage. It would be equally in practice to define a single set of obligations to accommodate or lose and damage. It is preferable to use a bottom-up approach to address site-specific areas of adaptation, loss and damage. However, this approach is based on a collective objective of support for these individual measures, which includes the top-down aspect of the combined approach.