I never saw what actual per-capita emissions were on the table. Did they really want the developing nations to stay at a lower value indefinitely?
The discussion is always about cutting or freezing. Sometimes it's about slowing growth, then freezing then cutting.
The "inequality" of the deal will allow developing countries to get a little closer to developed country per capita emissions, but overall proportions are supposed to remain prety much fixed. So, if China currently emits 4.5 X US per capita, that may become 3 X at some point. It will never be 1=1.
The reason for this is pragmatic. Demanding the developed countries cut till they reach China levels while China continues to grow emissions will take too long.
{edit} I forgot to mention the other non pragmatic approach that some see as fair. Developing countries should be allowed to continue emitting carbon until their historical effect on atmospheric carbon equals that of the west. This solution locks in catastrophe at some point. (I fee like I need to qualify these sentences with "If the assumptions about climate change are close to correct")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
We did a small project about future predictions for energy use and CO2 emissions in college in 1995, and we ended with a statement that essentially said "Now, this has all been about global emissions. How to divide these issues by country is a moral, not scientific, question, but it's hard to argue that anything but asymptotically (ie at 2050 or whatever) working towards the same per-capita emissions is just."
I wish all political discussions were on a per-capita basis. It would just be more transparent how different the industrialized countries want their citizens to be treated that way.