Why is the climate change issue so unfair?

In her article, Haidi Bachram describes and criticises the solutions to slow down the environmental changes. Bachram provides the reader with a timeline where she describes the outcomes of various panels and organisations that claim to work against the climate change. For example, in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the present CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now in the past 20 million years. This is a concerning statement. Additionally, Bachram points out that 80 million people across the world are at risk of their homes being devastated by the climate change.
The concern deepens when we realise that the industrialised countries are the ones to be blamed. In US and UK alone, where 10% of the world's population lives, 45% of total carbon dioxide emissions are produced. CO2 that is emitted by humans comes from burning fossil fuels and the IPPC is advising the governments that a minimal and immediate reduction of 50-70% of emissions is crucial to stabilise the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was signed as an agreement of 156 countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately for the agreement, the biggest polluter in the world - US has withdrawn. Another 'breakthrough' that also happened in 1997 was suggested by the US. 'Permits to pollute' was a system made to stabilise emissions. The idea was to set a legal amount of emissions that a factory could produce. If a factory did not use all permits, they could decide to sell them and, likewise, if they needed more they could buy from the firms that did not need to pollute as much. At first, this seems like a good idea but most (including The Dutch Institute RIVM) believe that it was just a tool to 'greenwash' people. Greenwashing is a term used to describe actions made by a government or a corporation that seem to be 'green' but they are actually just focused on increasing their capacities. Instead of a 5.2% of reductions from the 1990 levels agreed by Kyoto, trading will only reduce them by 0.1%.
Honestly, Kyoto seems very ambitious. Reducing the emissions by so much without actually drawing a plan does seem ridiculous. Maybe the 'permits to produce' are not that bad after all? Since the emissions are now considered as resources to allocate, no more than the combine legal levels can be produced, so surely it must be good for us?
The author believes that it is not that great of a solution after all. She points out that the system might be confusing as the pollutants are exchangeable. It might seem to be helpful for the environment but on the closer look, there is no visible improvement.
I believe that the biggest problem we are facing is the unfairness that goes with climate change. Taxpayers are often forced to pay for the governments doing nothing and 'carbon sinks' are poor countries that are being made to accept the dump that is pushed from over-consuming countries.
Concluding, government are made to choose the best solution but the 'best' one doesn't seem to exist. All human activity can be described as destructive and the fact that emission measurements can never be 100 percent accurate isn't helpful. Some of us, already accepted the fact that no improvement can be made, some are desperately going vegan to reduce the emissions of methane and the worst-off, the victims of the victims, have to suffer human-kinds mistakes by giving up their homes or getting lost in yet another storm that was caused by our trashed by carbon, unstable atmosphere.