Until the Dec. 9 draft, two bracketed paragraphs continued to reference key points of tension between developed and developing countries over the principle of CBDRRC. These paragraphs were ultimately eliminated in the final draft. The first focused on historical responsibility for climate change: [Noting that the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and developmental needs,]. The second focused on the increasing GHG emissions of industrializing developing countries: [Recognizing that Parties should take action to address climate change in accordance with evolving economic and emission trends, which will continue to evolve post-2020,]. The removal of this language highlights the concerns of both developed countries and developing countries with emerging economies. The Preamble’s final language strikes a compromise by using the term forged bilaterally by China and the United States, "in light of different national capacities."

In its earlier form, the paragraph on "best available science" carried a stronger and more specific identification of the science that should be the basis of climate action by parties: "on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, in particular, the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

The language used to characterize the needs of developing countries evolved during the negotiations, having begun by recognizing the specific needs and special circumstances of countries that are "particularly vulnerable" and "capacity constrained." The final version removes the "capacity constrained" idea and simply recognizes the need of developing countries "that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, as provided for in the Convention."

Earlier versions of this paragraph in the Preamble specifically recognized key Articles in the Convention that identify LDCs, and further acknowledge SIDS. By the Dec. 10 draft, these references were removed. In the final version, the Parties agree to take "full account of the specific needs and special situations of the least developed countries with regard to funding and transfer of technology."

Although the human rights paragraph did not change drastically over the course of negotiations, it did evolve to retain an all-encompassing perspective that acknowledges that climate change is common concern of humankind, and that "Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights" and to many vulnerable groups. The "integrity of ecosystems and of Mother Earth" language used in the early days of negotiations was removed from the human rights paragraph and added to its own section in the Dec. 9 draft.

By separating it from the human rights paragraph, the ecosystem and Mother Earth concepts were given their own provision in the last hours of the negotiations. In addition to the ecosystem integrity, oceans and Mother Earth, this paragraph was expanded to note the importance of "climate justice." Claudia Salerno, who facilitated the Preamble consultative group, claims this piece and describes the Preamble as "revolutionary."

The original paragraph on training and public education was split into two provisions in the final text. Paragraph 14 affirms the importance of education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information and "cooperation at all levels," while paragraph 15 recognizes the importance of engagement by "all levels of government and various actors."

In the closing hours of the negotiations, an entirely new paragraph was added to the Preamble. It recognizes that "sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production, with developed country Parties taking the lead, play an important role in addressing climate change." Given India’s regular use of this concept – most recently its INDC's emphasis on the country's traditional sustainable consumption patterns – it appears likely that this new paragraph was added as a tradeoff for agreement to the new CBDRRC language in paragraph 3.