Climate change is an issue that is full of conflict.  The major conflict of course is whether climate change exists at all.  It is difficult to bring two parties to the table if you cannot agree that there is a problem in the first place.  Of course, there is the additional problem of identifying what the parties are that can do anything about the issue in the first place.  No one wants to assume responsibility because that would imply liability.  What role do the industrialized country’s play in this discussion?  What role do the rapidly expanding country’s (primarily Asia here) play in this discussion? 
Who are the stakeholders?  Climate change affects everyone and it will take everyone to play a role but you have to convince everyone that the problem even exists.

Ken Cloke identifies seven challenges that affect the conflict resolution process involving political  conflicts.  (Cloke, 6-8)  It is hard not to look at these challenges and see that getting the parties to the table is only the beginning of the problem here.  The root of understanding how conflict resolution can fit into this discussion is an important one that cannot be underestimated.  Conflict resolution professionals must face up to each of these challenges to see if the problem itself is one that can be resolved.  Politics is an area of social science that does not lend itself to rational thought. Compromise is extremely important in a democracy but it is not important in a dictatorship.  Getting the problem resolved without facing up to the idea that this issue is not important would be
ignoring reality. 

When it comes to power, there are so many pieces to the puzzle here.  Are we talking about  economic power?  Military power?  Political power?  Diplomacy is often used to try and reconcile the problems of power and makes decisions about how to value each.  Trying to resolve a dispute like climate change using this method would be fraught with danger.  If there is to be a resolution, the parties must realize that if they can agree that climate change is real, then there must be a recognition that each party is affected equally by the inaction to do anything about it.

A socially constructive dialogue must deal with this issue of being in the same position.  If climate change is real (not my argument), then the changes will be harmful.  A solution would have to be one that could be acceptable to a vast majority and would have to recognize that the solution may apply larger costs to some versus others.  Identifying those costs would be a challenge to a socially constructive dialogue.  The short-term cost to a third world country may little because it is only being asked to stop certain types of development.  The long-term cost may be that it will not develop as quickly as it could have.  The industrialized country may bear a large short-term cost of shutting down entire industries but in the long-term it may be best positioned to take advantage of emerging replacement industries.  Identifying the social costs must be a part of that constructive dialogue.