The nations of the world may have finally solved the thorniest problem in international relations and now we need to figure out practical solutions, said a panel of experts at the Wilson Center on December 16.

Here are eight key takeaways from the climate conference in Paris from Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute; Andrew Light, professor of public policy at George Mason University; Paul Bodnar, senior director for energy and climate change at the National Security Council; and Helen Mountford, director of economics at the World Resources Institute:

1. The agreement is strong: The agreement isn’t perfect but it’s extremely promising.
   • Ambition: Targets are reset every five years to get closer to keeping warming within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels
   • Transparency: Provides essential system for transparency
   • Vision: Lays out a long-term vision of decarbonization
   • Finance: Includes adequate resources for adaptation financing
2. It had strong support: This unprecedented accomplishment has many roots, including changes in approaches by European governments, the U.S.-China joint agreement, and support from business and technology communities. Agreement between the United States and China, the world’s two largest carbon emitters, did more than anything else to shape the negotiations; it set the scene for intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) from 188 countries.
3. Business engagement made a big difference: A major difference between this COP and others was the degree to which businesses were engaged. The private sector is already setting science-based targets and going beyond neutrality to decarbonization, including setting internal carbon prices, because they believe it is in their own best interests and they will profit from it. There is also a push from stakeholders and shareholders to reduce investments in high-carbon assets and company emission profiles.
4. It represents a new kind of global architecture: It will be a test of the “bottom-up” approach, which started with the country-led INDCs. Now the ongoing “global stock-taking” built into the process will spur competition among the parties to see who can outshine the others.
5. The framework is systematic, but implementation will be key: It’s not the end, it’s the end of the beginning. Now that there is a systematic framework for working together going forward, implementation is key.
6. “Climate diplomacy” has broken out of its silo: Climate change is now understood to be part of larger international and bilateral cooperation on security, economics, and human rights, among many other issues. If climate change is truly the moral challenge of our time, then high-level diplomacy is the appropriate place where climate meets these other important areas of international cooperation.
7. Climate finance made big strides but still needs work: The idea that climate finance is separate from everything else is gone. We should not treat adaptation as separate from development assistance, but instead think about climate risk in the context of other investments in order to make development assistance and finance climate-resilient. The concept of “loss and damage” for places and people permanently affected needs to be worked on and discussed, but the U.S. government can’t agree to liability or compensation.
8. Climate change hurts women and girls: A strong deal on climate change will be especially good for women and girls in poor countries, who are often more vulnerable for a variety of reasons. But the international community is still seeking the best way to operationalize human rights connections to climate change.

In sum? “This is potentially one of the most important things that’s ever been done for your children, your grandchildren, children you may have met once, and their welfare in the future,” said Light.

Watch the archived webcast and stay tuned for a full summary.