The failure of parties at the December 2009 Copenhagen conference to secure a new treaty on global climate mitigation has elicited various reactions. Nearly 200 countries participating in the negotiations concluded by merely “taking note” of the Copenhagen Accord of December 18, 2009. Some have argued that the lack of a viable treaty at Copenhagen reflects the reality of “a world divided” about (a) the facts of climate change, (b) what count as legitimate mitigation actions, and (c) how obligations are to be distributed internationally. Lack of agreement includes charges of “obstructionist” strategy in the case of Saudi Arabia. These charges are here examined and debated in light of philosophical concern for distributive justice and the Islamic perspective on justice as it applies to pursuit of national interest and Islamic principles of public benefit.