Half way through the UN climate talks here in Bali and we can now see the shape of the deal that will cause next week's most fevered discussion.
Swingeing cuts to greenhouse gases are very much on the table, with rich countries expected to act first and fastest. The proposed deal would aim to stop the relentless rise of emissions in just ten to fifteen years, and drive them down to ‘very low levels' by 2050.
But before we get to the detail, keep in mind three things. Nothing has yet been finalised here in Bali. This is simply ‘proposed text' - in UN jargon a ‘non-paper' - with no official status. It can be amended, replaced, or simply not agreed.
Read the current draft and you'll see its far from a complete document. It contains a number of options for further discussion and plenty of either/or text in the dreaded [square brackets] which reflect opposing views about what should be agreed.
Also, Bali is only the start of a process towards a post-2012 climate framework - one that picks up where the current phase of the Kyoto protocol leaves off. We're just setting up negotiations that will probably aim to conclude in 2009.
That means that governments haven't even begun to talk about the really difficult stuff. Exactly what cuts will be made. Which countries will make them. Who will pay and how much. All this needs to be decided over the next couple of years.
If all goes according to plan (does it ever?), countries will finally commit to a new deal at the next climate conference but one, in Copenhagen two years from now. And even then, it will be far from over, as the treaty will need to be ratified by national parliaments, a process than it's hoped will be done within three years (Kyoto took five).
Finally, the negotiation on the ‘future' is only one of many happening here in Bali. You're not reading a comprehensive state of play, just a review of one part of the talks, though the most important as most believe.
So what's in the proposed agreement?
First, the IPCCC's assessment of the seriousness of climate change is taken as a given. Thus the need for ambitious action. Emissions need to stop rising soon and be ‘well below half' of levels seen in 2000 by 2050.
That means industrialised countries should make emissions cuts of 25-40% by 2020. That's on a 1990 baseline, so includes any moves they've made to reduce carbon under Kyoto. But again, remember this is an aspirational target for the group as a whole. It says nothing about which country should do what.
Developed countries will have ‘quantified national emission objectives'. Crucially, this stops short of calling for targets that are legally binding under international law. Targets are not off the table, but the decision on whether the world needs them has been postponed.
Why? Because this is a fight that centres on the US, which is adamantly opposed to enforceable obligations. Why take it on now, when it's easier to see if there's a change of direction from the next adminstration?
What about developing countries? They'll be expected to contribute to slowing and then cutting emissions, but their right to economic growth is explicitly recognised. Binding targets for them are thus not on the table.
Instead, they are likely to be offered incentives if they grow along a lower-carbon trajectory and will get technologies to help them do this. They'll also be able to make money by protecting forests and other carbon sinks, in compensation for foregone economic exploitation.
So what's left to agree?
Quite a lot, actually. There's an annex that sets out an ‘indicative list' of areas that need to be discussed in the next two years. It's currently blank.
Then, crucially, there are still three options on the table for the status of the post-Bali process.
Option 1 is for an informal dialogue whose findings would be reported in Copenhagen, but "without prejudice" to the Copenhagen talks. If that sounds vague, it is, and deliberately so. There is next to no chance of a conclusion in 2009 under this option.
Options 2 and 3 are stronger. Both would set up a ‘working group' that would have much greater authority. The group would be told to agree a deal and then present is as a package to Copenhagen for approval.
The difference between the Options 2 and 3 is that the former would leave intact a similar working group that is already considering commitments for the Kyoto countries (all rich countries apart from the US).
That group has been willing to push for deep emissions cuts. So countries that want a strong deal tend to favour a two-track process.
So what reaction have we had to the proposal as a whole?
Well, I hear the EU delegation is pleased with progress. Also, the Saudis are reported to be furious, complaining that its ideas have not been listened to. As always, they remain key allies of the Americans at these talks.
But expect much more reaction next week, when the press and campaigners really get their teeth into the proposals. Today is a day of rest at the UN climate talks, with the conference hall closed. There is thus no central point for anyone to congregate.
But work hasn't stopped. Far from it. It's safe to say that most delegates will be hard at it, even that means (like me!) taking their laptops out to the pool. Phone lines back to capital cities are certain to be humming.
The NGOs are also working hard, meeting this afternoon to hash out strategy for next week.
I suspect that many of them will be secretly pleased by the non-paper's contents. They can hammer away at the bits they don't like and, if any of the text is weakened, take to the barricades with claims of treachery and betrayal.
Expect fireworks next week. Probably not on Monday though. The flashpoint might be the next day when Ministers start to arrive...