In his press conference this evening, Yvo de Boer gave us an update on the negotiations, focusing in particular on the group that is charged with discussing a post-2012 deal.
There are four issues on the table: reducing emissions (mitigation), adapting to climate change (adaptation), transferring low carbon technologies to poorer countries, and the finance needed to make the transition.
De Boer said good progress was being made by the group, but there are two key areas for concern.
First, we appear to be running out of time. Ministers arrive in the middle of next and there is still a colossal amount to be agreed. The ‘future' group hasn't given more than cursory consideration to the key question of how the transition to a low carbon economy will be paid for, for example. That's a big omission.
Negotiators will face growing pressure to catch up, so expect some very late nights for them next week.
As I reported earlier, however, the biggest threat is the growing spat over targets for developing countries. Canada, Japan, the US and, it seems, Australia believe these are a priority.
But developing countries are fiercely opposed. De Boer: "Developing countries are making it very clear that it's inconceivablefor them to accept legally binding targets - whether that's limitation or reduction targets."
The latter distinction is worth noting. A reductiontarget would be do just what it says. But a limitation target would to set a ceiling above which a country's emissions would not be allowed to grow.
To many, a limitation target might seem unobjectionable. It would allow countries to grow, after all, but give them an incentive to keep that growth as clean as possible.
But the richer developing countries don't see it that way. A limitation target might be a problem for China sooner than it would like. The country will pass the global average for per capita emissions sometime in the next couple of years.
So if binding targets are out, is there a middle ground? There may be: voluntary commitments which developing countries get paid to take on.
This ground was opened up by a proposal made by the Russians in May and expanded by them over the summer. In a future commitment period, Russia suggests, developing countries could take on one of three kinds of non-binding targets:
- Absolute emission reductions - either in a particular sector or for the economy as a whole.
- Relative reduction targets - where emissions grow, but not as fast as the economy. Emissions go up, but energy intensity goes down.
- Policy commitments - to set a carbon tax, for example, or to develop national emissions trading scheme.
- Technology commitments - to introduce and use low carbon technologies.
Targets could be unconditional, but it's more likely that countries would expect to get some kind of incentive for performing well.
Reaction to Russia's proposal has been mixed, although the EU is strongly in favour. Developing country emissions are rising fast, it notes. Rich countries must cut emissions, but it would like developing countries to do their bit when "benefits outweigh costs" and in ways "that support continued economic growth".
Does China agree? So far, it has reacted coolly to the Russian proposal, as has India. Recently, however, it has signalled that it might be willing to make concessions. It's a fair bet that it has some version of the Russian proposal at the back of its mind.
But Chinese concessions won't come for free. Developed countries will first need to sign up to deep emission cuts first. And China will also push hard for generous finance to help push its economy onto a cleaner growth trajectory.