This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25067180

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
UN climate talks in Warsaw bogged down on key details Last minute deal saves fractious UN climate talks
(about 4 hours later)
UN talks on climate change taking place in Warsaw have been extended as delegates remain deadlocked on key issues. After 30 hours of deadlock, weary delegates finally agreed an outline framework for a new global deal at UN climate talks in Warsaw.
Significant difference between the parties have arisen over finance and cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide. The agreement was achieved after a series of last minute compromises often involving single words in draft texts.
Developing countries expressed frustration with the "lack of ambition" from richer nations. Negotiators also made progress on the contentious issue of loss and damage caused by rising temperatures.
Green groups said there was now a significant risk of the talks collapsing. But green groups were angry about the lack of specific commitments on finance.
It became clear on Saturday after a long night of negotiations that major differences had emerged between rich and developing nations. The Conference of the Parties (Cop) started two weeks ago in the shadow of Typhoon Haiyan.
They have been tasked with preparing the way for a new global deal on climate change, to be signed in Paris in 2015. Speaking at the time, the lead delegate from the Philippines, Yeb Sano, drew tears in the auditorium with a heartfelt plea to "stop this climate madness."
National control But the good intentions foundered on the political and economic realities of a complex process where agreement has to be by consensus.
The meeting in Warsaw was meant to outline the scope of that agreement, and to indicate when countries would make pledges on cutting their emissions of carbon dioxide. The mood was not helped by the Japanese government announcing it would not be able to meet its 2020 emissions cuts target.
But the talks have become stuck as negotiators from developing countries tried to ensure that the UN has a major role in determining how deep the cuts in carbon emissions should be in any new agreement. Substance
However, the US, EU and others want to make sure that decisions on cuts remain in national hands. The Poles, tasked with chairing the talks, were criticised for being seen to be too close to the coal industry.
Developed nations say a deal must bind in all countries especially growing economies like India and China. The head of the meeting was then sacked as environment minister in a Polish government reshuffle.
But after 30 hours of straight negotiations, this part of the text seemed to be on the brink of collapse after a number of objections to language. All the while there were reports from many participants that little of substance was being achieved.
After an hour long huddle in the corner of the hall, a compromise was found where the word "contributions" was substituted for "commitments". There were problems with finance, compensation for loss and damage and developing a framework by which the parties would get to 2015, the deadline for a new global deal.
It may seem like a trivial detail but it allows the richer countries to continue to claim that a new deal will apply to all, while for India and China it allows them to maintain that their obligations will be very different from the likes of the US and EU. The critical element was the outline framework. This proved the most difficult aspect of the negotiations as meetings continued through Friday night and late into Saturday evening.
This was a key moment of compromise, but many others will be required before the work is done in Warsaw. A new deal in Paris is still a very long way away. The delegates were trying to capture the shape and outline of how a global agreement would look. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the richer countries want it to apply to everyone, especially emerging giants like India and China.
Earlier, the Indian lead negotiator said there was also too much emphasis on cutting carbon and not enough on helping countries to adapt to climate change. However, many of the emerging countries, including Venezuela, are keen on inserting a "firewall" into the prospective agreement to preserve the past differences.
Shattered expectations 2b or not 2b?
There is also a big gap between the parties on climate finance. In this meeting that battle took place over a single word in the pathway document.
Developed nations have also promised $100bn a year from 2020, but the current text on that lacks specifics. Paragraph 2b of the text originally spoke of "commitments" by all parties. But in a plenary session, delegates from China and India ripped into this and said they could not accept the language.
Delegates from developing countries expressed frustration with the process, saying that right now, it was not moving in the right direction. "Only developed countries should have commitments," said China's lead negotiator Su Wei.
We are trying to bury the convention we created 21 years ago, Bangladesh lead negotiator Quamrul Chowdhury told the meeting. "Emerging economies could merely be expected to "enhance action", he said.
"Our expectations have been shattered." With time running out, desperate ministers and their advisers huddled in the corner of the hall to work out a compromise.
There was anger and frustration about the so-called loss and damage mechanism as well. After an hour, they agreed to change "commitments" to "contributions".
Developing countries wanted a separate institution that would help them cope with extreme events. The latest text concedes the idea but in the words of some delegates it looked like an empty shell. The more flexible word allows the US and EU to insist that everyone is on the same page, while also allowing China and India to insist that they are doing something different from the richer countries.
With the talks dragging on without agreement, green campaigners warned the process could collapse. EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard was relieved that this key element had been agreed.
Oxfam's Executive Director, Winnie Byanyima, who was part of a walkout during the week, said that this was now a real possibility. "It is extremely challenging , but we got the process on track," she told BBC News.
"The poorest countries have been clear that there are limits to the compromises they can accept. Rich countries have rolled back on past promises and, with some middle income countries, appear to be dodging strong future commitments of climate action," she said. "There are more beautiful and faster ways to Paris but what is important here is that we get there and get a good outcome, I think that is doable after what I have seen here.
"The ministers of the most powerful countries that could change this game do not have the mandate to do so, and there is a very real chance that these talks could collapse," she said. Another key battle was over the issue of loss and damage. This was crucial for developing countries who say that money to help them adapt to climate change is all well and good, but they need something extra to cope with extreme events such as Typhoon Haiyan.
They had argued for a new institution called a loss and damage mechanism that would have the financial clout to deal with the impacts of events that had been clearly affected by climate change.
But in the text the new mechanism would have to sit "under" an existing part of the UN body that dealt with adaptation.
This one word stuck in the throats of delegates from developing countries, including Filipino Yeb Sano who again made a moving intervention.
"It has boiled down to one word and I would say this is a defining moment for this process. Let us take that bold step and get that word out of the way."
After another huddle the word was changed and the text accepted.
Not everyone was happy.
Harjeet Singh from Action Aid said the new mechanism was merely fulfilling a pledge made last year.
"It is the barest minimum that was supposed to be achieved at Warsaw on loss and damage anyway. A few rich countries including the US held it hostage till the very end," he said.
By themselves, these compromises are not major breakthroughs and delegates know that far bigger battles lie ahead.
"As the Rolling Stones said 'you don't always get what you want,'" said Alden Meyer, from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"But sometimes you get what you need if you try hard enough."