Like a World Cup final, this match saw emotions running high and intensifying right up to the last moment. Indeed, the game went into overtime, running more than a day beyond the whistle blow.

Three days ago, negotiators stood deadlocked, with the U.S., Canada and Japan all standing firm, refusing UN proposed text that would commit developed countries to a 25-40% cut in emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels. At the time, a tired and rather despondent looking Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) couldn't conceal his concern over the state of negotiations.

Now the media is awash with news of a 'breakthrough agreement'. But, what is that agreement?

The final text does not mention specific emissions targets, but does acknowledge that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective" of avoiding dangerous climate change. - BBC

Without firm targets set, the 'deep cuts in global emissions' are of course open to interpretation. But, in a game where, unlike a football match, we could all easily become the losers, this compromise has at least the potential to be a step in the right direction. Perhaps.

After working hard to beat out compromised text that would keep, in particular, China and the US happy, the US delegation initially rejected even this - sending the already-tense mood at the conference into an outright uproar as frustrated national representatives realised they may come away from the summit without a tangible result. Perhaps recognising they were standing completely isolated in their position, and having the prospect of international resentment being focused on their nation, moments later the US retracted its decision, turning boos into cheers.

The United States had expressed opposition to changes proposed by poor countries that their need for technological help from rich nations get greater recognition in the final declaration. - ABC Australia

In a dramatic finish to a U.N. climate conference, world leaders adopted a plan Saturday for negotiating a new global warming pact by 2009, after the United States backed down in a battle over wording supported by developing nations and Europe.

The U.S. stand had drawn loud boos and sharp rebukes "Lead ... or get out of the way!" one delegate demanded before Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky reversed her position, clearing the way [sic] adoption of the so-called "Bali Roadmap." - ABC News

As talks overran their scheduled close by more than a day, delegates from the EU, US and G-77/China embarked with UN officials on a series of behind-the-scenes consultations aiming to break the remaining deadlock.

The EU and US agreed to drop binding targets; then the EU and China agreed to soften language on commitments from developing countries.

With delegates anxious to make a deal and catch aeroplanes home, the US delegation announced it could not support the amended text.

A chorus of boos rang out. And a member of Papua New Guinea's delegation told the US: "If you're not willing to lead, please get out of the way."

Shortly after, the US delegation announced it would support the revised text after all.

There were a number of emotional moments in the conference hall - the UN's top climate official Yvo de Boer in tears after being accused by China of procedural irregularities, and cheers and hugs when the US indicated its acceptance. - BBC

Although the result is far from ideal, it does foreshadow future cooperation and compromise in working towards the common goal of mitigating climate change. In particular, it lays a foundation for the next (hopefully more cooperative) US president, whoever he or she might be, to step in and, potentially, move forward with 'deep cuts in global emissions'.

Although climate change is moving ahead apace, our political response is more lumbering than agile - now begins a two-year process of further negotiations to build on the basic framework agreed in Bali, culminating in a new international agreement, to be finalised in Copenhagen in 2009, that will give new life to a post-2012 Kyoto Protocol.

Expect a lot of contention over the next two years, as the details are hashed out. Central to the Kyoto Protocol is carbon trading and the so-called Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs), which can take many forms but are increasingly controversial - in that the financial incentives behind them have been seen to take precedence over their initial environmental intentions, sometimes with little, or even disastrous, results. BBC reporter, Richard Black, put it well a year ago when reporting from the last UNFCCC meet in Nairobi:

"The further development of carbon markets can help mobilise the necessary financial resources needed for a global response to climate change, and give us a future agreement that is focused on incentives to act."

Read these words in a positive way, and you visualise a mobilisation of business might work to cool the Earth while making a profit - but turn the thought around, and what you have is the acknowledgment that making money, not reducing emissions, is the priority for governments and their advisers. - BBC

Almuth Ernsting from BiofuelWatch, referring to talks at Bali, used even harsher words:

This is not about saving the planet. It's quite simply a trade show, and all the different proposals are about making carbon trading more efficient or getting this or that industry or government to profit a bit more whilst we move ever faster towards mass extinction. I wonder if, in years to come, we'll look back on UNFCCC meetings as climate change profiteering conferences. - Climate Change Action

Carbon Trading - a Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation & Power 3mb PDF (362 pages)

We wrote some of our concerns on this issue before, here and here, and I personally appreciate the following passage from AlterEco:

For example, the concept of North-South "technology transfer" is usually used in a way that obscures the overwhelmingly greater need for South-North transfers of wisdom. Falsely casting the North as the hero of technology, it hides the ongoing and historical contributions of Southern farmers and indigenous peoples in precisely those areas that are crucial for climate change "mitigation" and "adaptation" – ranging from low-carbon agriculture to medicine to the myriad techniques of making do with less that overconsuming societies in the North so badly need to learn or relearn.- AlterEco Issue #4 (PDF) (emphasis added)

For more on this aspect, SinksWatch is a good site to keep an eye on.

It's not that carbon trading and CDM schemes can't do good - they could - but it's ultimately dependent on motivation and implementation. Negotiations over the next two years will not only continue contentions between political representatives, but also from additional checks and balances from NGOs, watch groups and whistleblowers who will seek to ensure the 'solutions' forged cause more good than harm. Sites like Celsias have a role to play here.

Although views are mixed on the outcome of the Bali talks (see clip below), I think one good thing that has come out this summit is the realisation that the world is demanding change, and pressure on politicians to facilitate this is reaching boiling point. Although weak in real terms, the political compromises that have resulted from an almost universal disdain for inaction, do place us in wholly new and unchartered territory. Although the US government has watered down the agreement, they have still somewhat caved in from their original position. I am hoping that, not only will this be the first step towards real action, but that the perception that governments are finally working together on a united front will instil courage and determination in the public as individuals - that our efforts to reduce our impact on the earth might not be in vain.