The conclusion of the meeting was marked by exhaustion and explosions of temper, and the result was muddled and (unsatisfying) to many. Observers and delegates said that the actions taken at the meeting, while sufficient to keep the negotiating process alive, would not have a significant impact on climate (change).

“While governments avoided disaster in Durban, they by no means responded adequately to the mounting threat of climate change,” said Alden Meyer, director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The decisions (adopted) here fall well short of what is needed.”

The European Union had pushed hard for what it (called) a “road map” to a legally binding treaty, against fierce resistance from China and India, whose delegates argued passionately against it. They said that mandatory cuts would (slow) their growth and condemn millions to poverty.

“Am I to write a blank check and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even (knowing) what the E.U. ‘road map’ contains?” said India’s environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan. “Please do not hold us hostage.” The head of the Chinese delegation, Xie Zhenhua, accused developed countries of hypocrisy. “What qualifies you to tell us what to do?” he said. “We are taking (action). We want to see your action.”

The United States never signed the Kyoto treaty because it did not accept its division between developed and developing (countries). Todd D. Stern, the chief American climate negotiator, said he was hopeful that talks in coming years would produce a more equitable arrangement.