Some analysts argued that the Europeans were required to compromise on their core position, accepting a vague promise of a legal (treaty) without assurances it would ever be ratified.

“It is difficult to avoid concluding that the Europeans ultimately blinked,” said Michael A. Levi, a climate change and energy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

“The reality is that there is no more agreement on the future of the climate talks than there was when (negotiators) first convened two weeks ago,” he said. “Europe will continue to insist on a full-blown legally binding agreement; China and India will continue to oppose one; and the United States, while leaving the door open to an agreement that is binding for all, will continue to be unenthusiastic as well. These (positions) are largely rooted in incompatible views of the (future), and there is no reason to believe that more talking will change them.”