The EU is trying to hammer out a final deal on a climate change package that is supposed to become law in the 27-nation EU early next year.

EU member states still rely heavily on fossil fuels for power

The original package presented by the European Commission in January 2008 is expected to be watered down to some extent, because the financial crisis has amplified concern about the economic cost of green energy. EU countries are divided over how to share out that burden and limit the economic pain.

The package focuses on three areas: emissions cuts, renewables and energy efficiency.

The EU's credibility is at stake as it aims to be a model in the run-up to a new global climate pact to be signed in Copenhagen in a year's time. That pact will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012.

But pressure is mounting from EU member states for other major polluters worldwide to adopt similar targets.

France, which holds the EU presidency until January, has the tricky task of keeping all 27 member states on board at the EU summit on 11-12 December.

The European Commission and EU governments agreed on the target of cutting greenhouse gases by at least 20% by 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

The target will rise to 30% if an international agreement is reached committing other developed countries and the more advanced developing nations to comparable emission reductions.

The EU launched its pioneering Emissions Trading Scheme (ET in 2005. But to meet the new targets for emissions cuts changes to the ETS are required.

Under the ETS, permits for emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) are distributed under a system of national allocations. The permits are traded - so big polluters can buy extra ones from greener enterprises.

The EU aims to reduce the allocations by 21% from 2005 levels by 2020. And there is to be one EU-wide cap on the number of permits, rather than individual national allocation plans.

The ETS covers about 10,000 heavy industrial plants across the EU - notably power plants, oil refineries and steel mills - which together account for almost half the EU's CO2 emissions, the commission says.

All major industrial emitters of CO2 are to be brought under the ETS and the scheme will also include greenhouse gases other than CO2 - nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons.

Many permits were given away for free in the first ETS phase. But from 2013 enterprises in the power sector will have to buy all their permits at auction, under the EU plans. For other industrial sectors and aviation full auctioning will be phased in by 2020.

The move to full auctioning is proving contentious. German industrial groups say full auctioning will cost them billions of euros - costs that they could not pass on to customers.

Similar warnings have come from new EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe - especially Poland, which is heavily dependent on coal. Italy has added its voice to the protests.

Concessions over the ETS targets may be necessary to prevent Italy or Poland vetoing the whole climate package - a threat that was made at the October EU summit.

Another option may be for the richer EU member states to compensate the poorer ones, to help cover the costs.

Full auctioning might also be delayed for specific sectors where it is feared there could simply be a transfer of jobs or plant to non-EU countries where the rules on emissions are not as strict - so-called "carbon leakage".

Revenues from the auctioning of permits will go to member states' treasuries, but the commission says they should devote at least 20% of that income to low-carbon technology and innovation. National budget pressures are now threatening that target too.

The EU has already softened the targets for reducing CO2 emissions from cars, under pressure from carmakers hit hard by the economic downturn.

A key area of green innovation is carbon capture and storage (CC - new technologies that allow industrial CO2 emissions to be captured and stored underground, where they cannot harm the climate.

There are plans to build 10 to 12 big pilot plants in the EU by 2015, with a view to making CCS commercially viable by about 2020. The plants would be funded by revenue from the ETS.

The EU package sets the goal of increasing renewable energy's share of the market to 20% by 2020, from around 8.5% today.

Within that goal, 10% of transport fuels will have to come from biofuels. The commission wants a strict certification system to ensure that only biofuels achieving a real cut of at least 35% in CO2 emissions will be allowed.

The use of food-based biofuels is under review because of concern about deforestation and food shortages in developing countries.

The renewables targets for member states differ because they are at different stages in their use of wind energy, solar power, hydroelectric power and other green sources. The UK's proposed target is 15% by 2020, because the UK is far behind many other EU countries in the area of renewables.

The commission says the EU must embrace renewables not only to slow climate change but also because the EU's reliance on imported gas is set to increase from 57% currently to 84% by 2030, and on imported oil from 82% to 93%.

The creation of new jobs in renewable energy technologies is another benefit, the commission argues.

Energy consumption is to be cut by 20% by 2020 through improved energy efficiency, the package says.

The commission says state aid can legitimately be used to promote emissions cuts and increase take-up of renewables, so long as it does not breach EU competition rules.

On 3 December the commission came up with new proposals for the EU to co-finance national and local schemes to promote energy-efficient housing.

If the plan is adopted, the EU will help member states install double glazing, wall insulation and solar panels in housing, especially targeting low-income households.

The residential sector accounts for 25% of Europe's energy consumption, the commission says.

VIEWPOINT
Oliver Tickell

Little meaningful progress seems to have been made at the UN climate summit in Poznan, Poland, says Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2. In this week's Green Room, he calls on world leaders to back a deal that will raise the serious funds needed to deliver a low carbon future.

Developing nations need financial support in order to switch to renewables

As the global gathering enters it second and final week, there has been a dismal lack of progress to date.

One of the key stumbling blocks is how all the things that we need to tackle the climate change problem will be financed.

Here are some of the key topics being debated:

Forests and soils

Forest destruction and degradation contributes up to 20% of human greenhouse gas emissions.

Trees are worth more dead than alive

To have a hope of bringing climate change under control we need to bring these emissions to a halt, and make forests (as well as soils, peatlands and other terrestrial sinks) into major carbon sinks.

But how can we bring about the change we need?

The answer has to be to make forests worth more alive than dead to governments and forest owners.

As things stand we are happy to pay for palm oil, beef, soya beans, rubber and timber from deforested land.

To persuade countries like Brazil and Indonesia to change their ways, we need to pay them more keep their forest than we are already paying them to destroy it.

Currently the main idea, which goes under the acronym of REDD, is to create carbon credits by reducing deforestation in poor countries, and selling the credits to rich countries so that they can let their industrial emissions rip.

But this suffers from the grave defect that we need to reduce emissions from both forests and industry at the same time, not trade one off against the other.

Adaptation to climate change

The cost to poor countries of the climate change that is already taking place, no matter what action we take to reduce emissions, is up to $100 billion per year.

This cost is incurred in the effort to cope with the consequences of drought, flood risk, rising sea levels, increasing insect-borne disease, and other hazards.

So far, a paltry few percent of this funding has been lined up. Since the damages are a direct result of the historic emissions of rich countries, and the world's poorest people are the principal victims, this is nothing short of iniquitous.

Meanwhile, more than $60bn-a-year is sloshing around the world's carbon markets, such as the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the "flexibility mechanisms" of the Kyoto Protocol.

It sometimes seems that everyone is making fortunes out of the carbon market, except those who really need it to adapt to the far harsher conditions that climate change is creating.

Renewable energy

Renewable energy is a key part of any sustainable future. But developing and rapidly industrialising countries are generally choosing coal-fired power generation, because it is relatively cheap, it works, and it's available now.

Every fossil fuel power station built locks in decades of further emissions

This development path will lock these nations into burning coal for up to 75 years, undermining any effort made elsewhere to reduce emissions.

This makes it essential to divert the hundreds of billions of dollars each year that are being invested in fossil fuels in developing countries and put them into renewables.

But in order to make this happen, extra funds need to be found to bridge the gap between the cost of coal fired power stations and renewables.

In the long run, renewables make good economic sense because once they are built there is no need to buy the fuel to keep them running.

But in the short term there is an extra cost to be paid and at the moment, there's no one to pick up the bill.

Energy efficiency

Vastly improved energy efficiency is absolutely necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to satisfy rising demand for energy around the world.

Even though energy savings can be made for next to nothing, they tend not to take place. This is usually because the costs are picked up by one person, while another enjoys the benefits.

So how are we to stimulate the revolution we need?

One answer is to regulate. EU citizens are already aware of the "energy rating" system that applies to many household appliances, and this approach has been highly effective. It should now be extended globally to all energy consuming goods, homes, buildings, factories and offices.

Poor countries will of course need extra funding to have their short-term costs covered. But in the long term, they will also benefit from reduced energy costs.

Powerful industrial greenhouse gases

The hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are gases used as refrigerants and foam blowing agents.

The use of HFCs, used in fridges and freezers, continues to grow

They were introduced by the chemical industry to replace ozone destroying CFCs, which have (almost) been phased out by the Montreal Protocol.

However, HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases, and their production is rising by 15% per year.

The Environmental Investigation Agency estimates that without controls, they could be responsible for the equivalent of about 10 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions per year by 2040, or about one-third of the world's current burn of fossil fuels.

The obvious way to control them is in the same way that the Montreal Protocol phased out the CFCs.

This would involve a direct regulatory approach, guided by an expert panel, with funding made available to help developing nations meet the cost of adapting affected industries.

Where is the money going to come from?

Currently there is no mechanism capable of taking on the problems of climate change.

My own calculations indicate that it will cost the world about one trillion dollars each year.

That is certainly a lot of money, but it is an amount that looks affordable when it is compared to what the world is spending to deal with the global financial crisis.

One obvious way to raise the funds is to sell greenhouse gas emissions permits on a global basis, rather than giving them away as under the current Kyoto Protocol.

With industrial global emissions accounting for about 33 gigatonnes, a $30-per-tonne carbon price would pay the whole bill.

The EU is already going this way. More and more allowances under the ETS are being auctioned, and the European Parliament is calling for the proceeds to finance climate solutions.

President-elect Barack Obama has a similar national policy for the US, and a new report by humanitarian charity Oxfam calls for this model to be applied to rich country emissions allocations, with auctioning taking over from free allocations.

This general approach has to be the way forward, for the simple reason that there's nowhere else for the money to come from.

Governmental aid flows remain pathetically insufficient even to deal with all the "old" problems of poverty, never mind the new problems of climate change.

Charities are nowhere near rich enough, and the private sector will only invest where there is profit to be made.

So here is one principle for delegates in Poznan to agree on - the carbon market must be turned into gold, not for carbon traders and financiers, but to finance the world's transition to a low carbon, equitable future.

Oliver Tickell is author of Kyoto2 - how to manage the global greenhouse, published by Zed Books

There is concern that the climate deal may be undermined by compromises

Leaders of the European Union are said to be close to a compromise agreement on how to achieve ambitious targets to fight global warming.

They are attempting to agree a mechanism whereby the EU could cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020.

They have also agreed in principal a 200bn-euro economic stimulus package.

Earlier, EU members reportedly agreed a series of concessions to the Irish Republic enabling it to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon reform treaty.

Dublin's rejection of the treaty in June stalled the project, which is aimed at simplifying decision-making in the 27-member bloc.

Concessions

At the end of a first day of talks at the summit in Brussels, EU leaders moved closer towards agreement on the so-called "20-20-20" package to tackle climate change after concessions were made to limit its impact on struggling industries.

Some EU countries want auctions of pollution permits delayed

The measures, which also require approval by the European Parliament to become law, would commit the EU to cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, and to raising renewable sources to 20% of total energy use.

The talks are going on concurrently with a UN climate conference in Poznan, Poland, where former US presidential candidate John Kerry said the United States was set to lead the world towards a new climate deal.

Mr Kerry, who is representing President-elect Barack Obama, said the aim of agreeing a deal by next year must remain on track.

'Heading for compromise'

The BBC's Jonny Dymond, in Brussels, says an EU deal seems to be coming, but there were some very long faces as the summit broke up on Thursday night.

There is concern in some quarters that the compromise proposed has led to the overall aim of the package being undermined.

East European nations will be handed extra carbon credits free of charge, and industries in western Europe will get huge sweeteners which reduce the cost of cutting emissions - but there are still disputes over how many credits and to how many industries.

What is more, billions of pounds will be lost from green good causes because governments will auction fewer permits, so raising less cash. And the carbon price will be depressed because so many free credits have been offered - this will act as a deterrent for firms to invest in clean technology.

Speaking off the record, a UK source said they were very unhappy with the current proposals, and too much had been given away - particularly to German industry.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin, who is at the Poznan talks, said that from the point of view of UN climate delegates, the crucial message from Brussels was for the EU to stick to its headline 20% commitment.

But the concessions made to industry will damage Europe's image among developing countries - and will have an impact on a future global climate deal, he said.

Another contentious area is the EU's plan to allow countries to buy cheap carbon credits from poor nations rather than cutting emissions at home.

Another contentious area is the EU's plan to allow countries to buy cheap carbon credits from poor nations rather than cutting emissions at home.

The environment group WWF told BBC News that their calculations suggested that many sectors of the economy would be able, under current proposals, to buy 60-70% of their credits abroad.

The group said this would undermine Europe's drive towards a low-carbon economy.

A new formal proposal was to be issued by the French presidency before the meeting broke for the night. Leaders will then return with their reaction in the morning.

At the start of the discussions on Thursday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he hoped his fellow leaders would be able to unite on a climate package.

"Europe must not provide the spectacle of its own division," he said.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that a successful EU deal was vital to persuade other major greenhouse gas emitters to agree to cuts at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next year.

Economy deal 'agreed'

Also discussed at Thursday's meeting was the EU's proposed 200bn-euro (£175bn) "fiscal stimulus", equivalent to 1.5% of the bloc's projected gross domestic product (GDP).

Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said a deal had been agreed "in principle" and that EU leaders would finalise a text on Friday.

Italy's Prime Minister Berlusconi also said a broad agreement had been reached.

The proposed fiscal stimulus would seek to boost employment and growth, and would involve everything from tax cuts to investment strategies, while taking account of differences between the economies of each member state.

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Poznan

After Poznan, eyes are turning to Copenhagen

The UN climate summit has ended with delegates taking very different views on how much it has achieved.

Western delegates said progress here had been encouraging, but environment groups said rich countries had not shown enough ambition.

Developing nations were angry that more money was not put forward to protect against climate impacts.

The meeting is the halfway point on a two-year process aimed at reaching a deal in Copenhagen by the end of 2009.

As envisaged at last year's conference in Bali, that agreement is supposed to have two major elements - an expanded Kyoto Protocol-style deal committing industrialised countries to deeper emission cuts in the mid-term, perhaps by 2020, and a longer-term agreement encompassing all countries.

"The conference enabled us to make real progress on every topic on the Bali roadmap," said Martin Bursik, Environment Minister of the Czech Republic, which assumes the EU presidency in January.

"All the elements exist for us to reach an efficient and equitable agreement in Copenhagen."

"There has been disappointingly little progress on the agreement reached last year in Bali," he said.

"Yet again the rich countries, who carry the historical responsibility for climate change, have failed to offer sufficient cuts."

There was also disappointment that the energy and climate deal reached by EU heads of state in Brussels had been watered down at the last minute.

Funding gap

The only concrete decision of any major significance concerned the management of the Adaptation Fund, which gathers money to help poorer countries protect their societies and economies against the impacts of climate change.

Czech Environment Minister Martin Bursik spoke of 'real progress'

The money comes from a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, which aims to fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.

The decision means that adaptation money can begin to flow at some point next year.

But there is general acknowledgment that the current level of funds - about $80m - is far lower than will be needed.

To bridge the gap, developing countries wanted greatly to expand the levy to cover other kinds of carbon trade. This would have multiplied the amount of money going into the fund by at least an order of magnitude.

When western nations declined to support the plan, many developing countries expressed their anger.

"It is not clear how a 'strong political signal' can be sent by not paying for pollution that you have caused," said Pakistan's delegate Farrukh Khan.

"We would have hoped that our partners would have taken this necessary step on the road to Copenhagen; but unfortunately the road to Copenhagen is being paved with good intentions."

Speaking to reporters after the meeting closed, the UN's top climate official hinted that western nations had been playing a negotiating card.

"Doing a deal in Copenhagen is, to an important extent, about engaging developing countries," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

"And an important part of engaging countries is providing funds. Politically, this was not the time to do it."

Step change

If the Copenhagen talks are to reach an agreement, most observers said the pace of discussions would have to increase markedly.

"They're going to have to enter full negotiating mode - full speed ahead," said Angela Ledford-Anderson, director of the international global warming programme with the Pew Environment Group.

"But President-elect Barack Obama has said he's going to engage vigorously, so that brings new hope; and we've seen a number of developing countries really stepping up to the plate."

The next 12 months will bring a series of meetings at official level, and a draft negotiating text for Copenhagen should emerge by June.

In the immediate future, eyes turn to Australia, which is due to announce its climate change policy on Monday.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Poznan

The EU package was not as strong as developing countries would have liked

"Two cities, 189 countries, one dream."

It could be the tagline for some talent contest - and I suppose that in some ways, it is.

After a hectic simultaneous two-day spell of climate talks in Brussels and Poznan, the issue is whether the talent in question is for finding a way to curb greenhouse gas emissions, or for finding a way to pretend convincingly that you are doing so.

Certainly, politicians at the European Council's talks in Brussels on the EU energy and climate package, and delegates to the annual UN climate conference in Poznan, were taking a pretty close look at what each other was up to.

By adopting a strong package of measures to reduce its own emissions, the EU could signal to everyone in Poznan that difficult and perhaps expensive decisions could be taken in a time of financial strife.

Meanwhile, in the other direction flowed global messages to the EU leadership.

A particularly important message concerned what developing countries were looking for in the EU package; if they were not inspired by what they saw, the chances of them engaging positively with the Poznan process would markedly diminish.

Falling short

So what has it all meant, those two intensive days, now that the dignitaries have flown away and the plates have been cleared and the convention centre cloakroom staff have been allowed to go home?

Documents agreed in Poznan fell short of pledging the cuts the IPCC suggests

Even if they look only at the headline number, there must be some doubt as to whether they consider 20% to fall under the definition of "leadership".

The context is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has suggested that on the basis of the science, developed nations ought to be looking for cuts of 25-40% by 2020 - and the EU pledge is below that.

If there is a global deal, the EU will up its pledge to 30%. But it hasn't been planning for that; the measures agreed in Brussels only deal with 20%.

This was clearly a matter of some sensitivity.

In Poznan, EU chiefs gave a news conference at lunchtime on Friday and another in the evening.

At the first, after they had talked a lot about 20%, I asked them why the 30% figure had disappeared from the dialogue and why they were not planning how to reach it.

In the evening session, environment commissioner Stavros Dimas and French ecology minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet talked a lot about 30%.

They recognise, I am sure, that that is in the range of what developing countries are looking for; 20% is not.

So the carrot is there for the developing world; make a deal, and we will lop an extra 10% off our emissions - that's the idea.

Equitable lives

If the EU in Poznan was asking people to listen to its message from Brussels - and it was - there is less evidence that Brussels was listening to Poznan.

Developing countries, especially those with long, low coastlines or where freshwater is already scalded from the landscape by extreme heat, are looking for much more than a pledge of emissions cuts.

They also want money and technology - to help them develop along sustainable lines, and especially to help them prepare for the potential impact of climate change.

They consider it their right, on the basis that the West has caused the problem.

Whatever you think of the intrinsic merit of this argument - and however much you think it is a card played with increasing skill by the talented orators of Asia and South America - the fact is that Western governments have to understand it at a visceral level and deal with it if they are to reach a global agreement, which all parties to the UN convention say they want to achieve when they convene in a year's time in Copenhagen.

Another aspect of the EU decision is what it means for other developed nations.

The US and Japan will both be setting "mid-term" - about 2020 - targets soon; and if the EU selects an option below what IPCC science suggests, why should they go any higher?

And the smaller the collective ambition displayed across the developed world, the less chance there is of developing countries accepting any kind of emission reduction en bloc at Copenhagen, or of settling for small piles of adaptation money.

Euro vision

If you want to pare it down to the basics, there are probably three questions to ask about the last two days: will carbon emissions be curbed, will countries vulnerable to potential impacts of climate change be any better protected, and have the chances of reaching a deal in Copenhagen deal increased or decreased?

I'll award a maximum of one point for each question in each city.

The Brussels agreement gains half a point on the first question, but there are no points from Poznan, where the documents agreed fell short of pledging the kind of cuts that the IPCC says are necessary - though they might come next year.

The second question gains a quarter point from each; some revenue for climate adaptation will be accrued by auctioning pollution permits in the EU, and the Poznan deal will allow money in the UN Adaptation Fund to be disbursed.

The third… well, it depends on your point of view.

While the New York Times concludes that the world is now "on the track to a new global climate treaty with a renewed sense of purpose and momentum", Xinhua reports that "hopes are fading for a comprehensive deal to fight climate change in Copenhagen next year".

Different sources, different perspectives, different analyses.

So one point for that, perhaps - making two out of six in total.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that as Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo warned on Thursday, something - could it be the financial crisis? - is taking leaders' eyes off climate change.

At the same Brussels meeting, EU leaders unveiled a package worth 200bn euros (£180bn) to ease the financial crisis.

At the Poznan meeting, developed nations, with the EU to the fore, blocked proposals that could have unleashed billions of euros to help some of the world's poorest countries launch climate adaptation projects.

Two cities? Sure. One vision? Hmm…

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

• Richard Black
• 12 Dec 08, 15:03 GMT

POZNAN, POLAND: So the numbers are still in the deal; and if the numbers are all, as the EU claims, then everything in the world's climate garden smells of roses.

Following what have apparently been strenuous talks, the 27 EU nations that have just agreed an energy and climate package in Brussels are still intending to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called it "the most ambitious package anywhere in the world". The targets themselves aren't the world's most ambitious, but the bloc is the first to set out a detailed raft of mechanisms for making the cuts.

The EU decision has practical and symbolic significance - practical because of its impact on greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, and symbolic because the EU traditionally claims to be the world's leader on climate change, and so what it does affects what others are prepared to do.

So we find the Brussels decision reverberating around the halls here in Poznan, half a continent away, where 189 members of the UN climate convention have been haggling for two weeks over what might and what might not go into a new global pact which is supposed to be finalised in a year's time.

Stavros Dimas, the EU's environment commissioner, suggested here that the numbers are indeed all, as did French ecology minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet. Their line is that the rest of the world will look at the EU decision, see the 20% figure intact, and be satisfied that the bloc is making firm commitments to reduce emissions at a time of financial strife.

As Mr Barroso put it, in a play on Barack Obama's campaign mantra: "The EU's message to global partners is 'y‎es you can'."

But the small print of the agreement may tell a different story.

Let me bombard you with a few numbers. EU emissions are already about 9% below 1990 levels; so a further 11% is needed to reach the 2020 goal.

Countries will be allowed to purchase 3-4% of that by buying emission credits outside Europe - through, for example, building renewable energy facilities or paying to plant carbon-absorbing forests in developing countries.

So that leaves a target from now of 7-8%. But companies and countries can, if they want, buy extra credits on the open market until 2012 and bank them, effectively betting that the early investment will save them money in the long run.

Calculations by WWF suggest that could result in a further 3-4% being lopped off the target; so now the concrete pledge could amount to a 4% reduction over the next 12 years.

One more number crunch. The EU package envisages not a 20% but a 30% cut by 2020 if there is a global deal.

The UK Committee on Climate Change, when presenting recommendations to the UK government at the beginning of the month, took a twin tack approach, effectively saying "you should do x if the EU target is 20% and you should do y if it ends up being 30%."

The European Council deliberations over the last two days have barely mentioned the 30% target, let alone plotted a path towards achieving it if it comes into play.

Mme Kosciusko-Morizet said a decision was taken to "prepare for 20%, and then set up a decision-making process that would enable us to adapt to the 30% figure".

Remembering that from today's levels of emissions, 20% and 30% really mean 11% and 21%, that means the EU may suddenly have to decide how to double the level of its existing commitment - and the option of buying carbon credits from abroad has already been heavily exercised.

Plus the concentration on 20% could send the message that the EU isn't expecting a global deal any time soon.

Phew. Sorry to burden you with so many numbers, but the phrase "the devil is in the detail" could have been coined for this issue - it's a perfect description, and one of the reasons why I have lost so much hair doing this job.

And I haven't even mentioned yet the other numbers that have some observers hopping mad - the derogations that will allow some sectors of industry to get their pollution permits for free rather than having to buy them.

Predictably, environmental groups have condemned the package.

Tomas Wyns from the Climate Action Network called it "a very dark day for EU climate politics", for Stephan Singer of WWF it was "an embarrassment".

Oxfam's Elise Ford, concerned that the package will not now be raising funds earmarked for helping the poorest countries adapt to climate impacts, said that "millions of poor people have been left in danger because EU leaders bowed to business lobby pressure and faltered at an historic moment".

This isn't the final EU word on the matter. The European Parliament meets on Wednesday, and it could yet throw the package back to governments; certainly some MEPs are already talking of rejecting it as unacceptably weak.

If that happens, the game of ping-pong could go on for some time.

The impact on developing countries, without whose engagement there cannot be a global deal, will take some time to emerge; there is lots of small print to digest.

One African delegate I spoke to wasn't impressed by the level of ambition. "It's not enough," he said.

If that turns out to be a widely-held view, all bets on reaching that elusive Copenhagen deal would be off.

Delegates here stood and cheered Al Gore's speech to the rafters as he, too, used the Obama line of "yes, we can".

While the large print of the EU package might give the same message, there's a chance that the small print will be heard as "no, we couldn't" - in which case, the response might be "well, we can't either".