Compromise is better than no deal at all

After two years of talking and two weeks of negotiations, the world's leaders managed to hammer out a framework for fighting climate change, not a comprehensive deal as many had hoped. The flawed deal was brokered by US President Barack Obama and China, along with other emerging powers. It is, however, being roundly criticised by poor countries because it is non-binding and sets no overall target for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

For those nations that have demonstrated a clear commitment to a greener future, the deal is a weak compromise that at least offers hope for a more comprehensive pact down the road. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the deal "a first step" and admitted she had mixed feelings about it.

Perhaps environmentalists were too optimistic in their belief that a deal could be reached. Getting 192 nations together to discuss a common threat and try to achieve a common outcome is success in itself. Hoping that rich and poor, developed and developing, believers and sceptics would all agree on an overarching accord was, in hindsight, too much to aspire for.

For every nation, commitment comes at a level where self-interest of the few, not the future of all, is the key fact.

After all the talk, action and inaction, the summit ends with a three-page agreement promising $30 billion (Dh110.3 billion) in emergency aid by 2012 with a further $100 billion by 2020 to developing countries. The five-nation agreement covering the US, China, India, South Africa and Brazil includes a method for verifying heat-trapping gases. It requires developed countries to list their individual targets and asks developing countries to list the actions they will take to cut global warming by specific amounts.

When the Kyoto Accord was signed a decade ago, few nations were committed to the notion of global action to solve what was largely seen as a problem created by industrialised nations. For many readers, Kyoto was Japanese for "read the next story". We have come a long way in creating an awareness that climate change is happening, the world is under threat, and our actions are to blame for global warming.

For those nations that committed to the Kyoto targets, this framework is a continuation of that process.

For those who had hoped the meeting would have a comprehensive plan of action, there is obvious disappointment. But were they naive in their hopes?

For those who are opposed to limits, this deal is at least a way forward, one where signing on will at least offers the prospect of further talks.

The art in any deal is to reach a compromise that suits most. With 192 nations gathered, that was unlikely to happen.