Arguing over trivia

Some of the sticking points here in Bali are incredibly trivial and technical.

There's been a collapse on capacity building, for example, where the US has blocked progress on the deal that is on the table.

What's going on here?

The aim is to provide money for developing country governments to participate fully in negotiations, but the US has blocked agreement on the issue.

Two slightly different accounts of why.

According to the UN's Yvo de Boer, the US has said that it wants capacity building to be linked to developing country effectiveness in reporting its progress on tackling climate change. If they do a good job, they get money to invest in expertise.

The US NGOs have a slightly different reading. They say the American government is attempting to link the money to the performance of developing country negotiators at climate talks. Presumably, the idea is not so much to pay them to say the right things, but to provide incentives for effective negotiators.

Whichever way, it's seen as a bizarre idea by many developing countries. Other see it as a very small issue on which to pick a fight, especially when it has angered so many delegates from African and other poor countries.

The argument over technology transfer is more substantial, with the US worried that it may be leaving US companies open to the compulsory transfer of intellectual property rights.

But negotiations have broken down over one word, whether future talks should explore setting up a "Technology Leveraging Facility" or a "Technology Leveraging Programme." Again, the US is at the heart of the row. The G77, briefing the press for the first time last night, was furious about this issue.

The US - which is yet to speak to the press today - would defend itself, saying that these are truly important demands. But many other delegations are muttering darkly about guerrilla tactics.