Breaking: Major US move

A late night update from the UN climate conference, where the US has thrown a hand grenade into the talks on the Bali roadmap.

It's close to 1am and the negotiators are still arguing about two main issues:

• Ambition - should the Bali roadmap mention clear ranges for emissions reduction?
• Substance - what kinds of targets should the developed and developing countries spend the next two years negotiating?

While attention has been focused on the former issue, the latter is more important - and, as the night wears on, becoming more controversial.

The negotiators have been working all day with text that talks of quantified commitments for developed countries, alongside something softer for developing countries - measurable and reportable ‘actions'.

This was supposed to be a compromise both the EU and US could live with. The latter would be able to maintain that their option was on the table - national targets that fed into a non-binding international mechanism.

The Europeans, meanwhile, could look to strengthen matters when a new US administration takes over the negotiations in a little over a year's time.

But the Americans have just dropped something of a bombshell. An hour or so ago, they read out new text to a meeting of ministers that are looking to push through a new agreement. A copy has just reached me here in the lobby outside.

The core of the US proposal is that developed and developing countries should be treated in the same way, with countries taking on targets according to "their level of economic development and significance" or some similar formulation.

Why is this controversial?

Three reasons:

1. It gives the Europeans nothing of what they have been asking for in terms of strong, binding international targets for developed countries.

2. It is sure to raise the hackles of the big developing countries, China and India. They are highly suspicious of US attempts to force them to take on targets when America itself has stayed proudly outside the Kyoto protocol.

3. Finally, and I think most importantly, this is a major shift of direction, introduced not at the 11th hour, but the 13th. This is not a ‘compromise text' but a completely new proposal.

So you have to ask the obvious question - if it's not been introduced as a means to provoke another country (or countries) to storm out, why introduce it now?