The great Climate Conference in Copenhagen ended without formal agreement. A document of 12 paragraphs was “recognised” but it does not contain any legally binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions.

There are no firm targets for limiting the global temperature rise, no date for the peak emissions and no commitment on the conclusion of a treaty.

This is a disappointing but not wholly unexpected result in a multilateral conference of this scale and on such an all-encompassing agenda. It made nobody completely happy because it was the lowest common denominator, but it was a step in the direction of addressing the global threat from which none are immune.

It acknowledged that while climate change has an adverse impact on all, it is largely caused by and perpetrated by industrialised countries. The conference mobilised global public opinion to pressure 30 countries that are responsible for 90 per cent of emissions which accelerate global warming.

The two key countries were the United States and China and their collaboration was essential to arriving at a compromise that the 193 participating countries could accept. Brazil, India and South Africa were also important players, three countries to which Jamaica’s foreign policy must devote more attention.

The fact that there was a result augurs well for handling future global issues by multilateral diplomacy, regardless of how pixilated it may appear. The “G2” dyad of waning superpowers were forced to engage a range of other countries.

Importantly, President Barack Obama reversed the US policy that had stymied the Kyoto Protocol and showed that his presence makes a difference. It is the potential for good that his leadership can provide which was recognised by the award of the Nobel Prize.

The fight to raise consciousness in policymakers and generate a sense of urgency among the public about the gravity of the actual and potential deleterious impact of climate change has been carried by the non-government organisations. They deserve our commendation.

Yet the conference went through the motions of giving them a hearing with a supercilious politeness. Some who were too vociferous were impolitely restrained. The clashes outside the conference halls were matched by the acrimonious negotiations inside. Those outside stuck to their goals and those inside lowered their ambitions to avoid a failure.

The final document is basically hortatory because of the absence of firm quantitative targets. However, three broad goals emerged: the countries responsible for most emissions agreed to limit greenhouse gases; assist developing countries to develop clean energy; and ameliorate the impact of climate change on environmentally vulnerable countries.

There is a pledge to provide $30 billion to developing countries over the next three years to help them cope with climate change. For the small island developing states of the Caribbean and Pacific, there is the prospect of technical and financial help. Whether the prospect of money will be sufficient to jerk tropical developing countries out of the paralysing complacency induced by nature’s rich bounty, is a question to be answered.

The answer must be deeds, not words from retired diplomats, anti-development demands of naive NGOs and self-serving housing developers.

Copenhagen was one small step for mankind. We now have a responsibility to ensure that it is not followed by two steps back.