Three options in the draft Bali deal will be put to international environment ministers who will meet on Wednesday... and the hope is that a deal will be signed by Friday.
The most favoured option is a two-track process. Under this, countries that have ratified Kyoto - Australia has taken the step towards ratification - would continue separate negotiations on the need for deep cuts by 2020 and 2050, and discuss binding targets.
A second process would look at commitments from developing countries and the US, which would not be binding but include renewable-energy and energy-efficiency targets, and emissions cuts from polluting industries.
Is it really the case that Australia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol just in time to be bound by deep cuts it otherwise wouldn't have been required to make?