FACED with the undoubted grandeur of climate change, a grand response seems in order. But, to the immediate disappointment to most of those participating and watching, the much anticipated UN climate conference held in Copenhagen in December led to no such thing.

Initial ambitions for a legally binding agreement with numerical targets for big emitters had already been abandoned in favour of a “politically binding” deal in which developed and developing countries would commit themselves to numerical targets to cut emissions. In the event a few countries produced a short “accord” that sets down no specific limits for future emissions beyond those that its signatories volunteer (see article)—and the commitments they have made so far do not look tough enough to limit the rise in temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the widely accepted boundary beyond which scientists do not recommend going.

Hardly a grand response. Yet the Copenhagen accord is not the disaster that it at first appears. On two issues in particular the Copenhagen conference may yet mark the beginning of a new way forward.

First, the UN's climate process has for more than a decade been bedevilled by a binary split between developed and developing countries. Under the Kyoto protocol, only developed countries committed themselves to cutting emissions; developing countries made no such promises. That was the main reason why Kyoto failed, because America would not accept a treaty that required nothing of countries such as China, and China insisted that the rich world should bear most of the necessary costs of constraining emissions. At Copenhagen developed countries were determined to move beyond this structure; many developing countries to hang on to it. That was the obstacle on which the conference foundered.

Yet the Copenhagen accord makes some progress towards closing this split. Developing, as well as developed, countries signed up to it, and have agreed to an international role in monitoring any cuts they commit themselves to. That is a crucial concession.

More than they can chew

The second reason for hope is that Copenhagen's failure may have encouraged the development of political structures better suited to the challenge. Climate change is not just an unusually grand problem. It is also an unusually complex one, which crosses and confounds the boundaries that normally define our world; from farming to forestry, shipping to sovereignty, all sorts of interests are brought together in new ways that demand new actions. Trying to deal with all the sources of the many gases involved in a single set of negotiations, in a forum of 193 countries, was always a tall order.

The Copenhagen accord edges towards allowing negotiations to take place in new forums. Some of its provisions, notably on mechanisms for funding mitigation efforts in developing countries, can take effect outside the UN process. That could mark a new pluralism in climate politics, allowing coalitions of the willing to form for specific purposes—such as slowing deforestation, or stemming emissions from shipping.

There are risks to slicing up the problem into smaller pieces. Bundling everything together, so that all parties need to offer some give in order to get their take, is a time-honoured format for negotiations; and stepping back from doing everything in one forum may mean doing less overall. But the world has twice, at Kyoto and at Copenhagen, tried to deal with the problem in one go, and failed. Smaller groups such as the G20 or the Major Economies Forum offer a better prospect for haggling over difficult issues. The UN process still has a role, in ensuring a workable and trusted system of accounting for carbon, and in debating and approving or rejecting agreements whose details will largely be worked out elsewhere.

Many problems lie ahead—and not just as a result of Copenhagen's failures. The main danger lies in the American Senate, which at some point over the next few months will decide whether to approve or reject legislation to set up a cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon. That will have more impact than any international conference, including Copenhagen, on the future levels of greenhouse-gas emissions. But global negotiations will need to continue—and the participants need to learn one useful lesson from Copenhagen. Climate change is too big a problem to be swallowed in a single bite. Smaller groups, dealing with more manageable-sized chunks, have a better chance.