Instead, there are some signs it may embrace a more ambitious target. More than 100 countries, including the United States, have announced support for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Many island nations have declared they cannot accept anything more. China has also signaled its endorsement. Were the UN to follow their lead, it would be a triumph for both activists and the most climate-vulnerable nations—even though many scientists, including President Obama’s top science advisor, believe keeping warming below 1.5 degrees to be a near impossibility.

The text: In the December 9 version of the draft Paris outcome, Article 2, Section 1 deals most directly with temperature limits:

* * *

How quickly will the world abandon fossil fuels?

The background: If humanity hopes to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100, it must essentially stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2060, according to a recent study from Nature Climate Change. (Then it must start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere—no easy feat.)

But should the Paris agreement come out and say that? Delegates are less sure. Small island states want forceful language, like the phrases above which call for “zero global [greenhouse-gas] emissions by 2060” or “decarbonization as soon as possible after mid-century.” But Saudi Arabia says that such a goal is a “threat to sustainable development”—which some interpret as meaning a threat to its oil production. (The head of the Saudi climate delegation also advises the country’s Ministry of Petroleum.) According to The New York Times, petroleum-pumping Venezuela is also skeptical of long-term decarbonization language.

The text: In the December 9 version of the draft Paris outcome, Article 3, Section 1 addresses the conference’s collective long-term goal:

* * *

Who should pay for the costs of climate change, and how much should they give?

The background: Surprise, surprise: “Climate finance”—that is, who gets money, and who gives it—is the most controversial issue at the Paris talks.

In order to salvage the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Hillary Clinton pledged that the rich world would “mobilize” $100 billion to help developing countries make their economies more sustainable and prepare for the storms to come. The key word is mobilize: Unlike traditional foreign aid, where government money is redirected to poorer countries, the U.S. and the E.U. would arrange for billions to flow from a variety of sources, public and private.

Does that count? And is the rich world defined strictly as the U.S., E.U., Canada, and Japan? The United States would prefer for China and India—two wealthy, powerful nations that also contain hundreds of millions of people still in poverty—to pitch into that $100 billion target. Yet even as the two talk up their own investment in the developing world at the talks, they blanche at being compelled to join the rich world’s pledge.