Another issue is the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, whose emissions targets expire at the end of 2012. Most developing nations are insisting that new targets be set and that money continue to flow to them for projects that reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming.

Japan startled the conference last week by announcing that it would not accept any new targets under the Kyoto Protocol, and Russia, Canada and some other parties to the protocol have also signaled a reluctance to assume new commitments. The issue could scuttle the conference. Some countries, including the United States, which never accepted the Kyoto treaty, hope to find a way to finesse the issue so it can be dealt with in the future.

Despite these disputes, the overall atmosphere of the talks is vastly improved from a year ago in Copenhagen, in large part because the United States and China are not at each other’s throats. Contributing to that more relaxed mood, the delegates are not awaiting the arrival of 140 heads of state, who flew into Copenhagen for the final hours of negotiations and raised the temperature beyond the boiling point.

“There is more camaraderie here, more dialogue, more intensive engagement and less shadow boxing than in Copenhagen, because China has moved on the transparency issue,” Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, said in an interview. “That is very important.”

Mr. Ramesh proposed a plan for bridging the gap between the United States and China on verification, by establishing a voluntary program known as international consultation and analysis. Under the plan, also known as I.C.A., countries would declare their emissions reduction targets and provide regular reports on how they were meeting them and gauging their own progress.

There would be no international monitors or inspectors, and no penalties for failing to reach stated targets. Smaller countries would have less frequent and less detailed reporting requirements than major emitters.

Mr. Ramesh’s concept has been broadly accepted here, but there are still disputes over how detailed the agreement should be and how soon the reporting requirements would take effect.