It is profoundly disappointing, given humanity has just lived through the hottest year since records began, that the COP28 participants could not agree to phase out fossil fuels.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That this has happened, given all participants must agree to the final communique, should not have come as a surprise however.
Major oil and gas producers, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, were never going to commit to a document that would effectively set a deadline for the elimination of what Arthur Daley would call "a nice little earner".
At least 70 per cent of Saudi Arabia's revenue comes from oil it produces at a cost of roughly $US5 a barrel and currently sells for $US76 a barrel.
The kingdom, which has oil reserves of roughly 266.57 billion barrels, is pumping, on average, 12.4 million barrels a day. This represents a staggering amount of money.
The rulers of both Saudi Arabia and Russia are ruthlessly pragmatic and, thanks to what are effectively dictatorial powers, rarely influenced by either domestic public opinion or the international community.
It is, with the benefit of hindsight, quite remarkable that they have gone so far as to grudgingly accept a communique that referred to a "transition away from fossil fuels", a pledge to triple renewable energy, and a commitment to stop adding carbon dioxide - effectively net zero - to the atmosphere by 2050.
When this is taken into account it would appear manifestly unfair, as some COP28 delegates have done, to say the can has just been kicked down the road.
The real issue is that, as with previous COP communiques, the statements are not binding. They specify what countries "could do".
Australia's Energy Minister Chris Bowen stressed this point: "We didn't come here to agree to what we could do, we came here to agree on what we should do," he said.
Bill Hare, of Climate Analytics, agreed: "Everything is optional. Any mention of deadlines has been watered down, along with the removal of the words 'phase out'."
This is not new. It is less than three months since the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres blasted the international community for failing to live up to previous climate pledges.
"2023 has shown all too clearly that climate change is here," he said.
"Record temperatures are scorching the land, [and] heating the sea, as extreme weather causes havoc around the globe.
"Meanwhile, halfway to the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals the world is woefully off track."
And it is only going to get worse. Germany has re-opened coal powered generators in response to the energy shortage brought about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Britain's new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has significantly watered down the climate and energy policies endorsed under Boris Johnson.
In both cases necessity - a nicer word than pragmatism - has been used to justify significant and alarming back-flips.
If prosperous democracies won't do the hard yards there is no hope emerging economic superpowers such as China and India will go above and beyond.
Both are decades away from weaning themselves off coal and gas.
The real danger to the planet is the failure by governments to deliver on existing commitments, even if they are inadequate.
Anything is better than nothing and, as of now, doing little or nothing seems to be the global default setting.
That has to change.
Those who quibble about the cost of the transition to renewables must understand the price humanity will pay for choosing to do little or nothing.