What was the original subject here? Ah yes, climate change and its impacts on our societies and future generations - a terrifying prospect that is now unacceptable to call into question. At the Bella Center, which has hosted the core discussions of the Copenhagen climate summit, have we shown a tendency to forget the essential element: the urgent nature of the climate change threat?

We have now reached the heart of the negotiations. The tension is palpable due simply to the shear magnitude of the challenge: to find no less than a range of solutions so that the human race will not have to face a future that is worse than the present. Negotiators have spent the last 400 hours searching for compromise and sending signals to each other; and they were not the only ones, experts accompanying each delegation have done the same. It is now the turn of Heads of State since the ultimate aim of climate negotiations is to achieve a political agreement and, of course, Copenhagen is no exception to the rule. While the need to reach such a political agreement is essential, it is also extremely complicated. Why should this be so? It is because the fight against climate change raises issues other than those directly related to the subject, even when talks are dedicated solely to such issues. Mitigation and adaptation require the discussion of money and domestic investment, as well as the international transfer of funds. This is only to be expected since international negotiation is designed precisely for this purpose. Indeed, how can we hold talks about money without including, voluntarily or not, the discussion of other aspects of international politics? This would equate to a very blinkered outlook on matters of international trade, biodiversity, poverty and many others. We must therefore keep in mind the fact that we cannot negotiate on the climate in isolation, as there is no doubt that other world problems will, to a greater or lesser extent, influence discussions, inherent pressures and sometimes even the final agreements.

From an observer’s perspective, one from the scientific sphere or more broadly from civil society, a degree of self-questioning is understandable because fundamentally one should not lose sight of the key climate issues involved. The threats of climate change are as real as those from other international governance issues. The impression sometimes given however is of a process that gradually disconnects from its original purpose. How many times was the phrase "vulnerable populations" mentioned in the past two weeks? Has the situation emerged with each country agreeing to make strong commitments in terms of mitigation and adaptation, and with a real intention to keep to these commitments? To all those not present at the Bella Center, the feeling is that the answer to this question is no. When the President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, said that his country could simply disappear, how many people really appreciated the gravity of what that would mean? When this same president said that emigration was clearly still an option for Maldivians, but that they would not be able to carry with them the colours or experiences of everyday life, or those that their people have experienced for nearly 2,500 years, did many in the audience feel a real shiver of terror? Yet, this shiver has an important place in the negotiations as it may prove to be one of the elements, after hours and nights of discussion, that could help to establish a compromise, unblock a situation, or enable an agreement to be reached. To use an often drawn parallel between climate negotiations and the recovery plan for the banking system, those in power were able to make an agreement and define a strategy because there was a real fear of the major economic consequences of the financial crisis. Without discussing the merits of this strategy, a shiver of terror from Copenhagen could be of some use. At least it may help us to retain a level of humanity and will perhaps remind us to reflect on this incisive comment from Hugo Chavez: "If the climate was a bank, we would have already saved it."