The most vulnerable small island states and the least developed, poorer nations of Africa and South America demanded more ambitious action from the major emitters. They felt threatened by obliteration by sea level rise or other dire consequences, such as drought or floods.

The large emitters among developing countries, such as China and India, were more concerned about maintaining the pace of economic development, and argued for developed countries to provide financial support to developing nations, especially the most vulnerable ones, for climate adaptation projects.

Europe, Australia and Japan were prepared to stretch themselves but they wanted greater commitments from the US and China. In their view, without aggressive action from the world's two biggest emitters, the costly efforts of lesser emitters like themselves would be insufficient.

China does not deny the science but takes issue over the time scale and impact. China wants room to continue to develop, as does India, because economic development and poverty eradication are their overriding priorities. At the heart of their argument lies what development should be about.

The world is still grasping at what 'green' or 'low-carbon' growth really means. We know we must generate clean power. We are beginning to realise the constraints of natural resources, and that the earth's capacity to provide essential life-supporting services such as clean air, water and soil is also limited.

But the world's industrial output relies on fossil fuels, especially coal. No one has the answer yet on how to rectify this quickly, as the major economies are coal-based. Technology is only part of the solution as the 'business-as-usual' economic growth model is based on increasing consumption of natural resources, many of which are finite or being depleted faster than they can be regenerated.

World leaders know this but don't have an alternative industrial model, despite growing public and private investment in renewable energy and green products. Development is still associated with physical consumption.

So, the leaders who gathered in Copenhagen didn't want to lose out to each other when 'success' is still seen from that perspective. The best they could achieve was a non-binding accord with many details still to be worked out on emissions reduction commitments, which won't be easy without reconciling economic growth and climate protection.

How to manage the 'global commons' such as atmospheric temperature, which affect everyone but are owned by no one, is a super challenge that still defies politics and economics.

Nevertheless, has Cop 15 created a new momentum that cannot be stopped, and is a global binding agreement inevitable? Despite the bickering, we are witnessing major decarbonising efforts taking place, such as some US states not building more coal plants. This year, we can expect to see more intellectual firepower being devoted to articulating a post-consumption economy that helps solve climate and environmental problems while also improving our quality of life. Happy New Year.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange