Chief hero this fortnight has been Ian Fry, the Australian lawyer who represents the tiny nation of Tuvalu. His voice cracked with emotion as he pleaded with negotiators to sign up to his proposal for an ambitious treaty proposal that would aim at limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and give the people he represents a chance of keeping their homeland.

He went too far by holding up the talks for a day and half as he tried to stare down China and India into taking action, but his principles were pure.

Also in the developing nations camp, but cutting a somewhat less honourable figure, is Sudanese chief negotiator and chairman of the G77 developing nations bloc Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping. He makes some unarguable points - that the developed world has not kept its end of the bargain to make deep cuts in emissions and should up its multibillion-dollar long-term climate fund. But his comments comparing developed countries to Nazi appeasers before World War II are not designed to bring countries closer together.

What to make of the walkout by developing countries? It is bluster and positioning, but the talks are also at an undeniably low ebb, caught up over whether to continue with just one treaty covering the rich, one treaty covering everyone or two treaties running side by side.

The latter proposal is the only realistic solution, but there are plenty of countries - Japan, Russia, China, India - that say they are not prepared to accept it. Australia will accept a continuation of Kyoto if the developing world also makes commitments, but won't give ground first. Things are not looking good.

It is difficult, though, to imagine 120 world leaders being prepared to leave empty-handed on Friday. The question is whether any deal they fashion lays the groundwork for something more significant or just papers over the cracks.