>> the things that are going to cost and how much, inching towards a deal, it's the "inside story."

>> welcome to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. the word coming from behind closed doors at the climate conference in paris is encouraging for those hoping for a deal. the parties are so close, they're involved in marathon sessions now. they missed the friday deadline. but french foreign minister laurent fabeuse, says the conference will close a day late, with a deal. the countries have to digest what their leaders have done. the leaders of the two biggest emitting nation he china and the united states continue to publicly declare their confidence in a settlement that will limit emissions growth and slow climate change. al jazeera's nick clark reports from paris. >> all night and day they worked

and all night and all day again and still no resolution. we're told they're very close though. >> after the consultations that i'm going to have at 9:00 saturday morning, i'll present a theax will be a bitext that wilp forward for whole of humanity. >> 196 countries with differing interest to agree for a way forward is a monumental challenge. >> i think it's a great big space, light at the end of the tunnel, we can do it. there are positions that are quite hard to get to. it's very political at the moment. i think we've moved past the substance. there's a lot we can live with. we've got to push the bar a bit and not make it the lowest common denominator. there's a huge task, 194 interests, in like minded groups, the regional grouping, there are still issues that are

tough to sort. so i think we're on a good path. it's a struggle to get over the hill and deal with what we really need and not just what we want. >> and it is same old problems blocking progress. the issue of finance, who pays who, what. ambition, how to get to 2° c and below and responsibility, that old argument between developed and with developing nations. it's all about what countries are prepared to trade off and some feel poor nations are getting a raw deal. >> loss and damage is a very important concept that is within the negotiation text and that's the whole concept that the poorest countries in the world who had nothing to do with climate change need to have some sort of mechanism, some sort of process where they can either get compensated, fine liability, that's a key point to this whole negotiation. >> reporter: what do scientists make of this? >> used to be options in there consistent with science, saying

we need to cut the emissions 40 to 70% by 2050. but those are out. emissions need to peak and decline sometime in the next half of century we need to have emissions neutrality. it's quite vague to what science says we need to do, for 2°, certainly, the 1.5° target. >> i'll producing countries like saudi arabia and venezuela seem to be block progress especially over decarbonization. when it comes the deal with it be full of compromises but hoped to be full of safer future for all. nick clark al jazeera, paris. >> one important group of countries are what you call the forest caucus. rain forests are the lungs of the planet, trap carbon and provide a home for a dazzling array of species.

but tremendous economic development over the last years, clear cut for farmland, crisscrossed with logging roads and bunched open for mines. i'm joined by laurel sutherland, welcome to the program. what did the rain forest countries africa, latin america, asia, come to paris looking for? >> well, dozens of countries that arrived in paris as part of their indcs which are agreements that every country brought to the table, placed protecting forests central. many have been fighting to place strong language regulated to forest protection not just into the agreement but into the right section is of the agreement. >> but when you talk about protecting the forest, does every country mean the same thing when they say that? some countries have been very aggressively doing economic development in their forests.

others have not. >> well, that's absolutely right. you know as we arrived in paris, one of the top carbon polluting indonesia. al jazeera as you know has been one of the foouf few global outlets that has been covering this. the out of control forest fires in indonesia there are times in the past weeks that the carbon emissions from them alone have beebeen eclipting eclipsing thee united states. akin to putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. but the fact is that a developing country like indonesia cannot possibly solve this problem on their own. they need support from other nations and from the multibillion dollar corporations that are profiting off the commodities that are driving that forest destruction. >> that's where it gets tough

doesn't it? ministers from rain forest countries say sure, we will slow down and stop what we're doing to stop exploiting the forests but we would have to be paid to do it. who would do that? where where would that money come from? >> there's no question the developed wealthy countries of the world, like the united states, the soviet union, have contributed the lion's share of pollution. but to their the same burden for pollution they did not create. global nations of the south are making an investment as a global community of people to solve this crisis, part of the global north to help countries of the south to preserve especially tropical forest countries like those in the amazon and in

southeast asia. >> your group rain forest nation, what role do they play in preserving the world's forests? >> well, indeed that has been one of the most contentious areas of negotiations around forests in this climate deal. it has been shown through decades of evidence that the most efficient, effective and longest term way to keep trees standing and to protection forest ecosystems and the carbon they contain is to protect the rights of forest dependent communities. these are the people that know the forests the best and will fight to defend them against illegal logging and industrial agriculture and other threats. it is absolutely critical to reach a successful climate deal that we also along the way protect the rights of indigenous people around the world. as of now earlier in the week there was language actually included in binding parts of the

text but whether the latest version came out yesterday the words of the language about human rights and also about ecosystem integrity have been moved into sections that are called the preamble which are as aseparationa aspirational parts of the text . >> aren't these the weakest countries that we are talking about? >> yes, absolutely right, we are finding the most vulnerable countries in the world see the results of climate change and droughts and flooding, the people that did the very least to cause it. what we really need to see is an effort where countries like the united states in particular if they were to put a fraction of their military spending into

serious investment to solve the world's climate crisis then some of what that would look like is supporting these countries, tropical forest countries to keep their trees standing. >> that's laurel sutherland, thanks for joining us. here is where all the interests converge. maybe you wanted requirements, can you live with goals and targets? maybe you wanted an international structure for checking measuring whether countries are doing what they promised? can you live without it? the sticking points, the compromises, whether the document heading for release in paris is going to be enough. stay with us. it's "inside story." >> it's the biggest question out there. >> go inside the groundbreaking research. >> are you ready to have your brain scanned? >> ready to go! >> challenging your deepest beliefs. >> feeling the spirit is very subjective. >> i don't buy that. >> techknow's team of experts

show you how the miracles of science... >> this is what innovation looks like. >> can affect and surprise us. >> i feel like we're making an impact. >> let's do it. >> techknow - where technology meets humanity.

>> we are scared. >>...have an organized right-wing movement trying to kill others. judge. >> you're watching "inside story." i'm ray suarez. we're looking at the evolving handiwork of cop 21, as they enter their final hours. do the sticking points illustrate what's in the coming deal. if that's what they're arguing about, it's good news? joining me now paul dresen, senior policy analyst for

committee for a constructive tomorrow and eileen claussen, former senior director of global environmental affairs at the national security council. eileen claussen let me start with you. why the pitched battle over verifiable targets versus voluntary goals? >> well, i think it's taken us about 23 years of climate negotiations to actually get to a point where all the major emitters will be having voluntary goals. so that's an achievement. but of course these goals are only real if they can be monitored and verified. there are countries who feel they don't have the capacity to verification. there are countries who would rather not be bothered with the monitoring and the verification. and of course there are countries who think that is a crucial part of the agreement. as i do.

>> secretary kerry was in paris today, he said if the united states was forced into an agreement where there was checking and hard and fast requirements rather than goals, it would be politically untenable in the united states. do you agree with him? >> yes i do. because if there were binding goals, it would require senate ratification of the treaty. and that is not likely with the current congress. >> paul dresen you're also watching the deliberations going on in paris. is it heading in a direction that, at least, does less damage than you might have contemplated as everyone was heading there to start talking? >> well depends how you're managing the damage of course. developing countries are now asking for $3.5 trillion in climate adaption mitigation funds. but those are supposed to come from countries that are supposed

to deindustrialize, dedevelop and decarbonize over the coming years. the money is supposed to be coming from countries whose economies will be shrinking, fewer people employed, less ability to pay this green climate fund money. on the other hand, i think we're looking at voluntary goals which means the developing countries will be able to continue building thousands of coal fired power plants and gas fired power plants and lifting people out of poverty and trying to help. 1.3 billion people in the world, who still don't have electricity in their lives. >> eileen claussen do you agree when paul dresen says basically decarbonizing is synonymous with deindustrializing? >> no, i don't. not at all. i mean obviously we need energy.

and we need electricity. the issue is, where do you get it from? and can you get it in a way that is carbon free or very limited carbon? and i think there's no question that you can. you can use nuclear power rather than coal-fired power plants. can you use renewables which now -- you can use renewables which are up to 20, 30, even 40% of their total energy. so -- and we still have a way to go, but we're pretty far along the path of knowing that it is possible. >> when germany, mr. dresen burns less fossil fuel and creates more euros per man hour in gdp, when the united states does the same, when france does the same, they're decarbonizing without deindustrializing aren't they? >> well, yes and no. because number 1 if you are including hydroelectric water power in your renewables, you've got quite a bit of renewables.

but a lot of the developing countries don't want hydroelectric, and eileen and i are on the same page, we both support nuclear. they talk about using renewables, which oftentimes means cutting down more grasslands or forests, wood pellets that we are cutting down in the united states to burn in england, in germany their push to eliminate nuclear means they're building more coal fired power plants but they are also using a lot of wind. and their energy cost, their electricity costs are about ten to 20 times what they are here in the united states, at least in the coal-using states. so you are paying a real price for workers and industries, especially energy intensive industries and you're going to lose jobs. >> stay with me. at the beginning of the talks,

ngos delegates, scientists all expressed hope that political, natural and economic interests had aligned in a way to make the paris meeting a potential watershed moment. where the vast array of interests gathered in paris ready to deal, have showed an interest to give a little to gain a lot? inching towards a deal, it's the

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. we're talking during what we're told are the final hours of cop 21, the global climate change conference in paris. there are already complaints about the draft texts. they don't ask enough from enough parties. the language is too vague. if the final version is largely what it is now will paris have accomplished something? eileen claussen and paul dresen are still with me.

paul dresen how about it, if 196 delegations go home promising to burn less and still produce more, will the planet be better off? >> i'm not sure -- well i think the world will be better off, because i'm not sure that fossil fuels are creating dangerous climate change. what's coming out of paris i think developing countries will need to burn more fossil fuels in the coming decades to lift people out of poverty to drive their economies forward. they'll be using more fossil fuel no matter what, even though we switch from coil and oil and gas. you are still emitting more carbon diesmed i dioxide into t. it's what makes life on earth possible so i think we'll see the development moving forward,

the developing countries will say we will start reducing our carbon dioxide emissions when we are able to, 2030, 2040, 2050. in the meantime, the amount of emissions will continue to increase. but i don't think it's going to change the climate. >> eileen claussen isn't that the crux of it right there? poor countries want to continue burning in order to develop their countries but the big economies of the world seem to all be at least on the record saying we understand there's a problem and we want to do something about it. >> well i think there actually are developing countries who also believe there is a problem and they also would like to do something about it. i think the best example here is to look at china. china has made some real commitments. about when they will peak their emissions. i mean they're not as strong as i would like or i think as the climate would like.

but they do have a date at which they say they will no longer be emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases. they are moving aggressively into renewables. they are continuing to build some coal fired power plants but relatively speaking few. and they're much more efficient that some of the coal fired power plants in some of the countries like the united states. >> why did china make big deals out of ten years windows for checking progress rather than five year windows? >> my assessment is that they have had historically and currently problems with their data. which is why they came out not that long ago, i think a couple of years ago, saying they had miscalculated their greenhouse gas emission. i think they would like enough time to really understand where the emissions are coming from and how much they're actually emitting.

so i think they were arguing for a longer period of time. but i think the bottom line is that we will end up with a five-year review, and what they're calling now a ratchet, so that we can become more stringent in our targets. >> paul dresen, what's the least worst outcome for someone who holds your view of the landscape? >> least worst outcome is to not force binding commitments on or short term commitments on any countries in terms of use of fossil fuels. most of the international energy agencies are predicting that fossil fuels will go from providing about 81% of all our energy world why today to about 80% of all the energy worldwide 20 or 30 years from now. so that's still going to continue. china's -- china and the other countries are building on the order of 2400 coal fired power plants.

either in the construction or planning stages right now. china, india, indonesia, that's not going to change. but i think they will become more efficient, right now china's power plants don't have much in the way of pollution controls which is why they've got all these problems in beijing. i've been there, in shen jen and i know what that pollution is like. that's not going to change until they start retrofitting those power plants, which means they will use more coal not less just to drive the power plant control systems. but you will see decrease in real emission he, not so much in carbon dioxide, plant food but decrease beginning maybe 2030, 2040 but i don't think it will happen before that.

>> i want to thank my guests, eileen claussen and paul dresen. i'll be back with a final thought of the privilege of not worrying about emissions. stay with us. it's "inside story." send us your thoughts on twitter @ajinsidestoryam. visit our facebook page, and tell us whether you think something meaningful will come out of the paris climate talks. we'd love to hear from you.

>> you don't need me to tell you that poverty makes everything harder. your health as a baby, your education as a child. supporting your own children as a young worker. making sure they're properly fed and have a better shot at a good life than you had. the answer the world offered hundreds of millions of poor people in recent decades, in china, india, indonesia, in subsaharan africa and the brazilian rain forest was a simple one. let's do what we have to do now to get richer and we'll worry about the land the air and the water afterward. forest fires have blocked out the sun in indonesia as more land is cleared for palms for palm oil. coincidental for their premier at the climate talks in paris, chinese walk through the streets darkened with fog. an inflection point, a moment

when the posturing and the arguments suddenly look small compared to the enormity of the challenge. but at the same moment you can't help but agreeing that not heading down the road we're on is hard. it's open for cheating and outright lying, ahead of even bigger but harder to measure world wide effects. if oceans rise, becoming more violent, the one thing you can't say is nobody told us. weu us. you've been told plenty. our leaders know if the models are right, they probably won't be around to face the blame. i'm ray suarez and that's the "inside story." is

after nearly two weeks of intense bargaining and years of negotiations, a final draft on a climate deal is now ready. you're watching al jazeera live from our headquarters. also coming up an historic election. saudi arabia holds a first poll where women can run as candidates and vote. the area in the capital of kabul has seen an incident killing seven