The head of the UN climate panel is optimistic that the climate talks in Bali will conclude on Friday with a clear schedule for implementing greenhouse gas emission reductions to combat the threat of dangerous global warming. The discussions among 190 nations, which are intended to kick off two years of negotiations for a global agreement to address global warming, have hit a standstill over emissions targets, particularly with opposition from the United States, Japan, and Canada against setting specific numerical goals for emissions. Rajendra Pachauri, who recently accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of his UN panel in Oslo, stated that if there is a robust declaration on reducing emissions by 2020 and a clear timeline for determining the numbers, he would view that as progress. He also mentioned that reaching an agreement on a timeline could lead to establishing concrete targets for emissions goals by wealthy nations, perhaps not at the current talks but potentially six months later. Pachauri emphasized the importance of specifying targets by 2020. This year, the UN panel attributed global warming to human activity and warned of more extreme weather events in the future. They emphasized the need for strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, suggesting that specific targets should be set within the next six months. The Bali talks from December 3-14 are focused on establishing guidelines for formal negotiations on a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which currently regulates emissions for industrialized nations. The EU is pushing for a non-binding agreement at Bali to aim for a 25 to 40 percent reduction in emissions from burning fossil fuels by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The United States, Japan, and Canada are in disagreement, stating that any specific figures would predetermine the result. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, declined to address the U.S. opposition, expressing hope that the negotiations would address all differences. Pachauri stated, "I hope we can resolve this difference of opinion. The fact that they are considering fairly strict targets of 25 to 40 percent is a positive sign that they acknowledge the science we presented and understand the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise, we will face serious impacts of climate change."