Developing countries showed support for an EU plan aimed at combating global warming, but there were still significant disagreements evident in draft agreements at UN climate talks. The EU proposal includes a target date of 2015 for a binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major polluters, with the agreement taking effect within five years. EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard noted that countries like Brazil and South Africa, despite being heavy polluters, have expressed willingness to commit to emissions cuts. However, she cautioned that the success of the talks in Durban depended on a few countries who had not yet agreed to the EU roadmap. "If there is no further progress by 4 o'clock this morning, I believe a deal in Durban is unlikely. This is the current situation we are dealing with." A potential text has been proposed that could require over 30 industrialized countries to reduce emissions as part of a new phase of the Kyoto Protocol. However, this text may only be approved if all major emitters, including China, India, and the United States, agree to legally binding targets in a separate agreement. Some climate experts are skeptical of the wording in the second text, which only mentions a "legal framework" rather than a fully binding treaty that the EU and many developing nations are pushing for. Rene Orellana, the chief negotiator for Bolivia and a member of the ALBA group of Latin American nations, expressed concern about the lack of a legal regime to control emissions from big emitters, particularly developed countries. He warned that without such a framework, there would be no control over what these countries do. He stated that if the proposed texts were to be accepted, it would not only mean the end of the Kyoto Protocol but also the destruction of the planet. Orellana emphasized the need for a regime to regulate emissions and ensure compliance. Critics also raised issues with the unclear timelines and depth of emissions reductions outlined in the texts. The EU's approach at the conference is to create a coalition to put pressure on the top three carbon emitters - China, the United States, and India - to agree to binding cuts. These countries are not obligated by the Kyoto Protocol. The US will only commit to binding cuts if all major polluters do the same. China and India argue that it would be unjust to expect them to make the same cuts as developed countries, which are responsible for most of the pollution causing global warming. Many delegates predict that the climate talks in Durban will result in a weak political agreement, with countries agreeing to begin negotiations on a new system of binding cuts in greenhouse gases. They claim that anything less than achieving change would be disastrous. Recent U.N. reports indicate that time is running out to make a difference, as a warming planet will worsen droughts and floods, lead to crop failures, and raise sea levels to the point of endangering several island nations. The Durban talks, set to conclude on Friday, are anticipated to continue late into the night and possibly into Saturday. Delegates from small islands and African nations expressed frustration with the slow progress of the talks and participated in a protest alongside environmental groups outside the main negotiation room. Maldives' climate negotiator Mohamed Aslam expressed the urgency for help in saving the islands from sinking, emphasizing the right of its inhabitants to live and determine their destiny. Grenada's foreign minister Karl Hood, who chairs the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), criticized the climate change talks for being stuck on less important issues instead of addressing the major problem of climate change, such as focusing on adaptation rather than mitigation. I believe that Durban could ultimately be responsible for the failure of UN climate negotiations.