The major takeaways from this latest draft are that – barring a few tweaks – the key passages about ambition and fossil fuels remain intact.
However, what may turn out to be an important issue is the lack of a funding facility for what’s known as “loss and damage”.
This issue is about the impacts of climate change that developing countries can’t adapt to, like long term sea level rises or a sudden storm.
The nub of the concept is the link to the centuries of carbon dioxide emissions from richer countries that have contributed to the problem. Developing countries say this means the developed world should pay compensation for these impacts.
That idea is anathema to the rich, who fear being on the financial hook for ever.
The new draft says that instead of establishing a fund there should be a dialogue next year between parties to establish the arrangements for the money.
Many campaigners will not be happy with that, and there’s a feeling there could be a row.
Prof Saleemul Huq, the director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development, was not happy.
“The language on loss and damage has gone backwards from yesterday’s text. It seems the COP26 Presidency has been nobbled behind closed doors by the US,” he tweeted.
Among the first to react to the latest draft text was Tracy Carty, head of Oxfam’s COP26 delegation, who said it was not good enough, and more negotiations would be needed. “Here in Glasgow, the world’s poorest countries are in danger of being lost from view, but the next few hours can and must change the course we are on. “We need the strongest possible outcome to ensure governments come back next year with strengthened emission reduction targets that will keep 1.5 degrees alive. And decisive progress on finance to help countries adapt and for the loss and damage endured. It is of deep concern that developing countries’ proposal for a loss and damage finance facility has not been included in this new draft.”