The EU and environmental groups had fought hard to set numerical limits to the use of mechanisms like sinks. They failed.
These mechanisms may allow many to take little domestic action, and unless the United States can be enticed back into the Kyoto frame (the Bonn agreement dangles the bait), the slippage will be greater.
There were some good things from Bonn. Getting the Kyoto Protocol over its ratification hurdle now seems achievable. That will allow the most economic opportunities for greenhouse gas reductions to be shared through a global carbon market.
The Bonn agreement sets up a fund to help developing and the least developed countries adapt to climate change.
It did not resolve all the outstanding Kyoto issues, but it brought the agreement back from the grave.
It means the world is on course to solving global warming through multilateral agreements among nations with the notable exception of the United States.
When governments made their 1992 commitment to hold their 2000 emissions at 1990 levels or less, they first proposed voluntary action.
That failed, which is why the present US push to go back to voluntary action is not credible.
When the parties to the convention adopted the Berlin Mandate in 1995, they accepted that the developed world had caused most of the problems and should act first.
The US is not being realistic in seeking an early limit to emissions by the developing world. Other nations are not going to accept turning the clock back six years, when this is proposed by the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
What then for New Zealand? Our ability to claim carbon credits for sinks in our new "Kyoto" forests has been left intact.
We got the accounting concession we were after - that "Kyoto" forest harvesting debits could not exceed the pre-harvest credits.
There is the prospect of gaining a small amount of new sink credits if we halt the deterioration in our indigenous forests. Expect more possum control to be on the agenda.
But the amount of sinks others have gained, and the absence of the US from the market, means our surplus of credits will probably not be the bonanza they might otherwise have been in the first commitment period of 2008-12.
Still, they will be worth something, provided New Zealand ratifies the protocol and qualifies by undertaking "significant" domestic action on emission limitations.
The questions then are when to ratify and when to start taking the steps to ensure some domestic action on reductions.
The protocol won't come into effect without Canada and Japan ratifying it, but we could be in when Australia and the US are out.
Having two major trading partners not facing the same costs may reduce our competitiveness.
New Zealand has good credentials for working within the Umbrella Group to try to get the US back in. And as for Australia, it got such a fabulous deal at Kyoto that it does not have to do much at all to comply, so any avoided cost there is likely to be small.
If it stays out, Australia risks losing what it had gained. Early ratification for us does not now seem too bad a risk.
The Government must indicate what domestic action it will take and when.
Some early steps such as efficiency regulation will pay for themselves. We should be targeting our big emission growth sectors, transport and fossil fuel powered electricity generation.
Flatulent farm animals should not escape. A charge for their methane emissions fails most tests for taxes, but they will be a cost to New Zealand and a response is needed.
* Garry Law is an Auckland consultant and the Climate Change spokesperson for the Environmental Defence Society.
www.nzherald.co.nz/climate
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Environment Program
World Meteorological Organisation
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Executive summary: Climate change impacts on NZ
IPCC Summary: Climate Change 2001
