And when we said "binding", we meant "non-binding"

David Adam and Suzanne Goldenberg: US says it will not demand binding carbon cuts from China | guardian.co.uk

Progress towards a global treaty to fight climate change took an important step forward today when the US said it would not demand that China commits to binding cuts of its greenhouse gas emissions.
...
Antonio Hill of Oxfam said: "The countries that created the nightmare are refusing to lift a finger to prevent it becoming a reality. Rich country delegates have spent two weeks talking but have done nothing on the issues that really matter. They may be kidding themselves they are working towards a deal but they are not kidding anyone else."

Question: If you really believed in the global warming hoax, how exactly would this qualify as a step "forward"?