Environmental groups say an agreement presented at Rio+20 lacks goals, deadlines, definitions and specific proposals that would help move the global economy toward sustainability.

"It's pathetic," said Jim Leape, the head of WWF. "If this text proposed by Brazil is accepted, then the last year of negotiations has been a colossal waste of time. If you saw this document without knowing what it was supposed to be, you might think Rio+20 was convened as a seminar."

Critics say the agreement acknowledges the gravity of the world’s environmental and social problems but lacks proposals on how to deal with them, such as sustainable development goals that include monitoring provisions and timetables for completion.

Angry at what it characterizes as watered-down proposals to protect the oceans, Greenpeace is vowing to engage in acts of civil disobedience – especially with regard to Shell Oil over its oil development in the Arctic.

Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International, warned of a “further acceleration towards disaster.” Naidoo said Greenpeace and other environmental organizations are winning some of the battles but losing the war.

Stronger ocean protection provisions were blocked by the U.S., Russia, Canada and Venezuela.

"What kept Greenpeace in the process was that it looked like we could get a decent deal on the oceans but we have now got a really watered-down text that has very little teeth," he said.