Hopes for the December UN climate summit in Copenhagen were dashed a bit this week as leading participants announced no binding treaty would be estalished at the meeting.

Some had hoped the meetings, scheduled for Dec. 7-18 in Denmark, would result in a multi-nation agreement on climate emissions, with fixed targets. Such a treaty would still have to be approved by the US Senate, where its fate would be uncertain. Several years ago, the US never took any action on the similar Kyoto Treaty adopted by Japan and many European countries. The Copenhagan meetings were designed to create a replacement for the Kyoto agreement, which by most estimates has had little impact on reducing CO2 emissions to date.

The Green Supply Chain Says: A huge issue at Copenhagen and beyond will be battles between developed countries and developing ones such as India and China, which have both said they will not accept any caps on CO2 emissions that would get in the way of their growth. What Do You Say? Click Here to Send Us Your Comments Click Here to See Reader Feedback

Earlier, with a treaty propsoal as the expected outcome, it was thought that US President Obama would attend part of the Copenhagen meetings. That looks unlikely now.

"There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days," said Michael Froman, Obama's deputy national security adviser for international economic matters yesterday.

Environmental proponents said the change from what some had seen as the goal of the meetings should not be seen as any form of political weakness regarding C02 curbs. Some of them argue that legal technicalities might otherwise distract the talks in Copenhagen, and a smarter approach is to focus on the core issue of cutting climate-warming emissions, with details of a treaty to be ironed out later.

Denmark prime minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, the U.N.-sponsored climate conference's chairman, said the binding agreement would come in a follow-up meeting in Mexico City in 2010, but that he urged participants to come up with a "politically binding agreement" in December, which might be taken as a call for a firm commitment to some set of principles.

The US' Froman said that the Danish proposal would call for Copenhagen to produce "operational impact," but he did not explain how that would work or to what it would apply.

From a legislative perspective, the issue is tricky. The US House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would impose a "cap and trade" program on the US. However, the bill's prognosis in the Senate is uncertain at best. (See Walking through a Cap and Trade Example.)

A UN treaty, in contrast, would likely set emissions goals and time frames, but leave it to individual countries as to how those goals would be reached.

France Says its US' Fault

Meanwhile, France took aim at the US over the change in plans for the Copenhagan meetings.

"The problem is the United States, there's no doubt about that,"  said French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo in an interview with Reuters "It's the world's number one power, the biggest emitter (of greenhouse gases), the biggest per capita emitter and it's saying 'I'd like to, but I can't.' That's the issue."

A huge issue at Copenhagen and beyond will be battles between developed countries and developing ones such as India and China, which have both said they will not accept any caps on CO2 emissions that would get in the way of their growth.

Are you surprised at all that goals have been adjusted for the Copenhagen meetings? Do you think anything useful will really come out of those meetings, or is it mostly for show? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.

TheGreenSupplyChain.com is now Twittering! Follow us at www.twitter.com/greenscm