It was only a week and change ago that United States climate change envoy Todd Sterns told Congress that a binding agreement on climate change “doesn’t look like it’s on the cards for December” at the Copenhagen Conference. And that was pretty, well, disheartening. But this weekend, the fact that a binding agreement in Copenhagen is dead on arrival came straight from the man in charge, President Obama. From a New York Times article about how Congress has derailed the entire world on this one:

[T]his weekend in Singapore, Mr. Obama was forced to acknowledge that a comprehensive climate deal was beyond reach this year. Instead, he and other world leaders agreed that they would work toward a more modest interim agreement with a promise to renew work toward a binding treaty next year.

Again, this all (infuriatingly) stems from Congress not passing a climate change bill quickly enough, which in turn ties our negotiators’ hands, which makes every other country wary of an agreement we’re not a part of. Go team! However, Obama and other world leaders are still trying to make it so that Copenhagen is the first strong step in what will become a two-part deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Obama expressed support on Sunday for a proposal from Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen of Denmark to pursue a two-step process at the Copenhagen conference.

Under the plan, the 192 nations convening in the Danish capital would formulate a nonbinding political agreement calling for reductions in global warming emissions and aid for developing nations to adapt to a changing climate. The group would also promise to work to put together a binding global pact in 2010, complete with firm emissions targets, enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts to aid poorer nations.

If that is the revised expectation we need to have for Copenhagen, then I suppose so be it. While far from ideal, this would still result in a binding agreement by 2010. Of course, every year of delay costs the world a fortune, yet at this point we’ll be better off if come Copenhagen, there’s a specific framework from which to go forward, as opposed to lip service and no real momentum. So, what should we hope for next month? What’s the name of the game here: pragmatism or idealism?

photo credit: marcn’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons