In this space last week, I wrote a column that I thought might draw the ire of some greens for its cynical outlook on Copenhagen. Instead, it drew a fair amount of attention from readers concerned that I had glossed over the significance of “Climategate.” Like that column, this one is not about Climategate in the broader sense, but about its impact on the goings-on this week in Denmark. And, as we look back at week one of COP-15, last week’s column looks to have been borne out in that context. Join me for this more complete review of the political freeze that has taken over the warming talks.

Climategate is Good as Gone…For Now – As expected, Climategate disappeared as fast as it rose to the top of Google’s search rankings. Worldwide, media reports are focusing on the very compelling, very well-packaged stories about climate change impact and emerging technologies that were in the can as this conference approached. The email controversy may well reemerge at the conclusion of the conference; and, as I noted in comments responding to reader comments to last week’s piece, Climategate may ultimately be seen as the sort of watershed moment that was needed to reignite some passion in this debate. But, at least in the world-within-the-world at Copenhagen this week, Climategate-stoked doubt about climate change is not the issue.

US Fizzles- After months of pressure and rhetoric in US politics, marked by doomsday scenarios that would befall the world should the US not have a climate change bill on the President’s desk before Copenhagen, the US delegation arrived with the following: an EPA declaration that was inevitable and had been dramatically undersold in favor of pushing for legislation; and, a December 10 announcement by a tri-partisan (including an independent) group of Senators, which purported to “outline the basics” for a domestic climate bill that might come to the floor in the spring. In a week when the President of the United States delivered what has to be the most impassioned defense of war in the history of Nobel Peace Prize acceptances, his delegation at the climate conference tried to claim leadership in a very tricky geopolitical negotiation after having failed to clear the relatively less complex partisan, political and special interest hurdles at home.

China Sizzles, But Where’s the Steak?- China is the Donald Trump of climate change action. Big promises, high-dollar investments. Big, big, big! 800 turbines in three gorges? Bring it on! Planting enough new trees to cover all of Norway? Why not! Just don’t ask them to cut emissions. First, it is not practical to do so, their growth makes it impossible. Second, they don’t have the money to pay for it (probably because it is all on loan to the US, but that is another column for another blog). And, the reports coming from state-controlled media do not offer much comfort. Long term, China looks like a promising green partner for the world. They are going to continue to develop clean energy technologies domestically and will continue to flood the global market with low-cost, Chinese-fabricated panels, blades and batteries.

Right now, the Chinese would be foolish to have fabricators sell those products to domestic buyers and capture the revenue in yuan when they could be sold overseas for more valuable dollars, Euros and pounds. Will they ever reach a tipping point where some of those items will stay in country instead of being produced exclusively for export? That tipping point appears to be approaching for jeans, TVs and other Chinese-made goods, but clean energy technology? Don’t hold your breath.

For signs of success in week two, watch the tail numbers of planes at Copenhagen Airport – It will be interesting to see who actually shows up in Copenhagen next week. We know President Obama is en route, but will the Russians, Chinese or Indians keep their dates to have heads of state make the trip to town? Probably. Will it move the needle? I doubt it.

In the end, the problem with Copenhagen cannot be solved by next week, no matter who is at the table. That problem can best be discerned in the verb tense most-often used in speeches, discussions and negotiations there: the future. For thirty-five years, the public (including skeptics) have been hearing about what WILL happen to the planet and about the technologies that WILL emerge to make clean energy affordable. The urgency has not come yet. The world is not ready. Let us hope that by the time we are, it is not too late.

Move over CO2—you’ve been ousted, along with methane, as the biggest offenders of global climate change. According to a new a study by Purdue University and NASA, the major chemicals most frequently cited as leading to climate change, namely carbon dioxide and methane, are actually outclassed in their warming potential by compounds receiving less attention. The majority of “greenhouse gases” are created by humans.

The results were discovered when researchers studied more than a dozen chemicals, or greenhouse gases as classified by their warming properties defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. From there, the team developed a blueprint for the underlying molecular machinery of global warming. The results appeared in the November 12, 2009 issue of the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Physical Chemistry, just in time for the convergence of world leaders in Copenhagen.

Maybe more amazing than the fact that we now have a global warming blueprint is that no one else has ever before mapped climate change; yet the U.S. is in the midst of passing global climate change policy. The original hope was to have legislation in place prior to Copenhagen but in the spirit of American politics, Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on one policy—the Republicans are supporting the Waxman-Markey Bill and the Democrats are pushing the Kerry-Boxer Bill.

The Purdue/NASA study combined results from experimental observations along with computer modeling. The goal of the project was to determine which chemical and physical properties are most detrimental in causing global warming.

It turns out that the compounds, which contain fluorine atoms, are far more efficient at blocking radiation in the “atmospheric window,” according to Purdue chemistry and earth and atmospheric sciences professor Joseph Francisco, a study co-author. NASA scientist Timothy Lee was lead author of the study with Francisco and NASA postdoctoral fellow Partha Bera.

Francisco explains that the atmospheric window is the frequency in the infrared region through which radiation from Earth is released into space, helping to cool the planet. When the heat is trapped rather than released, a “greenhouse effect” occurs, and the planet becomes warmer. The majority of the chemicals that cause heat to be trapped are used by industries worldwide.

Based on the ability to trap radiation in the atmospheric window, chemicals such as sulfur and nitrogen flourides, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) stand out. Chemicals like CO2, while harmful, don’t close the atmospheric window as quickly as these other compounds making them more dangerous.

“It’s actually rather stark,” said Francisco, “but an understanding of how the chemicals contribute to climate change on a molecular scale affords the opportunity to create benign alternatives and to test new chemicals for their global warming capability before they go to market.”

“Now you have a rational design basis,” he said.

Not sure what some of these are? Stop using aerosol cans. CFC use has decreased with the discovery that they lead to the destruction of the ozone layer. However, HFCs and PFCs are widely used in air conditioning and in the manufacturing of carpets, appliances and electronics.

The study notes that, “Although current concentrations of some of these trace gases have been found to be substantially small compared to carbon dioxide, their concentration is on the rise. With the current rate of increase, they will be important contributors in the future, according to some models.”

So CO2 and methane are not in fact the worst chemicals, but fluorine-containing compounds are actually the worst. In addition, according to Lee, “The compounds also persist longer than carbon dioxide and other major global warming agents. The concern is that, even if emitted into the atmosphere in lower quantities, the chemicals might have a powerful cumulative effect over time. Some of these chemicals don’t break down for thousands of years.”

Well I sure hope that the auto industry is working in tandem with technology companies to replace these chemicals because I’d really like to keep my air conditioning… and car stereo… and TV…