James Murray

With a wearying inevitability the world's leaders have spent much of the past fortnight desperately downgrading expectations ahead of the UN's Copenhagen climate change summit, for fear anyone might notice that having billed it as " the meeting to save the world", they will singularly fail to do any such thing.

President Obama was the latest to put the boot in, finishing what he started with his suggestion at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh back in September that Copenhagen was not a "make or break moment", by confirming that he did not expect a legally binding agreement to be reached until next year.

Depending on your point of view, this delay is either a necessary and realistic measure that will result in a robust and meaningful deal being signed in Mexico in December 2010, or a concerted attempt to kill the whole Copenhagen process stone dead. World leaders are insistent that it is the former and that they still want a meaningful political deal to be struck at Copenhagen – a deal that would propose emission targets for industrialised countries, outline plans for transferring climate funds to developing countries, finalise a scheme for protecting forests and set a cast iron deadline of December 2010 for signing a successor to the Kyoto Treaty.

This is all well and good, but the sole reason we have got to such a late stage in the day without anything resembling a draft agreement being released is because negotiators have spent two long years kicking the contentious issues of emission targets and climate funding into the long grass. With the pressure to agree a legally binding deal next month removed, what is to stop them ducking the difficult issues again? Moreover, any talk of imposing a new immovable deadline looks decidedly weak when only six months ago Copenhagen was widely regarded as an immovable deadline.

The most likely outcome from Copenhagen remains a repeat of the G8 commitment to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with a bit more flesh on the bones with regards emission targets and funding mechanisms. Sadly, the chances of a historic breakthrough built around ambitious emission targets for large polluters and a huge increase in climate funding disappeared as soon as Obama raised the prospect of a delayed deal.

The big question though is what impact such a fudge will have. Amidst all the talk of international treaties, emission trading schemes and forestry protection mechanisms, it is sometimes easy to forget what the end goal actually is – namely, a huge reduction in greenhouse gas emissions delivered through the decarbonisation of the global economy.

To this end, the significance of Copenhagen has always been somewhat overstated. That is not to say that it is not hugely important – a successful international deal would make the task of decarbonising the global economy far, far easier. But, as Obama observed, we must not let the "perfect be the enemy of the good". Businesses can continue to make huge strides towards the development of a low carbon economy with or without Copenhagen.

A robust Copenhagen deal would undoubtedly help drive greater investment in low carbon technologies, while giving investors greater confidence in those investments. It would also provide a major boost to the global carbon market and help to tackle the problem of carbon leakage, whereby firms operating in countries with tight climate legislation relocate to countries with lax regulatory regimes. The scale of carbon leakage may be hugely overstated by those carbon-intensive firms seeking to protect their vested interests by lobbying against carbon pricing mechanisms, such as the proposed US climate bill, but a decent deal in Copenhagen would still serve to address their concerns.

But even if Copenhagen were to fail, there are still plenty of reasons for businesses to invest in low carbon technologies and practices. Energy costs and energy insecurity will rise with or without Copenhagen, while policymakers across the world will continue to work to boost low carbon industries, regardless of any international treaty. The UK's Climate Act and the EU's renewable energy directive, for example, will not be repealed if the Copenhagen talks end in failure and recriminations.

There is even a rather depressing argument for saying that the failure to agree an international climate change deal could, in the long run, force businesses to take climate risks more seriously, on the grounds that it would increase the likelihood of dangerous levels of climate change.

If a small group of trail-blazing companies can produce low carbon technologies that are more cost effective, efficient and just plain better than their high carbon alternatives, then we may see a global low carbon transition delivered in spite of, rather than because of, the efforts of world leaders.

Equally, it is still far too early to give up on Copenhagen itself. It is tempting to give in to despondency, but environmentalists need to remind themselves on an almost hourly basis that world leaders are discussing the post-Kyoto deal from a point of first principles that fully accepts climate change as a clear and present danger and recognises the need to deliver deep cuts in emissions.

Even as the climate-sceptics' recent backlash (driven by a combination of recession and what Al Gore somewhat hopefully refers to as the "sunset phenomenon" activity that appears before an argument is finally won) secures growing support from voters, political leaders remain remarkably unified in their understanding that climate change represents an existential threat. They might be divided on how best to deliver the necessary cuts in carbon emissions, but if Obama gets his way and gets a climate bill passed early next year, then there is still a real possibility that a demanding post-Kyoto Treaty could be signed in 2010.

For green businesses nervous about the outcome of next month's summit, there has to be a mindset that politicians will get there in the end and provide the policy framework they need to accelerate growth. While in the meantime, it is worth remembering that, as the last few years have shown, low carbon technologies can and will prosper with or without the diplomats' help.