Jonathan Pershing, head of the U.S. delegation at U.N. climate talks, told Reuters that trade wars don’t seem plausible because of all the economic possibilities and opportunities that will result from clean energy developments.

"I think there will be questions about whether other countries are adequately acting. And there's going to be a question about competitiveness. But I wouldn't think there will be a trade war. It doesn't seem plausible.”

Doesn’t seem plausible? In the current economic climate that is gripping the world, who gets what development opportunities could be as contentious and debated as ever. The idea that this time around everyone will get an equal piece of the development pie is equally as implausible from my point of view.

I mean, I’m with Mr. Pershing in hoping that the switch from fossil fuel based energy creation to clean energy will yield economic peace and harmony and opportunity and development for all, but somehow that smacks of utopian optimism rather than economic reality.

Pershing also claimed that the U.S. will be able to agree to an agreement at Copenhagen even if the U.S. Congress has not agreed to any kind of legislation by then, which is the even more exciting news in my book. But it also seems somewhat implausible.

Would the U.S. rather create Congressional climate change legislation for the United States and then take that to the table when negotiating the UN deal or would they rather wait and see what the UN says and craft legislation based on that? I can only believe that the U.S. wants to have our own legislation in place to bargain with- otherwise, what are we basing our positions on? That would practically eliminate Congress from the decision-making process, a position I’m sure that Congress doesn’t want to be in, and I don’t really want Congress to be in.

Congress should certainly get their act together and pass something, even a baseline, for Pershing and other UN negotiators to go to Copenhagen with. Otherwise Pershing and his crew have all of the eggs in their basket and effectively circumvent Congress in that decision-making process. Thinking it through, this may be some kind of political pressure to get Congress to come to an agreement and pass legislation. We’ll see.

For his part, Pershing is optimistic:

"One of the things I am struck by is that there is an increasingly large industrial sector that wins on these issues and frankly a somewhat decreasingly large sector that loses. That's actually not a bad trend to be on for optimism over the long term,” he said. "If you look at the Nasdaq indices and see which companies are doing well, it's not the old 1990s high tech sector. It has been replaced by the new 2000s high tech sector which is the new energy high tech.”

This is true on the surface. Cleantech and new vehicle models and biofuels are performing well in the markets, and that is cause for optimism in green terms, which will help the negotiations at Copenhagen.

Look for Congress to act before December, though. With President Obama looking to cut emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80% cut on 1990 by 2050, the future is cleantech. And Congress will want to have a say in that future, not follow the lead of the UN.