We’ve all heard the same speech, dozens of times, over dozens of years, from dozens of people.  The crisis is real. The time to act is now.  We really mean it this time.  No, seriously, this time we really REALLY mean it.  Political will.  Leadership. Don’t talk, act.   It’s bad. Really bad.  Really REALLY bad.  No, seriously.  It’s bad.  We need to act.  Now.

We’re going to hear it again in December at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

And to demonstrate the bold leadership of the exceptionally well-dressed people there, there will no doubt be a piece of paper that says we all think this is really bad, and we’re totally going to commit to committing to say something like we really mean it and we’ll even suggest that maybe someday when most of us are dead we’ll limit the amount of carbon that we belch out of tailpipes and smokestacks to something like 95% of what we did 5 years ago, provided we don’t offend someone who is making a lot of money.  And then everyone will sign that piece of paper and thump their chests and then go eat organic frikadeller.

Or maybe this year it will be different.  There’s a quick round of talks scheduled for November 2-6 in Barcelona in advance of the December meeting in Copenhagen, and we might get some hints there, but here are a few things to look for to know for sure.

1. The “per capita” countries. India and China are already working on a separate agreement based on carbon emissions per capita, which is a lot easier to achieve when you’re home to more than a third of the world’s people.  This “pre-agreement” accomplishes a few goals.  First, it demonstrates that they’re willing to put a meaningful action on the table, which scores points in the international community.  Second, it can limit carbon emissions in a way that doesn’t curtail economic growth – especially if you’re going to get rock-bottom prices for the cutting-edge environmental technologies that Western countries are investing in now.   Having an enormous population also means you have huge numbers of people in poverty.  It takes energy to lift people out of poverty.  India and China can use coal quickly and easily.  Or they can commit to something greener in the long run.  That commitment requires short term domestic political sacrifices. If other countries can sweeten the deal enough to encourage politicians in India and China to take the greener option, it could solve a lot of problems.

2. Gordon Brown’s poll numbers. The UK prime minister is bracing himself for early retirement.  Arguably, it’s the Conservatives who have taken the rhetorical high ground on climate change in Great Britain.  In general, the Brits really get it on climate change.  David Cameron saw this issue years ago as an outstanding opportunity to gain favor domestically and with many in the world. He’s reaped enormous political benefits.  Labour has tried to seize back the issue and Gordon Brown needs to go home with something tangible to show he can get things done on a global stage.  It’s unclear that he can bring other Western countries with him, but there’s no doubt he’ll be applying what little pressure he has left on President Obama and the rest of Europe.

3. Some guy named Lindsey Graham. Everyone is looking to the United States generally and President Obama in particular for leadership on climate change.  But to get climate change laws passed, the President must rely on Congress – a place where energy policy is always a bizarre patchwork of regionalism (oil states versus coal states versus corn states, with a dash of NIMBYism thrown in for good measure) and partisanship.  Recently a Republican Senator from South Carolina named Lindsey Graham co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times with Democratic Senator Kerry from Massachusetts in support of new climate change legislation.  This surprising early sign of bipartisanship was seen in Washington as a huge boost to climate change legislation passing the Senate in this term.  But it also meant that Senator Graham has taken withering criticism from the more extreme factions in the Republican party.   If Senator Graham stands his ground on this climate change compromise, it gives the President the ability to go to Copenhagen with at least some bipartisan momentum.   If Graham caves, it sends the President to the summit to field questions about whether he can actually get anything done.