When the this week’s Copenhagen Conference was originally planned, over a year ago, negotiators had hoped to produce a landmark binding international treaty that would significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

When world leaders arrive in Copenhagen, Denmark tomorrow, they will have a much more modest agenda. Any hope for a binding treaty at Copenhagen, probably the most important international treaty of the century thus far, is all but dead due to the failure to come to agreement on several key issues. Instead, diplomats expect to produce an interim pact that will set up another meeting next year that will (they hope) have an actual treaty.

However, negotiators should not let this massive meeting, which is expected to include over 100 heads of state, go to waste. Besides a provisional political deal, a meaningful Copenhagen accord can still be reached.

Firstly, emission cuts can be pledged. President Obama has already taken the initiative and has announced a meaningful pledge that should be taken into account by congressional legislators who are drafting a climate bill (more on that later). This pledge, and others by China, India, and the European Union, could be put on paper as a nonbinding agreement so that these countries cannot back down on their word.

Secondly, the remaining political issues can be at least partially addressed. The biggest such issue is the conflict between developed nations (like the United States and Britain) and developing nations (like China and Brazil).

Developing nations insist that they receive compensation for all cuts (or, in China’s case, the deceleration of growth) in emissions. China has mentioned numbers as high as $400 billion a year. While that is utterly ridiculous – developed nations are already hugely in debt – if paying developing nations is the only way to get them to cut emissions, so be it.

At Copenhagen, then, developed nations could promise money towards this effort. This could encourage China and other developing countries to pledge even deeper emissions reductions.

Finally, legislators in the United States need to prioritize the passing of a global warming bill (as soon as they finish with health care, of course). In an ideal world, global warming would have been the first issue President Obama took up when he entered office instead of health care. This would have shown the world that the U.S., the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide, was serious about fighting global warming.

We can still show that we are serious in time for next year’s conference. Call your legislator and tell them to prioritize the fight against climate change.