Kicking off Monday, the 2015 UN Clime Summit promises to be a watershed event, though its direction and ultimate impact remain highly uncertain.

With no chance of a global agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions at the 2009 conference in Copenhagen, delegates simply agreed that an agreement would be reached no later than the 2015 conference in Paris. That line in the sand effectively served to make sure no agreement would be reached until this year, as most countries naturally backed off the many contentious issue to wait for the now climactic Paris conclave.

The Green Supply Chain Says: A growing number of developing countries, especially in South America but also elsewhere, are stridently contending even the yet to be raised $100 billion is grossly insufficient to compensate them for current and future environmental damage. What Do You Say? Click Here to Send Us Your Comments Click Here to See Reader Feedback

The ultimate goal: to reach an agreement to reduce carbon emissions such that, according to the UN's climate model , global temperatures will rise no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030.

How this plays out could have a dramatic impact on the practice of supply chains and even how citizens live their lives, depending on what agreement is reached, how much CO2 reduction is promised and how different countries approach meeting those goals.

In the US, the result could certainly end up with there being a price put on carbon emissions, through either a cap and trade system or a direct tax on CO2, either of which could dramatically impact how companies make many supply chain decisions.

In general, there has been a united front across leaders in Europe, the US, Japan and even lately (to a degree) China that a strong accord will be reached, and the smart bet would be on the side that an agreement of some kind will be attained, lest many world leaders face embarrassment.

But there are a myriad of issues that could get in the way of such an agreement, will determine how much teeth if any it really has, and impact the effectiveness of CO2 reduction in the end. These issues include:

The CO2 Reduction Goal: The UN climate model has a number for the reduction in CO2 emissions that need to be achieved to keep the rise in temperatures to below 2 degrees C, but it is of course an untested model that could in fact be wildly off either way. To speak about the issue with certainty, in terms of CO2 levels and temperature impact, is simply silly, though many do. No one really knows, meaning for example that perhaps temperatures rise more than the 2 degrees thought to be the tipping point above which the impact is really bad, even in CO2 reduction targets are hit. Conversely, the model could overstate the impact.

Current Commitments not Enough: Ahead of the conference, more than 160 countries have said how much they are prepared to cut their carbon emissions by 2030. Those commitments, according the UN models, would lead to a 2.7C rise in temperatures by 2030, above the long stated target.

How will this be resolved? Unclear. Many countries want any agreement in Paris to include a "rachet mechanism" that would require countries to revisit - and hopefully increase - their emissions pledges every five years as green technology progresses. So tha tis one path out of the conundrum that in effect kicks the can down the road.

Will it be Legally Binding? Would any accord reached in Paris actually be legally binding on nations that sign on, as many insist must be the case? Well, how each country handles that process differs. The key issue in the US is that anything legally binding would be considered a treaty, and require a two-thirds majority of the Senate for passage - a dubious prospect at the moment. The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto agreement in 1995, but never brought it to a Senate vote and thus it was never implemented here.

One alternative is to have the agreement not be legally binding but to have whomever is in the White House to take executive actions and use the "bully pulpit" to move the US down the path to meet the committed goals, which President Obama earlier in 2015 said were to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025

How will Implementation of Commitments be Measured or Enforced? Regardless of what commitments to reduce CO2 are made in Paris, steps have to be taken to reach those commitments, across different government leaders in each country over many years. How will actual CO2 emissions in each country be calculated? By self-reporting? If yes, can that be trusted? And if reductions do not match the 2015 commitments, does the UN expect to take some enforcement action against those countries down the road? If so, of what nature? Many big unknowns here.

The Fight over Money: Several years ago, delegates vaguely committed to a $100 billion annual fund provided by developed countries that would somehow be disbursed to less developed ones to help them make the transition to greener energy sources and repair existing damage from already rising temperatures.

This is a huge, huge issue. First, no mechanism or quota system for raising the enormous sum of money each year has been defined. Though a number of nations, including the US, have made or have committed to make contributions to this fund, the total is nowhere near $100 billion even once, let alone annually.

And what countries should contribute and which receive the funds - and under what formula? Does China, the world's second largest economy, get some annual share of that $100 billion as a still developing economy? India and Brazil too?

And what assurance is there that any monies that are disbursed are really going to green energy projects and not into the pockets of country leaders or their cronies running some type of green energy company? The answer of course is none.

This issue gets worse. A growing number of developing countries, especially in South America but also elsewhere, are stridently contending even the yet to be raised $100 billion is grossly insufficient to compensate them for current and future environmental damage caused by nations like the US and those in Europe using fossil fuels for more than a century, carrying the banner they call "climate justice."

As just one of many examples, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa recently said that "The big polluters should pay for that pollution. They should compensate for the consumption of environmental resources and compensate the poor countries impacted by climate change caused by rich countries."

This issue alone could scuttle a grand deal, and how it is resolved if at all could go many ways.

The Special Case of India: When John Kerry, the US secretary of state, last week singled out the country most likely to pose a "challenge" to climate change talks at Paris, it wasn't China he named - it was India.
The general issue of payments and reparations just discussed plays out very uniquely in that country.
With a huge population and rapidly growing economy, India, for example, is committed to continued and growing use of coal to produce electricity, coal of course being something akin to kryptonite for environmentalists concerned over global warming, given its significant CO2 emissions when burned.

Nevertheless, India's growth and energy needs means India is a breakneck dash for coal, opening on average one new mine is every month.

As a result, India's carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise from 1.7 billion metric tons in 2010 to 5.3 billion - about a sixth of all the carbon dioxide released in the world last year - by 2030. And even that is unlikely to satisfy India's ravenous demand for energy.

India's prime minister Narendra Modi says his country will need lots of money from developed economies to divert from its current path.

The demand from developed countries for India to take a more green energy path at this state of its development "smacks of a ‘carbon imperialism'," wrote Arvind Subramanian, the Indian government's chief economic advisor. "And such imperialism on the part of advanced nations could spell disaster for India and other developing countries."

India could be the key player in reaching a deal, a fact quite well recognized by Modi, who is likely to use that leverage to extract significant commitments from the West.

So, it should be an interesting 10 days or so in Paris. As always, the devil will be in the details. The supply chain might never be the same.

Any reaction to these issues we cited relative to a climare accord? What do you think will happen here?  Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.