This BBC article is a powerful and thought provoking piece written by Oliver Tickell, a freelance journalist and environmental campaigner. He argues that nations need to embrace a Kyoto 2 framework, full of strong measures to prevent severe consequences

Fail to act at this decisive time and the Earth, its people and its whole panoply of life will face the most severe and adverse consequences

The Earth's average temperature will almost certainly rise by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) during this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

Thanks to "positive feedback" in the Earth's climate system, it could even rise by 6.4C (11.5F). Temperature rises even at the middle of this scale would mean catastrophe.

Hundreds of millions of people would be forced from their homes by sea level rises, storms, floods and drought. And our planet's biodiversity would face the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.

The situation is not beyond remedy. In 1997, the world took a significant step to controlling greenhouse gas emissions with the Kyoto Protocol.

Symbolic gesture

Yet the main value of the Kyoto Protocol is symbolic: it shows that the world can act collectively to safeguard the Earth's future, and sets a precedent for future action.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and then what?

In any case, the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and then what? I believe that a new climate agreement is needed which must go far beyond the existing Protocol in its scope and its ambitions.

It has to produce genuine global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Its core framework must encompass all countries, in a way that is efficient and equitable.

It must forge a new path for global development which moves away from fossil fuels. And it must address those impacts of climate change which are already inescapable, and which will disproportionately affect the countries least able to withstand them.

It is to meet these objectives that I have drafted a set of proposals under the name Kyoto 2, departing significantly from the ineffective framework of the existing Kyoto Protocol.

Key features include:

• impose a series of global caps on annual greenhouse gas production
• set aside the country-based approach, replacing it with a unified global approach
• control greenhouse gases at point of production, not of emission; in the case of fossil fuel emissions, control the production of the fuel itself as close as feasible to the mine or well-head, based on the global warming potential of the fuel in question when burnt
• sell greenhouse gas production "Rights" at a global auction open to all bidders
• limit the fossil fuel production of any company in any year to the level for which they have obtained Rights
• treat other industrial production of greenhouse gases in the same way, for example: carbon dioxide (CO2) from cement production; and surplus radiative impacts for aviation
• for avoidable diffuse greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and CO2 from forest burning, issue limited Rights to governments on a per capita of population basis
• credit Rights to companies who demonstrably destroy or safely bury greenhouse gases
• use the funds raised at the global auction to address both the causes and consequences of climate change

Taken as a whole, these measures offer a new approach which would achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas production in a way that is economically efficient, fair and equitable. And the climate funds - which could easily reach $500bn-$1 trillion (£250-£500bn) per year - could be used in many positive ways, for example:

• establish a Climate Adaptation Fund to help the worst affected countries adapt to climate change
• finance programmes to reduce fossil fuel demand, aimed especially at poorer countries and populations
• pay "rent" to countries with natural biomes acting as carbon sinks and stores within their territories, such as forests and swamps, to maintain and expand those sinks and stores
• establish a Low Carbon Development Bank to support viable low-carbon energy developments
• fund low-carbon energy research, for example, into renewable generation technologies
• buy out fossil fuel deposits to prevent their exploitation, which will also give an economic return to countries losing revenue from fossil fuel sales

Tough times

I do not pretend that it will be easy to put these or similar proposals in place. Fossil fuel producers, both countries and companies, would be faced with, in effect, a new tax.

A "greenhouse fund" would help offset transport emissions

However, there would also be upsides for them: a level global playing field ensuring fair competition among rival producers; greater certainty as to the future, essential for long term investment decisions; and the prolongation of their fossil fuel reserves' lifetime, thanks to a slower rate of production.

Opposition would also come from the rich countries now responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although their governments would not be bound by specific targets as at present, most of the money going into the "greenhouse fund" would ultimately derive from their economies.

Burning a barrel of oil produces about 0.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide, so a $20 (£10) price for Rights (per tonne of CO2) would put about $8 (£4) on a barrel of oil - or 5 US cents (2.5p) on a litre of petrol.

No doubt there would be complaints, but few could seriously argue that costs at that level are unaffordable. In any case, any system for controlling greenhouse gases will ultimately have to be financed mainly by the rich world, and those who produce most emissions.

These would be bold measures but the global threats we face deserve nothing less.

Finally, after years of effort by dedicated scientists and activists like Al Gore, the issue of global warming has begun to receive the international attention it desperately needs. The publication on February 2 of the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), providing the most persuasive evidence to date of human responsibility for rising world temperatures, generated banner headlines around the world. But while there is a growing consensus on humanity's responsibility for global warming, policymakers have yet to come to terms with its principal cause: our unrelenting consumption of fossil fuels (primarily coal, fuel oil and natural gas).

When talk of global warming is introduced into the public discourse, as in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," it is generally characterized as an environmental problem, akin to water pollution, air pollution, pesticide abuse, and so on. This implies that it can be addressed -- like those other problems -- through a concerted effort to "clean up" our resource-utilization behavior, by substituting "green" products for ordinary ones, by restricting the release of toxic substances, and so on.

But global warming is not an "environmental" problem in the same sense as these others -- it is an energy problem, first and foremost. Almost 90 percent of the world's energy is supplied through the combustion of fossil fuels, and every time we burn these fuels to make energy we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; carbon dioxide, in turn, is the principal component of the "greenhouse gases" (GHGs) that are responsible for warming the planet. Energy use and climate change are two sides of the same coin.

Fossil Fuel Dependency

Consider the situation in the United States. According to the Department of Energy (DoE), carbon dioxide emissions constitute 84 percent of this nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, most -- 98 percent -- are emitted as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, which currently provide approximately 86 percent of America's total energy supply. This means that energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are highly correlated: the more energy we consume, the more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, and the more we contribute to the buildup of GHGs.

Because Americans show no inclination to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels -- but rather are using more and more of them all the time -- one can foresee no future reduction in U.S. emissions of GHGs. According to the DoE, the United States is projected to consume 35 percent more oil, coal, and gas combined in 2030 than in 2004; not surprisingly, the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide are expected to rise by approximately the same percentage over this period. If these projections prove accurate, total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 will reach a staggering 8.1 billion metric tons, of which 42 percent will be generated through the consumption of oil (most of it in automobiles, vans, trucks, and buses), 40 percent by the burning of coal (principally to produce electricity), and the remainder by the combustion of natural gas (mainly for home heating and electricity generation). No other activity in the United States will come even close in terms of generating GHG emissions.

What is true of the United States is also true of other industrialized and industrializing nations, including China and India. Although a few may rely on nuclear power or energy renewables to a greater extent than the United States, all continue to consume fossil fuels and to emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, and so all are contributing to the acceleration of global climate change. According to the DoE, global emissions of carbon dioxide are projected to increase by a frightening 75 percent between 2003 and 2030, from 25.0 to 43.7 billion metric tons. People may talk about slowing the rate of climate change, but if these figures prove accurate, the climate will be much hotter in coming decades and this will produce the most damaging effects predicted by the IPCC.

What this tells us is that the global warming problem cannot be separated from the energy problem. If the human community continues to consume more fossil fuels to generate more energy, it inevitably will increase the emission of carbon dioxide and so hasten the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus causing irreversible climate change. Whatever we do on the margins to ameliorate this process -- such as planting trees to absorb some of the carbon emissions or slowing the rate of deforestation -- will have only negligible effect so long as the central problem of fossil-fuel consumption is left unchecked.

State of Denial

Many political and business leaders wish to deny this fundamental reality. They may claim to accept the conclusions of the IPCC report. They will admit that vigorous action is needed to stem the buildup of greenhouse gases. But they will nevertheless seek to shield energy policy from fundamental change.

Typical of this approach is a talk given by Rex W. Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, at a conference organized by Cambridge Energy Research Associates on February 13. As head of the world's largest publicly traded energy firm, Tillerson receives special attention when he talks. That his predecessor Lee Raymond often disparaged the science of global warming lent his comments particular significance. Yes, Tillerson admitted, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were increasing, and this contributed to the planet's gradual warming. But then, in language characteristic of the industry, he added, "The scale advantages of oil and natural gas across a broad array applications provide economic value unmatched by any alternative." It would therefore be a terrible mistake, he added, to rush into the development of energy alternatives when the consequences of global warming are still not fully understood.

The logic of this mode of thinking is inescapable. The continued production of fossil fuels to sustain our existing economic system is too important to allow the health of the planet to stand in its way. Buy into this mode of thought, and you can say goodbye to any hope of slowing -- let alone reversing -- the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

What to Do

If, however, we seek to protect the climate while there is still time to do so, we must embrace a fundamental transformation in our energy behavior: nothing else will make a significant difference. In practice, this devolves into two fundamental postulates. We must substantially reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and we must find ways to capture and bury the carbon by-products of the fossil fuels we do consume.

Various strategies have been proposed to achieve these objectives. Those that offer significant promise should be utilized to the maximum extent possible. This is not the place to evaluate these strategies in detail, except to make a few broad comments.

First, as noted, since 42 percent of American carbon dioxide emissions (the largest share) are produced through the combustion of petroleum, anything that reduces oil consumption -- higher fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles, bigger incentives for hybrids, greater use of ethanol, improved public transportation, car-pooling, and so -- should be made a major priority.

Second, because the combustion of coal in electrical power plants is our next biggest source of CO2, improving the efficiency of these plants and filtering out the harmful emissions has to be another top priority.

Finally, we should accelerate research into promising new techniques for the capture and "sequestration" of carbon during the combustion of fossil fuels in electricity generation. Some of these plans call for burying excess carbon in hollowed-out coalmines and oil wells -- a very practical use for these abandoned relics, but only if it can be demonstrated that none of the carbon will leak back into the atmosphere, adding to the buildup of GHGs.

Global warming is an energy problem, and we cannot have both an increase in conventional fossil fuel use and a habitable planet. It's one or the other. We must devise a future energy path that will meet our basic (not profligate) energy needs and also rescue the climate while there's still time. The technology to do so is potentially available to us, but only if we make the decision to develop it swiftly and on a very large scale.

Clare Bull said the EcoHouse was just like a normal home

As a minister meets the building industry to discuss ways to make new housing more energy efficient, artist Clare Bull explains what it is like to live in the country's first environmental showhome.

It contains hundreds of environmentally-friendly features including a solar thermal system which provides 50% of the energy needed for water heating.

The experience I had in the EcoHouse was fantastic. I'm very keen on environmental issues and really want to reduce my carbon footprint.

The EcoHouse is a showhome but I lived there is if it was my real house and it was inspiring to see how easy it was to live like this.

All the energy in the house was from an environmentally-friendly source. My previous house was not eco-friendly in any way and this was something I really wanted to learn about.

The thing about the EcoHouse is that it isn't that different from a normal house. Daily life isn't affected really because you are living in a way that helps the environment.

Compost toilet

If you walked around it you wouldn't realise you were in a home that wasn't normal. The heating is exactly the same as it would be and you control it in the same way, except it's coming from a renewable source.

There is a photovoltaic system and solar panels on the roof. The photovoltaic system uses energy from the sun to provide electricity and the solar panels heat water.

I never had any problem at all with the heating.

In the bathroom there is a compost toilet. Moisture and any smells are sucked away by a fan and the rest is kept in a container where it turns to dust.

I could see a future where homes like this are common Clare Bull

Every three months or so you can empty the dust into your garden.

There are taps which immediately switch off when your hands are not under them so water is not wasted.

In the cupboard I had three bins. One for compost, one for recycling and a landfill bin. So it just meant you had to divide your rubbish up before throwing it away.

The only thing I would say is that the wind turbine on the roof was a bit noisy. I would recommend people think carefully where they put them if they buy one.

Overall living in the house was easy, apart from the visitors occasionally tramping through, as it was a showhome.

I could see a future where homes like this are common. But people will need to do much more even than this to help the environment.

 Lucy Siegle, the Observers ethical living columist offers 36 positive suggestions on how we can change our lives, reduce carbon emissions and help save the planet - all in the form of three simple menus, calculated not in calories but 'carbs'.

Sunday January 21, 2007
The Observer