好色先生TV

The result is that the EU looks like being forced to take the lead by redoubling its members states' efforts to cut greenhouse gases 鈥� in effect launching the green century without the USA's help. In the aftermath of the collapse, French environment minister Dominique Voynet and her German counterpart J眉rgen Trittin went out of their way to stress this possibility.

US president-elect George W Bush officially opposes the 1997 Kyoto protocol "because it is ineffective, inadequate and unfair to America". As former governor of oil-state Texas and the recipient of $12.7m of election funds from coal and oil interests, his stance should come as no surprise. Meanwhile, scientists are warning governments that urgent action is needed. Bob Watson, chair of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, told Hague delegates that: "It is not a question of whether the earth's climate will change, but rather by how much, how fast and where. Adverse impacts will undermine the goal of sustainable development in many parts of the world."

It is not a question of whether the earth鈥檚 climate will change, but rather by how much, how fast and where. Adverse impacts will severely undermine the goal of sustainable development in many parts of the world

Bob Watson, chair of the intergovernmental panel on climate change

The biggest stumbling block throughout the talks, and the topic that caused their eventual collapse, was "carbon sinks". A carbon sink is a forest or an area of vegetation that stores carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. And carbon, in the form of CO2, is responsible for global warming. Plants help reduce the carbon present in the atmosphere by absorbing it as they grow, storing the carbon until they decompose or are burned, and the carbon is released into the atmosphere.

In The Hague, the USA proposed to reduce carbon in the atmosphere by not cutting down forests. The EU was not prepared to accept this, countering that limits should be placed on the number of carbon sinks that a country could use to meet its emission-cutting targets.

The clean development mechanism would allow British companies to invest in a building efficiency scheme or a solar power project in a developing country 鈥� for example, China 鈥� and take all or part of the resulting carbon permits as its own

As one union official explained: "In the end, the 15 EU ministers felt the US offer was compromising the environmental integrity of the Kyoto protocol and they could not take the deal back to their public." The deal would have allowed the USA 75 million tonnes of CO2 from sinks, with 15 million tonnes each for Japan and Canada.

With this refusal, the EU has put the onus back on energy efficiency. One result is likely to be that the UK government brings forward measures to encourage the uptake of combined heat and power units and renewable energy. Construction firms and developers that seize the opportunity to add energy efficiency to buildings now stand to do well in future. This could also benefit the UK industry by creating a thriving carbon market (below).

In the end, the 15 EU ministers felt the US offer was compromising the environmental integrity of the Kyoto protocol and they could not take the deal back to their public

European Union official

Another Hague sticking point that, once settled, might help construction is the issue of "supplementarity". This bit of jargon essentially limits how much of a country's carbon-cutting target can be achieved by buying pollution permits from overseas. The USA wanted no restrictions, and the EU wanted a 50% cap. The negotiations concluded with a fudged phrase saying reductions should be made "primarily (or principally) through domestic action", but without stating a specific percentage.

Currently, supplementarity is not a problem in the UK, which is set to surpass its Kyoto target of 11.5% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2010 and might well be in a position to sell permits to other countries struggling to meet their own targets 鈥� such as the USA. However, the more energy buildings save, the more permits their occupiers will have to sell the government, which can then sell them on.

Projects benefiting from this new approach would include medium-sized wind parks for communities, photovoltaic panels for buildings, and large energy-efficiency programmes

Designers of low-energy buildings and energy-efficiency consultants should be keeping an eye open for a future deal on the "clean development mechanism", which might create another potentially lucrative carbon market. The mechanism would allow British companies to invest in a building efficiency scheme or a solar power project in a developing country 鈥� for example, China 鈥� and take all or part of the resulting carbon permits as its own.

The Hague conference was good news for small energy-efficiency schemes. Minor sustainable energy projects are often crippled by having to jump through the same set-up procedures and costs as a 拢100m project. A report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the DETR, which gave a business view on elements of the proposals outlined at the Kyoto conference, showed that these costs can amount to 70% of the capital costs for a small solar photovoltaic project, and 7-10% for a medium-sized building efficiency project. Delegates agreed simplified procedures to cut the transaction costs of small projects by a factor of 10.

Projects benefiting from this new approach would include medium-sized wind parks for communities, photovoltaic panels for buildings, and large energy-efficiency programmes. If energy efficiency remains a priority in the next round of talks, it could open up a worldwide market for energy efficient buildings and combined heat and power plants.