The European Union has taken a further step toward tightening the greenhouse gas emissions of its member states. The organisation has conditionally accepted the pollution plans of Poland and Czech for the 2008-2012 period (National Allocation Plans - NAPs), provided these countries accept further cuts in their planned CO2 emissions. The French Plan was also accepted, pending a minor modification request. The UK's plan, which allows for 246 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, was wholly accepted previously. The EU has to date assessed 17 of the plans submitted by European Union countries and has sent most of them back, demanding further cuts.

The EU's robust stance in enforcing CO2 reductions is seen as key to the continued success of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, as we get close to the start of the Second Phase of the Scheme. From 2008, the Scheme will cover over 11,000 industrial installations and a total volume of nearly 1.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. The success of the Scheme is critical to the EU's goal of reaching the Kyoto Protocol target, which is to achieve a net reduction of 8% of greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 1990 emission levels.

On 19 March 2007, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) hosted a carbon offsetting consultation to gather input from industry stakeholders to establishing a code of practise for this rapidly growing phenomenon.

A motley cohort of carbon-keeners attended to give their input about the current status and future expectations of the carbon offsetting market. Even though attendance varied from banks to energy suppliers to forestry programme supporters, the audience seemed to have a common goal: build consistency in the carbon offsetting market.

The all-day event held at the DTI Conference Centre in London, marked a day where the U.K. government solidified itself as a world leader in carbon offsetting. DEFRA held the first-of-its-kind conference in order to hear thoughts from those at the front lines about finding the best way to institute a voluntary code of best practise for offset providers. A democratic approach, n'est pas?

The conference, chaired by Matt Prescott the director of CarbonLimited, consisted of key-note speakers from government and non-government agencies. Attendees heard presentations from DEFRA employees, representatives of the UNFCCC, Tufts University and RAS.

Those who attended were also asked to participate in two of three creative workshops. Participants could gather with colleagues for one hour to discuss the voluntary market (VER), the clean development mechanism (CDM) and/or the communication of offsetting.

More often than not, those attending the workshops gave juxtaposing positions on nearly everything discussed. From the definition of a consumer's (individual v. business) to the best ways to inform said consumer about carbon offsetting; few subjects were whole-heartedly agreed upon.

Even though most issues did not have collective solutions, the atmosphere was enthusiastic and the attendees got to hear views points that otherwise may have been dismissed.

One thing is for certain, hearing several interpretations of the carbon market is paramount should DEFRA wish to establish a fair and usable code of practise. If nothing else, this conference personified that many different people have many different ideas as to what the carbon offsetting market should be.

Among the sea of conflicting ideas, the idea of consistency was supported by most. That is to say that the carbon market will be consistent if it is centralised, standardised and transparent.

Sellers of carbon offsets, whether EAUs, CERs or VERs demand a centralised registry to ensure that carbon offsets are not double-counted. A standard multiplier is a must as carbon footprints vary from one calculator to another. The attendees also feel that the pricing of offsets should be transparent.

The conference also addressed the issues of engaging the individual?. Most carbon emissions come from individuals; therefore the greatest impact on global warming will come if individuals learn to control their own emissions. As carbon offsetting is currently a new concept for most, motivating some to offset is proving difficult.

There is much confusion as to what carbon offsetting actually is, and what effect it has on global warming. Many individuals have an I'm-only-one-person outlook on offsetting. DEFRA is confident that proper steps can be taken to educate the great affect that one person can have on pollution.

Even though offsetting was the core of this conference, DEFRA propagated a mandate of treating offsetting as a secondary tool to reduce emissions.

First and foremost, the government wishes to encourage Britons to avoid emitting any unnecessary carbon. Avoidance can be anything from ensuring that all lights are turned off to not flying unless absolutely necessary.

DEFRA also stipulates the need to reduce individual emissions. There are certain emission-creating things that simply can't be avoided (driving, travelling or watching T.V.). However, there are ways to reduce emission without sacrificing too much. Ensuring that a home has double-glazing or taking the bus instead of driving a car are practical examples of reducing individual emissions.

One week's worth of discussion was compacted into one productive day. Several upon several issues and benefits not mentioned herein were discussed by all. The ideas presented were free from conventional wisdom and sincere. This conference was a 10-foot leap in the right direction and reassures those in the market that steps are being taken to steer carbon offsetting down the right path.

Check your carbon footprint and offset here.

David Miliband, the Labour party's Environment Secretary has recently made public his party's plans to institute legally-binding carbon reduction targets. Should Mr. Miliband succeed, the U.K. government would be the first to make itself legally accountable for carbon reductions.

Mr. Miliband suggests that an independent panel will set ministers a "carbon budget" every five years with hopes to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. This target would be binding, thus hindering its ability to change - regardless of economic, global or environmental changes from now until then. So, any future government that does not meet said targets would be subject to judicial review.

As potential future governments, the Tories and Lib Dems are accepting of the proposal, but propagate that carbon budgets be set annually, not every five years. Mr. Miliband says that annual budgets are too rigid and unrealistic.

He has declared the draft bill as "the first of its kind in any country" and said that the UK is "leading by example".

The Tory shadow environment minister claims the draft bill is a "welcome step forward" but some of the "key elements" are lacking.

The Opposition wish for "rolling annual rate of change targets" over the 5-year period proposed by the draft bill. It is felt by the Tories that annual targets would ensure that the UK remains on track towards a low-carbon economy and be held truly accountable. It is also felt that a five year target scheme could enable blame to be passed from one government to the next should the targets not be met.

Mr. Miliband's bill fails to stipulate how these targets are to be met, nay any specifics for businesses, boroughs or households. He has stated that the "big decisions" will be made about power sources such as nuclear. The draft bill is steadfast on reducing targets but is indifferent to how the reductions are to succeed. Faith is being placed in the market and the public to find the solution.

The Labour party's outline includes:

• Reducing UK carbon emissions by 60% by 2050
• Parliamentary reporting every year
• Focus on alternative sources or energy such as wind, wave and solar power
• Transforming household consumers into producers of their own energy
• Placing a ceiling on emissions levels every five years
• Using the draft bill as a trail-blazer to ensure that future climate legislation can be introduced more quickly and easily

To gain exposure, the Tories have laid fuel taxes on the table as a method of reducing the amount of domestic flights. Mr. Miliband however believes that true carbon neutrality will come from making households carbon neutral by 2016.

Will the government du jour during the life of the bill be truly accountable for its action, or rather inaction? If you strip the glitter and hype from this new accountability movement and look at the bones of it - will any government be accountable, in real time? Once the government is in, it's in for that term. So it would not have to answer for its failure to meet the carbon targets until it faces the electorate in the next election. Even if that party was not re-elected, its counterpart, under the draft bill, inherits the blame. So the original party may have evaded true accountability altogether.

There is no question that a re-gentrified climate policy is a must to ensure Britain's role as a world leader. Having written this, is this draft bill ostensibly an altruistic act to lead the world in the fight against global warming; or a clever marketing tool to gain re-election?

It is wise to support climate policy reform, but advisable to question it. Where do you stand?

In a historic summit, European leaders comitted to reducing greenhouse gas emissions of all 27 EU member states by 20%, compared to 1990 levels. The ambitious target could grow to 30% if other leading polluting nations, namely the United States, China and India, pledge similar commitments.

The European commitment marks a milestone in the fight against global warming and was reached after difficult negotiations over the inclusion of nuclear power as a low-carbon source of energy. How the burden of implementing these cuts will be shared amongst member states is yet to be clarified, as the majority of poorer Eastern European states are heavily dependent on coal-fired electricity generation.

Europe's move signifies its commitment to the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol process and signals further support for mandatory carbon dioxide reduction schemes like the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS).

It furthermore creates a strong incentive for other nations to join the emissions reduction process.

You may estimate and offset your own household carbon dioxide emissions using this service.

Two years into the Kyoto Protocol, some Europeans are wondering if it goes far enough. Kyoto calls for a 20% reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2020, or "20 by 20". If the EU meets Kyoto minimums, it will fulfill legally binding reduction targets set out in the intergovernmental agreement. Is this an arbitrary number or an accurately calculated representation of what most developed countries can achieve?

20 February 2007 may be the tipping point that will reveal the EU's true intentions on fighting global warming. It is the day when European environment ministers meet to discuss emission reduction targets. Environmentalists believe that the EU should go further. Could the EU lead the charge in the fight on global warming and set the bar for the rest of the world? Some feel that the EU should increase its targets to 30% by 2020.

These views are not only those of environmentalists, but some economists as well. The war on global warming is birthing new global markets that seem to be rendering billions of pounds in revenue. For example, the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), with the UK and Spain already taking lead roles, is said to be worth over 7.6bn euros (5.1bn GBP) in 2005.

Whether your poison is environmental altruism or personal profit, there are several arguments to say that setting emission reduction targets higher than other continents can only bring positive results.

Conversely, there are those who feel that setting reduction targets higher than 20% is a fool's errand and needs to be curtailed in order to sustain current levels of global trade, industry and employment. More so, too much change too quickly can only adversely affect environmental and economic equilibriums.

Whichever side of the fence you may sit upon, there is no way to avoid recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which makes it clear that urgent action is a must to halt and reduce carbon emissions. Proponents of increasing the EU's target say they are not claiming that the EU has the power to make or break global warming, but only that a continent of 27 countries and 490 million people can make a pretty serious global statement. The EU countries emitted over 6,000 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2004. Is it unreasonable to assume that more that 20% of this can be reduced by 2020? Perhaps only time will tell.

Unravelit.com, the UK's leading price comparison website today launched their much anticipated carbon offsetting service. By working with the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, Unravelit.com has developed a new online service that allows UK residents to calculate and offset their household CO2 emissions.

This new service is very simple. We purchase European carbon allowances in bulk from the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and allow individuals to offset their personal emissions through Unravelit.coms' said David Kerr, managing director of Unravelit. The benefit of this system to the environment is considerable because we will be reducing the number of emissions allowances available in the EU and thus reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?. Carbon certificates purchased through Unravelit are retired and cannot be re-used or re-sold.

Unravelit.com has developed an accurate and easy to use online calculator allowing individuals to calculate their annual carbon emissions from driving, flying and household energy use. They can then purchase ETS certificates and offset some or all of their carbon footprint.

By pioneering this service, we are confident that we will not only help reduce greenhouse gasses by empowering individuals? concluded Mr. Kerr, but we will help educate people on how their daily activities effect the environment.

Halting global warming, although conventional in its wisdom, is still leaving some economists cold. In particular, reducing the use of fossil fuels sets off alarm bells with labour economists around the world who believe that it will have a devastating effect on the global economy.

However, a recent report from Barclays Capital claims that the need to increase energy capacity by 50 per cent by 2035, while simultaneously reducing dependence on hydrocarbons, will spark an "energy revolution" reminiscent of the technology revolution which led to the dot.com boom.

"If ever the time were ripe for such an energy revolution, it is now," said Tim Bond, global head of asset allocation at Barclays Capital, and author of the report.

"And like all historical adoptions of general purpose technologies, the process should prove immensely stimulative to economic growth." Mr Bond says that those who couch the climate change debate in terms of the cost to growth are underestimating the impact of an energy revolution.

Sir Richard Branson recently fortified his role as Mr. Environment? by teaming up with Al Gore to announce a multi-million pound prize for the best method of removing thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The prize - approximately £12.5 million - will go to the inventor who creates the best system capable of absorbing and storing one billion tonnes a year of the most common greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. To oversee the project, Sir Richard has convened a panel of judges consisting of physicists, NASA engineers, and zoologists.

Branson has already pledged to invest £1.6bn in profits from his travel firms, including Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, towards research into renewable energy technologies.

Other scientists are also looking at schemes that might "scrub" the air of CO2, collecting the gas for safe storage; but many critics say the energy required to achieve this would make such an approach self-defeating.