The cliff hanging finish to the Kyoto conference, in which it was uncertain right up to the last possible moment whether there would be any agreement added to the intensity of the feelings held by many on the issue of climate change. Some people still believe that there is no proof of there being anything to worry about while others believe that the world is on the precipice of a catastrophe. If you hold to a view somewhere in between then you risk being accused not only of complacency but perhaps even worse, ignorance. If unsure of which position to adopt and unwilling to be accused of complacency then you can adopt a fourth, defensive position, advocating precautionary action, avoiding the risks associated with holding legitimate but unpopular views together with the economic and political costs of what may eventually prove to be unnecessarily severe action.

The degree to which anyone's opinion tends towards any of the four possible positions depends upon the extent to which they consider the mix of natural and anthropogenic factors to influence climate change. The largest contributors to climate change on earth are undoubtedly the sun and the earth's orbit around it, ocean currents, and volcanic activity. Man not only has no control whatsoever over these forces but also has absolutely no prospect of gaining any. Compared to natural forces, as has been the case since man first set sail in a boat, man is essentially powerless and will continue to remain so. This fact is heavily disguised by man's scientific and technological progress and the diminution of the impact of agrarian activity on the everyday life of most people in industrialised countries, That man has so little control over natural forces only serves, however, to indicate the importance of minimising our own impact on the earth and its atmosphere.

There will be quite enough natural disasters in the continuing evolution of the earth without our adding to them but we perhaps also need the humility to accept that, in any event, nature will continue to change the distribution of land and sea, and commence planning to help affected populations.

The balance of evidence and opinion, reflected in the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprising 2,500 scientific experts from around the world, suggests that there is a discernible anthropogenic effect on the earth's climate but there is no evidence to suggest an impending disaster. Increased emissions of `greenhouse gases' have helped to raise average temperatures by about 0.5C during the last century and estimates for the likely rise in temperature during the next century vary from about 1 to 3.5C, with no certainty as to the eventual outcome. At the lower end of predictions, a 1C rise is widely regarded as manageable, though some disruption would occur. Greenpeace estimates that a 1C rise at a rate of 0.1C per decade would enable us to safely burn about 25% of known fossil fuel reserves which, assuming forests are protected, provides a 30 year period before the carbon budget is used up. This isn't a very long period given the lead times for the construction of power stations whether fuelled by nuclear, solar or renewable sources of energy - the only alternatives to fossil fuels.

The cost of combating global warming will be great whatever the actual end result. Stabilising emissions of carbon dioxide in industrialised countries at 1990 levels, it is estimated by Oxford Economic Forecasting, might cost 0.75 to 1.5% of national output over several decades - equivalent, but more preferable, to a world war. Insurers already believe that global warming is altering weather patterns, with 16 catastrophes between 1987 and 1993 having each cost more than $1 billion and more than $50 billion worldwide.

The main negotiating options at Kyoto were essentially based around the positions adopted by the European Community, Japan and the United States. The European Community was arguing for a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by high income countries, Japan for a maximum target of a 5% cut and with the United States opposing any agreement for emissions reductions targets which did not include the participation of developing countries. In addition, New Zealand argued for the adoption of limits, by 2014, on the burning of fossil fuels by the 130 poorest countries.

Japan's proposal never stood much chance of being adopted by the industrialised countries while that of the United States was heavily attacked by the EC for its for having been greatly influenced by the fossil fuel lobby and the poor example set to developing countries. The EC is in the fortuitous position of being able to argue for greater reductions than the rest of the world, by virtue of the significant reductions already achieved by Britain and Germany achieved, largely it has to be said, through the closure of much of the former East Germany's industry and most of Britain's coal mining industry. It was only natural that the US should seek to protect its domestic industry from the anticipated impacts on fuel costs, employment and economic growth. The British government only recently acted to protect employment in its remaining very small coal industry. The economic growth of developing countries is heavily dependent upon increased emissions from fossil fuels and the United States was right to press for the participation of developing countries in reducing emissions because no long term global solution is otherwise possible.

The Kyoto conference, in arriving at a 6% emissions reduction target over 1990 levels represents the first ever globally agreed reduction target and represents an advance, however unsatisfactory. The conference also recognised the importance of emission sinks (forests) for carbon dioxide. Although agreeing a value for forests may prove difficult, it is important for nations with responsibility for these that they should be valued in this way. The proposed introduction of tradeable emissions permits for greenhouse gases, already tried and tested for sulphur dioxide in the USA, makes good sense and offers possible economic and trading advantages to both industrialised and developing countries. Pricing pollution directly in this way sends a message to the fossil fuel lobby to start energy diversification programmes in much the way that Shell and BP have already done. Internationally tradeable emissions permits should ultimately serve the world better than reduction targets allocated between countries for political reasons, and are likely to prove a more robust economic instrument than any energy tax subject to variation by individual governments.