But parts of mainland China now have the worst urban pollution on the planet

But parts of mainland China now have the worst urban pollution on the planet. The clean-up there will take a long time.So, sure, Europe is gradually becoming a better global citizen. But Europe is not the problem, or rather, it is the most manageable portion of the problem.Should we despair? Should we conclude that the meeting in The Hague will be yet another talking shop that has no real impact on the world's greatest problem for the next generation? I don't think so, but I suggest that we do need to find more imaginative solutions than trading emission permits or planting more trees to mop up the carbon we release.There are three ways of curbing harmful environmental practices: the market, regulation and fashion. The market can be an immensely powerful force, but it is extremely hard to harness it to pull in the right direction in environmental matters Take oil. It is the tightest of all the world's commodities, with around 45 years' supply left, at current consumption rates. But we won't run out of oil in 45 years, for we are finding more of it just about as fast as we are using it up.

So, the price mechanism cannot fully reflect any long-term shortage. The price of oil has risen recently, but that is in response to a short-term swing in the market rather than any longer-term scarcity. Until two years ago, the real oil price was at its lowest for 25 years.Of course, you can use taxes to buttress the market. The problem is that we saw the limits to that in the autumn with the fuel protest. We live in a democracy, as "Two Jags" Prescott is well aware Taxation has to be by consent. So, while the market can, at the margin, help a bit, even believers in the market (and I count myself as one) have to acknowledge that it cannot fix this one.What about regulation? Well, it has to be clever and effective. US regulation on fuel consumption is a great example of bad regulation.

By encouraging Americans out of cars and into sports utility vehicles, it actually increased the overall fuel consumption of the US vehicle fleet. There can be good regulation, of course: Montreal was an example But that was unusual. There was and is the alarming problem of the hole in the ozone layer, which grows every year CFCs were produced by few companies. And less-damaging alternatives were available.So, while the world will have an abundance of new environmental regulations over the next 20 years, do not expect wonderful results from it Indeed, expect some perverse results. If, for example, regulation encourages us to drive lightweight aluminium cars instead of heavier steel ones, remember that making aluminium uses vastly more power than making steel. So, the energy is used in the production of the car rather than in its use. Remember, too, that roughly one-third of the energy used by a car in its lifetime is used when it is made.

Switching to a new, more fuel-efficient car may end up using more energy than plugging on with the old one.And fashion? I don't mean fashion as in models taking off their fur coats and posing discreetly naked - only to appear in fur coats again a couple of years later. No, I mean harnessing the power of ideas to make it unfashionable to do things that are environmentally destructive.We don't need to be hair-shirt-wearers about this If we are, we will fail. We simply need to be thoughtful and intelligent in the way energy is used, and to make it a general aim to nudge society toward a more sustainable future.Why has that not happened already? Part of the trouble is that environmental correctness has been pushed by a fringe group of dedicated but not necessarily very attractive people Self-righteousness is not the greatest method of persuasion. The Jeremy Clarksons of this world are more fun than the eco-freaks But it's not entirely the environmental movement's fault We're all to blame. Governments could do more, schools and universities could do more, companies could certainly do more, but individuals could do most.