Now that GW has been accepted, perhaps irrationally, by everyone from the main parties to the Church of England and BP, it might be worth pointing out that the environmental movement is, and has always been, about a lot more than just CO2 emissions and changing the lightbulb.

For example, nowadays, many 'Greens' are interested in globalization and its effects. The GGWS programme, amongst other things, accused the environmental movement of thwarting the development of developing Africa through their insistence on the use of renewable forms of energy.

The point of it is that most people want sustainable development. The Chinese boom is gobbling up vast quantities of fuel, commodities, and construction materials. The pollution that this is causing in Guangdong is adding to global emissions and the Chinese are becoming aware of this.

Were developing Africa to have a Chinese-style boom they would be advised to make it sustainable. That is all the Greens are saying. Also no-one wants development to result in yet another net transfer of wealth from the developing countries to the likes of KKR et al and their ilk. We live in a global world, but also a post-industrial world, and I don't suppose many development environmentalists want to see a return to industrial society characterised, as it was, by the net transfer of commodities, and wealth, from the developing world to the developed world. The advantage of global environmental planning is that an accidental system, with all the dangers that that implies, can be avoided.