Elizabeth Buie looks at what the future holds now that America has finally pledged to cut its gas emissions from oil and coal

THE environmentalists are jubilant. The United States - the big one - has finally come on board. By accepting that global warming is happening, and that human activity is most likely to blame, it has achieved the breakthrough that many feared would never happen.

Despite opposition from the major oil-producing countries and industries lobbying with all their might, the United States has, at the crucial Geneva conference on climate change, pledged to cut its gas emissions from oil and coal.

By committing itself to a legally-binding declaration on setting targets, the United States has given the lead to the rest of the developed world. No longer will other countries, particularly in Europe, and particularly the UK, be able to drag its feet, saying there is no point in it taking firm action to reduce pollution when the US, one of the largest polluters, is carrying on regardless of scientific advice.

The question still remains whether Bill Clinton, and his environmentally-friendly Vice-President Al Gore, can persuade a Republican Congress to pass tough legislation to limit emissions.

And crucially, the US has still not made any commitment to transfer its technological know-how to developing countries to allow them to increase their economic and industrial activity in a ``clean'' way.

That, say environmentalists such as Dr Richard Dixon, head of research with Friends of the Earth Scotland, is the most important step that Clinton must make. Without technology transfer, we are still all doomed.

Such a move would mean a huge financial commitment by countries such as the US, Britain, and other economic powers to agree to pass on their knowledge to those countries who are using old highly polluting processes, rushing to achieve economic progress to boost their countries' GDP.

No-one is entirely sure what has prompted the Americans' change of heart. However, there is speculation that the insurance companies' new-found conviction that global warming is affecting their fortunes, in the form of increasingly frequent natural disasters, that has turned the tide. At the end of the day, money talks.

If this week's words are indeed put into action, then the US has, in the shape of its Environmental Protection Agency, one of the strongest enforcers in the world. Already, the EPA is well ahead of Britain in terms of its powers to control emissions and patrol industry.

Significantly, if the US does set new emission targets, then the rest of the developed world will be forced to follow. That could well mean the end to dithering in the EU over the introduction of a carbon energy tax, which could have a major impact on our everyday lives, from petrol prices to High Street prices.

Dr Dixon said yesterday: ``Some sectors of industry are beginning to worry themselves about what global warming will mean.''

``They are beginning to say that it is going to destroy their business - that is the sort of thing that government is prepared to listen to,'' he added.

Having said that, car manufacturers and oil companies will certainly put up a strong fight against legislation which will have a direct impact on their profits. Already, the US-based Global Climate Coalition of big industrial corporations has denounced the US Government's statement as opening the way for a loss of millions of American jobs and a ``vote-winning stunt''. As scientists and government representatives meet in Geneva to consider the clearest-ever warning from the International Panel on Climate Change, there is a feeling that action is finally being taken to toughen up the commitments made at Rio in 1992 to combat the effects of pollution.

The argument is still not won, however. Many industrial interests are now prepared to argue that global warming is indeed happening, but that it is not necessarily a bad thing. They claim that the change will be mild, and that it will merely mean warmer temperatures in crop-growing areas - ultimately of advantage to everybody.

This, of course, flies in the face of the IPCC's strongest-ever pronouncements that global warming is happening, almost certainly as a result of human activity. Given that scientists are by nature cautious, their warnings are all the more worrying.

Dr Gareth Jones of Strathclyde University predicts that if the US means what it says about global warming, ``it can mean nothing but good news''.

Undoubtedly, some of the most powerful industrial lobbyists are based in the US, but then so are two-thirds of the world's environmental pressure groups and they are well able to counter the arguments advanced by industry.

To date, Canada and Japan are still resisting cuts to their oil and gas emissions. OPEC countries remain steadfast in their opposition. However, if the United States delivers its promises, other countries will have little choice but to follow its example.

What will this mean for Joe Bloggs in Scotland? It will mean fresh demands upon the Government to deliver a sustainable transport policy, and a major impact upon our polluting industries. Before too long, we will almost certainly see progress on renewable energy technologies, such as solar heating. If the US, which produces one-third of CO2 emissions in the world, can set and meet targets, so will its neighbours.

One questions remains. Has the US acted in time? Only time can tell.

They are beginning to say that it could destroy business