´óÏó´«Ã½

West Virginia is the mountain state. Its mountains have defined the state's history, and now the mountains of Virginia look set to determine whether the world begins to tackle global warming.

That may sound a little apocalyptic, but please bear with me.

The American nation was born in Virginia where the tobacco plantations - established in the early 17th Century - gave the country its first economic boom.

Neighbouring West Virginia, by contrast, remained a rural backwater thanks to its vertiginous topography.

A life shaped by terrain

The mountains of West Virginia are not high, but boy are there a lot of them. As a result, the state had little to attract settlers.

The sea of mountains makes travel difficult and farming near impossible. West Virginia's only significant industries until the middle of the 19th Century were salt mining and charcoal burning.

And, 150 years on, West Virginia is still predominantly a rural state. Its population is less than two million, its state capital, Charleston, has just over 50,000 residents.

So how come this remote, rural state is playing a pivotal role in determining the international deal on greenhouse gas emissions that is likely to be done at the Copenhagen conference?

The reason comes back, again, to those mountains.

West Virginia remains economically isolated. There is still virtually no industry here. It is the third poorest state in the union in terms of .

But there is one thing West Virginia has mountains of - and I mean literally mountains -and that is coal.

The US Department of Energy estimates that West Virginia has 28.5bn tonnes of high quality coal left. That's right, 28,500,000,000 tonnes of energy-rich, carbon-dense, bituminous coal.

You get a sense of the true scale of that figure when you meet some of the guys who dig the stuff up.

Foundation of industrial America

The miners I met up in the hills outside Fairmont all work a single seam of coal, the famous Pittsburgh seam, one of the greatest mineral resources in the US.

The seam is up to eight feet (2.4m) thick and runs for hundreds of miles from Maryland to Ohio and from Pennsylvania deep into West Virginia.

It is so vast it has been being worked constantly for almost 200 years.

Indeed, the Pittsburgh seam can reasonably claim to have laid the foundation for the industrialisation of the US.

It is perfect for coking and therefore perfect for making steel, as industrialist Andrew Carnegie discovered. His great fortune was made using Pittsburgh seam coal to make the steel that built modern America.

One of the miners I met, DJ Weaver, is the fourth generation of his family to mine the Pittsburgh seam.

He, his father, his grandfather and his great-grandfather all spent their lives working Pittsburgh, and there is reckoned to be enough coal left for another couple of generations of the Weaver family to be employed on the seam.

And the Pittsburgh seam is just one of West Virginia's coal reserves.

Pivotal position

Not surprisingly, coal dominates the economy of this state and has also shaped its politics.

The governorship, two of the state's three House of Representatives seats and, crucially, both Senate seats are held by Democrats.

It is those two Senate seats that have put West Virginia in such a pivotal position in terms of climate legislation.

The Obama administration needs 60 Senate votes for its climate bill if it is to avoid a Republican filibuster - a roadblock to the bill.

The electoral calculation only adds up so long as every Democratic senator votes with the administration.

But both Democratic senators here in West Virginia have said they will vote against the bill.

That means Senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate who is sponsoring the bill, is looking for compromises that might draw them back into the fold.

He is also being forced to consider inducements - like offshore drilling permits and incentives for the nuclear industry - which might attract wavering Republicans.

In short, West Virginia's opposition to the Senate climate bill will end up watering down America's position on climate.

That, in turn, will dilute any deal done at Copenhagen .

It may seem extraordinary that a sparsely populated, rural state like West Virginia could hold such sway in international politics, but the logic here on the ground is compelling.

"What would you do if the mines closed?" I asked the miners.

They shook their heads: There aren't any good jobs outside of coal here", they told me, "West Virginia is coal".

Has the US killed any chance of a climate accord at Copenhagen?

There are just 42 days left until the world's environment ministers will sit down around the negotiating table in Copenhagen to try to agree a deal to begin to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The original objective for the conference was to produce a new international treaty to replace the Kyoto treaty. Now even the UN's climate change chief, Yvo de Boer believes the talks this December will not achieve that.

So why have international ambitions for the conference been so dramatically scaled back? A key answer is the US' position on the climate issue.

In the weeks after President Barack Obama took office I travelled 6,000 miles (9,656 km) around the US looking at the efforts the country is making to tackle climate change.

Mr Obama said his administration would lead the world on tackling global warming and we found all sorts of exciting examples of how the world's most powerful nation is facing up to the climate challenge.

In Detroit we saw how some of the country's biggest corporations are putting their muscle behind legislation to limit carbon emissions, in Washington we met an army of activists ready to take their battle on climate onto Main Street, in Texas we found a thriving wind industry right in the heart of the oil state, and in California we discovered how regulation had been used to foster energy efficiency.

Eight months on, and the Ethical Man team has returned to America.

The story seems very different now. Many commentators believe Mr Obama's plans for a cap and trade bill to limit the US' greenhouse gas emissions have become fatally mired in the Senate.

It now seems likely that America will go to Copenhagen without a firm commitment to reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, .

The problem is, without a clear commitment to cut American emissions, a comprehensive deal is very unlikely.

Why? Think about your own life. Imagine you want to do your bit to reduce your impact on the environment. You splash out on new insulation and double-glazing. You sell your gas-guzzling people carrier and start catching the bus. You stop jetting off to the sun and you turn down the heating in your home.

Fine. You've cut tonnes off your carbon footprint.

Now imagine you look over the hedge into your neighbour's house. It is winter and he is sporting the sort of tan you only get in the tropics. He is drinking a cold beer under the heat of a roaring patio heater. Parked in his drive you see a brand new top-spec Range Rover.

Do you still feel so good about all the sacrifices you have made to try and save the world?

The US is no longer the biggest polluting nation on the planet - China knocked it off the top spot last year. But look at historic emissions - if you add up all the greenhouse gases emitted over the last 100 years the US comes in at first place by a considerable margin.

The fact is that if the US refuses to cut its emissions other countries are likely to refuse too - or at least do a lot less.

We have come back to America to ask whether, in these last few weeks, the Obama administration will be able to pull a deal on its own emissions out of the bag.

We will be following the progress of the climate bill in the Senate. Can former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry scrape the majority he needs to get the bill passed?

We will look at how the American right has been organising its own army of activists to campaign against the cap and trade legislation and at the tactics of the coal and oil lobbies.

I will also be exploring whether the administration has an alternative plan up its sleeve if cannot get the climate bill through.

Once again, it is worth remembering what is at stake here. The Copenhagen conference is reckoned by many to be pretty much the last chance the world has to begin to cut greenhouse gas emissions before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable.

To follow our journey stay tuned to this blog and follow my .

Copenhagen will fail - it's official. At least that is what United Nations climate change chief Yvo de Boer told the Financial Times on Tuesday.

Mr de Boer told the newspaper that the Copenhagen climate change conference to replace the Kyoto treaty.

Since that is precisely what the Copenhagen conference was intended to do this is a significant admission from the man whose job it is to bring December's negotiations to a successful conclusion.

"A fully fledged new international treaty under the [UN framework] convention [on climate change] - I do not think that will happen." He said. "If you look at the limited amount of time remaining to Copenhagen, it's clear."

So where does that leave the negotiations?

The truth is that Mr de Boer is just expressing what has become clear to most observers of these complex talks.

Managing expectations

The original ambition for the Copenhagen conference was to put in place a legal architecture for enforcing an international agreement on emissions reductions.

That is what the Kyoto treaty did in 1997. It expires in 2012 and the idea was that Copenhagen would draw up its replacement.

But it has become increasingly clear over recent months that the world is just not ready to sign up to a sweeping accord of this nature.

Mr de Boer's interview is designed to scale back expectations.

The need now, he said, is to "concentrate on the political imperatives that make it clear how countries are committed [to tackling climate change] and engaging in cutting emissions, and what co-operative mechanisms they need to put in place".

What that means in practice is that he will be happy if the UN comes away from Copenhagen with a series of commitments from individual countries about how they intend to cut or stabilise their emissions.

These commitments will only have force in national law.

The UN has not given up on the goal of a legally binding international agreement, however.

Mr de Boer told the FT that he wants to see a decision on a long-term target for emissions cuts.

He wants ministers to "decide a deadline by which that architecture can be negotiated into something comprehensive".

High stakes

Nevertheless, what is clear from the interview is that what is agreed at Copenhagen is likely to fall so far short of original expectations.

Let's not forget what is at stake here. The Copenhagen conference is reckoned by many to be pretty much the last chance the world has to begin to cut greenhouse gas emissions before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable.

So how is it that a deal has been derailed before the world's environment ministers have even sat down at the table?

I hope I will be able to find some answers to that question over the next couple of weeks because the team is returning to the United States.

In the last weeks before the Copenhagen conference begins we will be exploring the role the world's most powerful nation has played in the run up to the talks and asking if the US is responsible for the likely failure of negotiations.

Sign up here to follow our journey or sign up to my Twitter account for regular posts on our travels.

In my last blog I looked at how the green movement is very conservative about technology but in other areas the Greens are - arguably - too radical.

There is growing evidence that people now "get" climate change. They understand what the term means, believe it is happening and that man's activities are one cause. That's an important result for the green movement but, with respect, that's the easy bit - it doesn't cost anything to change your mind.

The difficult work starts now. If we are going to meet the targets for carbon cuts which scientists say are necessary then we need to get people to change their behaviour and begin to reduce their carbon footprints.

Here the record is much poorer. It seems people simply do not want to give up their high carbon lifestyles. Just look at the findings of Loughborough University's. Fewer than one in five people said they would be willing to cut the number of flights they take for environmental reasons.

Some critics say the Green message of self-denial and sacrifice has put people off. There may be an element of the problem but - as I discovered in my year as - the fact is cutting carbon emissions does mean sacrifice, it does mean doing less of things that most people like doing - flying, driving, heating your home.

So how can we find ways to persuade people to change their behaviour? Most economists believe the most powerful instrument for changing behaviour is the market. They argue we need a system to put a price on greenhouse gases that reflects the damage they do to the environment.

Economists say we need some system of "carbon pricing".

Yet many Greens are profoundly sceptical of market solutions. This year protesters from picketed the London Carbon Exchange in an attempt to shut it down.

There's a good reason for the green antipathy to markets. Greens argue that market capitalism is based on growth and a finite planet cannot sustain continuous growth. Check out the New Economics Foundation's .

These arguments lead Greens to say that we need to smash capitalism - or at least radically change its priorities - if we are to successfully tackle climate change.

It is not a policy that is likely to engage most mainstream politicians - or for that matter - ordinary people. What is more, spurning market solutions means ignoring one of the most powerful mechanisms for changing behaviour ever developed.

Just as with technology it seems the Greens are being ideological and impractical in the face of the global emergency of climate change.

We are told carbon emissions have to peak by around 2015 if we are to stay within the crucial 2C temperature rise after which scientists say global warming could become uncontrolled.

With just six years left, surely we should use all the weapons in our armoury to get change.

It's been a long time since I've written a blog. Very lazy, I know. So I've come back with a broadside. My question is whether the green movement is becoming part of the climate problem.

There is no doubt that the green movement has been instrumental in raising the profile of the climate issue. But, having moved green issues into the political mainstream, can the green movement offer solutions to global warming?

No, says David King, Britain's former chief scientist. He says if we want to move to a low carbon economy we are going have to - as he puts it - "use every tool in the box". But the green movement rules out quite a few of the most promising tools.

Take the question of how we are going to generate power. The green solution is renewable technologies - wind, solar and wave power.

No-one questions the need for these technologies to be part of the mix. But here's a checklist of other leading low carbon technologies: nuclear power, genetic engineering, , and .

Each one offers the potential for revolutionary new ways of generating power yet many greens oppose all of them. Quite a number say even research into these technologies is wrong.

So why do Greens take such a radical position? The reason is that most Greens are profoundly risk averse when it comes to technology. That should be no surprise. The key preoccupation for most Greens is the conservation of nature. That can make them very - well - conservative.

A key strand of green thought is the "precautionary principle". That's the idea that if you can't predict what all the risks of a new technology are then it is probably best not to use it.

Sounds like good sense, doesn't it? But don't forget how urgent the climate issue is. The green consensus is that carbon emissions have to peak by around 2015 if we are to stay within the crucial 2 degree temperature rise after which global warming could become uncontrolled.

That gives us just six years.

My question for the Greens is this: if time is so short surely we are going to have to take a few risks.