This year will see the most important round of talks in the history of the climate change debate. In December, leaders and lobby groups alike will descend upon Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference.

The EU, as a collection of states, has done relatively well in the last 20 years to cut its greenhouse emissions. Between 1990 and 2007, aggregate emissions fell by 9.3%. This includes a 1.2% drop between 2006 and 2007. If this combined rate of emission reduction continues, the EU will reach its target of 20% by 2020.

Since 1990, Latvia has achieved the biggest reduction, of around 55%. Of the ‘big three’, Germany has made a 20% reduction, with Britain on around 15% and France at around 5%. The other countries to have made positive steps towards reducing emissions are Estonia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

Now to name and shame those who are letting the side down: The EU members who have increased their greenhouse gas emissions in the same time period are mostly poorer countries, whose economies have expanded at a relatively rapid rate. Spain leads the way with a very disappointing 50% increase. It is followed by Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Austria, Finland, Italy and Slovenia.

This second group offer a disappointing counterpoint. By ignoring quotas, and continuing to increase the levels of harmful gases that are released into the atmosphere, they are failing to comply with the excellent work achieved by the emission-cutters.

Although there is a trend for the main offenders to be far more impoverished than the achievers, there are statistics that buck the trend on both sides. Spain, in particular, has largely disregarded the concept of ethical expansion as its economy has grown. Italy too, was in 1990, a quasi-industrialised economy, capable of making adjustments to the division of labour, in order to make industry more energy efficient. This is even more telling when one considers that Baltic and Eastern European states – Estonia, Bulgaria, and Czech Republic – have rapidly expanded their economies, while reducing their emissions.

In Copenhagen, the worry for environmentalists now, is that the well behaved EU pupils may begin to question whether it is worth sticking to such tight regulations when their classmates are behaving so badly. With the recession butchering the economy of Hungary and Estonia particularly, there may be an inclination towards behaving badly.

This could be globally catastrophic: the EU is the world’s biggest economy, and a negative attitude from its members towards climate change is going to have far-reaching consequences. An estimate suggests that around 660m people could be directly affected by global warming by 2030 and, perversely, it will be the world’s poorest people –in sub-Saharan Africa and the sub-continent – that suffer the worst.

One of the most regularly touted suggestions to reduce emissions is to boost the amount of energy that is sourced from renewable sources. In a recently released table, it was confirmed that Britain generated the third lowest percentage of renewable energy, ahead of Luxembourg and Malta. In 2005, Britain had only managed to source 1.3% of its energy from renewable sources – a 0.3% increase from a decade earlier. The British renewables target for 2020 is 15%, a figure that looks a long way off with the release of these statistics.

Robin Oakley, of Greenpeace, is critical of British rhetoric over renewable energy: “We’ve got ten years of development in there and almost no change…there have been lots of targets and talk, big numbers being spoken by government, but delivery has been a failure throughout this period.”

Sweden can be proudest of its renewable record, topping the EU table with 40.3% of its energy being of renewable origin. Other successes were Romania and Denmark, both recording notable increases. Portuguese and French renewable sources both fell from their 1995 high, but it was Britain who performed the worst out of the wealthiest nations.

For Oakley, the recipe for success is represented by states that “set really strong targets, where they set a really clear support mechanism and where they really look at engaging the public and having a solution to planning problems and investing in putting renewables first on to the grid.”

This solution is clearly easier proposed than implemented. There are countries within the EU that are struggling not to default on their currencies. In order to hang on to their cherished EU status, they may well compromise their green credentials. Sadly the emission reduction leader, Lativa, is suffering economically to a greater degree than almost any other member state.

It does not help that the EU’s economic rivals – America and the BRIC countries –refuse to match European targets. For many, Copenhagen ’09 could not have come at a worse time: 12 months ago, with the global economy prospering rhetoric suggested a concerted effort to confront climate change head on. Now it seems, in a recession-hit world where individual survival is paramount, taking the fate of future generations into account may seem a secondary concern.

Let us though commend those in Europe who have led the way thus far: Sweden, Romania, Denmark and Latvia may not be the richest or most influential members of the Union, but they have proved that concurrently reducing emissions and increasing the production of renewable energy is possible. I just hope they can shout loud enough to be heard in Copenhagen.