One week after the Bali summit ended in ambiguous fashion, by essentially putting off reaching a deal on cutting CO2 emissions until 2010, new evidence emerged this week outlining just how big a deal climate change is.

The world’s coral reefs are in danger of being killed off by rising levels in greenhouse gases, according to a new study. Researchers from Britain, the US and Australia, working with the UN and World Bank, reported that 98% of the world’s reef habitats are likely to become too acidic for corals to grow by 2050.

The oceans absorb around a third of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions each year. But rising levels in CO2 emissions will cause corals to become brittle, stunted and incapable of repairing damage caused by fish, snails and natural erosion. And not only would the loss of large coral reefs have a devastating effect on communities reliant on fish and other marine life that live in the reefs, but it would also leave coastlines more vulnerable to storms.

In domestic news, the UK’s climate change action plan came under attack from two separate groups of scientists in the space of just ten days.

On 10th December, it was revealed that Britain is responsible for hundreds of millions more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions than official figures state. A study by a team of economists at Oxford University reported that pollution from aviation, shipping, overseas trade and tourism – areas not measured in official figures – means that UK carbon consumption has risen significantly over the past decade, and that the government’s claims to have confronted climate change are an “illusion”.

And this week, Britain’s plans to build new coal-fired power stations to address a looming energy crisis were attacked by Dr James Hansen, Director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Dr Hansen, one of the first people to warn of climate change two decades ago, argued that building new coal-burning power stations without the capacity to capture waste CO2 will tip the planet towards irreversible warming.

“Frankly, it’s difficult to exaggerate the importance of phasing out coal use except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered because there is no viable strategy for stabilising climate without doing that,” he argued in an interview with The Independent. “There is much more CO2 in coal than there is in oil, and oil is going to run out. There is enough CO2 in coal to take us far beyond the dangerous level to produce a different planet.”

Dr Hansen added that Britain, the United States and Germany must share the responsibility for leading the world away from coal, as the countries have the highest per capita responsibility for climate change based on cumulative emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

And the Germans were in the news again this week, leading opposition to the European Commission’s plans to curb CO2 emissions from new cars by fining manufacturers if they failed to meet targets. Under the plans, manufacturers will have to reduce CO2 emissions to an average of 120 grammes per kilometre – 130 grammes through improved engine technology and 10 grammes through the use of biofuels and more efficient gears, tyres and air conditioning – on all new cars sold in the EU from 2012. Manufacturers that fail to comply face a regime of escalating fines up to around £68 for every gramme per kilometre over the limit.

Germany, home to carmakers such as BMW and Mercedes, led the political disapproval while manufacturers joined in – despite environmentalists arguing that the plans did not go far enough in reducing emissions and promoting smaller cars.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, usually at the forefront of efforts to cut CO2 emissions, led the condemnation.

“We believe that this path is not economically favourable,” she said. “Therefore we think that industry policy is being made here which burdens Germany and German carmakers.”

Ivan Hodac, Secretary General of The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, added:

“It is a bad decision, it is not balanced. The level of penalties is totally unacceptable, up to 100 times higher than what is paid by other industries in the EU’s emissions trading scheme.”

But this week President George W. Bush, untroubled by the kafuffle in Old Europe, signed into law a very similar plan to establish higher fuel-economy standards for new cars. Bush described the bill, which contains other energy-saving initiatives, as “a major step” toward energy independence and easing global warming. And to show they mean business, US politicians even sent the bill to the White House in a hybrid car…

The energy bill will require cars and light trucks to increase fuel efficiency by 40% and sets a standard of an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (as opposed to the current standard of 45 mpg). The new law will also promote the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, and set a target of a 70% increase in use of energy efficient light-bulbs.

It seems timely to remind readers that, during his Presidency, Bush has disputed the scientific evidence for climate change, refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and, only last week in Bali, thwarted new attempts to set targets for cutting CO2 emissions. So while it remains to be seen whether the energy bill’s provisions, most of which do not come into effect until after Bush’s term in office ends, will be successful, one thing I’m sure of as an impartial observer is that this is too little, too late.