August 7 was some day in European history. In Georgia, a war broke out. In Strasbourg, the ceiling of the main chamber of the European Parliament fell down.

Unlike in Georgia, there were no casualties in Strasbourg. No one was even in the chamber at the time - a not unusual sight. Only 12 times a year do hundreds of Brussels-based parliamentarians, aides, lobbyists and media people make the 430km trip to Strasbourg for a monthly plenary session of the legislature. The rest of the time, their base is the Belgian capital.

With the ceiling in ruins, parliament officials were obliged last week to hold the first plenary meeting of the new political season in Brussels. The next session, from September 22 to September 25, will also be staged in Brussels.

Dare one suggest that this arrangement should be made permanent? After all, the cost of decamping to Alsace once a month is estimated at €200m a year - not to mention all the extra CO2 emissions from the travel.

Some surveys suggest that more than 80 per cent of parliamentarians want one permanent home for their assembly, and that a similar majority want it to be Brussels. “As long as we have to travel to Strasbourg, people will rightly say that the EU is wasting money,” says Gary Titley, leader of the UK Labour party group.

But it isn’t going to happen, is it? No French government will give up the prestige and influence perceived to come from playing host to the legislature. From a French point of view, the beauty of Strasbourg as a location for a major EU institution is that the city not only symbolises Franco-German reconciliation but, nowadays, is emphatically French territory.

Besides which, the present arrangements for the parliament are written in EU treaty law and cannot be changed without the approval of all 27 member-states. Apparently, it’s not just the ceiling in Strasbourg that needs some repair work.

How much will it cost the European Union to fight global climate change? Clearly, the answer depends on what your target is, how you propose to get there, and the size of the EU’s contribution compared with those of the US, China and so on. But a new report from the Centre for European Policy Studies thinktank offers some useful estimates.

The report assesses six recent studies, ranging from the Stern Review and a World Bank analysis to research prepared by Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company. In these reports, the average annual global costs for mitigating and adapting to climate change are put at anything from €230bn to €614bn, based on 2006 data.

The EU is not, these days, one of the world’s great polluters. In 2004, the global economy emitted about 49bn tons of greenhouse gases (measured in CO2 equivalent). The share of the 27-nation bloc was only 5.2bn tons, or 10.6 per cent.

However, as western Europe is one of the world’s richest areas, and as Europe has historical responsibility for the CO2 emissions of its industrial heyday, the EU will surely have to pay more than 10.6 per cent of the global costs of fighting climate change.

According to the CEPS study, the smallest bill the EU could expect to pick up is €24.4bn a year, while the biggest is €194.3bn. The thinktank’s own estimate, based on what it calls “the limited likelihood of a global burden-sharing according to current emissions”, is that the EU will face annual costs of at least €60bn.

This figure is close to the forecast provided by the European Commission last January, when it published its all-encompassing proposals on energy and climate change policy. At the time, the Commission said €60bn - or about 0.5 per cent of the EU’s annual GDP - might seem a lot of money, but the cost of doing nothing would be even higher.

Has the message got through, I wonder, to Germany’s car manufacturers and their friends in the European Parliament? This week the legislature’s industry committee tried to weaken a Commission proposal for capping CO2 emissions from new cars.

Rather than imposing a target of 130 grams per kilometre on all new cars by 2012, the committee voted to apply it to only 60 per cent of new cars and to delay full introduction of the target until 2015. The vote was unmistakeably aimed at helping German carmakers, whose models are bigger and less “green” than those of France and Italy.

This is, of course, hardly the last word on the subject. The parliamentary committee’s vote isn’t binding. But when it comes to converting the EU’s high-sounding principles on climate change into concrete legislation, the devil is always in the detail.

For those of you who missed Nicolas Sarkozy’s appearance last week at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, there are always YouTube and Dailymotion. In one revealing clip, the unforgettable 1968 student rebel Daniel Cohn-Bendit, now a Green MEP, is shown berating the French president for his decision to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

The tieless, slightly crumpled Cohn-Bendit waves his arms about, jabs his fingers and slices his hands through the air. Sarkozy, immaculate in a dark suit, remains seated, listening carefully, his fingers caressing a pen.

In response to Cohn-Bendit’s accusation that he has gone soft on China over human rights, Sarkozy starts by teasing his opponent: “Mr Cohn-Bendit, I know how generous you are. You’ve never been stingy with advice, especially advice for me.” Then the president makes the killer point: “You can’t boycott a quarter of humanity.”

It is a startling thought that Cohn-Bendit, at the age of 63, is 10 years older than Sarkozy and worse dressed. But the real lesson from last Thursday’s political theatre is that Sarkozy is capable of sheer brilliance under pressure.

He had just flown halfway round the world from the G8 summit in Japan, but in Strasbourg he delivered a long speech - having discarded his prepared text - and then answered questions from various MEPs for well over three hours. By the end, Hans-Gert Pöttering, the European Parliament president, wasn’t the only legislator eating out of Sarkozy’s hand.

One senior French official told Sarkozy it was his most impressive performance since he won the French presidency in May 2007. Of course, that was three days before he hosted more than 40 European, North African and Middle Eastern leaders in Paris at a summit that launched a new platform for co-operation in the Mediterranean region. 

That meeting, fraught with risks, went pretty well, too. After a wobble at the start of France’s six-month EU presidency, when he went too far in attacking the European Central Bank and the European Commission’s trade policies, Sarkozy is getting attention for the right reasons. 

For a good chuckle, check out the Wikipedia entry of Hans-Gert Pöttering, the European Parliament’s president. Point No.3, headlined “Commission Speculation”, says there are rumours that Pöttering will be Germany’s next member of the European Commission, succeeding Günter Verheugen.

The entry states: “It is widely known that Angela Merkel wants to nominate a Christian Democrat as Commissioner designate for the next Commission mandate 2009-2014 and Pöttering is seen by many as a strong and properly qualificated contestant for the job.”

Hmm. Let’s have another look at that. “Properly qualificated”? If I were a betting man, I’d say that boo-boo represented a German-speaker’s attempt at translating “qualifiziert” (”qualified”). Which raises the fascinating question of who wrote or edited the Wikipedia entry.

Editing your Wikipedia profile, or the profile of your boss, your company, your friend or your political hero, is not unknown. Changes to Richard Nixon’s profile have been traced to the computers of CIA staff. Changes to entries about Roman Catholic saints have been traced to Vatican computers.

But the European Parliament, majestic and terrifying though it no doubt is, isn’t the CIA or the Vatican. And naturally, I have no idea who wrote or edited Pöttering’s Wikipedia profile.

But two things are clear. First, Pöttering will be out of his present job after the next European Parliament elections in June 2009. Second, no one close to Merkel seriously thinks she wants to make Pöttering Germany’s next EU commissioner.

All of which makes me wonder who is promoting Pöttering’s candidacy on the Wikipedia website. But the truth is I’m not properly qualificated to judge.