These are the best of times; these are the worst of times. Charles Dickens' famous words describe the present state of European Union-Russia relations perfectly. There has never been as much trade and business between Europe and Russia. Yet political tension has not been this intense since the days of the Soviet Union. At present, the EU and Russia are engaged in a waiting game. Brussels hopes that Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president-elect, will turn out to be a pragmatic liberal with a soft spot for Europe. Moscow knows that it is not Brussels it needs to worry about. It is much more profitable to deal with Germany, France and other EU member states on an individual basis. Neither side is doing anything for fear of showing its cards. If Russia and Europe want to take their relations to a new level, they must look beyond the potential membership of Ukraine and Georgia in Nato. They must turn their geopolitical proximity into an advantage. There is no better way to do it than concentrating on climate. Moscow and Brussels should launch a European-Russian Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Europe wants to be a global leader on climate. Russia's status as a born-again great power rests on the sensible use of its energy resources. The new partnership should be modelled on the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, launched in 2005. Australia, China, Japan, India, South Korea and the US were founding members, with Canada joining last year. At first, the partnership was met with scepticism. Now, most experts admit that it is a crucially important complement to the United Nations-sponsored negotiations on climate. A binding treaty at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009 is a must, but it is not enough. Other innovative models should also be used. Adopting the Asia-Pacific Partnership as a model would solve three huge problems. First, it would move energy from the area of high politics and prestige into the realm of concrete results. At present, European and Russian approaches to climate and energy questions are dominated by vision statements, declarations and summits. The Asia-Pacific model is based on a bottom-up approach. Work is divided between task forces dealing with questions such as production of aluminium and cement and cleaner fossil energy. Second, the new European-Russian partnership would engage business in a new way. At present, business leaders from Russia and Europe meet in the context of the EU-Russian Round Table of Industrialists. They draft policy recommendations and lobby politicians. A more business-oriented approach with emphasis on best practices would help to circumvent bureaucratic and political obstacles. Third, a European-Russian partnership would be an informal complement to the existing strategic one, which produces tonnes of paper and ever more frustration. It is a typical example of process over substance. The new partnership would not be based on a treaty. It would have no binding targets, but would concentrate on pragmatic solutions. The emphasis would be on developing, deploying and transferring cleaner and more efficient technologies. It would provide a gush of fresh air to the current stale arrangement. Would this prevent Russia cutting the gas supply? There is no guarantee against Moscow turning off the taps for political reasons