Another year, another United Nations conference on climate change; another outcome document in negotiators’ code; another deadline (December 11, 2015 at Le Bourget, Paris) for a new agreement that should put all countries on track towards the goal of keeping global warming below the ‘safe’ – or, at least, manageable – level of 2°C.
Malta put this show on the road in 1988 by including in the United Nations agenda an item entitled ‘Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind’.
The headline aim is to limit the accumulation in the earth’s atmosphere of ‘greenhouse gases’ that trap heat, raise global average temperature and destabilise the climate. The most prevalent of these gases is carbon dioxide, emitted by deforestation and by burning coal, oil and natural gas: the ‘fossil fuels’.
A 1992 convention labelled this phenomenon “climate change” and established a framework for cooperation in addressing it.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol set emission limits for industrialised countries, the first step towards a comprehensive mitigation effort. But this early momentum was halted by the refusal of the US to give effect to the protocol, even though it was largely of US design.
Scientific assessment of climate change and its dangers has hardened since then. But progress in shaping an adequate response through intergovernmental negotiations has been excruciatingly slow.
Once our electricity supply from gas is sorted, the next big policy headline should be water
The Kyoto Protocol is now moribund. Major players – including the emerging economic powerhouses – have been defensive, the security blanket of reliance on fossil fuels holding back their readiness to innovate and invest in a low-carbon future.
Will this year’s Paris conference be a recognisable success, mobilising significant action from all key players in the global economy? Will it set our planetary community on transition paths towards sustainable prosperity? Or will it sink into confusion under the weight of hyped-up expectations, political tension and lack of ambition?
While politicians seek positive answers to these questions, we, in Malta, can interpret signals emanating from the negotiating front.
First, one must be prepared for the worst. The curve of rising global average surface temperature is shooting towards an alarming +4°C. Yet, it is unlikely that the pledges registered in Paris to limit greenhouse gas emissions will add up to what is needed to bend this curve below the 2°C goal. Consequently, countries must invest in resilience and adaptation to the climatic destabilisation expected over the coming decades. Even warming of 2°C will have some adverse effects.
For Malta, the most important impact will be on water supply through reduced rainfall and infiltration of the water table by a rising sea level. So, once our electricity supply from gas is sorted for the near future, the next big policy headline should be water – measures to conserve water, recycle it, reduce chemical contamination from agriculture and combat water theft.
(An ambitious young politician of today could do worse than aim for the portfolio of water security on the way up the political ladder!)
Secondly, as the global response to negative climatic impacts gains force, one must anticipate the emergence of a new business model for energy.
The most striking inference from the 2014 scientific assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that, to stay within the 2°C limit, global net emissions from fossil fuels will have to be phased out by mid-century or so. In this scenario, a large portion of fossil fuel reserves would have to stay underground, unless affordable technology to capture and store emissions from those fuels comes onto the market.
Strategically, Malta should be looking beyond gas to importing clean, renewable energy as its price falls. Rather than projecting a gas pipeline, we should be evaluating access over interconnector cables to electricity from renewable sources – from the European grid through Sicily or from the Sahara, where concentrated solar power has great potential.
Thirdly, one should seek out the profitable business opportunities arising from investment in the ‘green economy’. In Malta, intelligent urban planning can offer such opportunities.
In particular, the construction sector – dear to ‘developers’ and politicians alike – can be steered towards new buildings with zero-emission standards, retrofitting existing buildings to cut waste of electricity for cooling and heating and even demolishing shoddy building stock to replace it with construction that is both efficient and aesthetic.
Finally, the run-up to the Paris conference has produced a joint statement by China’s President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama announcing their respective national climate change mitigation goals for the coming decade. This joint statement is a harbinger of a tilt to the Pacific in the geopolitics of the 21st century: the ‘G2’ negotiating with each other but not with the rest of the world.
Visually, whereas a Eurocentric world map places Japan on its eastern edge and Malta dead centre, a map centred on the Pacific Ocean situates the European Union on the western fringe and relegates Malta to the same situation as, say, Okinawa in a conventional projection.
In this perspective, it is indeed wise for Malta to strengthen economic relations with China. It would also be wise to do the same with the US.
Michael Zammit Cutajar was Malta’s first Ambassador on Climate Change