For a number of days it seemed that France was brought to its knees in the wake of the November 13 terror attacks. The reality, however, was that, even in the hour of darkness, the possibility that COP21 would not deliver was simply not on the cards. Most of the works of climate diplomacy had already been done to ensure that the Paris summit would ultimately deliver. The so-called Paris Climate Agreement born but it probably marks the most remarkable political success of our times.

Some analysts have contemplated that the Paris attacks could have been motivated by the climate event itself. After all, with IS-controlled oil fields in Syria providing the terror with its own lifeblood, the organisation surely stood to benefit, perhaps in the longer term, with a COP21 failure. This was not to be.

The Paris climate agreement makes history on at least two counts: politically, in view of its remit bringing together with a common aim practically all the world nations on the singularly-complex issue of climate; secondly, in terms of the century-long timespan over which the treaty has been designed to extend.

All countries agreed that global greenhouse gas emissions should peak “as soon as possible” such that planetary heating is kept to “well below” 20C, while striving towards the much safer 1.50C threshold.

But now that the rhetoric and jubilation are done, what does the future hold with this giant step in international environmental law? Firstly, there is the treaty entry into force. Adoption does not automatically mean the treaty is firmly in place and that its provisions shall start being implemented right away. Upon deposition with the UN, the treaty shall be opened for signature in the most ceremonious of ways on April 22, Earth Day. When the threshold of at least 55 countries representing 55 per cent of global GHG emissions presenting the instruments of ratification to the UN will have been reached, the treaty provisions shall be fully recognised under international law for the purposes of implementation as from January 1, 2020.

Meanwhile, countries cannot afford to lie low. It is expected that, at national level, new legal and regulatory structures shall gradually come into place accompanied by the reinforcement of existing set-ups, legal and otherwise, to ensure a substantial level of preparedness for climate action beyond 2020.

The development of national legislative frameworks on the same lines as the one recently adopted by Malta, following the UK and some others, is a case in point. It is commendable that in this we lead by example.

Secondly, there is the politics of ‘should’ or ‘shall’. In principle, the ‘shall’ articles in the treaty constitute its legally binding elements; the ‘should’ is desirable but does not constitute a firm legal commitment.

‘Shall’ or ‘should’ almost wrecked the entire COP21 process at its very last hour with the US objecting on the ‘shall’ in article 4 (4), ostensibly a misprint, that should have read ‘should’.

The stark reality is, however, that the treaty shall only evolve into a truly effective “health insurance policy for the planet”, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon aptly described it, as long as its ‘should’ elements transmute into ‘shalls’ by the genuine work of countries – in future COPs – in the years to come.

There shall therefore be more climate summits, the remits of which are expected to be of a far more specific nature, designed to consolidate and flesh out the various provisions in the treaty.

From a purely legal standpoint true success will only be gauged in terms of the extent to which the legally binding nature of the treaty shall be reinforced. Substituting the ‘should’ for the ‘shall’ under the various provisions entails that a new series of climate protocols are yet to evolve, specifically designed to address a milieu of global issues that should arise grouped under the Paris Agreement umbrellas: not just mitigation and adaptation but also climate finance, the thorny matter of accountability for loss and damage, and the stock-take and review of country performance on GHG emissions.

‘Shall’ or ‘should’ almost wrecked the entire COP21 process at its very last hour

As things stand, the industrialised world and, particularly, the US, historically responsible for the bulk of the emissions causing the climate problem, has managed to circumvent liability for compensation for climate damage. The conventional developed–developing states divide has served, arbitrarily, to limit the obligation of developing nations like China, India and Brazil to contribute financially to the Green Climate Fund merely on a voluntary basis. For how long is this state of play sustainable post-COP21 when it is only natural to expect that climate justice issues shall rapidly rise on the global agenda and surely present major challenges in COPs to come?

Thirdly, there is carbon pricing.

The Paris Agreement sends a clear signal that the years of free-of-charge carbon pollution to the atmosphere are numbered. Whether this generation or the next shall witness the development of a global emissions trading scheme on EU lines remains to be seen. Various regions are moving in the direction of treating carbon as a commodity and the seeds are being sown.

From a purely technical point of view, however, there is still the question of how a global carbon price would be derived and how emissions trading and carbon taxation would – or should – blend together for an ultimate equitable outcome.

In the meantime, the theoretical maxim that market mechanisms are the most effective means to manage carbon emissions shall continue being challenged. Unharnessed market forces – even as applied to carbon emissions – risk propagating world poverty and widening the gap between haves, have-nots and have-mores.

On the other hand, the Paris Agreement is providential with respect to creating the right stimulus for green investment. On the local front, the launching of Malta’s green economy strategy could not have come at a better time.

There are, then, the INDCs, the country pledges on carbon emissions reductions.

Pre-Paris, the International Energy Agency concluded that should these pledges be fully honoured, the world is more likely to be on course towards a 30C rise by end-of-century rather than keeping within the safe bracket of 20C, let alone 1.50C.

The starting point from Paris is therefore not so rosy and, even though the treaty requires in a legally-binding manner that the respective INDCs are periodically revised and progressed upon, pledges will always be pledges and what really matters is that they are honoured. How can one feel reassured that this will happen when, significantly, in the entire final text from COP21 - draft decision -/CP.21 and its annex comprising the treaty itself – there is not a single mention of the word “decarbonisation”?

Article 4 (1) phraseology, “…so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…”, is more accurately an admission that the agenda is about achieving net carbon neutrality rather than the definitive phase out of anthropogenic CO2.

This paves the way for a technological quick fix: the development of a global market in carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), thus leaving all options open for conventional and unconventional natural gas use, and, surely, coal.

At the moment, the CCS market remains relatively embryonic but has Paris actually put the wind in its sails at least as a stop-gap solution until we transit to a cleaner alternative energy world?

Should CCS technology proliferate by end of century there will surely be need of some kind of global agreement to regulate the disposal of huge volumes of CO2 fixed by power and industrial plants the world over. Yet again, works of COPs to come.

Post-COP21, the biggest elephant in the room remains nuclear industry. The country parties would like to honour their respective INDC pledges but energy demand will continue growing. Nuclear power provides a handy solution to both.

Chinese involvement in the UK power industry with a multimillion euro deal for Hinkley Point in Somerset could represent the shape of things to come not least given the wording in a background note to the UK-China Joint Climate Change Statement of June 2014 stating: “Nuclear power is a secure, reliable low carbon source of energy which will play a key part in our [Britain’s] future low carbon energy mix.” Time will tell.

Will the Paris Agreement catalyse the globalisation of alternative energy perhaps even providing the impetus to overcome the political hurdles that exist in North Africa?

The International Solar Alliance project spearheaded by France and India could work in that direction in the hope that a future generation could witness the development of a transcontinental renewable energy supergrid linking Europe – now that it embarks on its Energy Union project – with Africa. The enormous solar power potential of Europe’s nearest neighbours remains practically untouched.

Ambitious? Perhaps, but ambition, has after all become the operative word in the global climate process.

sapulis@gmail.com

Alan Pulis specialises in environmental management.