The European Commission has issued its final communication delineating the way forward in the aftermath of the Paris Climate Agreement that shall open for signature on Earth Day in New York, on April 22.
The agreement, hailed by analysts as ‘historic’, sets the global climate regime on course towards sustaining global temperatures to well below the 20C threshold, preferably aiming towards a much safer 1.50C rise compared to pre-industrial times.
The most salient ‘historic’ dimension of the treaty probably lies in the fact that it achieved universal consensus when country delegates met last December in Paris under the aegis of COP21 to the UNFCCC.
The EU prides itself in having been a prime mover and shaper that led to this success, not least in being the first major economy to present its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) setting clear targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, improved energy efficiency across the bloc and more ambition on renewable energy use.
Basking in confidence with the projected success under the 20-20-20 climate and energy framework, the EU made strong headway in Paris through a more robust 2030 climate package deal that effectively builds on its previous 20-20-20 version.
The exact details of how the workings of the EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework shall trickle down to every state, including Malta, are still in the pipeline but the ball is certainly rolling fast.
It would be downright wrong to gauge the Paris success as if the EU was the only game changer. The deal entered into by the two other major world economies and emitters, China and the US, has unquestionably played a crucial part in the achievement of the COP21 important milestone.
That not just times but also the global economies have drastically changed since the Kyoto Protocol has been repeated time and again; no international climate agreement entered into in modern times would have been worth the paper it was to be written onto unless it had brought on board all countries, and with clear commitments (INDCs), from both the developed and developing world.
Signing the treaty this Earth Day will not mean having it enter into force. This will only happen when at least 55 country parties covering in total for at least 55 percent of the total GHG emissions willhave deposited their respective instruments of ratification with the UN. This can take time.
There is no question that the world is going through very difficult times. COP21 itself was marred with a terrorist attack the memories of which are still very fresh in people’s minds. And now, the hunt for the November 13 perpetrators or their accomplices has led to even further tragedy – morning madness in Brussels on March 22.
With security checks on high alert all over Europe having been on for months on end, the spectre of terrorism has albeit proved itself one step ahead targeting nonetheless the continent at its most sensitive bureaucratic heart.
Europe cannot afford to lie low in addressing its energy policy without taking seriously energy security issues
Should climate action be expected to remain at the forefront of the international agenda in spite of this state of play? Or rather, it is perhaps more pertinent to ask a more fundamental question: how will EU bureaucrats and politicians, in the Brussels fora and elsewhere, persuade the public that investing in climate mitigation and adaptation strategies remains very relevant despite the risks of a terror attack right round the corner?
A most notable observation about the Brussels attacks is that the tragedy has perceivably shifted the media discourse away from the tensions of migration. This shall be transient; migration issues will eventually oscillate to the forefront. At least until it is all clouded once again possibly by yet another threat to European stability: the UK referendum come June.
Brexit or no Brexit will make a difference for Europe. In trying to keep his Tory party from continuing to tear itself apart on Europe, David Cameron will surely have been advised about the political convenience of playing the cards of migration and international terrorism wisely to ensure that Britain continues to assert itself inside Europe.
The realities of the modern world are a far cry from the splendid isolation of olden and, with respect to Europe, the nationalistic ripple effect of a Brexit could easily be far too much to bear both politically and on the economic front.
The road from Paris could be paved with good intentions: climate change or not, Europe cannot afford to lie low in addressing its energy policy without taking seriously energy security issues not least in the light of relations with Russia that so far remains the top fossil fuel provider to the EU.
The tensions that have arisen in recent times between Russia and Turkey, old foes after all, with the Turks downing a Russian plane while on an incursion against IS have further highlighted the intense instability in the region. It is through this region that serves as breeding grounds for IS fighters and suicide bombers, that Russian oil ducts feed into Eastern Europe and which, in turn provisions the West.
In all this unprecedented havoc the EU is caught pants down, with too little in terms of tangibles beyond international clout, diplomacy and an energy policy in the shape of the energy union package in the hope that it an energy secure future can somehow be guaranteed.
Europe’s energy sector is experiencing very challenging times more so in the light of the need to strengthen infrastructure across the continent that shall equip each member state with the necessary tools for a level playing field in the bloc’s energy sector.
The overhaul that Enemalta has been going through in the last couple ofyears with the drive to shift to natural gas firing coupled with the interconnection with Sicily has to be portrayed within this context.
The time will come when Malta shall be in a much stronger position to make good use of its strategic position in the central Mediterranean and transform itself in an energy hub of the first order at a time when the powers that be, global and regional, come to realise that more steadfast political action could be warranted to tap the practically infinite renewable energy potential that lies with North Africa.
The spirit of the Paris Climate Agreement will never bear its fruits unless a the boundaries of continents are crossed and the European and African leaders start thinking more radically on the lines of a trans-continental renewable energy grid, an option that offers huge opportunities not just in terms of climate action but also economic development.
That Libya is still in a relative state of chaos in terms of leadership does not justify Europe’s reluctance to chart a way forward with the more confident Maghreb neighbours such as Algeria and Tunisia to this effect.
On one hand, we cannot treat the local in isolation from the global, especially on energy. Ordinary citizens are however compelled to question what can be done tangibly at the individual level with all the prevailing uncertainty.
Migration issues and terrorism can only be dealt with through the highest levels of national and international governance and, frankly, beyond the active citizenship of reporting suspicious behaviour to the competent authorities there is hardly anything anyone can do.
We can however, act more directly on energy. It is too difficult to bridge the perceived gap between the legal and political innuendos of the Paris Climate Treaty on one side and the ordinary walk of life of individual citizens on the other. The fact is however that energy can be used wisely in the home, workplace and anywhere else.
More needs to done to assess the possibility of investing in affordable clean energy equipment such as photovoltaics and solar water heating as long as the logistics permit.
Educational institutions, for one, and especially the often under-utilised premises that house them, are ideal catalyst niches to this effect.
Alan Pulis specialises in environmental management.