Accepting his Nobel Peace Prize last Thursday, US President Barack Obama urged leaders to confront climate change. But will he deliver at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen? Caroline Muscat put the question to US Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec.
His charm and persuasive abilities not only won Mr Obama the US Presidency, it drew back to America admiration from a world increasingly hostile towards the foreign policies of George W. Bush.
A global issue the former president ignored was climate change - a challenge the US Ambassador says President Obama has now taken on. But the road ahead is full of potholes.
"We've been slow to come to the table... but now we're unequivocal in our understanding that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed thoroughly and equitably with respect to all of the nations in the world," says Mr Kmiec.
He adds the President is prepared to seek a legally binding agreement and will urge that upon the leaders present in Copenhagen. At a minimum, President Obama will seek immediate operational steps.
But the package the US has presented at Copenhagen was less than expected from the country that has the highest level of CO2 emissions per capita, and therefore the biggest contributor to climate change. Developing countries, which are already feeling the effects of global warming, say the US must carry its historical responsibility.
Mr Kmiec accepts the country's contribution to the problem: "Yes, the US is largely responsible for a great deal of greenhouse gases in the world that have led to this consequence. We have to own up to that."
Mr Obama offered "provisional" targets for emissions cuts - less than four per cent of what US emissions were in 1990, to be achieved by 2020. By comparison, within the same timeframe, the EU has committed to reducing its emissions by a minimum of 20 per cent, Britain alone pledging a 34 per cent cut, while Japan has promised a 25 per cent reduction.
Mr Kmiec thinks the US's long-term projections are comparable to those of other rich nations. The positions are much closer now than they were under the previous US administration, he says.
The US pledges have still to pass the test at the Senate to gain legislative force and the Senate remains deeply divided on the issue but the Ambassador is confident the US President's persuasive abilities will see it through.
He describes the US commitment on climate change as "realistic". The US has adopted a leadership position now but it is "also a position that recognises that we're not alone, that all of the developing nations have rather important and specific obligations that they need to meet, and the developed nations have an obligation to the developing world to mitigate the cost that we've already imposed on the environment".
Poor countries will be the first and hardest hit and the ones least able to cope with the effects of climate change, even if their contribution to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming is negligible. But the promises by rich nations to fund efforts to adapt to climate change have only empty coffers to show. The poorest countries have received the least help from the rich, an analysis by The Guardian revealed.
And the US is being accused of not putting its money where its mouth is - the EU chief climate negotiator said in Copenhagen last Monday that an adaptation fund set up in 2001 had yet to receive a deposit from the US.
When this is put to the country's ambassador, he points to another US commitment to contribute to a $10 billion fund "to get things started". Whether the US will offer more depends on what others will do, Mr Kmiec adds.
"Much of this money will be borrowed from China, and if China is going to be on a path of focusing on economic growth alone, without consideration of environmental responsibility, that's a different question than if China itself is making commitments to environmental targets that are consistent with those the US is making."
China's counter argument is that its contribution to the problem is not equal to that of the US. But the US Ambassador insists China has to redirect some of its robust economic system towards a meaningful environmental target.
The US will give its proportion, Mr Kmiec says, while he admits the Iraq war was a drain on US resources, calling the $10-13 billion-a-month effort "massively wasted expenditure".
By comparison, "the expenditures involved (on climate change) are expenditures in building up, or at least maintaining, the quality of the human environment... that's quite the opposite, in my judgment, of the war on Iraq".
The change in attitude has been recognised internationally. Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples", has been seen as a means of boosting international climate talks.
It remains to be seen whether, in Copenhagen, the rhetoric will be replaced by the political will necessary to turn promises into action and prevent the human suffering that climate change is already inflicting.
The climate change conference in Copenhagen continues until December 18. To follow developments: http://en.cop15.dk/ .