Aptly described as an “extraordinary show of support”, 174 nations plus the European Union signed up to the Paris Climate Treaty in New York on Earth Day.

This marks the next step after the universal adoption of the treaty last December intended to bring together the world nations in a joint effort to curb carbon emissions to ‘well below’ the ‘safe’ 20C temperature rise threshold compared to pre-industrial level.

Signing the treaty does not mean that its provisions have entered into force. For this to happen, 30 days must elapse after at least 55 country parties accounting in total for at least 55 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions will have deposited their respective instruments of ratification with the UN.

This year promises to be a landmark year as far as global climate action is concerned

The world leaders are now expected to call at the level of national government to seek formal approval of the provisions in the treaty such that what presently stands enshrined as a text in international law filters down to the level of national legislation and, hence, the firm commitment to implement at the respective home front.

It should not be a problem as far as Malta is concerned where climate action is not a politically divisive issue. The Climate Action Act entered into force last year and no time was wasted in setting up the Climate Action Board that shall ensure an across-government strategic approach towards implementing climate policy. More recently, as provided for by the same law, the Climate Action Fund was set up and this will provide the forum for the mobilisation of climate finance.

The UN reports that 15 nations have already deposited their respective instruments of ratification upon signing: the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, State of Palestine, Barbados, Belize, Fiji, Grenada, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Samoa, Tuvalu, Maldives, Saint Lucia, and also Mauritius. What obviously matters, however, is not the number of countries but the quantum of emissions. The countries mentioned here together constitute only a relatively minor fraction of the 55 per cent global threshold of emissions that is needed for the treaty to enter into force.

The flip side is that these countries and several other small island states within the spectrum of developing nations are the ones envisaged as being worst hit by the phenomenon both now but more so should the treaty architecture fail to materialise into a success.

The global climate process has been going through a long and winding road until it got to Earth Day 2016, a day that was purposely selected within the scope of article 20 in the treaty.

The 20-year build-up since Kyoto in 1997 has seen numerous political upheavals and the various phases world leaders have come and gone. But all distils into a crystal clear conclusion: climate action is not just about cutting down on emissions to live in a cleaner, safer world but, more practically, it is about addressing poverty eradication. The misery experienced by communities the world over – irrespective of developed or developing country status – as a consequence of disastrous extreme weather events says more than enough. The world leaders now also realise that the implications of climate chaos carry very grave national security considerations. The last thing the world can afford is the creation of climate-induced political vacuoles, and perhaps the situation in Syria could be a case in point, that could easily nourish evil-minded organisations that strive to destabilise the world order under the false pretext of fundamentalism.

What about the other nations?

UN sources state that Australia, Argentina, Cameroon, Canada, China, France, Mali, Mexico, Philippines and the United States are reported to have announced that they plan to “join the agreement” during 2016. Brazil, the European Union and the Russian Federation have “pledged to swiftly work to complete the necessary steps” in that direction.

This year, therefore, promises to be a landmark year as far as global climate action is concerned but it does not mean that the tensions are not there or that they are not already being felt.

Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, for example, is embroiled in a massive political crisis at home as she faces calls for impeachment. Vladimir Putin’s antics and the continued political isolation of Russia surely carry a lot of weight that shall be borne on the climate agenda. The stance that shall be adopted by Australia and China in view of their role as world’s top coal producers is yet to be seen.

The biggest elephant in the room, however, remains the forthcoming US presidential elections and whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will not just save America from the grasps but also the lures of the most controversially-outspoken presidential candidate ever but also the climate process in its entirety.

Both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have been clear enough about their scepticism on climate and there is no reason to doubt that should the unthinkable happen and the Republicans ultimately win the race all the painstaking work towards Paris COP21 would be, quite simply, undone.

Never since 1988, when Malta tabled its initiative with the UN, has the climate process been so imperilled. Never has so much depended on the internal politics of a single nation that could make or break the course of humanity towards decarbonisation and, indeed, human survival. With questions still surrounding how effective the INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) approach shall eventually prove itself to be, the last thing needed is surely a US default.

Various studies in the run up to Paris have shown that the sum of the pledges (or INDCs) by all country parties does not equate to a GHG reductions total that would be enough to contain global temperature rise as prescribed under the treaty to within 20C.

This bottom-up approach, whereby each country has submitted to the UN with what it can afford in terms of GHG reductions, has secured that all countries would be on board when eventually push came to shove. Under the current state of play with INDCs, a 30C rise by the end of the century seems more likely.

Convening in Nairobi, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just agreed about a special report by 2018 to assess the full implications of a 1.50C global temperature rise, a far more desirable threshold that is specifically mentioned in the treaty. Except for the political endeavour that universal agreement had been reached on something as complex as the new international climate treaty, this state of play makes the Paris jubilation almost seem unwarranted.

From a purely technical standpoint, the 2018 IPCC report is very significant and all has to be juxtaposed within the economic perspective. The high carbon world we live in does not factor in a carbon price or, perhaps more optimistically, too little has been done in this direction – both theoretically and in practical terms – to develop a new global economic model that integrate what so far stands out as the biggest market failure of all times.

As the UN global compact executive director, Lise Kingo, succinctly put it, “The Paris agreement sends a clear signal that business and investors must put climate at the heart of decision-making” while driving the point home that “setting a $100 internal price on carbon is one of the most effective ways to drive climate deep into corporate strategy and investment. While leading companies have taken steps to price carbon, we need to see an ascent in ambition and price across the board.”

The way forward is obviously beyond the rhetoric. It is also beyond the science that has arguably already done its part. It lies with the economics of climate change and how an equitable carbon pricing mechanism can be devised taking stock of the successes and failures that have been achieved so far by various economic blocs, especially the EU.

To rely on INDC country pledges alone, that may be flimsy after all, while persisting with the present high carbon economic model without taking robust measures to green the global economies, would practically defeat the purpose of the momentum gained towards COP21.

It is now that the new treaty is finally in place that humanity faces the toughest part of the climate challenge.

And there is no turning back.

sapulis@gmail.com

Alan Pulis specialises in environmental management.