The main direct impact of climate change on Malta is expected to be increased water stress, believes Malta’s first ambassador on climate change, Michael Zammit Cutajar.

Water stress is the ratio of ground water extraction to available groundwater resources.

Speaking to this newspaper as the UN climate change summit in Paris began this week, the former (and first) executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change noted that climate change would also perhaps increase emigration from drought-stricken African countries.

“Water stress is a historical constraint for Malta and it will get worse as Mediterranean rainfall declines because of climate change,” Mr Zammit Cutajar said.

“Water policy in Malta should be given greater political importance, promoting water conservation and recycling, and combating theft and pollution by chemicals,” he added, noting that while desalination continued to be essential, it consumed a lot of electricity.

Thus a water strategy would go hand in hand with greening power generation, which would be an important contribution to limiting the greenhouse gas emissions from our economy and our way of life. “This is a tiny contribution to the massive global effort to reduce emissions but it’s politically important that each of us – countries and people – does our bit.”

Water stress is a historical constraint for Malta and it will get worse

Referring to gas for the generation of electricity, Mr Zammit Cutajar said that while it was greener than coal or oil, it was still a fossil fuel whose combustion emitted CO2.  We should be moving towards clean, renewable energy, which could be imported through an inter-connector from the EU or eventually from North Africa. Having a power station working on gas was a step in the right direction, but it was not the last step, he said.

Meanwhile, energy loss from buildings also contributed to greenhouse emissions.

Constructing new buildings was easier than making old ones energy efficient and the latter should receive incentives, Mr Zammit Cutajar said, adding that emissions from transport also needed to be addressed.

On Sunday, Commonwealth countries agreed to work for a legally binding outcome. But over the weekend it was reported that France could “back down” from a ‘treaty’ to appease the US, although French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that the Paris accord would probably include clauses that would be legally binding.

For Mr Zammit Cutajar, a “legally binding agreement” was a political slogan and EU countries, among others, believed the phrase gave a strong signal of political intent.  On the other hand, a deal that the US could not join was of little value, he said.

Mr Cutajar said US President Barack Obama was seeking an ambitious outcome in Paris.

His pledges legally fell within the scope of existing legislation and therefore would not require Senate action.  On the other hand, the Senate would have to approve any new commitments to limit emissions or new financial obligations, he added.

What is likely to emerge from the Paris Summit, he thinks, is a legal instrument that a lawyer could define as a ‘treaty’ but is unlikely to be called that.

It will include some provisions that are legally binding and others that are not.