Much has been said about Malta’s role, however significant or otherwise that might have been, in the European Union’s final pledge to the United Nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The problem many have found with the pledge is that in the lead-up to the now infamous United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, the EU had said it would be willing to up the ante to 30 per cent if, and only if, the world’s other major economic blocs pledged likewise.

No one at Copenhagen was willing to match the bid, and now many are recoiling in horror over the fact that the EU has now stuck to its lower proposal in its final pledge to the UN.

The 20 per cent pledge, it is being vehemently argued, is a disaster for the environment and the Maltese government, at least on these islands, is being accused of shaming the country for having supported the 20 per cent level.

To put matters into their proper perspective, one needs to revisit those unexpectedly uneventful two weeks in Copenhagen at the United Nations climate change conference.

One also needs to hark back to European Commission President Jose Barroso’s press conference at the end of the summit, held in the small hours and with bags under most journalists’ and diplomats’ eyes. He bemoaned the fact that not only did none of the 200-odd countries present deem it fit to match the EU’s 30 per cent offer, but also that not a single country or bloc even asked the EU if it would actually live up to the 30 per cent pledge.

Matters need to be put into proper perspective. The EU emerged from the UN climate talks with its head held high, having been the economic bloc tabling, at 20 per cent, the highest emission cut offer.

In stark contrast, the final American pledge failed to come anywhere close – all it did was reiterate its initial proposal to curb emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 – equating to a drop of about a mere four per cent below 1990 levels.

It is argued that the EU should have maintained the moral and climatic high ground by pledging a 30 per cent cut by 2020, although its 20 per cent pledge was already heads and shoulders above any other proposal on the table on the last few, pivotal days of the climate talks.

But since its 20 per cent pledge was already so much higher than others on the table, the EU simply could not afford to increase its bid to 30 per cent, not without other economic blocs doing likewise.

The key word here is ‘economic’. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions comes at a price, to the governments making the cuts and to a country’s industries that, at the end of the day, will be responsible for making those cuts.

The question is, how could the EU possibly take on the significant burden, and in the process burden its businesses, with a commitment to cuts emission levels by 30 per cent below 1990 levels when the United States, arguably the EU’s main economic competitor, would only burden its businesses and state coffers with a four per cent cut, when comparing like with like.

Yes, averting the more onerous 30 per cent reduction fits well with the government’s vision, or lack thereof, in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but it was also the right diplomatic and economic choice.

Some 20 years ago Malta placed global warming on the international agenda at the United Nations. That much is true and the country should be applauded for that. But it should certainly stop patting itself on the back and instead ask itself what it has done in the area since then. Malta’s emissions have risen unabated since then – action, as the adage goes, speaks louder than words.

But in today’s highly globalised economy and with a recession still biting and unwilling to lie down and die, no economic bloc is willing to stick its neck out. The EU already did that at Copenhagen, and it most certainly should not stick its neck out 10 per cent more than it already has.

The euro falls on hard times

The euro is facing its most serious crisis in its 11-year history. Greece is on the verge of a default, and it appears it will default unless the EU steps in to bail out its struggling economy. The default of just one of the eurozone’s 16 member countries will undoubtedly threaten the euro’s global credibility, a credibility Malta had long sought and achieved when it joined the currency block.

Europe’s fragile ongoing recovery from the global recession could be reversed and investors could very well be scared away from other eurozone members, such as Malta, that are perceived to be struggling with their public finance balance sheets.

If the Greek economy were to fail, it would be a disaster for the whole of the eurozone and indeed for the whole of the EU.

Greece is running almost a 13 per cent deficit – more than four times the eurozone’s threshold and far, far higher than Malta’s 4.7 per cent figure.

Europe’s deepening debt crisis was at the top of the G7’s agenda this weekend amid fears that Greece’s fiscal sickness was spreading across the bloc and world stock markets slid to three-month lows on Friday, as the worries intensified about a potentially huge bailout and a destabilisation of the eurozone. The euro also dropped to its lowest since last May against the US dollar.

The economic fortunes of all the countries using the euro are too tightly linked to contain the crisis to just one of them. And Greece may not be alone for long. Similar financing crises could soon hit Ireland, Spain and Portugal.

Greece, it is alleged, cooked the fiscal books for years but few questions about the state of its finances were asked in better economic times. Now the truth, and its potentially brutal consequences, must be faced.

Corruption and tax evasion are crippling the Greek economy, millions are paid under the table, the private sector does not generate enough jobs or tax revenues, and one in four Greeks work for the state.

It is a system designed to produce deficits, and it is also a system that should sound at least a little familiar to the Maltese.