On average each United States citizen produces more than twice as much emissions as a European or Japanese citizen, according to Malta’s Ambassador on Climate Change, Michael Zammit Cutajar.

Speaking during a lecture on ‘Negotiating Climate Change: After Copenhagen?’, organised by the Department of International Relations, Mr Zammit Cutajar said China had just surpassed the US in terms of emissions.

Between them these two countries produce 40 per cent of the total global emissions, which means that not much action can be taken without both on board. European and Japanese citizens produce 2.5 times as much as an average Chinese, and furthermore this is 2.5 times the average emissions of an Indian citizen.

The issue with the Copenhagen summit, Mr Zammit Cutajar said, was that there were two diverging negotiating tracks. One of them was in favour of adapting and extending the Kyoto protocol and the other was quite the opposite.

The latter was made up of mainly countries which were not part of the Kyoto Protocol, that is developing countries and the USA, which never ratified the protocol. The problem, he said, was that both tracks ran into roadblocks due to the different interests at play.

There was a profound uncertainty about what was being negotiated, he said, and there were also a lot of delaying tactics to keep the negotiations open for longer.

The problem that science presented, he said, was that it did not tell people what to do, but simply outlined the facts. More than anything else, what one feels depends on the position they are in, he said.

The bottom line put forward by economists is the old English adage, which states that “prevention is better than cure”, he said.

The transition to lower emissions is a major change, he admitted, although studies have shown that it is not as expensive as some might think. They also come with added bonuses, as low emission buses, for example, offer health benefits.

The Copenhagen summit also resulted in a ‘backroom deal’, he said, which was not adopted due to some countries blocking the agreement. The Copenhagen Accord contained some good ideas, Mr Zammit Cutajar said.

The majority of countries agree that global warming should not exceed two degrees Celsius, he said, and that it identified areas for increased cooperation and pledges greater transparency.

There are currently some 120 countries associated with the accord, representing some 80 per cent of the global emissions. A handful of countries have however blocked it, he said.

Mr Zammit Cutajar described the accord as being politically important, but on the other hand legally uncertain and climatically inadequate.

There are two views on how to deal with the issue of mitigation. The first one, favoured by the likes of the US, China and India, is a bottom-up approach. It outlines what a country can and will do, but the countries are bound nationally and accountable internationally.

The second approach, favoured by the EU, works in a top down manner and binds countries internationally. This puts the European Union in a very tricky position, he said, since it has to decide whether to push for what it wants or take what it can get.

The next conference, which will be between 29 November and 10 December 2010 in Cancun can be successful, he said, if people are not too ambitious.

The idea, he suggested, is to try and get the agreements on the points where it was already a viable option and to look to the practical stuff. The problem, he said, was that people persisted in pointing fingers at each other, but nobody truly focused on trying to find a solution.