With the ink now dry on Jamaica’s Climate Change Policy Framework and Action Plan, the island’s Climate Change Division (CCD) is to drive the realisation of its goals.

“We never did have a launch of the policy framework per se, but Minister (of Water, Land, Environment and Climate Change Robert Pickersgill) did speak to [its completion]. The Climate Change Division will now drive the implementation,” Colonel Oral Khan, the ministry’s chief technical director, told The Gleaner.

Khan added that the publication of the policy was expedited last September, following the inclusion of comments from public consultations done, final approval from Cabinet and some three years of work.

“Some of the priorities highlighted include the mainstreaming of climate change in policy and development planning frameworks, and we have started that process,” noted CCD head Albert Daley.

According to Daley, “There is a 2015 to 2018 framework which highlights the priority actions to be done and who is to do them, timelines, and so on.

“We have been working closely with the Planning Institute of Jamaica to ensure climate-change concerns are reflected in the actions for the various sectors,” he noted.

WORK IN PROGRESS

As things stand, there are a number of adaptation and mitigation sector plans on which work has been ongoing.

The policy was made possible through the Government of Jamaica/European Union/United Nations Development Programme Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction project, funded by the EU under the Global Climate Change Alliance.

In addition to facilitating and coordinating the national response to the impacts of climate change and promoting low-carbon development, the 36-page policy is to:

– mobilise climate financing for adaptation and mitigation initiatives; and

– improve communication at all levels on climate-change impacts and also adaptation- and mitigation-related opportunities so that decision makers and the general public will be better informed.

This is while mainstreaming climate-change considerations and supporting those institutions, including research entities that would enable that process.

The Gleaner

 

 

The Bank of Jamaica (BOJ) indicated on Wednesday that to date, the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) has spent US$27.87 million or J$3.2 billion on oil hedge contracts. In total, five contracts have been signed with Citibank covering periods up to December 2016.

For the current period, the contract runs from January 2016 to December 2016 with a strike price of US$65.90.

The strike price means that Jamaica will begin to receive payouts if the price per barrel of crude hits that mark or exceeds it.

Some analysts to whom the Jamaica Observer have spoken say that it is clear a better deal could have been struck had the Government waited a while before spending money for the hedge in 2015, but they also note that it could not have been predicted that oil prices would continue to slip downwards to the extent to which they have.

Earlier this week, benchmark crude prices fell to their lowest since September 2003 on worries about a global glut.

A new drop came Tuesday after the International Energy Agency, which advises industrialised countries on energy policy, used the alarming term “drown in oversupply” in relation to the oil markets of 2016. The market has begun to react to plans by Iran to ramp up supplies to regain market share.

The West Texas Intermediate index slid 2.3 per cent to US$27.80 per barrel of crude on Tuesday, while Brent slipped 2.3 per cent to US$28.09 per barrel.

On Wednesday the downward spiral continued with Brent Crude down 5.2 per cent at US$27.28 a barrel, while WTI sunk 6.6 per cent to US$26.59.

Analysts note that oil price has plummeted 75 per cent since mid-2014 as oversupply, mainly due to US shale oil flooding the market, has driven down the cost, even while a slowdown in economic growth in China and Europe has cut demand.

Locally, technocrats had suggested a return to US$70 per barrel by year end 2016, a prediction informing the decisions by the GOJ technical committee set up to manage the hedges. The technical committee is chaired by Michael Hewitt of Petrojam and has representatives from the BOJ, the Ministry of Finance, and Development Bank of Jamaica.

One analyst in Kingston, who spoke on condition of anonymity, commented, “To be honest, hindsight is 20/20. We could not have anticipated the current prices. It is easy to say the obvious, which is that if we had waited we could have got a better deal, in the form of a lower premium. In fact, it is obvious, based on where things are, the hedge (for contract periods already covered) was not needed.”

The BOJ informed the Caribbean Business Report that the GOJ is prepared to write new contracts for the period beyond 2016, before year end.

Funds already spent on hedging, provided for in the FY2015/16 budget, were paid out of the Consolidated Fund to facilitate the upfront purchase of the hedge contracts, the central bank stated.

It said that the advance is now being repaid from the proceeds of the new special consumption tax introduced in March 2015 to pay for the hedge.

The amount paid out so far is only about half of what the Government plans to raise from the SCT of $7 per litre on petrol — about six US cents per litre — which is expected to fall in the ball park of $6.4 billion by year-end.

The five existing contracts for hedging are all with Citibank which was the successful bidder for that round of contracting.

Periods covered by the contracts range from June 2015 to May 2016 (two contracts) with a weighted average strike price of US$66.55; and September 2015 to August 2016 (two contracts) with a weighted average strike price of US$66.80. The last is the contract for January 2016 to December 2016 with a strike price of US$65.90.

Regional governments have been eyeing hedging as a new strategy to protect against changes in the price of crude. Mexico, which hedged against a fall in prices, collected US$6 billion under hedge contracts in 2015.

Jamaica Observer

Gov’t oil hedge underwater

In June 2015, the Government of Jamaica booked a hedge transaction to buy six million barrels of oil for delivery 15 months later at a strike price of US$66.74.

The mechanism used in this kind of transaction is called a ‘call option’, which gives the purchaser of the option the right, but not the obligation, to purchase the asset at a specified price the ‘strike price’ within a specified time. A month later, it bought another 15-month futures contract for two million barrels of oil and the average strike price of the two contacts is US$66.53.

We paid about $30 million to Citibank for the privilege of placing this bet on oil prices going higher than our strike price in 15 months.

When these contracts to buy crude oil were booked, prices on the world market was trading at about US$63 a barrel and had rebounded from about US$45 in January 2015. The government placed a bet based on its belief that crude oil prices would continue to rise well above the $66.53 strike price. If that were to happen and oil prices were to increase to, say, US$80-US$90 per barrel, the Government would be in the delightful position of having to pay only about US$66.53 per barrel for oil that would be trading at the much higher spot price on the international commodity market. The Government of Jamaica, senior executives at the Bank of Jamaica, and members of the oversight and technical committees created by the Government to manage the hedges, all seem to have bought into the belief that oil prices would climb higher than US$67 before the expiry date of the options.

The oversight committee is comprised of the financial secretary, Devon Rowe; the governor of the Bank of Jamaica, Brian Wynter; the managing director of the Development Bank of Jamaica, Milverton Reynolds; the managing director the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, Winston Watson; and Dr Vincent Lawrence. Mr Watson is known to have experience in oil trading and markets. Only Michael Hewett, an executive at Petrojam, was named as a member of the technical committee.

Wrong direction

One has to believe that the intention of the members of the government-appointed committees and all of those involved in the hedge transaction was a good one to try and protect Jamaica against that time in the 15-month period when oil prices might spike above US$67. While there is still considerable time to the maturity of the call options, right now the bet is not looking good and the best projections are for oil prices to fall even lower than the below-US$30 they traded at this week.

This week, three important financial institutions released projections indicating that oil prices could fall to US$10-US$20 per barrel and stay there for sometime. Goldman Sachs’ projection was at US$20, Morgan Stanley’s was US$20 and Standard Chartered, a bank with strong roots and connections in the Middle East and Asia, projected US$10 a barrel oil.

In the futures trading business, which is where these call options reside, when an option is bought with the expectation that the price of the commodity will increase but the opposite occurs, the option is said to be ‘underwater’. Given that these options were booked with the expectation for oil price to rise above US$66, and they are now heading in the direction of US$20, Jamaica’s call options on oil are seriously underwater.

A better alternative

In November 2014, a public official asked me about hedging because someone had written him an email to encourage Jamaica to hedge oil transactions on the upside, based on a scenario the email writer concocted about the state of affairs in the international oil industry. The public official was aware that I had traded oil futures for many years and had lived in the Middle East for more than two decades. I share below an excerpt from my reply:

“The recommendation needs study because taking a position means the Government and Jamaica will be guessing the direction of the movement of the price of this commodity. The writer makes it sound like making money on these bets (options) is a sure thing. It is not.

“There is always a risk. Suppose we bet on a certain price increase in a specific time frame, which we would have to if we are going to hedge, and prices instead of rising to, say, US$70/bbl from US$50 falls to US$35/bbl during our hedge horizon, we would suffer an important loss depending on the size of the contract. This is what apparently happened to that forward position Jamaica took on that futures contract on aluminium with the Russians and/or Glencore, the debilitating result of which you are very familiar.

“When oil went to US$9/bbl in the 1990s, if you had dared to tell anyone about the US$147 per barrel price which occurred in July 2008 they would have declared you mad. It’s a commodity; any card can play. On review, if the writer sees the prices as going one way, down, and OPEC is ‘dead’, why hedge? Do nothing, stay addicted to imported oil and go for the lovely ride to low-oil-price nirvana.

“The better alternative is to wean ourselves off the 98 per cent dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels for our energy supplies. We really need to develop and use renewable energy from many sources, including bagasse, garbage, wind, water and solar.”

Aubyn Hill is CEO of Corporate Strategies Ltd and chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the leader of the opposition.

The Gleaner

 

Yang Xiaorui (left) shows Phillip Paulwell, minister of science, technology, energy and mining, an area of the oil and gas exploration vessel that docked at the Port of Kingston yesterday.

International oil and gas explorers are once again in Jamaican waters with the blessing of the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and promises to the local fishing community.

This time, the explorers are venturing on a data-collection exercise.

The first exploration company in 10 years to re-energise the search for oil offshore, the United Kingdom-based Tullow Oil has brought the gamut of data-capturing equipment for the second phase of its venture.

“This is a major deal for Jamaica’s oil-and-gas exploration,” asserted Phillip Paulwell, minister of science, technology, energy and mining, during a tour of the vessel, BGP Challenger, yesterday at the Kingston Port.

Paulwell, who was accompanied on the tour by State Minister Julian Robinson, said: “For them to start this work, they had to get approval from NEPA, and they have signed an important agreement with our fisherfolk in the event of any matter for full compensation.”

In November 2014, the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ) signed a production-sharing agreement with Tullow Oil (Jamaica) for oil and gas exploration in Jamaica’s offshore areas.

“We first started (explorations) in the 1980s when the then Government of Jamaica was responsible for funding,” said Paulwell.

He asserted that it has gained momentum with the private sector coming on board with Tullow Oil signing an agreement.

Paulwell told The Gleaner that US$70 million was committed to the project.

“They have so far spent US$10 million, and this exercise will cost them another US$4 million to acquire additional data.”

He added: “Although we are convinced that we have oil and gas in and around Jamaica, we really have to pinpoint the location before drilling can take place.”

He continued: “They have demonstrated a firm commitment, in spite of the fact that the price of oil has plummeted.”

The minister noted that when the agreement was signed 15 months ago, the price of oil was well over US$100 a barrel.

“Today, it is about US$30, but they are still committed, and not only them, since we signed the agreement, others have approached PCJ.”

NEGOTIATIONS ONGOING

Paulwell disclosed that negotiations are ongoing with another major firm.

“Shortly, we are going to sign another agreement,” he said.

“It means that there is a high level of ‘prospectivity’ and there is tremendous confidence in what we have done so far,” he added.

John McKenna, external affairs manager of the London-based Tullow Oil, who has been involved in the project since its onset, said the second phase related to the imaging of the seabed.

“This is the second part, which is the two-dimensional seismic expedition programme.”

He noted that it involves the acquiring of more than 3,000 kilometres of additional data.

“We are focusing initially on the eastern part of the offshore where very little data has been acquired in the past.”

The Gleaner

The Marathon refinery in Detroit is shown Monday, January 4, 2016.

 

Michigan, USA (AP) — Michigan environmental regulators are poised to allow the Marathon refinery in south-west Detroit to increase emissions of at least eight air pollutants.

The state Department of Environmental Quality said it proposes to approve revised permits for refinery modernisation and expansion that would increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, small particulate pollution and sulfuric acid mist.

This, on the heels of the Paris climate talks in December where 195 countries, including the US, agreed to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emission with a view to keeping global temperature rise this century well below two degrees Celsius and driving efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The proposal would increase emissions of sulfur dioxide in an area that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated as being out of compliance with federal air pollution standards, the Detroit Free Press reported, but the agency’s analysis of Marathon’s permit requests notes that the emissions increases all fall within allowable state and federal regulations. The permit requests involve installation of equipment by Marathon to produce lower sulfur gasoline that will meet new EPA standards.

“The project will enable the facility to produce fuels that comply with the EPA regulation by reducing sulfur dioxide emissions from gasoline,” Marathon spokesman Jamal Kheiry said in an e-mail to the Free Press.

Kheiry added that the refinery’s emission levels “will continue to be well below those allowed under its existing permit”. Changes at the facility triggered the DEQ’s permit process.

Four Detroit-area state senators — Coleman Young II, Morris Hood III, Bert Johnson and Vincent Gregory — want the DEQ to reject the permits.

“When we allow our refineries and coal-fired power plants to belch toxic fumes into our neighbourhoods, we set ourselves up for a legacy of poor health and skyrocketing medical bills,” said the lawmakers, all Democrats.

Ray Holland, 60, who has lived in a nearby neighbourhood his whole life, doesn’t like the idea of the proposed changes.

“I think they should leave it like it is — or put more pollution controls on it,” he said of the refinery.

The DEQ plans an information session and public hearing tonight at the River Rouge High School auditorium in nearby River Rouge. The agency plans to consider public comments prior to taking final actions on Marathon’s permit applications.

The Observer

A coal miner works to secure the roof with bolts in an underground coal mine roughly 40-inches-high. Preliminary government figures released Friday show U.S. coal production has fallen to its lowest level in nearly 30 years as cheaper sources of power and stricter environmental regulations reduce demand.

United States (US) coal production has fallen to its lowest level in nearly 30 years as cheaper sources of power and stricter environmental regulations reduce demand, according to preliminary government figures.

A report released last Friday by the US Energy Information Administration estimates that 900 million short tons of coal were produced last year, a drop from about 1 billion short tons in 2014.

That’s the lowest volume since 1986.

The slump has led to bankruptcies and layoffs at mining companies, but the effects have rippled outward, stressing state budgets and forcing layoffs in other sector, such as railroads, which are transporting less coal.

Power plants are increasingly relying on cheaper and cleaner-burning natural gas to provide electricity and comply with regulations aimed at reducing pollution that contributes to climate change.

A sweeping agreement adopted last month in Paris by nearly 200 countries determined to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions is likely to make coal an even less viable choice in the decades ahead.

The Gleaner

In this 2013 photo, Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining Phillip Paulwell (left) and Roy Lafayette, chief executive officer at Geddes Refrigeration Limited, signs a US$2.65-million contract with Geddes Refrigeration Limited for the design, supply and retrofitting of efficient air-conditioning solutions in four State entities.

The Jamaican Government has so far realised savings of $80 million over the past two years under an energy efficiency programme which has been implemented in 40 public-sector facilities.

Dubbed the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programme (EECP), its general objective is to enhance Jamaica’s energy efficiency and energy conservation. Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining Phillip Paulwell said that the State is now contemplating an expansion.

“We intend to take it much further, we are expanding it,” Paulwell said.

Among the methods employed to boost energy efficiency thus far is the use of film to reflect sunlight from windows, the painting of roofs with white paint to improve cooling, and the changing of lighting fixtures.

The Government has had to pay annual costs of almost $13 billion for electricity used by its entities, and the aim is to reduce the figure by $2 billion with the introduction of several key strategic energy-saving interventions.

The measures were recommended following an audit of the energy use by the public sector, with the overall objective to cut public-sector energy consumption by 30 per cent in 2017.

“The money is being absolutely well spent. I am very proud of this project,” Paulwell said.

This year, the Government is spending $379.8 million on the conservation programme, which is funded by a loan, up from the $310 million spent last year.

A total of $748.8 million is being spent on energy conservation and efficiency programmes this year, up from $599 million last year.

The targets set for this fiscal year include executing two contracts to replace inefficient air-conditioning systems in 11 state institutions at a cost of $254.9 million, and commencing the replacement of inefficient lighting in several public institutions ($77.3 million).

The Jamaica Information Service, which is among the entities that benefited from the programme, is reporting savings of 17.5 per cent per annum on its energy bill.

The Gleaner

Jamaican Grammy Award-winning artiste Sean Paul attends a press conference at the COP21, United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Le Bourget, north of Paris, France, last month.

After lending his talents to the song Love Song to the Earth, Grammy-winning artiste Sean Paul is looking to do more in the effort against climate change.

Addressing a press conference at the recently concluded international climate talks held in Paris, Sean Paul signalled a commitment to gathering and sharing information on the troubling phenomena.

“I was driven here in an electric car and I was inquiring a lot about the car – how much it takes to take care of it and how much it cost [to purchase]. And it was just crazy to me that people go and shop in stores, and in one day they could actually buy that car, which would help reduce a lot of carbon emissions,” said Sean Paul, who was in Paris to perform.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide – primarily the result of human actions, including coal burning and petrol use over the last 100-plus years – fuel global warming, which contributes to the climate impacts currently being experienced in small-island developing states like those of the Caribbean. Such impacts include sea-level rise and an increase in sea-surface temperatures, which stand to jeopardise coastal lives and livelihoods.

FRESH IDEAS

“Just being here is great for fresh ideas that I can bring back to my country. Me being here, seeing that car, having driven in the car, asking the questions and then going back to Jamaica to inquire how I can get cars like that there … .” added Sean Paul, who collaborated with Natasha Bedingfield, Paul McCartney, and others on Love Song to the Earth.

He also indicated that he was prepared to make adjustments in his own lifestyle.

“The less that I can put out in terms of garbage, and so on,” Sean Paul told the media, in reference to materials that are harmful to the environment.

And he is not alone in his resolve to promote information sharing and change in the effort to combat climate change. He is joined by other Caribbean acts, including another Jamaican, Aaron Silk, and Adrian ‘The Doc’ Martinez of Belize.

Both men were themselves in Paris performing under the ‘1.5 to Stay Alive’ campaign run by Panos Caribbean in collaboration with other key regional actors, notably the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, the Caribbean Development Bank, the Regional Council of Martinique, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, and the St Lucia Ministry of Sustainable Development.

The Gleaner

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 22.05.48

Small island states lost out to their larger, more industrialised seniors at COP21.

 

The results of the climate change conference in Paris (COP21) give no reason for small island states to cheer. The agreement reflects many promises and little action.

The one item of concrete action is merely an undertaking to evaluate carbon emissions every five years — and even that has no teeth.

What is not in the agreement is a firm, legally binding commitment to limit average global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Also, not in the agreement is a legally binding commitment to provide developing countries with the funds needed to adapt to, and mitigate against the effects of climate change.

There isn’t even a commitment to a fund, in the sum of US$100 billion a year, that was frequently touted before the conference began.

Once again, the industrialised nations of the world — the worst polluters — took advantage of the weakness of the smallest countries of the world, which are the least polluters and the biggest victims of climate change.

To their credit, though, through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), representatives of small states did put up a good showing in Paris. Armed with the latest statistics and bolstered by a structured expert report released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they argued for the containment of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, showing that, at 2 degrees, destruction would be widespread and irreversible. But, in the end, despite all the hoopla, applause and celebration, small states lost.

Representatives of AOSIS countries might have been flattered by a brief visit to them by US President Barack Obama, when he declared: “These nations are not the most populous nations, they don’t have big armies, they have a right to dignity and sense of place.” But, while President Obama was undoubtedly sincere in what he said, he also knew, even as he was saying it, that he could not deliver ratification by the US Congress of any agreement that limited carbon emissions or bound the US legally to warming no higher than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So, the world has a so-called agreement, still to be ratified by the 196 participating countries, that only expresses an objective to limit global warming to “well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels”. The goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, as described by Amber Rudd, the British minister for energy and climate change, is merely “aspirational”. In making her statement that the target of 1.5 degrees is aspirational, the minister was sending a clear signal to the British industrial world that driving down carbon emissions from fossil fuels is not an immediate objective and therefore will not affect their business.

In truth, the climate change action plans submitted by 188 countries would lead to a temperature rise as high as 2.7 degrees Celsius. And, if that is not bad enough, the signatories to the Paris agreement are under no legal obligation even to meet that objective; they are legally free to enlarge carbon emissions further. So, no cause for small island states to celebrate over that one, and profound reason for them to worry.

At three degrees, the size of islands will shrink, productive areas will be under water, people will have to move habitats inland and many will be forced to migrate, legally and illegally. We have to hope that all the scientists who predict this scenario are wrong.

On the money side, the developed countries declined to insert into the Paris agreement their often-made oral commitments to transfer funds to poorer countries in order to help them adapt. Yet, all the studies show that even the US$100 billion a year that was promised would not be enough to help developing countries build up a power system quickly or cheaply enough on renewable energy sources rather than coal or oil. Incidentally, even if the US$100 billion a year fund was achieved, access to it by small states in the Caribbean would be long and arduous, particularly if the criterion of “per capita” income continues to be applied as it is now by international financial institutions. The portion available to the Caribbean region would be a small fraction of the total sum.

Some may argue that there are two aspects of the Paris agreement that are beneficial to small states, therefore, attention should be paid to them. The participating countries recognised “the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including weather events and slow onset events”. But, liability is completely ignored because it was opposed by the polluting industrialised countries. Recognition of a problem is far removed from committing to action to cure it.

Then there is the single binding legal requirement in the agreement. Every country is now required to come back every five years with new targets for reducing their carbon emissions. But there is no sanction if they fail to meet their previous commitment, and no sanction if they simply carry on business as usual.

COP21 in Paris may have been a triumph for some nations, but no self-respecting small island State should claim any satisfaction.

That is why each small State, individually and within the many organisations in which they are members — including AOSIS, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States and others — must now redouble their efforts to work on the developed country governments, but also to move beyond them to the conscience of the people of the industrialised world.

This is about survival and development — two defining challenges of this century for small states. It is the work of everyone; governments, businesses and civil society, all are involved and all could be consumed.

Jamaica Observer

Sir Ronald Saunders

 

Small island states lost out to their larger, more industralised seniors at COP21.

 

The results of the climate change conference in Paris (COP21) give no reason for small island states to cheer. The agreement reflects many promises and little action.

The one item of concrete action is merely an undertaking to evaluate carbon emissions every five years — and even that has no teeth.

What is not in the agreement is a firm, legally binding commitment to limit average global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Also, not in the agreement is a legally binding commitment to provide developing countries with the funds needed to adapt to, and mitigate against the effects of climate change.

There isn’t even a commitment to a fund, in the sum of US$100 billion a year, that was frequently touted before the conference began.

Once again, the industrialised nations of the world — the worst polluters — took advantage of the weakness of the smallest countries of the world, which are the least polluters and the biggest victims of climate change.

To their credit, though, through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), representatives of small states did put up a good showing in Paris. Armed with the latest statistics and bolstered by a structured expert report released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they argued for the containment of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, showing that, at 2 degrees, destruction would be widespread and irreversible. But, in the end, despite all the hoopla, applause and celebration, small states lost.

Representatives of AOSIS countries might have been flattered by a brief visit to them by US President Barack Obama, when he declared: “These nations are not the most populous nations, they don’t have big armies, they have a right to dignity and sense of place.” But, while President Obama was undoubtedly sincere in what he said, he also knew, even as he was saying it, that he could not deliver ratification by the US Congress of any agreement that limited carbon emissions or bound the US legally to warming no higher than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So, the world has a so-called agreement, still to be ratified by the 196 participating countries, that only expresses an objective to limit global warming to “well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels”. The goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, as described by Amber Rudd, the British minister for energy and climate change, is merely “aspirational”. In making her statement that the target of 1.5 degrees is aspirational, the minister was sending a clear signal to the British industrial world that driving down carbon emissions from fossil fuels is not an immediate objective and therefore will not affect their business.

In truth, the climate change action plans submitted by 188 countries would lead to a temperature rise as high as 2.7 degrees Celsius. And, if that is not bad enough, the signatories to the Paris agreement are under no legal obligation even to meet that objective; they are legally free to enlarge carbon emissions further. So, no cause for small island states to celebrate over that one, and profound reason for them to worry.

At three degrees, the size of islands will shrink, productive areas will be under water, people will have to move habitats inland and many will be forced to migrate, legally and illegally. We have to hope that all the scientists who predict this scenario are wrong.

On the money side, the developed countries declined to insert into the Paris agreement their often-made oral commitments to transfer funds to poorer countries in order to help them adapt. Yet, all the studies show that even the US$100 billion a year that was promised would not be enough to help developing countries build up a power system quickly or cheaply enough on renewable energy sources rather than coal or oil. Incidentally, even if the US$100 billion a year fund was achieved, access to it by small states in the Caribbean would be long and arduous, particularly if the criterion of “per capita” income continues to be applied as it is now by international financial institutions. The portion available to the Caribbean region would be a small fraction of the total sum.

Some may argue that there are two aspects of the Paris agreement that are beneficial to small states, therefore, attention should be paid to them. The participating countries recognised “the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including weather events and slow onset events”. But, liability is completely ignored because it was opposed by the polluting industrialised countries. Recognition of a problem is far removed from committing to action to cure it.

Then there is the single binding legal requirement in the agreement. Every country is now required to come back every five years with new targets for reducing their carbon emissions. But there is no sanction if they fail to meet their previous commitment, and no sanction if they simply carry on business as usual.

COP21 in Paris may have been a triumph for some nations, but no self-respecting small island State should claim any satisfaction.

That is why each small State, individually and within the many organisations in which they are members — including AOSIS, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Organization of American States and others — must now redouble their efforts to work on the developed country governments, but also to move beyond them to the conscience of the people of the industrialised world.

This is about survival and development — two defining challenges of this century for small states. It is the work of everyone; governments, businesses and civil society, all are involved and all could be consumed.

Sir Ronald Sanders is Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador to the US; an international affairs consultant; as well as senior fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto, and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London. The views expressed are his own. For responses and to view previous commentaries:

www.sirronaldsanders.com.

The Observer