On one level it appeared just another week in Australian climate politics. A ridiculous statement by a government minister made headlines; the crossbench pushed for stronger action; the prime minister’s office quietly suggested he may not fulfil the next step of the Paris agreement, a deal he has repeatedly promised voters he would honour.

Meanwhile, much of the media coverage of climate policy focused on what the opposition might do if it wins power in three years’ time.

But the repercussions from decisions made public this week may reverberate longer than was immediately obvious.

First, the ridiculous. David Littleproud, the minister responsible for drought and natural disasters, made international news after telling Guardian Australia he did not know if climate change was manmade. By Thursday, he was saying he had always accepted the science on the role humans play in the climate changing. He blamed his initial statement on a TV interview being cut short, neglecting to acknowledge it first appeared in an email responding to questions from this publication.

Australian natural disasters minister's complete about face: 'I believe in climate science' Read more

The minister’s position was backed to varying degrees by cabinet colleagues who played down the need to focus on the link between the climate crisis and bushfires ravaging Queensland and New South Wales or, in the case of the resources minister, Matt Canavan, volunteered that the government supported “sensible responses” to the issue that included supporting coal and gas developments.

If this all sounds wearyingly familiar and anti-science, it is worth noting Littleproud’s past comments back his claim that he more or less accepts mainstream science and the need to respond, if not the urgency scientists say is necessary. Beyond reinforcing Australia’s reputation as a global laggard on the climate emergency, his misstep was extraordinary mostly for illustrating the extent to which relative centrists within the Coalition are tying themselves in knots to avoid the wrath of the hard right.

But put Littleproud’s gaffe aside. Confirmation by my colleague Katharine Murphy that Scott Morrison will not attend a climate summit convened by the UN secretary general later this month, despite landing in the US that week to meet Donald Trump, is more significant – and not just for surface-level appearance reasons.

Morrison was not offered a speaking slot at the summit because he turned down António Guterres’ call for leaders to come to New York armed with concrete plans to boost national climate commitments next year. The foreign minister, Marise Payne, will attend in his place. While it has received relatively little attention beyond the Guardian, international observers are interpreting it as a sign Australia is backing away from its pledge under the Paris agreement.

It’s worth looking at what Australia signed up to in France in 2015. The overarching goal agreement is to limit global heating to well below 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible. To get there, countries included a “ratchet-up” mechanism. Every five years, they would update their commitments (known, in the UN’s typically alienating language, as “nationally determined contributions”) informed by the latest science.

Everyone in Paris knew the initial targets set for 2030 were nothing like enough. Everyone knew the success of the pact would depend on countries lifting their commitments sooner rather than later. The point was reinforced last year when the world’s climate scientists, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released a major report examining what would be necessary to limit heating to 1.5C.

The report, which was requested by leaders in Paris, was stark. As Guterres has noted, it suggests a global 45% cut in emissions is needed by 2030 to keep the 1.5C goal within reach – a significant ask, but one in which analysts have found Australia could play its part.

Armed with that information, leaders are now supposed to be doing their part: ramping up what they will do as we approach the first five-yearly update of the Paris agreement next year.

As one of the world’s 15 biggest emitters and a wealthy developed country, what Australia does is noticed. But in a comment to the Guardian this week, Morrison’s office offered nothing to suggest a change was on the cards as promised. “Australia has already outlined our policies to tackle climate change including cutting our emissions by 26-28% and investing directly into climate resilience projects through our regional partners,” a spokesman said.

Australia has an infamous history of fudging on its climate targets, dating back to the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, when it demanded a target that allowed it to increase pollution by 8%. It also pushed for the inclusion of land-use changes in its baseline year of 1990, an historically high year for Australian carbon pollution from rampant land clearing in Queensland.

As land clearing had already reduced in the years that followed, it meant Australia could meet its goal while it continued to dramatically expand fossil fuel operations. It set up a situation where it could claim to be playing its part while doing no such thing.

That approach has continued. Australia has changed baseline years to make cuts appear deeper than they are and set targets that ignore scientific advice. Its has set low emissions reduction targets and then wants to claim extra credit towards its next target for beating the first goal. The credits go to Australia, not the atmosphere.

Scott Morrison won't attend UN climate summit despite being in the US Read more

As has been well documented, Australia’s national emissions have risen four years straight. Multiple analyses have found existing climate change policies are not enough to meet the current 2030 target.

It would be foolish to be Pollyannaish about the state of international action to combat climate change. Global emissions increased last year after plateauing for a couple of years in the middle of the decade. The national governments of the biggest emitters, China and the US, either give mixed messages or are actively opposed to taking action.

But most major players, China included, remain committed to the Paris process in a way Australia is not. High-level discussions between China and the European Union about increasing their emissions commitments are ongoing. India is watching those talks closely ahead of announcing its position next year. More than 60 countries have signed up to give a presentation at the NYC climate summit, according to an early list seen by the Guardian.

Amid this, Australia’s plans are unclear at best. It has committed to develop a long-term strategy, but not explained what this will mean. It is possible it could still take an increased 2030 target to the UN climate conference in Glasgow next year. But it has said nothing to indicate this is likely.

Why does this matter? Beyond it going against Australia’s pledge in 2015, it makes deeper cuts in the future that much harder. Bill Hare, the chief executive and senior scientist with Climate Analytics, says it is well established scientifically that inadequate emissions reductions by 2030 leaves little to no chance of reaching zero emissions by 2050, the underlying goal implied by the Paris deal.

Visiting bushfire-damaged Queensland on Friday, Morrison followed a familiar formula. He accepted that climate change was a factor in what he was witnessing and claimed Australia was acting. “We have already responded and we will continue to respond, to take action on climate change. I do not accept any suggestion that we do not,” he said.

It is a proven technique: straight denial despite all the evidence running the other way. But talk to international observers of climate efforts and the view is different. Australia is seen as a roadblock, more focused on expanding its coal and gas exports than supporting a global solution. As efforts build ahead of Glasgow next year, Morrison may find it is not just the Pacific pushing back.