L-injam tal-għamara tiegħek minn fejn ġie ?

 

 

Mhux biss l-għamara, iżda l-bibien ukoll !

 

F’Marzu li għadda l-Friends of the Earth (FoE) ippreżentaw rapport lil Stavros Dimas, Kummissarju tal-EU dwar l-Ambjent, intitolat Building On Forest Destruction. Timber use in EU-financed building projects.

 

F’dan ir-rapport il-FoE jgħidu li nofs l-injam użat fl-Unjoni Ewropea ġej minn żoni fejn il-foresti huma mhedda u fejn is-siġar jinqatgħu b’mod illegali.

 

Il-qtugħ tas-siġar bl-addoċċ (illegal logging) qiegħed jikkontribwixxi għall-bdil fil-klima. Dan billi qiegħed inaqqas dawk li nsejħulhom carbon sinks. Għax is-siġar iservu, fost affarijiet oħra biex isaffu l-arja mill-carbon dioxide u minflok jipproduċu l-ossignu. B’dan il-mod jonqos mill-arja gass li jikkontribwixxi għaż-żieda fit-temperatura.

 

Issa l-injam għandna bżonnu. Imma nistgħu nagħmlu użu minnu b’mod responsabbli, b’mod sostenibbli. Dan isir billi jiġi assigurat li għal kull siġra li tinqata’ titħawwel oħra. Issa l-injam li jinqata’ minn foresti fejn hemm użu sostenibbli tas-siġar huwa ċċertifikat minn organizzazzjoinijiet imwaqqfa apposta bħall-Forest Stewardship Council. Iċ-ċertifikazzjoni li jagħtu dawn ifisser illi min qata’ s-siġra li minnu sar dak l-injam aġixxa b’mod responsabbli, u assigura użu sostenibbli tar-riżorsi tal-foresta.

 

Issa Dimas meta kien ippreżentat b’dan ir-rapport tal-FoE qal li l-EU ser tibda proċess dwar Direttiva fuq l-użu sostenibbli tal-injam. Għax l-EU trid tagħti s-sehem tagħha fil-ġlieda kontra l-bdil tal-klima u kontra l-użu abbużiv tar-riżorsi tal-foresti madwar id-dinja. Meta tidħol fis-seħħ din id-Direttiva, injam jew inkella prodotti tal-injam bla ċertifikazzjoni dwar is-sostenibilita tagħhom ma jkunux jistgħu jinbiegħu facilment.

 

L-ambjent inħarsuh bil-fatti.

Lejn tmiem Mejju 2008 suppost li l-EU tibda l-proċess li jwassal lejn din id-Direttiva ġdida.

Chernobyl : it-22 anniversarju

majjal imwieled f’Chernobyl fl-1986

 

Nhar il-Ġimgħa 25 t’April kien it-22 anniversarju tad-diżastru nuklejari ta’ Chernobyl, fl-Ukrajina.

 

Fil-lejl bejn il-25 u s-26 t’April 1986 sploda r-rejattur numru 4 tal-impjant nuklejari ta’ Chernobyl. L-impatt tar-radjuattivita fuq medda kbira ta’ art mad-dawra kien bejn 30 u 40 darba tal-impatt fuq Hiroshima fl-1945. Effettwa ukoll il-pajjiżi diversi, fosthom dawk ġirien u iktar ukoll.

 

L-imwiet bħala riżultat tal-isplużjoni kienu 56 diretti u madwar 9,000 oħra li żviluppaw il-cancer bħala riżultat tar-radjazzjoni li kienu esposti għaliha.

 

Effettwa ukoll lill-annimali kif jidher mir-ritratt li qed jakkumpanja dan il-post.

 

Il-Punent kien induna b’dan l-inċident minn indaġni li saret fl-Isvezja nhar is-27 t’April 1986 meta kien instab li ħaddiema tal-impjant nuklejari f’Forsmark l-Isvezja kellhom indikazzjonijiet ta’ radjuattivita fuq ħwejjiġhom u dan ma kienx ġej mill-impjant Svediż.

 

 

Fortunatament rari jkollna inċidenti ta’ dan it-tip. Ma jfissirx dan li l-enerġija nukleari hi aċċettabbli. Tikkawża ħafna problemi.  Imma dawk niddiskutuhom f’xi okkażjoni oħra.

Raqda Twila

Austin Gatt (Ministru tat-Trasport) ħareġ direttivi lill-Awtorita’ dwar it-Trasport (ADT) biex tkun l-Awtorita’ innifisha li tieħu ħsieb it-testijiet meħtieġa biex jiġu ċċertifikati x-xogħolijiet fuq it-toroq.

Ix-xogħol għandu jsir sewwa. Min ma jagħmilx xogħol sewwa għal fuq il-black list qal Austin Gatt.

M’hemm xejn ħażin f’dak li qal Austin.

Li hu ħażin huwa li kien hemm il-ħtieġa li jgħidu. Jirrifletti x’tip ta’ management għandha l-ADT. Għax jekk dawn l-affarijiet ovvji kien hemm ħtieġa li jingħadu, jidher li kien hemm min ilu rieqed raqda twila.

Biex tara d-direttiva ghafas hawn: Ministerial Policy Directive 28/04/2008

L-agrituriżmu u s-saħħa mentali

 

 

Il-Fondazzjoni Ager hija immexxija minn Victor Galea u hija l-ewwel organizzazzjoni tax-xorta tagħha f’Malta. Torganizza żjarat ta’ jum għand u mal-bdiewa (u anke mas-sajjieda) Għawdxin. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan kemm Maltin kif ukoll barranin qed japprezzaw iktar il-biedja Ghawdxija.

 

 

Dan huwa forma oħra ta’ Turiżmu li f’Malta għadu ma żviluppax. Għandu potenzjal kbir. F’pajjiżi oħra taw iktar kasu u għin biex jiżviluppa turiżmu sostenibbli.

 

Apparti l-benefiċċju għad-diversifikazzjoni tat-turiżmu għandu ukoll vantaġġi ta’ terapija magħrufa ukoll bħala eko-terapija. Mhux biss għal min hu marid iżda ukoll għal min hu b’saħħtu u jrid jistrieħ il-bogħod mill-istorbju u l-istress tal-ħajja ta’ kuljum.

 

Studji u osservazzjonijiet li saru f’pajjiżi oħra juru li l-industrijalizzazzjoni u l-urbanizzazzjoni begħdu lill-bniedem min-natura. Meta nerġgħu noqorbu lejn in-natura ikun qiesu dħalna lura d-dar. Esperjenza agri-turistika b’sorveljanza tista’ tkun ta’ għajnuna kbira għal min ibati minn skizofrenija u depression.

 

 

Dawn huma uħud mill-osservazzjonijiet li għamilt waqt seminar organizzat mir-Richmond Foundation nhar il-Ħamis li għadda bit-titlu : The Environment and Its Effects On Mental Health.

 

MEPA’s Audit Officer, Joe Falzon, says his office is swamped by complaints and he is finding it difficult to cope.

 

 

Saturday, 26th April 2008

“At the moment, frankly, I am swamped. After the Mistra case, particularly, and the media exposure it was given, I was inundated with complaints and I’m not coping,” he said.

After his investigating officer, Carmel Cacopardo, was not reappointed, the audit office never really picked up the pace, Mr Falzon added.

Mr Cacopardo’s reappointment had become the centre of a bitter tug-of-war between Mepa chairman Andrew Calleja, Mr Falzon and Mr Cacopardo, which eventually led to repeated resignation threats by the auditor.

Mepa insisted that Mr Cacopardo’s position was untenable, particularly in view of a conflict of interest stemming from the fact that he publicly questioned the credentials of the man appointed director for environment protection, a post for which Mr Cacopardo himself had applied.

Both the auditor and Mr Cacopardo rebutted the claims publicly, with Mr Falzon insisting that the choice of the investigating officer was ultimately his and not Mepa’s.

The Mepa chairman at one point had asked Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino to intervene. While turning down the request to step in as arbiter, the Ombudsman proposed that his office services the audit office’s administrative needs to compensate for the loss of the investigating officer.

At one point the talks between the Ombudsman and Mr Falzon on the proposal appeared as though they might stall but an agreement was eventually reached and the audit officer accepted the offer.

When asked about this new arrangement, Mr Falzon said that, so far, the two offices were still trying to link up through IT. “We’ll install that and see how it works… Unfortunately it took us a long time,” he said, adding that the previous arrangement with a part-time investigating officer attached to his office was the ideal set up.

It is clear Mr Falzon remains sore about the matter. In fact, at a business breakfast on Mepa reform yesterday, he insisted, as he had done on previous occasions, that Mr Cacopardo’s effective dismissal was an example of why the planning authority ended up in the bad situation it is now.

“It’s a question of political will at the end of the day… He (Mr Cacopardo) was doing a good job, efficiently, but he was removed simply because he dared criticise the chairman, that is the minister,” Mr Falzon said.

Dilemma

L-Independent (UK) f’artiklu ippubblikat il-bierah jikkummenta dwar deciżjoni diffiċli ta’ ippjanar fejn id-deċiżjoni li kellha tittieħed ma kienitx bejn xi ħaġa tajba jew oħra ħażina, iżda bejn żewġ materji li t-tnejn huma tajba.

 

Id-dilemma kienet jekk jingħatax permess għal onshore wind farm fl-Isle of Lewis. Din il-wind farm li kieku ngħatat il-permess kienet ser toħloq mijiet ta’ impiegi f’żona remota kif ukoll kienet ser tikkontribwixxi mhux ftit biex jintlaħqu l-miri ta’ ġenerazzjoni ta’ enerġija alternattiva.

 

Imma kien hemm ukoll ħdax-il elf oġġezzjoni minn residenti li emfasizzaw il-ħtieġa u l-importanza tal-biodiversita’. Għax l-inħawi huma protetti (Special Protection Area) magħrufa għal għasafar rari li l-esistenza tagħhom hi mhedda.

 

Dilemma kbira li mhux il-MEPA biss ikollha minnhom !

Ara ukoll dawn l-Scotsman u l-Guardian.

Il-Ħrafa dwar l-Ikel Ġenetikament Modifikat

F’artiklu ppubblikat fl-Independent l-Ingilterra huwa spjegat kif minn studju riċenti li sar matul dawn l-aħħar tlett snin mill-Universita’ ta’ Kansas fl-Istati Uniti ta-Amerika anke l-produttivita tal-GMOs hi dubjuża.

Dan minħabba li spiss jiġi repetut l-argument illi l-GMOs huma neċessarji biex jingħeleb il-ġuħ fid-dinja. Fil-fatt, jirriżulta minn dan l-istudju illi s-soya ġentikament modifikata tipproduċi 10% anqas mill-ekwivalenti tagħha konvenzjonali.

Dan apparti l-ħsara lill-biodiversita kif ukoll il-potenzjal ta’ effett negattiva fuq is-saħħa li ma ġiex mistħarreg biżżejjed.

Tniġġiż fil-Mediterran

Nhar l-10 t’April 2008 l-Kummissjoni tal-EU flimkien mal-Bank tal-Investiment Ewropew (EIB – European Investment Bank) ippubblikaw studju li sar flimkien mal-Pjan għal Azzjoni Mediterranja (MAP-Mediterranean Action Plan) tal-UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).

F’dan l-istudju ġew identifikati 131 siti jaħarqu kawża tat-tniġġiż kif ukoll 44 proġett li ser jingħataw prijorita għall finanzjament biex jiġi kkontrollat it-tniġġiż fil-Mediterran. L-ispiża f’dawn il-proġetti hi stmata li tammonta għal € 2.1 biljun.

Ir-rapport huwa intitolat Horizon 2020 : Elaboration of a Medterranean Hotspot Investment Programme (MeHSIP). Jittratta l-Alġerija, l-Eġittu, l-Iżrael, il-Ġordan, il-Lebanon, il-Marokk, it-Teritorju Okkupat tal-Palestina, is-Sirja u t-Tuneżija : pajjiżi mat-tul tal-kosta tan-nofsinnhar tal-Mediterran.

L-inizzjattiva Horizon 2020 kienet varata fl-2005 fl-10 anniversarju tal-proċess Ewro-Mediterranju, magħruf bħala l-proċess ta’ Barcelona. L-għan ewlieni tal-inizzjattiva hu li jiġi mnaqqas it-tniġġiż tal-Mediterran u dan billi jiġi identifikat l-origini ta’ dan it-tniġġiż kif ukoll li jittieħdu passi dwaru sas-sena 2020.

Ir-rapport jittratta l-ġbir tal-iskart (municipal waste), id-drenaġġ (kemm is-sistema innifisha kif ukoll impjanti għat-tisfija tiegħu), it-tniġġiż mill-industija kif ukoll l-iskart industrijali u skart perikoluż.

Ir-rapport jeżamina l-involviment kemm tas-settur privat kif ukoll tal-NGOs. Fil-fatt wieħed mill-għanijiet tal-ħidma tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea fil-qasam tal-kooperazzjoni ambjentali mal-pajjiżi tal-Mediterran hi li tiġi msaħħa s-soċjeta ċivili ħalli din b’aċċess ikbar għall-informazzjoni ambjentali tkun tista’ tikkontribwixxi għal għarfien ikbar min-nies kif ukoll bħala konsegwenza għal parteċipazzjoni iktar wiesa’ fit-teħid tad-deċiżjonijiet. (Agħfas hawn biex tara r-rapport sħiħ)

Costing our Mobility

published 19 April 2008

by Carmel Cacopardo

Later this year a proposal for the overhaul of the car taxation regime in Malta will be up for discussion. This has already been indicated in a pre-budget document. It was then stated that the matter was an issue to be viewed within the longer term.

At present, car taxation in Malta is geared towards revenue generation, even if with a slight environmental flavour. Subject to a number of exceptions, the tax a new car is subject to on registration varies between 50.5 per cent and 75 per cent charged on its value and increasing with engine capacity (Motor Vehicles Registration Tax Act – First Schedule). Used cars are subject to different rates. Charges payable for the renewal of car licences also vary with engine capacity.

Any change in car registration taxation could well commence by defining objectives. Change is being triggered by the need to tackle the discriminatory nature of the tax when applied to new and used cars. A second objective is the urgent need to define environmental credentials in the very early days of this Administration. A third objective would most probably be the achievement of a neutral effect in car taxation revenues, namely that changes made would produce no net increase in the quantum of car taxes collected.

A green objective would be to reduce the hidden costs of car use which are being paid by the whole community. Costs incurred are not just financial: environmental and social costs have to be factored into the equation too. A truly green reform would ensure that environmental costs are discouraged through eco taxation while ensuring that changes do not bring about undesirable social effects.

The environmental costs would be reduced through making the polluter pay at such a rate that he would prefer not polluting to paying up. Car registration taxes and renewal of car licences can be used as eco taxes to discourage the use of cars and encourage patronage of public transport.

An efficient public transport system in Malta and Gozo would also indirectly address the negative environmental impacts generated by cars. It would provide a reliable cost-effective alternative, hence also satisfying the social need of effective mobility for all, with reduced costs. I do not aim in this short space to discuss reforms to public transport but it should suffice for the time being to state that it is imperative that investments made in public buses give returns to the community whose taxes are financing it year in year out. Public transport should not be limited to public buses but should also include other forms like sea transport (in Grand Harbour and Marsamxett).

Within this context I would suggest a different objective for changes required to fiscal/environmental/transport policies: introducing efficient and effective mobility by encouraging the reduction of cars from our roads, improving air quality while simultaneously ensuring that the public transport system is really efficient and effective.

Obviously, car importers, car dealers and all those involved in car repair and maintenance as well as car insurance would not be too enthusiastic about such a proposal. A reduction of cars on the road will affect their business. A reduction of emissions will also improve our health through a reduction of respiratory diseases.

Transport has been identified by the 2005 State of the Environment Report (the last to date, published in early 2006) as one of the major areas negatively impacting our environment – in particular the quality of the air we breathe. Yet, in the last five years only one policy initiative has been taken on the matter: congestion charging (CVA – Controlled Vehicular Access) for cars entering Valletta. On its own, the positive impact of this initiative is minimal. Within the context of a general overhaul of transport policy its effect could be increased exponentially.

So the time is ripe to consider all the issues relating to our mobility in a holistic manner. Reform car taxation, encourage the reduction of cars from the road but, at the same time, ensure that our mobility is increased through an efficient public transport system in both Malta and Gozo. While having cleaner air to breathe we will be in a position to reclaim our streets and cut back on costs borne by the community! A radical overhaul of our transport policies is required. Reforming car taxation is just one building block in the whole exercise.

On March 11, a few minutes after the commencement of his new term of office, the Prime Minister invited all those having a genuine interest in the environment to cooperate with the government “to find the best way (forward) in favour of sustainable development”. Positive words which, though late in the day, can be an adequate foundation for the development of environmental policy in Malta. They can also serve to neutralise past mistakes which have derailed many a positive vision.

Pope Benedict XVI : Laying the Groundwork for a Sustainable Civilization ?

by Gary Gardner

Published by Worldwatch Institute on April 15, 2008

Rumour has it that Pope Benedict may address climate change during his visit to the United Nations this week. Whether he does or not, his young papacy can claim to be the “greenest” ever. Benedict has identified extensive common ground between sustainability concerns and a Catholic worldview – adding weight to the argument that the world’s religions could be instrumental in nudging policymakers and the public to embrace sustainability. Now, the Pope has the opportunity to further develop the links between sustainability and religious values, markedly advancing thinking in both arenas.

Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, made important environmental statements during his long papacy, but Benedict is the first “green pope.” Last year, the Vatican installed solar panels on its 10,000-seat main auditorium building, and it arranged to reforest land in Hungary to offset Vatican City’s carbon emissions, making it the world’s first carbon-neutral state. And Benedict has repeatedly urged protection of the environment and action against poverty in a number of major addresses. His next encyclical (major papal teaching), due out this summer, is expected to further wrestle with environmental, social, and other themes of interest to the sustainability community.

As he embraces these themes, Benedict and the larger Catholic community could play an especially valuable role in helping to address two major influences on the environment that get too little attention today: consumption and population. (A third, technology, already receives high levels of policy focus.)

The consumption question should be comfortable ground for a modern Catholic pope, given the longstanding social and spiritual critique of consumerism in Catholic thought. For example, Pope Paul VI, in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, linked heavy consumption to injustice, declaring that, “No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life…. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.”

John Paul II added a spiritual dimension in Centesimus Annus in 1991, critiquing “a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards ‘having’ rather than ‘being,'” and urging people to “create life-styles in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments.” The Church’s spiritual and social teachings are rich complements to modern environmental arguments against consumerism.

Benedict’s challenge is to move longstanding Church teaching into concrete action. Despite the extensive archive of papal statements on the subject, there is no evidence that Catholics consume less or differently than anyone else. Yet given that 40 percent of the human family lives on less than $2 a day while the prosperous among us consume casually and wastefully, Catholic leadership in redefining “the good life” away from accumulation and toward greater human wellbeing and solidarity with the poor cannot come soon enough.

Benedict will need to be creative in persuading the comfortable in his Church to take consumption teachings seriously. The dramatic equivalent of solar panels on a Vatican rooftop may be needed to move prosperous Catholics to critically assess their own consumption-and to find joy in consuming less.

The other issue, population, is more difficult for a Catholic leader to tackle, especially one with Benedict’s reputation for doctrinal strictness. For Benedict and most Catholics, human reproduction is a domain infused with questions of deep personal morality. But a pontiff who appreciates the epochal nature of the sustainability crisis must surely also recognize the moral challenges raised when human numbers grow exponentially in a finite world.

How much of modern hunger, disease, poverty, and environmental degradation can be blamed on population sizes that have exceeded the carrying capacity of local, regional, and global environments? The share is unknowable, but surely not small. The challenge for Benedict will be to apply his formidable intellect to harmonize the personal and social ethics of population issues.

Benedict’s interest in sustainability issues comes not a moment too soon. The sustainability crisis is civilizational in scope and depth-and therefore a natural concern for a global institution like the Catholic Church. Should Benedict raise the twin issues of consumption and population to the level of theological and spiritual attention they deserve, he would not only advance thinking on religious ethics-but also on how to create just and environmentally sustainable societies.

Gary Gardner is a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. He is the author of the book Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development.