Impjant nuklejari fi Sqallija?

Matul il-kampanja elettorali riċenti tal-2022, fl-Italja, fid-dibattitu politiku, reġgħet infetħet id-diskussjoni dwar il-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija nuklejari.

Matteo Salvini, presentement Ministru għall-Infrastruttura u t-Transport, apparti li hu ukoll Deputat Prim Ministru fil-Gvern ta’ koalizzjoni Taljan, emfasizza, li, fl-isfond tal-kriżi enerġetika kurrenti l-Italja għandha tikkunsidra mill-ġdid il-politika tagħha dwar l-impjanti nuklejari.

Il-votanti Taljani darbtejn esprimew ruħhom b’mod ċar dwar ir-rejatturi nuklejari fuq art Taljana. L-aħħar darba li għamlu dan kien f’referendum li sar f’Ġunju 2011, ftit wara d-diżastru nuklejari li seħħ f’Fukushima l-Ġappun f’Marzu 2011. Dakinnhar, 94 fil-mija ta’ dawk li vvutaw għażlu projibizzjoni totali ta’ kostruzzjoni ta’ impjanti nuklejari fl-Italja.

Il-kriżi kurrenti tal-enerġija qed isservi ta’ pressjoni fuq kulħadd biex jinstabu sorsi alternattivi ta’ enerġija bi prezz li nifilħuħ. L-enerġija nuklejari hemm marbuta magħha spejjes moħbija li rari ħafna jittieħdu in konsiderazzjoni kull meta l-materja tkun soġġett ta’ dibattitu politiku: l-iskart nuklejari ġġenerat kif ukoll ir-riskji inerenti, marbuta ma’ ħsara jew funzjonament ħażin  tal-impjanti nuklejari.  L-impatt tal-inċidenti nuklejari fi Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania Stati Uniti – 28 ta’ Marzu 1979), Chernobyl (Ukrajina – 26 t’April 1986) u Fukushima (Ġappun – 11 ta’ Marzu 2011) huma xhieda biżżejjed tal-konsegwenzi li jista’ jkollna niffaċċjaw meta tkun ikkunsidrata l-għażla ta’ enerġija nuklejari.

Il-mod kif niddisponu mill-iskart nuklejari hu suġġett għal dibattitu kontinwu fuq livell globali. L-ispiża biex dan isir hi waħda sostanzjali, u dan b’referenza kemm għall-ispiża ambjentali kif ukoll għal dik finanzjarja.  Fil-passat riċenti, viċin tagħna, l- eko-mafja irmiet kull xorta ta’ skart, inkluż skart nuklejari, fil-Baħar Mediterranean. Dan għamlitu fi 42 vapur differenti, kollha mgħarrqa f’partijiet differenti tal-Mediterran. Il-kaz speċifiku tal-vapur Kunsky mgħarraq ftit il-barra mill-kosta tal-Kalabrija, kien ġie żvelat mill-pentiti tal- ‘Ndrangheta/Camorra, Francesco Fonti u Carmine Schiavone, snin ilu fix-xhieda tagħhom lill-awtoritajiet Taljani.

Bosta mir-riskji tekniċi tal-impjanti nuklejari illum il-ġurnata kważi nstab tarf tagħhom u dan minħabba l-avvanżi kontinwi fit-teknoloġija. Hemm iżda eċċezzjoni waħda! Kif ġie żvelat bħala riżultat tad-diżastru ta’ Fukushima, il-forzi naturali jibqgħu kontinwament bit-tmun f’idejhom!  F’Fukushima, għal darba oħra ġie ikkonfermat li r-riskji marbuta mat-terrimoti mhux la kemm insibu tarf tagħhom! Dan kollu  għandu relevanza kbira għad-dibattitu dwar il-kostruzzjoni ta’ impjanti nuklejari wara biebna, f’teritorju Taljan.

Fl-2011 l-awtoritajiet Taljani kienu indikaw li s-sit fi Sqallija li probabbilment jintuża biex fuqu jinbena impjant nuklejari qiegħed mal-kosta tan-nofsinnhar ħdejn il-lokalità ta’ Palma di Montechiaro. Dan ikun madwar 100 kilometru fil-Majjistral ta’ Għawdex.

Kif nafu, Sqallija hi zona fejn it-terrimoti huma frekwenti. Apparti t-terrimoti frekwenti “żgħar” li  nisimgħu dwarhom u li xi kultant nindunaw bihom matul is-sena, fi Sqallija seħħew tnejn mill-agħar terrimoti li qatt laqgħtu lill-Ewropa. Fl-1693 terrimot fix-Xlokk ta’ Sqallija kellu qawwa ta’ 7.4 filwaqt li f’Messina fl-1908 terrimot ieħor laħaq qawwa ta’ 7.1 fuq l-iskala Mercalli. Dawn iż-żewġ terrimoti ħolqu ħerba u wasslu għat-telfien ta’ bosta ħajjiet. L-infrastruttura ukoll sofriet danni kbar!

Id-deċiżjoni dwar jekk il-Gvern Taljan jerġax jipprova jmur lejn in-nuklejari biex jiġġenera l-elettriku fl-Italja mhux ser tittieħed f’data fil-qrib. Imma, meta jibdew jinġabru l-firem għal referendum fuq is-suġġett ma tantx ikun baqa’ żmien biex għal darba’oħra nqiesu sewwa x’nistgħu nagħmlu.

F’Malta, l-interess tagħna hu dwar l-impatt  fuqna ta’ impjant nuklejari mal-kosta ta’ Sqallija viċin ta’ Palma di Montechiaro f’kaz li dan l-impjant jiżviluppa l-ħsara jew għal xi raġuni jibda jaħdem b’mod erratiku.  

Tajjeb li nżommu f’moħħna li minħabba l-emissjonijiet radjuattivi riżultat tad-diżastru ta’ Fukushima kellha sseħħ evakwazzjoni sħiħa f’distanza ta’ 200 kilometru mill-impjant nuklejari. Għawdex, kif tafu, hu inqas minn 100 kilometru mill-kosta ta’ Sqallija. Daqshekk huma ċari l-konsegwenzi għalina ta’ impjant nuklejari mal-kosta ta’ Sqallija!

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 15 ta’ Jannar 2023

A nuclear reactor in Sicily?

During the recent 2022 electoral campaign, the issue of nuclear energy in neighbouring Italy has resurfaced in the political debate.

Matteo Salvini, currently Minister for the Infrastructure and Transport, in addition to being Deputy Prime Minister of the ruling Italian coalition government, is on record as emphasising that, given the current energy crisis, he considers that it would be expedient to resurrect the nuclear proposal.

Italian voters have expressed themselves clearly on the matter twice. The last time was in a referendum in June 2011 in the aftermath of the Fukushima March 2011 nuclear disaster. Then, 94 per cent of those voting, opted in favour of a total ban on the construction of nuclear reactors on Italian soil.

The current energy crisis is pressuring all to find alternative energy supplies at affordable cost. Nuclear energy, however, comes with two hidden costs which are rarely ever factored into the costings presented for public debate: the disposal of nuclear waste and the inherent risks linked to the failure of the nuclear plants. The impacts of the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania USA – 28 March 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine – 26 April 1986) and Fukushima (Japan – 11 March 2011) are clear enough testimony of what is at stake, when considering the option of nuclear energy.

The disposal of nuclear waste is the subject of an ongoing debate all over the world. It is costly both environmentally as well as financially. In the recent past, closer to home, the eco-mafia dumped various types of waste including nuclear waste in the Mediterranean Sea in 42 different ships sunk in different parts of the Mediterranean. The specific case of the sunken ship Kunsky off the Calabrian coast was revealed by ‘Ndrangheta/Camorra turncoats Francesco Fonti and Carmine Schiavone many years ago in their testimony to the Italian authorities.

Most of the technical risks of nuclear plants have become more manageable with the technical developments over the years. There is however one exception! As revealed by the Fukushima disaster, natural forces are not always predictable. In Fukushima the risks resulting from earthquakes in the end proved once more to be unmanageable. This is of extreme relevance to the debate on the possible eventual siting of nuclear reactors on the Italian mainland.

The site which in 2011 was indicated by the Italian authorities as the most probable candidate to host a nuclear reactor in Sicily was along the southern coastline in the vicinity of Palma de Montechiaro. That would be less than 100 kilometres to the North West of Gozo.

As we are aware Sicily is an earthquake prone zone. In addition to the multitude of small earthquakes we hear about and occasionally are aware of throughout the year, the Sicilian mainland was exposed to the two most intensive earthquakes ever to hit the European mainland. The 1693 earthquake centred in South East Sicily had a magnitude of 7.4 while the Messina 1908 earthquake had a magnitude of 7.1 on the Mercalli scale. Both created havoc and had a high cost in human life! In addition, the physical infrastructure was in shambles.

A decision on whether the Italian government will once more attempt to consider the generation of nuclear energy on Italian soil is not due anytime soon. However, once the collection of signatures for a referendum on the matter gathers steam it will only be a question of time when we will have to consider facing the music one more time.

Our interest in Malta is in the transboundary impacts generated from a nuclear reactor sited along the southern Sicilian coast close to Palma di Montechiaro, should the proposed nuclear reactor malfunction.

It would be pertinent to keep in mind that the radioactivity emitted as a result of the Fukushima disaster led to a complete evacuation within a 200 km radius of the nuclear plant. Gozo being less than 100 km away from the Sicilian mainland should trigger the alarm bells of one and all as to what is ultimately at stake.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 15 January 2023

Chernobyl revisited

Chernobyl in Ukraine on 26 April 1986, 36 years ago, was the site of a major nuclear disaster. All that came to mind once more when the Russian and Byelorussian forces invaded Ukrainian territory over two months ago.

The invading forces took over the Chernobyl nuclear power station site. Troops were observed excavating trenches around the site where the nuclear accident happened 36 years ago. It was only this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the radiation levels at Chernobyl, after being tested, have been certified as being within safe limits; but it is definitely not safe for a picnic!

The nuclear clean-up at Chernobyl is ongoing. Starting immediately in 1986, it is scheduled to last at least until the year 2065. Possibly much beyond that!

36 years on, Chernobyl is still of concern not just to those living in its vicinity, but to all of Europe.

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster had brought many to their senses as to the dangers of nuclear energy, notwithstanding the sophisticated technology utilised in the industry. This was further reinforced by the Fukushima disaster, much closer in time on 11 March 2011. In the aftermath of Fukushima various countries opted for a phase-out of their dependence on nuclear energy. Germany led the way, our Italian neighbours to the North opting for a nuclear free future through a referendum in June 2011.

All this had a particular significance for Malta as it meant that plans for the construction of a nuclear power station at Palma di Montechiaro along the southern Sicilian coast, less than 100 kilometres to the North of Gozo, were mothballed. Southern Sicily as we know is an earthquake prone zone.

Occasionally there are rumblings of a renewed interest in the use of nuclear energy. The French government has for years been acting as a nuclear salesman all around the Mediterranean. It is known that agreements to set-up and operate various nuclear plants exist relative to various North African countries. Nicholas Sarkozy had even arrived at an agreement with Gaddafi just weeks before he was ousted.

Within the EU the debate is ongoing, at times spearheaded by the fact that the generation of nuclear energy emits relatively little carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. Nuclear energy does however cause significant environmental negative impacts through the waste streams which it generates, namely spent nuclear fuel, rock waste at uranium mines and mills and the release of large amounts of uncontrolled radioactive emissions whenever accidents occur. The Chernobyl, Fukushima and the Three-Mile Island nuclear accidents are irrefutable testimony that the environmental damage resulting from nuclear accidents is not just enormous but also at times difficult to control.

The IAEA reports that as of 2022 there are 493 nuclear power reactors in operation in 32 different countries.  We tend to be aware of the major nuclear accidents at Chernobyl (1986) or Fukushima (2011), and possibly that at Three-Mile Island in the US (1979). Countless other “minor” accidents have however occurred over the years. In some cases, the accidents were under control just in time, avoiding their development into a major accident.

Our neighbours rejected nuclear energy twice in two different referenda, one in 1987 after Chernobyl, the other in 2011 after Fukushima. In 2011 the Italian government was planning to construct 10 nuclear reactors. These plans were only thwarted as a result of the 2011 referendum.

It is a responsibility of the Maltese government to be on the alert as these plans could be reactivated in the near future.  This would be a danger developing on our doorstep.

published on the Malta Independent on Sunday : 1st May 2022

Il-klima fi Glasgow: mill-kliem għall-fatti

Bil-kliem, illum il-ġurnata, jidher li hemm qbil wiesgħa bejn il-partiti politiċi dwar il-politika li tikkonċerna t-tibdil tal-klima. Dan imma mhux il-każ. Il-qbil hu wieħed superfiċjali.

Il-politika ħadra dejjem kienet waħda olistika li tħares lejn l-ekoloġija b’għożża.  Partiti oħra bdew jaraw illum (jew dan l-aħħar) dak li aħna ilna nitkellmu dwaru is-snin. Dak li rajna snin ilu b’konvinzjoni u analiżi ħaddieħor qed jintebaħ bih issa! Pass il-quddiem, imma ċertament mhux biżżejjed. Id-dewmien biex jiftħu għajnejhom fisser iktar ħsara li baqgħet takkumula.

Ilkoll kemm aħna niffurmaw parti minn din l-ekoloġija, li tagħtina servizz siewi l-ħin kollu. Mhux lilna biss tagħti dan is-serviżż iżda lin-natura kollha.

Dak kollu li naraw madwarna mhux tagħna. Aħna fil-fatt parti minnu. Dak li naraw hu disponibbli biex nagħmlu użu minnu. Qiegħed għandna għal ftit żmien, sakemm ngħadduh f’idejn dawk li ġejjin warajna.

Tul is-sekli l-bniedem ħares lejn l-ekoloġija b’mod differenti. Hemm min ħares lejha b’għożża. Hemm min fittex biss li jisfrutta kemm jista’. Hemm min ħaseb fil-lum biss. Hemm min ħares fit-tul u qegħda l-ħtiġijiet tiegħu jew tagħha b’responsabbiltà.

L-ekonomija u l-mod kif ngħixu mhux dejjem taw kaz tal-impatti fuq l-ekoloġija. Issa, ħafna drabi kien iktar importanti minn għada. Għax għada ma jġibx voti! Huma l-ġenerazzjonijiet tal-lum li jivvutaw. Il-ġenerazzjonijiet ta’ għada, għalissa ma jivvutawx.

L-ekoloġija kapaċi tissaporti. Imma hemm limitu dwar kemm tiflaħ tagħmel dan. Ilha snin tagħtina indikazzjonijiet li qed tixba’. Imma bosta ma tawx kaz. GħaI dawk li jaħsbu li kollox jiddependi mis-suq iktar kien (u għadu) importanti l-iżvilupp tal-ekonomija u tal-kumditajiet. Il-prezz għal dan kollu ma tħallasx, għadu pendenti.

Illum qegħdin fis-sitwazzjoni li aħna lkoll ser ikollna nħallsu l-kont kemm tal-impatti tagħna kif ukoll dawk tal-ġenerazzjonijiet li ġew qabilna u li tħallew jakkumulaw. Ġenerazzjonijiet li sfruttaw lill-ekoloġija u abbużaw mis-servizzi ekoloġiċi mingħajr ma ħasbu f’dawk li kellhom jiġu warajhom: il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Il-bidla fil-klima hu l-kont bl-imgħax li qiegħed dejjem jiżdied. Kont li jrid jitħallas għax daqt jiskadi ż-żmien li nistgħu nagħmlu dan!

It-tibdil fil-klima hi riżultat ta’ dan kollu, riżultat tal-ħidma tal-bniedem tul l-aħħar mitejn sena, u iktar. Hu piz akkumulat li irċevejnieh mingħand ta’ qabilna u li għandna l-obbligu li nnaqqsuh biex dawk li ġejjin warajna jirtu dinja aħjar minn dik li writna aħna. Mhux biss għandna l-obbligu li nħallsu dan il-kont: fuq kollox irridu noqgħodu attenti u ma nżidux miegħu.

L-effetti fuqna s’issa huma l-estremi tat-temp: nixfa jew għargħar, sħana jew kesħa estrema.

Rajna l-għargħar fi Sqallija l-ġimgħa l-oħra. Iktar kmieni fis-sena rajna l-ħsara ikkawżata mill-għargħar fil-Ġermanja u fil-pajjiżi viċini.

Imma hemm effett ieħor gravi: l-għoli tal-livell tal-baħar. S’issa għad mhux inħossu dan l-effett. Imma fl-Oċejan Paċifiku diġa hemm xi gżejjer li bdew nieżla taħt l-ilma. Hu biss kwistjoni ta’ żmien meta anke aħna fil-Mediterran ikollna nindirizzaw dan ukoll.

L-għoli tal-livell tal-baħar, bħala pajjiż gżira għandu jinteressana ħafna għax jolqotna sewwa. Jeffettwa l-infrastruttura kostali tagħna. L-infrastruttura tal-kummerċ marittimu, l-infrastruttura turistika u anke dik tal-ilma u l-enerġija lkoll marbutin mal-kosta. L-għoli tal-livell tal-baħar joħloq problemi sostanzjali f’dan kollu. Jeffttwa ukoll il-bini kollu fil-qrib tal-kosta.

Ħadd ma jaf eżatt dwar kemm, kif u meta dan ser iseħħ. L-ewwel għax il-proċess li bih dan iseħħ għad mhux mifhum biżżejjed. Imma ukoll għax għalkemm ma nistgħux nevitawh nistgħu nnaqqsu l-impatt tiegħu billi nindirzzaw u nnaqqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju.

Repetutatament fil-laqgħat tal-UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change) li jsiru regolarment, kien hemm emfasi fuq il-ħtieġa li ż-żieda fit-temperatura globali minn kif kienet fl-era pre-industrijali ma tkunx iktar minn 1.5 gradi Celsius. Dan sar fuq insistenza tal-istati gżejjer u tal-pajjiżi sottożviluppati għax għal snin twal il-limitu raġjonevoli kien meqjus li kien ta’ 2 gradi Celsius. Pass ieħor il-quddiem. Imma mhux biżżejjed.

F’Pariġu fl-2015 kien hemm qbil bil-kliem dwar dan kollu. Imma sfortunatament il-paroli ta’ Pariġi ma kienx ikkonvertit f’fatti. Huwa dak li qed nistennew fi Glasgow.

Diskors wara l-ieħor qed jgħidulna li jeħtieġ li ngħaddu mill-kliem għall-fatti. Għad irridu naraw kemm dan ser iseħħ! Dak li hu meħtieġ li jsir hu magħruf. Jinħtieġu deċiżjonijiet iebsin. Li jonqos hi r-rieda politika li dan jitwettaq.

ippubblikat fuq L-Orizzont : is-Sibt 6 ta’ Novembru 2021

Tibdil fil-klima u l-aċċess għax-xemx

Huwa essenzjali li nnaqqsu l-gassijiet serra jekk irridu nindirizzaw b’mod effettiv it-tindil fil-klima. F’Pariġi, fl-2015, kien hemm qbil li kien meħtieġ illi t-temperatura globali ma kelliex tiżdied iktar minn 1.5 gradi Celsius biex ikun possibli li l-bidla fil-klima tkun taħt kontroll.   Tlett xhur ilu, f’Awwissu, l-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tal-Ġnus Magħuda (IPCC) infurmana li ż-żieda fit-temperatura diġa qabżet il-grad Celsius, u li din qed tkompli tiżdied.  

L-impatt ta’ dan jidher fil-maltemp estrem li qed niffaċċjaw kontinwament. Bħall-għargħar fi Sqallija u l- Calabria iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa u fil-Ġermanja u pajjiżi oħra iktar kmieni.  Il-ħerba li qed tiżviluppa hi enormi. Jekk ma nieħdux passi deċiżivi, dak li qed naraw mhu xejn ħdejn dak li ser jiġri.

Huwa kruċjali li l-ekonomija tagħna tkun waħda li ma tkunx dipendenti mill-karbonju, jekk irridu naslu biex nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima.

Il-qalba tal-power station ta’ Delimara minn waħda li taħdem fuq iż-żejt maħmuġ (heavy fuel oil) għal waħda li taħdem fuq il-gass kien pass tajjeb li jħares il-quddiem, pass li aħna bħala partit dejjem appoġġajna. Imma dan mhux biżżejjed. L-użu tal-gass hu fih innifsu pass ta’ transizzjoni.   Li jkollna l-parti l-kbira tal-elettriku (jew kollu!) iġġenerat minn sorsi rinovabbli jkun ħafna aħjar milli nagħmlu użu mill-idroġenu – li qed jissemma bħala l-fuel tal-futur!

Neħtieġu iżda li ntejbu is-sistema nazzjonali tad-distribuzzjoni tal-elettriku biex ikun possibli li z-zoni residenzjali jikkontribwixxu iktar fl-isforz nazzjonali biex niġġeneraw l-enerġija rinovabbli.  Investiment f’sistema ta’ distribuzzjoni iktar effiċjenti hi kruċjali. F’dan għadna lura, għax mhiex prijorità.

Id-dritt tagħna għal aċċess għax-xemx għandu jissaħħaħ. Ma jistax ikun li dan id-dritt jibqa’ dipendenti fuq proċess tal-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art insensittiv u żvilupp bl-addoċċ. Iż-żieda fl-għoli permissibli tal-bini meta kienu approvati l-pjani lokali tal-2006 wassal għal impatt negattiv f’enerġija rinovabbli li ntilfet. Hu prezz li għadna nħallsu u ser nibqgħu nħallsu għall-futur immedjat. Għax baqa’ ftit biex neħilsu minn dan il-piż.

Li ninvestu iktar fil-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija mix-xemx jirrendi. Huwa ukoll sostenibbli meta nħarsu fit-tul. Jelimina ukoll id-dipendenza fuq it-tieni interconnector minn Sqallija li dwaru l-Gvern qiegħed iħejji l-pjanijiet tiegħu. 

Bħalissa l-prezz tal-enerġija fl-Ewropa sploda. Dan wassal biex l-użu tal-enerġija permezz tal-interconnector eżistenti bejn Malta u Sqallija ġie ristrett.

Bħala riżultat tal-qalba tat-trasport bl-art minn karozzi li jaħdmu bil-petol jew dijżil għall-elettriku, id-domanda għall-elettriku ser tiżdied skond kemm jiżdiedu l-karozzi tal-elettriku.  Nistgħu nlaħħqu ma’ din id-domanda mingħajr ma nkunu dipendenti fuq is-swieq enerġetiċi kontinentali?

Jekk jirnexxielna nżidu b’mod sostanzjali l-ġenerazzjoni ta’ enerġija rinovabbli nistgħu bla dubju nindirizzaw parti minn din iż-żieda fid-domanda għall-enerġija. Il-bqija hu possibli li nindirizzawha billi ninkuraġixxu bidla fil-mobilità tagħna.

L-informazzjoni bażika dwar dan diġa nafu biha. Qegħda fil-Pjan Nazzjonali tat-Trasport li jiġbdilna l-attenzjoni li nofs il-vjaġġi li nagħmlu bil-karozzi privati tagħna huma għal vjaġġi qosra, li jdumu inqas minn kwarta. 

Il-politika tal-Gvern kif imfissra fl-aħħar baġit ser tintroduċi transport pubbliku b’xejn minn Ottubru 2022. Dan jeħtieġ ftit iktar attenzjoni, għax il-prezz li nħallsu għat-trasport tal-linja qatt ma kien l-ostaklu għall-użu tat-trasport pubbliku. Hi l-effiċjenza u l-frekwenza tiegħu li jeħtieġu titjib. Jekk dan ikun indirizzat jista’ jagħmel id-differenza sostanzjali fl-użu tat-trasport pubbliku.

Dan hu x’joffri l-futur: nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima permezz tal-politika tat-trasport u l-ippjanar aħjar fil-qasam tal-enerġija. Fuq kollox billi nħarsu id-dritt tagħna għal aċċess għax-xemx. 

In-natura tipprovdilna soluzzjonijiet sostenibbli għall-parti l-kbira ta’ dak li neħtieġu. Jiddependi minnha jekk ngħarfux nagħmlu użu minnhom sewwa!

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 31 t’Ottubru 2021

Climate Change and solar rights

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary if we are to address climate change effectively. In Paris, in 2015, it was agreed by all that limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius is essential if we are to address climate change adequately.  Three months ago, in August, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) informed us that this increase was already 1.09 degrees Celsius, and rising.

The impacts of this increase are manifested in the extreme weather which we are currently witnessing, such as the floods all over Sicily and Calabria earlier this week, and in many other countries earlier. The resulting devastation is shocking. It will however get much worse very soon if we do not act decisively.

Having policies encouraging a low-carbon economy is crucial if we are to adequately address climate change.

Obviously solar rights must be entrenched: they should no longer be at the mercy of unbridled development and an insensitive land use planning process. The increase in permissible building heights introduced when the 2006 lot of local plans was approved had a heavy price-tag in renewable energy sacrificed. We are still paying this price and it will be quite some time before we recover from this irresponsible impact.

Switching over electricity generation at Delimara from one dependent on heavy fuel oil to one running on natural gas was a step in the right direction which greens always supported. It is however not enough. Natural gas is a transitional fuel.  Having most or all of our electricity generated from renewable sources would be a much better option, even better than making use of hydrogen, which is being considered as a future fuel. We need however to upgrade the national electricity distribution grid in order that it would be possible for residential areas to contribute much more to the national effort in renewable energy generation. Investing in an efficient distribution system is crucial. Yet it lags behind. It is not part of the priorities in hand.

Investing heavily in the generation of solar energy is more rewarding. It is also sustainable in the long term.  It would also do away with being dependent on a second energy interconnector with the Sicilian mainland, as government is currently planning.

Currently energy prices on mainland Europe are on a steep rise. This has resulted in a policy of restricting the use of the existing energy interconnector between Malta and Sicily.

As a result of the electrification of land transport, the demand for electricity is bound to increase in proportion to the uptake of electric cars. Can we cope with this increase in demand without being at the mercy of the mainland energy markets?

If we go for a substantial increase in the generation of renewable energy, we can definitely address part of the shortfall. The rest can also be addressed by actively encouraging a behavioural change in our mobility patterns.

The relative basic information is contained in the Transport Masterplan which points out that 50 per cent of the trips we make with our private vehicles are for short trips having a very short duration of under fifteen minutes.

Government policy as accounted for in the last budget will introduce free public transport as of October 2022. This needs fine-tuning, as existing fares have never been an obstacle to use public transport. It is the frequency and efficiency of the service which deters use. If this is adequately addressed it could be a gamechanger in increasing the attractiveness of public transport and consequently its increased use.

This is the possible future linking climate change and transport policy through adequate energy planning and the entrenchment of our solar rights.

Nature provides sustainable solutions for most of our needs. It is up to us to use them properly!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 31 October 2021

Another fake consultation

Reading through the Green Paper entitled “Towards Cleaner Vehicles on Our Roads” it is evident that this consultation process is flawed. After being 4 years in the making, instead of proposing solutions it just asks questions which should have been answered by the Green Paper itself as part of the consultation process.

This is symptomatic of a government which has been continuously emitting conflicting signals on transport issues. The Green Paper recognises the obvious when it states that transport combustion emissions increased by 86 per cent over the period 1990-2018. The massive investment in unnecessary road infrastructure has been a major contributor in this respect, a point which is conveniently ignored by the Green Paper.

The proposed shift to cleaner vehicles on our roads is welcome, but on its own it is not sufficient. This measure will definitely reduce combustion emissions. It will however also shift the said emissions from our roads to the sources of the electrical energy used to electrify our roads. Knowing that government is planning to install a second interconnector to the Sicilian mainland for the supply of electricity it is clear that part of the emissions will be shifted 80 kilometres to the north, the rest to Delimara. It is still unclear how this will be reflected in the price we pay for electricity, as information on the matter is conveniently absent from the Green Paper.

The Green Paper rightly discusses the need to upgrade the skills of the technical personnel required in servicing and maintaining electric and hybrid vehicles. It also points towards the need for substantial investments in the infrastructure required particularly for charging points. However, it fails to address a number of points of controversy which require urgent resolution and should have been addressed through this consultation process.

The consumption of petrol and diesel is bound to decrease as a result of the drive towards the electrification of our roads. The rate of decrease of fuel consumption will depend on the manner in which the electrification exercise will proceed throughout the transition period. Why then has no moratorium been announced on the development and construction of new fuel stations? A number of controversial applications for fuel stations are still burdening the land use planning process when it should be crystal clear to all that in view of the electrification process, they will no longer be required. The consultation process is conveniently silent on the matter thereby encouraging unnecessary pressures on the planning process.

Simultaneously it is pertinent to point out that the sale of fuel contributes a substantial income to the exchequer which income will now slowly taper to near zero through the transition period. The Green Paper fails to volunteer information in this respect. How will this substantial income be substituted? Will the electrification process itself provide the substitute financial resources or will other areas of activity be tapped to make good? The amounts involved are substantial. In fact, the budgetary estimates for 2021 indicate a projected income of €154 million from excise duties on petroleum products. What are government plans for the substitution of this income? The Green Paper is once more completely silent on the matter.

The Green Paper refers to Low Emission Zones but it does not have the courage to make specific proposals. It is imperative that the transition period from now until the full electrification of our roads gradually adopts the identification of Low Emission Zones within which internal combustion engine vehicles will have a prohibited access. The Green Paper fails in this respect too.

The Green Paper refers to two studies which have been commissioned by the Cleaner Vehicles Commission on the electrification of our roads. These studies are not however available to inform this public consultation.

Notwithstanding having been announced four years ago, with ample time for preparation, this consultation process is deficient. It fails to address the basics: it fails to inform. It is a fake consultation.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 20 June 2021

Malta: b’politika diżonesta dwar il-klima

Stimi dwar kemm jista’ jogħla l-livell tal-baħar, b’mod globali kif ukoll fl-Ewropa, ivarjaw skond kif wieħed iqis ir-rata tad-dewbien tas-silġ akkumulat fil-poli kif ukoll fi Greenland. Il-mod kif nilqgħu għall-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju ukoll għandu impatt fuq dawn l-istimi. Dawn l-istimi fil-fatt ivarjaw minn żieda ta’ 34 ċentimetru sa żieda ta’ 172 ċentimetru sa tmiem dan is-seklu. Imma jekk l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju jkunu indirizzati b’politika iffukata u effettiva, din iż-żieda tista’ tkun waħda iżgħar.

Minkejja dan, ħadd ma qiegħed f’posizzjoni li jantiċpa jekk din iż-żieda fil-livell tal-baħar tkunx waħda gradwali inkella jekk din isseħħx f’daqqa. Hemm iżda l-biża’ li l-gravità tas-sitwazzjoni tista’ taċċellera avolja il-jekk u l-meta ħadd ma jaf. Din hi xi ħaga ġdida għal kulħadd!

Kull żieda fil-livell tal-baħar, kemm jekk isseħħ b’mod gradwali kif ukoll jekk isseħħ f’daqqa, ikollha impatt fuq il-kosta u b’mod partikolari fuq l-infrastruttura żviluppata tul iż-żmien. Din l-infrastruttura hi primarjament waħda turistika imma tinkludi ukoll żvilupp residenzjali li xi drabi jasal sax-xifer, sal-baħar: kemm bl-approvazzjoni tal-awtoritajiet u anke xi minndaqqiet mingħajrha!

Il-ħsara potenzjali għall-infrastruttura kostali hi kwistjoni li għandha tħassibna. Din diġà sofriet ħsarat diversi minħabba il-maltemp qalil li żied fil-frekwenza u l-intensità tul dawn l-aħħar snin. L-impatt ta’ żieda fil-livell tal-baħar bla dubju ser joħloq tibdil kbir tul il-kosta kollha tal-gżejjer Maltin. L-istorja tgħallimna. Nhar it-Tnejn 28 ta’ Diċembru 1908 fil-5.20 ta’ fil-għodu Messina fi Sqallija ġarrbet wieħed mill-iktar terrimoti qliel li qatt kien hawn fl-Ewropa, b’qawwa mkejla ta’ 7.5 fuq l-iskala Richter. Immedjatament, inħoloq tsunami b’mewġ għoli sa 9 metri. Madwar sagħtejn wara, fit-7.45 ta’ fil-għodu dan it-tsunami, ftit immansat, wasal fil-gżejjer Maltin.

Diversi gazzetti Maltin ta’ dak iż-żmien irrappurtaw li l-lokalitajiet mal-kosta viċin il-livell tal-baħar kienu mgħarrqa fl-ilma mit-7.45 ta’ fil-għodu għax b’effett taz-tsunami l-baħar tela’ l-art. Dan baqa’ sal-4.00 ta’ waranofsinnhar meta l-baħar reġa’ ikkalma u rritorna lejn il-livelli normali tiegħu! Herbert Ganado, f’l-ewwel volum ta’ Rajt Malta Tinbidel jgħid li residenzi u ħwienet tul il-kosta ta’ tas-Sliema, l-iMsida u tal-Pietà kienu mgħarrqa f’tebqa’ t’għajn għax daħlilhom kwantità ta’ ilma fis-sular terran. Bħala medja l-baħar għola madwar erba’ piedi : 1.20 metri. Fil-Port il-Kbir, imma, ma ġara xejn għax kien imħares mill-breakwater, li l-bini tiegħu kien ġie ffinalizzat madwar sentejn qabel, fis-sena 1906.

Żieda fil-livell tal-baħar bħala riżultat tat-tibdil fil-klima tkun tfisser repetizzjoni tal-impatti taz-tsunami tal-1908 mifruxa iktar u fuq bażi permanenti. Il-lokalitajiet Maltin tul il-kosta li qegħdin viċin tal-livell tal-baħar jispiċċaw b’mod permanenti fl-ilma baħar. Dan ikun jinkludi r-ramliet kollha u żoni kummerċjali u residenzjali fl-Għadira, ix-Xemxija, is-Salini, l-Gzira, l-iMsida, tas-Sliema, Ta’ Xbiex, Tal-Pietà, il-Marsa, Marsaxlokk, Marsaskala, Birzebbuġa, ix-Xlendi, u Marsalforn. L-impatti jistgħu jinħassu iktar il-ġewwa mill-kosta ukoll, f’lokalitajiet li huma f’livell tal-baħar bħal Ħal-Qormi u allura jeffettwa l-inħawi kollha mix-xatt tal-Marsa sa Ħal-Qormi b’dik li hi magħrufa bħala l-Marsa tal-Inġliżi b’kollox. Dan jeffettwa ukoll l-investiment fl-infrastruttura sportiva.

Li jogħla l-livell tal-baħar issa hu inevitabbli. Imma b’ħidma bil-għaqal għad hemm ċans li nnaqqsu kemm dan jogħla. Dan jista’ jseħħ kemm-il darba nieħdu passi biex innaqqsu l-emmissjonijiet tal-karbonju u allura inkunu qed nagħtu kontribut biex iż-żieda fit-temperatura globali tkun l-inqas possibli.

Fis-summit ta’ Pariġi, Malta, flimkien mal-bqija tal-pajjiżi, wegħdet li tieħu azzjoni konkreta biex ikun possibli li jonqsu l-impatti fuq il-klima. Però anke jekk il-wegħdiet kollha li saru f’Pariġi jkunu onorati, hu ċar li għadna l-bogħod ħafna milli nilħqu l-mira miftehma li ma naqbżux iż-żieda ta’ żewġ gradi Celsius fit-temperatura. Hu meħtieġ ħafna iktar mingħand kulħadd. Hemm bżonn mhux biss iktar azzjoni konkreta imma ukoll politika koerenti u konsistenti.

Il-politika ta’ Malta dwar il-klima, imma, hi waħda diżonesta. Nuru wiċċ b’ieħor kontinwament. Min-naħa l-waħda l-Gvern Malti jwiegħed li jaġixxi biex ikun possibli li nindirizzaw il-klima. Imma fl-istess ħin jibqa’ għaddej bi proġetti infrastrutturali li jinkoraġixxu iktar karozzi fit-toroq u allura iktar emissjonijiet. L-emissjonijiet tal-karozzi jikkompetu ma dawk li joriġinaw mill-ġenerazzjoni tal-elettriku.

Hemm bżonn li ndaħħlu ftit sens u konsistenza fil-politika ta’ Malta dwar il-klima. Għax sakemm nibqgħu inkonsitenti kullma qed nagħmlu hu li qed ngħinu biex ikompli jitħaffar il-qabar tagħna.

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 24 ta’ Mejju 2020

Malta: a double-faced climate change policy

Estimates for sea-level rise, both globally as well as in Europe, vary depending on the assumptions made as to the rate at which ice at the polar caps and Greenland is melting.

The carbon emission-mitigation policy scenario also has a direct bearing on these estimates. These estimates range between a 34- and 172-centimetres potential sea-level rise by the end of the current century. Lower emissions together with a focused mitigation policy may restrict sea-level rise towards the lower end of the range.

However, notwithstanding, no one is in a position to predict as to whether such a sea-level rise will be gradual or sudden. It is however feared that once a tipping point is reached changes may occur at a much faster pace than anticipated. We all are on a learning curve on this!

Any sea-level rise, gradual or sudden, will have an impact on our coastline and in particular on the infrastructure developed over the years along the coast. This infrastructure is primarily of a touristic nature but it also includes residential development at times built along the water’s edge with or without the acquiescence of the planning authorities.

There is nothing to worry about if the sea-level rise wipes out abusive development. When one considers the potential impact on coastal infrastructure that is, however, a different kettle of fish.

The coastal infrastructure is already battered by the ever-frequent storms. The impact of a sea-level rise will without any doubt redraw the coastal map of the Maltese islands.

Let us have a look at our history books. At 5.20am of Monday 28 December 1908, Messina in neighbouring Sicily experienced one of the most powerful earthquakes to ever hit Europe, measuring 7.5 on the Richter scale. Immediately, a tsunami generating waves as high as 9 metres was unleashed. Just over two hours later, at 7.45am, the tsunami, slightly tamed, reached the Maltese Islands.

Various local newspapers of the time reported that low-lying areas were flooded from 7.45am until around 4.00pm when the sea receded back to its “normal level”. Herbert Ganado, in his Rajt Malta Tinbidel (Volume 1, page 37) states that residences and shops along the coast in Sliema, Msida, and Pietà were suddenly flooded. The average sea-level rise was 1.20 metres. The Grand Harbour was spared as it was protected by the breakwater, whose construction had been finalised a couple of years earlier.

A sea-level rise as a result of climate change would repeat the Malta impacts of the 1908 tsunami on a permanent basis. The low-lying parts of the Maltese coastline would then be permanently underwater. This would include all sandy beaches and the residential/commercial areas at l-Għadira, Xemxija, Salini, Gzira, Msida, Sliema, Ta’ Xbiex, Pietà, Marsa, Marsaxlokk, Marsaskala, Birzebbuga, Xlendi, and Marsalforn. Impacts could also move towards the inland low-lying areas such as Qormi.

Sea-level rise is inevitable. It is only its extent which can be reduced. This can happen if we take appropriate action which reduces carbon emissions and hence contributes to nudging the temperature increase towards the least possible.

At the Paris Climate Summit, together with all other countries, Malta made pledges to take action to lay the foundations for reducing climate impacts. If all the pledges made at Paris are honoured, however, we will still be very far off from achieving the target of not exceeding a two-degree Celsius temperature rise. Much more is required.

Malta’s climate related policies are double faced. On one hand the Malta government pledges action to address climate change. Simultaneously it proceeds with road infrastructural projects which encourage cars on our roads. Car emissions compete with power generation emissions as Malta’s major contributor to climate change. Is it not about time that we bring our own house in order? We are digging our own grave with a double-faced climate policy.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday : 24 May 2020

EIA dwar il-pipeline tal-gass: konsultazzjoni pubblika bdiet illum!

Illum il-Ħadd fetħet il-konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar il-pipeline tal-gass bejn Malta u Sqallija: bejn Delimara u Gela.

Din il-konsultazzjoni hi dwar l-istudju dwar l-impatt ambjentali. Hemm ċans xahar, jiġifieri sal-15 t’April 2020.

Fid-dawl tal-kriżi attwali kkawżata mill-pandemija tal-Coronavirus, wieħed bil-fors jiddubita x’rieda tajba hemm ta’ parti tal-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi li qed tikkoordina l-konsultazzjoni.

X’sens jagħmel li bħalissa jingħata bidu għal din il-konsultazzjoni pubblika?