L-emerġenza klimatika

Li niddikjaraw li l-qagħda tal-klima tnissel sens ta’ emergenza hu pass pożittiv. Li nagħrfu dan ifissser li qed titnissel kuxjenza illi ma baqax wisq żmien biex nieħdu l-passi li hemm bżonn.

Ir-Renju Unit, ir- Republika tal-Irlanda, Franza, il-Kanada, l-Awstrija u l-Argentina flimkien ma bosta bliet u awtoritajiet lokali madwar id-dinja, iddikjaraw li għandna Emergenza Klimatika. Dawn jinkludu lil New York u San Francisco fl-Istati Uniti, Sydney u Melbourne fl-Awstralja, Pariġi u Mulhouse fi Franza, Seville, Zaragoza, ir-reġjun tal-Catalonia u l-Gżejjer Canary fi Spanja, Milan, Napli u Lucca fl-Italja, Basel-Stadt fl-Isvizzera, Bonn, Cologne u Düsseldorf fil-Ġermanja, Auckland u Wellington fi New Zealand, Amsterdam fl-Olanda, Varsavja u Krakow fil-Polonja, u Bacolod fil-Filippini.

Id-dikjarazzjoni dwar l-emerġenza klimatika, li kienet waħda mit-talbiet tal-grupp ta’ attivisti ambjentali Extinction Rebellion, kienet bla dubju pass importanti, imma hu ferm iktar importanti dak li jrid isegwi din id-dikjarazzjoni. Jekk il-kliem tad-dikjarazzjoni ma jkunux tradotti f’azzjoni, id-dikjarazzjoni l-anqas biss tiswa’ l-karta li hi stampata fuqha!

Il-punt bażiku li jista’ joħroġ mid-dikjarazzjoni tal-emerġenza klimatika hu l-għarfien li l-azzjoni dwar it-tibdil fil-klima għandha tkun prijorità politika. KuIl Gvern għandu jagħti kaz ta’ dan fil-ħidma kollha tiegħu.

L-aħħar rapport tal-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ippubblikat fl-2018 jagħmel enfasi li minkejja l-wegħdiet mill-komunità internazzjonali fis-Summit ta’ Pariġi dwar it-tibdil fil-klima, it-temperatura globali tidher li ser taqbeż bid-doppju l-massimu li nagħtajna parir li m’għandux jinqabeż: mexjin lejn żieda ta’ 3 gradi Celsius iktar mit-temperatura pre-industrijali . Din iż-żieda astronomika antiċipata hi l-kawża tal-emergenza. L-impatt kumulattiv tal-azzjoni dwar il-klima madwar id-dinja s’issa jindika li l-miri minimi mhux ser jintlaħqu.

Bħala riżultat tat-tibdil fil-klima partijiet mid-dinja, gradwalment, mhux ser jibqgħu abitabbli: zieda fit-temperatura, intensifikazzjoni tal-maltempati, nixfa banda u għargħar band’oħra. Dan kollu ser iħarbat il-ħajja kif nafuha sal-lum.

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, l-European Environment Agency (EEA) ippubblikat rapport qasir intitolat Climate Change Threatens the Future of Farming in Europe fejn kien enfasizzat li t-temperatura fin-Nofsinnhar tal-Ewropa ser togħla tant li sal-2050, mir-raba’ jista’ jkun li  l-prodotti li nieħdu jonqsu bin-nofs. Fl-istess ħin iż-żieda fit-temperatura fit-Tramuntana tal-Ewropa ser tagħmel dik iż-żona iktar addattata għall-agrikultura.

B’mod partikulari, emfasizza Euractive, l-vitikultura fir-reġjuni madwar il-Mediterran li huma storikament marbutin mal-inbid tonqos sostanzjalment bħala riżultat tas-sħana eċċessiva li qed tiżviluppa.

Din hi l-emerġenza rejali. Minkejja kollox baqa’ ftit taż-żmien biex dan inkunu nistgħu nindirizzawh. Jeħtieġilna imma illi nieħdu iktar ażżjoni bis-serjetà biex nindirizzaw il-kawżi tat-tibdil fil-klima. Qed ngħixu stil ta’ ħajja insostenibbli li jagħti l-impressjoni li għada mhux ser jasla.

M’għandniex bżonn wisq iżjed rapporti. Nafu x’qed jikkawża t-tibdil fil-klima imma ma hemmx biżżejjed rieda politika għal azzjoni. Li nipposponu l-problema f’ħoġor il-futur mhi ser isolvi xejn għax anke għada jista’ jkun tard wisq.

Huwa għal dan l-iskop li jinħtieġ li nirrikonoxxu l-fatt li qegħdin fi kriżi klimatika: hemm ħtieġa li niffukaw l-azzjoni tagħna u nikkommettu ruħna li l-azzjoni dwar it-tibdil fil-klima hi prijorità.

Li neliminaw iż-żieda fil-produzzjoni tal-karbonju (carbon neutrality) fl-iqsar żmien possibli għandu jkun il-mira ta’ kull Gvern. Dan jintlaħaq billi tittieħed azzjoni f’kull qasam, b’mod partikolari fejn jistgħu jinkisbu riżultati b’mod immedjat.

Huwa għal dan l-iskop li Alternattiva Demokratika issa ilna żmien niffukaw fuq il-qasam tat-Trasport bħala s-settur ovvju li jista’ jagħti kontribut sostanzjali għall-isforz ta’ Malta biex ikun indirizzat it-tibdil fil-klima. Minħabba d-distanzi żgħar bejn l-ibliet u l-irħula tagħna, hu iktar faċli minn f’pajjiżi oħra li jkollna mobilità sostenibbli mingħajr l-użu ta’ karozzi privati li jħammġu bl-użu tal-petrol u d-diżil. Ilkoll nirrabjaw li qed jintużaw wisq il-karozzi u li l-użu ta’ mezzi alternattivi ta’ transport mhux inkoraġġiti biżżejjed.

Il-Pjan Nazzjonali tat-Trasport jenfasizza dan kollu meta jiġbdilna l-attenzjoni tagħna li iktar minn nofs il-vjaġġi li nagħmlu bil-karozzi privati jdumu inqas minn kwarta u huma għal distanzi li ma jaqbżux il- ħames kilometri.

Flok ir-retorika dwar il-klima għandna bżonn azzjoni konkreta. B’hekk biss nindirizzaw l-emerġenza.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 8 ta’ Settembru 2019

The Climate Emergency

Declaring a climate emergency is a positive step: recognising that the current state of the climate creates an emergency situation signifies that we are aware that time is running out.

The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, France, Canada, Austria and Argentina together with various municipalities and local authorities all around the world, have declared a Climate Emergency. These include New York and San Francisco in the USA, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, Paris and Mulhouse in France, Seville, Zaragoza, Catalonia and the Canary Islands in Spain, Milan, Naples and Lucca in Italy, the canton of Basel-Stadt in Switzerland, Bonn, Cologne and Düsseldorf in Germany, Auckland and Wellington in New Zealand, Amsterdam in Holland, Warsaw and Krakow in Poland, and Bacolod in the Philippines. This was one of the demands of the environmental activist group Extinction Rebellion.

The Climate Emergency Declaration was certainly a positive step, but what comes next is more important because if the words of the declaration are not translated into action the declaration will not be worth the paper it is printed on.

The basic point which emerges from a Climate Emergency Declaration is the recognition that action on climate change is a political priority and all the actions of governments should be developed in recognition of this basic fact.

The latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report published in 2018 underlines the fact that, notwithstanding the Paris Climate Change Summit pledges by the international community, the global temperature is on track for an increase that is double the maximum which we are advised should not be exceeded: that is 3 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial temperature. This anticipated astronomical increase is the cause of the emergency: the cumulative impact of climate action on a global level so far indicates that the minimum targets set will not be met.

As a result of climate change parts of the globe will become progressively uninhabitable with increasing temperature, intensification of storms, droughts in some parts of the world and floods in others, all of which will disrupt our life as we know it.

Earlier this week the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a short report entitled Climate Change Threatens the Future of Farming in Europe, underlining the fact that the temperature in Southern Europe will be such the yield from various crops will be reduced by 50 per cent by 2050. Simultaneously, the increase in temperature in Northern Europe would make that region more suitable for agriculture.

In particular, emphasised Euractive, “viticulture in the historical wine regions of the Mediterranean will be not doing well, as a result of the heat stress.”

The emergency is real and yet there is still a small time-frame during which it can be addressed. We need to take serious action to address the causes of climate change: an unsustainable lifestyle which assumes that tomorrow never comes.

We do not need many more reports. The causes of climate change are known but there is an insufficient political will to act. Postponing the problem into the future will not solve anything as tomorrow may be too late.

It is for this reason that we need to recognise the fact that a Climate Emergency exists and focus our attention on a commitment to take action on climate change as a matter of priority.

Achieving carbon neutrality in the shortest possible time should be a clear objective of all governments. This can be achieved by acting immediately in all areas, but primarily in those where immediate results could be attained.

It is for this reason that the Greens in Malta have, in recent months, focused on the transport sector as the most obvious sector that could contribute substantially to Malta’s efforts against climate change. Given the short distances between localities, sustainable mobility can be easily achieved by means other than private cars using fossil fuel. I think it makes many people angry, as it does me, that people use cars far too much and there is certainly a lack of encouragement to use alternatives.

The Transport Master Plan underlines the attainability of this objective by pointing out that over 50 per cent of journeys by private car are for less than 15 minutes and for distances not exceeding 5 kilometres.

Climate action rhetoric needs to be translated into concrete action – and the sooner the better. It is the only way to address the emergency.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 8 September 2019

Min hu ikbar mill-partit?

 

Bħalissa spiss qed nisimgħu min jgħidilna li ħadd m’hu ikbar mill-partit.

Dan il-kliem qed jingħad bl-iskop li jkun ġustifikat li dawk illi jsegwu u jappoġġaw partit politiku għandhom jbaxxu rashom meta t-tmexxija tal-partit tieħu deċiżjoni. Għax il-partit tkellem. Mela tbaxxi rasek.

Id-deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu b’mod demokratiku għandhom ikun rispettati u implimentati. Imma anke hawn hemm l-obbligu li nirrispettaw lil min hu f’minoranza, irrispettivament kemm din tkun żgħira jew kbira.

Id-deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu b’mod unanimu nibża’ minnhom, għax mhiex xi ħaġa rari li l-unanimità tkun faċċata li warajha jistaħbew ħafna affarijiet.

L-ebda partit politiku m’hu omoġenju u f’kull deċiżjoni li tittieħed ikun hemm min jaħsibha differenti u xi drabi dan mhux sempliċiment fuq id-dettall. Dan ma jitlobx biss tolleranza iżda ħafna drabi koeżistenza ta’ ideat li jikkuntrastaw. Dan mhux dejjem faċli, imma ċertament li hu possibli. Hekk jiġri f’soċjetà verament demokratika.

Ovvjament l-ebda partit politiku ma jista’ jiffunzjona jekk fuq l-ideat fundamentali li jirrappreżenta ma jkunx hemm qbil dwarhom fost dawk li jappoġġawh. Imma lil hinn mill-prinċipji fundamentali li partit politiku jirrappreżenta hemm lok għal ideat li jikkuntrastaw.

F’dan is-sens partit politiku hu ġabra ta’ ideat, kultant differenti, kultant kuntrastanti: ħafna drabi ftit, imma xi drabi kuntrastanti ħafna. Partit politiku hu kbir skond kemm hu kapaċi jirrispetta l-ideat differenti fi ħdanu. Għax ħafna drabi hi din id-differenza ta’ ideat, kultant dettall, imma xi drabi iktar minn hekk ukoll, li toħolq dibattitu fil-partiti politiċi liema dibattitu jwassal għal żviluppi interessanti fil-ħsieb politiku.

Il-partit politiku, għaldaqstant, jirrappreżenta lid-diversità ta’ ħsieb fi ħdanu fit-totalità tiegħu. Jagħmel żball partit politiku li joħnoq il-vuċijiet differenti fi ħdanu. Dawn dejjem qegħdin hemm: kultant jinstemgħu ħafna u drabi oħra kemm kemm jinstemgħu: skond l-importanza tad-differenzi. Imma dejjem hemm qegħdin.

Ma hemm l-ebda mertu li tirrispetta lil min jaqbel miegħek: m’għandek ħtieġa ta’ l-ebda sforz biex tagħmel dan. Il-mertu, u l-isforz, qiegħed biex tirrispetta lil min ma jaqbilx miegħek. Naċċetta li mhux dejjem faċli. Imma dan mhux biss hu possibli imma hu essenzjali.

Partit politiku li mhux kapaċi jirrispetta d-dissens fi ħdanu ma jistax jispira fiduċja. Għax jekk m’intix kapaċi tirrispetta lil min hu ħdejk u ma jaqbilx għal kollox miegħek, kif tippretendi li titwemmen meta tgħid li qed tiftaħ il-bibien għal min qiegħed barra? Tkun qed tissogra li flok il-bieb miftuħ iservi biex jidħlu minnu, jispiċċa jkun il-punt tal-ħruġ!

Mhux għaldaqstant kaz ta’ min hu ikbar jew iżgħar mill-partit imma ta’ kemm aħna kapaċi nirrispettaw lil xulxin b’mod partikolari meta ma naqblux.

Min jipprova jagħlaq id-diskussjoni billi jgħid li ħadd m’hu ikbar mill-partit qed jibgħat messaġġ wieħed: li jirrispettak biss sakemm taqbel miegħu.

Din xi triq ġdida hi?

Basics for coalition building

green-light

It happens on the eve of most general elections in Malta. We are once more being bombarded with comments emphasising the need to set up a pre-electoral coalition in order to present a united opposition to Joseph Muscats Labour Party.

The Leader of the Opposition, as a self-appointed messiah, has reiterated many a time that the country can only be delivered from the clutches of corruption if it unites under his leadership in opposition to Joseph Muscat, the Labour Party and all that they represent. It is claimed that he can deliver us from all evil!

In public fora, Simon Busuttil speaks in favour of setting up a coalition against corruption, yet privately – far away from the glaring spotlight – he is actively working on trying to assimilate within the Nationalist Party those whom he thinks can help increase his own partys vote tally. He has successfully recruited Salvu Mallia and is apparently currently in the final stages of the process of assimilating Marlene Farrugias Democratic Party within the Nationalist Party.  

In my view this can in no way be described as the manner in which to go about assembling a pre-electoral coalition of political parties. Rather, it is an attempt by the Nationalist Party at cannibalising other political parties, an exercise which, in fairness, has been going on for years. Just like the Labour Party, the Nationalist Party has, to date, demonstrated that the only coalition that made any sense to them was the one within their own parties, as both of them have, over the years, developed into grand coalitions – at times simultaneously championing diametrically opposed causes.

Real pre-electoral coalitions are assembled in a quite different manner. They should be formed on the basis of a commonly agreed political platform – one which plots an agreed electoral programme as well as the manner in which this should be implemented by the coalition partners.

Given its method of operation to date, I have reasonable doubts as to whether the Nationalist Party is able to compromise on its electoral pledges as well as to whether it can ever agree to take on board (at least) the basic issues championed by the other political parties with which it may seek to form a coalition. If a pre-electoral  coalition is ever to be formed, the coalitions electoral platform must be acceptable to all the constituent elements of that coalition.

An agreed electoral platform would address much more than issues of corruption and governance – on which there is a general common position. An agreed electoral platform would necessarily be all-embracing and range from environmental matters to education, social, economic, fiscal and cultural policy, as well as all other matters so essential in running the country.

A pre-electoral coalition must of necessity be constructed on the basis of this agreed electoral platform, a crystallisation of thought and political direction shared by the political parties forming the coalition. The process to achieve such an agreed shared electoral platform is long and laborious, as a multitude of red lines have to be agreed on or else overcome. It is an exercise that should be based on mutual respect in contrast to the often acrimonious relationship so prevalent in local politics.

By its very nature, a pre-electoral coalition, if formed, signifies a commitment to do away with, once and for all, two-party politics and consequently signifies the substitution of the politics of confrontation with the politics of consensus.

This would be a watershed in Maltese politics and this is the real challenge, if we wish to move forward.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 February 2017

L-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli

Environment

Illum il-ġurnata, diversi jitkellmu dwar “sostenibilitá” u dwar “l-iżvilupp sostenibbli”. Sfortunatament, bosta drabi ma jkunux jafu x’inhuma jgħidu. Bħala riżultat jispiċċaw iwasslu messaġġi żbaljati.

Mela, ejja nibdew minn hawn. Meta nitkellmu dwar sostenibilitá inkunu qed nirriferu lejn dak li nagħmlu. Dan ikun sostenibbli kemm-il darba, d-deċiżjonijiet tagħna ma jippreġudikawx lil ġenerazzjonijiet futuri milli huma ukoll ikunu jistgħu jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet tagħhom. Min-naħa l-oħra, l-iżvilupp sostenibbli hi t-triq li permezz tagħha nistgħu noqorbu u eventwalment naslu viċin li nkunu sostenibbli.

Fi ftit kliem is-sostenibilitá tħares fit-tul.

Dan kollu ma jikkonċernax biss l-ambjent. Imma jiġbor flimkien kemm il-politika ambjentali, kif ukoll dik ekonomika, il-politika soċjali kif ukoll il-politika kulturali. Ifisser li f’dak kollu li nagħmlu irridu nħarsu fit-tul u rridu nassiguraw li l-ħarsien ambjentali, l-iżvilupp ekonomiku u soċjali jimxu id f’id u b’rispett għall-kisbiet kulturali.

Dan iwassal għal numru ta’ konklużjonijiet loġiċi li jiffurmaw il-bażi tal-politika għall-iżvilupp sostenibbli. Kienet Gro Harlem Brundtland, soċjal demokratika Norveġiża li serviet kemm bħala Prim Ministru kif ukoll bħala Ministru għall-Ambjent ta’ pajjiżha li fasslet it-triq meta fl-1987 mexxiet il-ħidma tal-Kummissjoni Dinjija għall-Ambjent u l-Iżvilupp tal-Ġnus Magħquda u ippreżentat ir-rapport intitolat Our Common Future.

B’mod prattiku, l-iżvilupp sostenibbli għandu jwassal għal deċiżjonijiet konkreti li permezz tagħhom, l-iżvilupp li jseħħ ikun wieħed li jirrispetta lin-nies, lin-natura u l-kultura. Fi ftit kliem, il-profitti li tiġġenera l-ekonomija ikunu ibbażati fuq kriterji etiċi. Kien għal din ir-raġuni li sa mis-snin disgħin, meta l-iżvilupp sostenibbli issemma l-ewwel darba fil-liġijiet Maltin, dan kien responsabbiltá diretta tal-Prim Ministru. Ta’ l-inqas fuq il-karta.

Għax il-politika dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tmiss l-oqsma kollha tal-ħajja pubblika u allura teħtieġ politiku ta’ esperjenza. Sfortunatament l-ebda wieħed mill-Prim Ministri li kellna s’issa ma mexxa hu f’dan il-qasam għax dejjem iddelegah lill-Ministru (jew lis-Segretarju Parlamentari) responsabbli għall-Ambjent. Dan hu żball għax il-Ministru responsabbli mill-Ambjent rari ħafna jkun f’posizzjoni li jagħti direzzjoni lill-Ministri l-oħra, li ngħiduha kif inhi, ftit li xejn ikollhom interess fl-iżvilupp sostenibbli.

B’eżempju forsi ninftehmu aħjar dwar kemm f’Malta, l-politika dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli hi biss logħob bil-kliem.

Inħarsu ftit lejn l-infrastruttura tat-toroq tagħna, inkluż it-trasport pubbliku. B’mod mill-iktar ċar din mhiex sostenibbli u ilha hekk għal ħafna żmien.

Marbuta mal-infrastruttura tat-toroq hemm il-mobilitá u l-kwalitá tal-arja. Dan flimkien mal-konġestjoni tat-traffiku, l-impatti fuq is-saħħa prinċipalment minħabba l- kwalitá fqira tal-arja kif ukoll l-impatti fuq l-ekonomija tal-ħin moħli fi traffiku ma jispiċċa qatt.

F’Mejju 2014 l-Istitut għat-Tibdil fil-Klima u l-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli tal-Universitá ta’ Malta kien ikkummissjonat mill-uffiċċju rappresentattiv tal-Unjoni Ewropeja f’Malta biex iħejji studju dwar l-impatti tat-traffiku f’Malta. Minn dan l-istudju, intitolat The External Costs of Passenger and Commercial Vehicles Use in Malta , jirriżulta li l-impatt tal-konġestjoni tat-traffiku hu stmat li hu ekwivalenti għal 1.7% tal-Prodott Gross Nazzjonali. Din l-istima tieħu konsiderazzjoni kemm tal-petrol/diesel kif ukoll tal-ħin li jinħela bħala riżultat tal-konġestjoni tat-traffiku. Hu stmat li f’Malta kull sewwieq, kull sena, jaħli medja ta’ 52 siegħa  wieqaf fit-traffiku.

L-istudju iżid jgħid li din l-istima tiżdied u tilħaq l-4% tal-Prodott Gross Nazzjonali jekk jittieħed ukoll konsiderazzjoni tal-inċidenti tat-traffiku, l-impatt tat-tniġġiz tal-arja, l-effett tat-tniġġiż mill-ħoss kif ukoll il-gassijiet serra. Għall-paragun, tajjeb li nirrealizzaw li t-tkabbir ekonomiku għas-sena 2017 huwa stmat li ser ikun ta’ 3.5% tal-Prodott Gross Nazzjonali.

Dan hu biss eżempju wieħed. Bħalu hemm bosta oħra.

Il-loġika tal-iżvilupp sostenibbli kellha inevitabilment twassal għal servizz effiċjenti ta’ transport pubbliku snin ilu bil-konsegwenza ta’ tnaqqis sostanzjali ta’ karozzi mit-toroq tagħna. Huwa dak li għandna nippretendu f’pajjiż żgħir bħal tagħna fejn kważi kullimkien qiegħed biss tefa’ ta’ ġebla ‘l-bogħod. Imma, kollox bil-maqlub!

Darba l-Kabinett kien approva Strateġija Nazzjonali għall-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli  ………….. imma sadanittant il-politika tat-trasport f’Malta għadha tinkoraġixxi iktar karozzi fit-toroq tagħna.

 ippubblikat fl-Illum : il-Ħadd 8 ta’ Jannar 2017

The logic of sustainable development

four_pillar-sustainable development

 

Political discourse is nowadays peppered with the terms “sustainability” and “sustainable development” but often, unfortunately,  their use is out of context and thereby transmits the wrong message.

So, let us first be clear as to what the terms really mean. Being in a state of sustainability means that our actions, attitudes and behaviour are such that future generations are not precluded from taking their own decisions. On the other hand, sustainable development is the path to be followed to achieve sustainability.

This is not just a matter of environmental concern. It is an intertwining of environmental, economic, social and cultural policy. It means that our actions must take the long view and be compatible with the forces of nature, the economy, human development and a respect for culture.

All this leads to a number of logical conclusions which form the basis of the politics of sustainable development. This was first outlined by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former Norwegian social democrat prime minister and minister for the environment in her seminal  1987 report Our Common Future,drawn up for the UN World Commission on Environment and Development. In her report, Brundtland, made ample use of the conclusions of an earlier debate in the World Council of Churches in 1974.

In practical terms, the politics of sustainable development should lead  to a number of concrete decisions, as a result of which modern-day living is simultaneously respectful of society, nature, the economy and the accumulated cultural heritage in its widest sense. Sustainable development is, in fact, a balanced approach to development. It is for this reason that, since the 1990s, when sustainable development first made it to Malta’s statute book, it was retained (on paper) as a direct political responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Sustainable development permeates all areas of policy and hence requires a senior politician in Cabinet to be in charge. Unfortunately, not even one of our prime ministers assumed direct political responsibility for the matter as, formally or informally, all of them delegated the matter to the Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary) responsible for the environment.

The Minister responsible for the environment cannot make much headway as he is dependent upon – and can in no way can he be expected to direct – his cabinet colleagues, most of whom are not really interested in sustainable development, anyway. A simple example will illustrate how all the talk on sustainable development by governments in Malta has been an exercise in managing hot air.

Consider the management of Malta’s road infrastructure, including public transport. This is clearly unsustainable and has been so for a long time. The public transport reform carried out under the direction of former Minister Austin Gatt was a public disservice as it made a bad situation even worse.

The management of Malta’s road infrastructure brings to the fore a number of issues, including mobility and air quality. Linked to these are traffic congestion, health impacts primarily due to poor air quality and the impact of the clogging of our roads on our economy through a substantial amount of time spent fuming at our steering wheels.

In May 2014, the Institute for Climate Change and Sustainable Development of the University of Malta was commissioned by the European Union representation in Malta to carry out a study on the external costs of traffic and congestion in Malta. Among other things, this study, entitled The External Costs of Passenger and Commercial Vehicles Use in Malta, estimated that 1.7 per cent of Malta’s GDP is wiped out annually as a result of traffic congestion. This conclusion took into consideration both fuel wasted and time lost: approximately 52 hours per annum per commuter.

The study further emphasises that this estimate would rise to four per cent of the GDP if it also took into consideration traffic accidents, the impacts of air and noise pollution as well as the impact of greenhouse gases emitted.  (For comparison purposes, it is pertinent to remember that the real Malta GDP growth for 2017 is projected at 3.5 per cent.)

This is just one example. There are many more.

The logic of sustainable development would have inevitably led to an efficient public transport system ages ago and a substantially reduced number of cars on our roads. It is what one would expect in a small country where practically everywhere is within a stone’s throw of everywhere else.  Yet we get the complete opposite.

Once upon a time, the Cabinet had approved a National Strategy for Sustainable Development – yet Malta’s transport policy is still one which encourages more cars on the road.

 published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 8 January 2017

Salvu Mallia qed jitfewwaq spiss

 tifwieqa

 

It-tifwieq huwa naturali. Imma b’daqshekk ma jfissirx li nieħdu gost jew niftaħru bih. Fil-fatt hu normali li meta taħrablek tifwieqa tgħatti ħalqek u tiskuża ruħek. Jekk minn waħda jiġu tnejn jew iktar, imbagħad ifisser li jkun wasal iż-żmien li twarrab ftit għax ma tkunx ta’ quddiem in-nies.

Bħalissa Salvu Mallia qed jitfewwaq spiss. Sfortunatament, dawk ta’ madwaru flok ma jistiednuh iwarrab ftit sakemm forsi jiġi ftit f’siktu, qed jiftaħru bih, għax, jgħidu, li l-lingwaġġ tiegħu jirrifletti l-weġgħat tan-nies tat-triq.

Il-lingwaġġ li juża Salvu Mallia huwa dak li jħossu komdu biex jesprimi ruħu bih. Il-lingwaġġ ikkulurit ma jagħmel ħsara lil ħadd imma dak insolenti jagħmel il-ħsara: kemm lil min jgħidu kif ukoll lil min jirċievieh.

Mhux sinjal tajjeb li irġajna nżilna f’dan il-livell.

 

L-Onorevoli jerġa’ jagħmilha

Malta Parliament

Hi sfortuna li d-dibattitu politiku fil-pajjiż reġa qiegħed jikkarga.

Il-Parlament hu l-post fejn issir il-kritika. Imma l-kritika, anke jekk iebsa mgħandiex tkun insolenti. L-insulti ma jagħmlu ġid lil ħadd: la lil min jgħidhom u l-anqas lil min jirċievihom.

Il-każi riċenti li dwarhom l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia kien kostrett li jagħti ruling, għal wieħed tnejn huma inkwetanti, għax ifisser li fuq naħa waħda hemm min qed jitlef rasu u fuq in-naħa l-oħra hemm min hu sensittiv iżżejjed.

Ovvjament kullħadd tad-demm u l-laħam u meta tkun ilek taqla ġo fik, fl-aħħar tixpakka. Dak li qed jiġri bħalissa fil-Parlament. Diskors li ma jagħmel la ġid u l-anqas ġieħ lil ħadd.

Kien floku kliem l-iSpeaker li ipprova jberred ftit l-affarijiet billi ta ċans biex dak li jkun jerġa jaħsibha u forsi juża kliem iktar addattat.

Imma jidher li ċerti nies ma jitgħallmu qatt.