Tackling the green skills gap

Launching the public consultation on the Green Economy last month, Ministers Leo Brincat and Evarist Bartolo emphasised the need to address the green skills gap in the process leading to a Green Economy strategy and action plan.

It is estimated that 20 million jobs will be created in the Green Economy between now and 2020 within the European Union. Capacity building is the greatest challenge: ensuring that more working men and women are adequately equipped with green skills.

The Green Economy includes activities in different sectors. It is possible to go about activity in these sectors in a manner which reduces their environmental impacts, is socially inclusive and economically rewarding.

Various sectors have been identified as being of key importance in the transition to a Green Economy. The basic characteristics which distinguish the Green Economy are a reduction of carbon emissions, the reduction of all forms of pollution, energy and resource efficiency, prevention of biodiversity loss  and the protection of eco-system services.

The United Nations Environment Programme  has repeatedly emphasised that the transition to a Green Economy enables economic growth and investment while increasing environmental quality and social inclusiveness. A Green Economy is one which respects the eco-system and recognises that there are natural limits  which, if exceeded, endanger the earth’s ecological balance. In effect it means that the transition to a Green Economy signifies addressing all of our environmental impacts in all areas of activity. Addressing impacts in one area would still signify progress although this would be of limited benefit.

An agriculture which forms part of the Green Economy is one which works with nature, not against it. It uses water sustainably and does not contaminate it. Green agriculture does not seek to genetically modify any form of life nor to patent it.

Energy efficient buildings, clean and renewable energy together with the sustainable use of land are also basic building blocks of the Green Economy. We cannot speak of the Green Economy whilst simultaneously tolerating  large scale building construction. Having a stock of 72,000 vacant dwellings, (irrespective of the reasons for their being vacant) signifies that as a nation we have not yet understood that the limited size of the Maltese islands ought to lead to a different attitude. The green skills of politicians and their political appointees on MEPA is what’s lacking in this regard.

Maritime issues are of paramount economic importance to Malta’s economy. The depleted fish stock and the quality of sea water are obvious issues. But the impacts of organised crime through the dumping of toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste in the Mediterranean Sea is not to be underestimated as has been evidenced time and again in the exploits of the eco-mafia reign to our north.

Heavy industry is fortunately absent in Malta. New industries like the pharmaceutical industry are more eco-conscious. However we still require more inputs on resource efficiency and eco-design.

Greening tourism is essential in order to ensure that more of tourism’s environmental impacts are addressed.  The consumption of tourism is 50% more per capita than that registered for a resident, indicating that there is room for considerable improvements.

Public transport is still in shambles. The effects of this state of affairs is evident in the ever increasing number of passenger cars on our roads which have a major impact on air and noise pollution in our communities. Greening transport policies signifies that the mobility of all is ensured with the least possible impacts.  Still a long way to go.

Waste management has made substantial improvement over the years even though it is still way  behind EU targets. It is positive that the draft waste management strategy has established the attaining of a Zero Waste target by 2050. However we still await the specifics of how this is to be achieved. It is achievable but the commitment of all is essential.

Our water resources have been mismanaged, year in, year our. Discharging millions of litres of treated sewage effluent into the sea is just the cherry on the cake. The contaminated and depleted water table which still contributes around 40% to Malta’s potable water supply is in danger of being  completely lost for future generations if we do not act fast.

All the above have been dealt with in various policy documents. One such document is the National Sustainable Development Strategy which establishes the parameters for the action required. Implementing the National Sustainable Development Strategy is the obvious first step in establishing a Green Economy.  It is here where the real green skill gap exists. Decision makers lack green skills. This skill gap exists at the level of Cabinet, Parliament, the top echelons of the civil service and in the ranks of the political appointees to Boards and Authorities where decisions are taken and strategies implemented.

When this skill gap is addressed, the rest will follow and we will be on the way to establishing  a green economy.

published in The Times of Malta, Saturday 14 December 2013

Dealing with Environmental Crime

published July 9, 2011

 In late 2008, the European Union, through a joint decision of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, adopted Directive 99/2008 “on the protection of the environment through criminal law”.

Member states had to implement this directive by not later than December 26, 2010. Malta, together with 11 other EU member states, did not comply. As a result, on June 16, the EU Commission issued a warning to all 12 states to comply within two months.

The EU directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law does not create new environment legislation. It aims to consolidate existing laws through harmonising penalties that should be inflicted as well as by ensuring that these penalties are really a deterrent.

Annex A to the directive lists EU legislation (some 70 directives and regulations) subject to this directive’s provisions. This is wide ranging and includes legislation regulating waste, GMOs, air quality, quality of water for human consumption, use of sewage sludge in agriculture, use and transportation of hazardous materials, protection of water from nitrates originating from agriculture, trade in endangered species and many others.

Within EU structures, the Maltese government opposed provisions of the proposed directive. So it is no surprise that this resistance is also reflected in the implementation process. This gives a new significance to the Maltese government’s declarations on the importance the environment has in its political agenda.

During the discussion stage in the EU structures, representatives of the Malta government expressed a view contrary to the harmonisation of sanctions primarily on the basis of the economic disparity across the EU member states.

The impact assessment produced by the EU on the proposed directive had emphasised that, in the EU, there are three areas that organised crime focuses on to the detriment of the environment. These are illicit trade in ozone depleting substances, illicit hazardous waste treatment and disposal and illicit trade in endangered wildlife species. A study entitled Organised Environmental Crime In EU Member States (2003) quoted by the EU impact assessment also states that 73 per cent of researched environmental crime cases involve corporations or corporate-like structures.

Organised environmental crime, which has a turnover of billions of euros in the EU, can have a devastating effect on the economy. There are various examples which we can draw upon. The case of the contaminated mozzarella in the Naples environs in March 2008 is one such example. Organised crime pocketed substantial landfill charges for the handling of toxic and hazardous waste, which was subsequently dumped in areas that were reserved for the grazing of buffalo. The resulting buffalo mozzarella was contaminated with dioxin. The impacts on the mozzarella industry were substantial.

Proof of the operations of the eco-Mafia has also surfaced some time ago when Francesco Fonti, a Mafia turncoat, took the witness stand against the Calabria Mafia. We do recall information given as to the sinking in the Mediterranean of about 42 ships laden with toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste. One of the said ships has been located and identified off the coast of Reggio Calabria.

This network of organised environmental crime is so vast that, at a time, it also dumped toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste in Somalia. The warlords in the Somalia civil war were financed by the eco-Mafia. They supplied them with arms in return for their consent to the dumping of the toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste. Italian journalists (RaiTre) who had tracked down the shipments were shot and murdered in Mogadishu.

The dumping of toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste in the Mediterranean Sea can have very serious impacts on Malta. It contaminates what’s left of fish stocks but also, depending on the location used for dumping, it can impact Malta’s potable water, 60 per cent of which originates from seawater processed by reverse osmosis plants.

Given these serious impacts I would have expected that the Maltese government would be at the forefront in implementing the directive on environmental crime in order to ensure that issues of cross-border organised environmental crime are adequately tackled. It is indeed very unfortunate that the tools which the EU provides so that Malta can protect its real interests are continuously ignored. One cannot help but ask why.

Law firm Hugo Lepage & Partners, in a comparative study commissioned by the EU Commission and entitled Study On Environmental Crime In The 27 Member States (2007), repeatedly identifies penalties for environmental crime in Malta as being at the lower end of the scale in the EU. The message that gets through is that environmental crime is treated lightly in Malta. Malta is not alone in this respect: it enjoys the company of a small number of other countries.

Environmental crime should be punished through penalties that are effective and proportionate to the environmental damage carried out or envisaged. It is in Malta’s interest that this is done expeditiously.

WEEE Responsibility

published on 23 May 2009

by Carmel Cacopardo

_________________________________________________________

 

The Nationalist Party’s and Alternattiva Demokratika’s 2008 electoral manifestos proposed the free distribution of energy-saving light bulbs in order to encourage energy conservation but with a difference!

Prior to that, in London, the then Labour mayor Ken Livingstone had, as part of the London Climate Change Action Plan in January 2008, launched a “light bulb amnesty” as a result of which each London household could exchange a traditional incandescent light bulb for an energy-e fficient one.

The public in Malta should be informed not only of the benefits but also as to the advisable precautions relative to the use of these energy-saving light bulbs or compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).

The use of CFLs, notwithstanding their price, saves about 75 per cent of electrical energy used for lighting purposes by traditional bulbs.

An educational campaign relative to breakages and disposal of CFLs is essential.

Damage to the CFL can release mercury dust to air. In other countries users have been advised that they are to vacate and ventilate rooms for about 15 minutes when CFL breakages occur. This is essential to avoid inhaling mercury dust. It is imperative that in homes and, in particular, in areas where children and the elderly and/or sick people gather, those in charge are aware as to the measures they should take. Advice is also called for as to the cleaning of the resulting breakages and the manner in which the damaged CFL is to be disposed of.

It is to be borne in mind that, due to their containing about four milligrams of mercury dust per light bulb, CFLs are subject to the provisions of the EU WEEE Directive (Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment). This directive has been transposed into Maltese legislation through Legal Notice 63 of 2007 but it is not yet being implemented.

The EU established the framework for dealing with hazardous waste resulting from electric and electronic equipment and applied thereto the principle of producer responsibility. This means that producers and distributors (irrespective of the selling technique used) are directly responsible for the handling of this type of waste.

The government has the role of a regulator, ensuring that EU legislation is adhered to within Maltese territory. Being an EU member in my view, at least, signifies this much in addition to harping on the availability of EU funds, which assist us in attaining objectives of a better quality of life. The WEEE Directive had to be implemented in various stages between 2004 and 2006 and the Maltese government was in breach of its provisions, so much so that the EU Commission had already initiated infringement procedures against Malta due to the delay in transposing it into Maltese law.

The recently-published update to the Maltese Waste Management Strategy for public consultation postponed once more consideration of the plans for the implementation of the WEEE Directive in Malta.

Within this context, the placing of over one million CFLs in one go on the market without having in place a waste management strategy for hazardous waste is surely not environmentally responsible. While addressing the issue of energy consumption, the government is creating an equally serious problem by encouraging the use of hazardous materials without having first ensured that the required waste management infrastructure is in place and functioning.

The responsibility is not just the government’s. It has to be equally shouldered by producers and distributors who, unless they act fast, may eventually have to carry the can and pay the fines due for not assuming their producer responsibilities. Taxpayers’ monies should not be used to bail out those who have failed to shoulder their responsibilities.

Those who have advised local distributors that the management of hazardous waste is a government responsibility would do well to reconsider their position. This is an area the EU has assigned to the private sector, which must ensure that the impacts of all products it places on the market are addressed. In fact, the WEEE Directive, in addition to responsibility for today’s hazardous waste, also assigns to producers and distributors responsibility for historical waste, that is responsibility for WEEE waste generated prior to the implementation of the directive.

The point at issue is clearly the eco contribution payable on a number of electric and electronic products. Maltese business is correct in complaining that it has been shouldered with a double responsibility: responsibility for WEEE waste and simultaneous payment of eco contribution. This, however, does not exonerate businesses from putting in place a collection system for WEEE waste (including CFLs).

By failing to revisit the eco contribution regime, the government is obstructing business from moving on to shoulder its producer responsibilities. Further procrastination will not make matters any easier. It is in everybody’s interest that business conforms to its WEEE responsibilities and for that to happen the government must get out of the way.

Holding Business to Account

published on April 11, 2009

by Carmel Cacopardo

_________________________________________________________________________________________ 

On September 13, 1970, in the New York Times magazine, economist Milton Friedman said that the sole purpose of business was to generate profits for shareholders. The business of business, he argued, is business.

Forty years on some still think on the same lines: that shouldering environmental and social impacts generated by business is not the business of business. They insist that, if pressed to address its impacts, business would consider relocating, seeking countries where legislation relative to environmental and social protection is minimal or inexistent.

By publishing its Corporate Social Responsibility report for 2006-08, Vodafone Malta is making a very powerful statement: modern business thinks otherwise. It considers that the business of business is much wider than business. In its second CSR report, Vodafone outlines its initiatives in managing its corporate risks and responsibilities in greater detail than it did two years ago.

CSR signifies a commitment that business is carried out in a responsible manner. Tree-planting and sponsorship of worthy causes, though laudable, are marginal to CSR!

Vodafone’s statements on the management of hazardous waste relating to mobile phones are welcome as are its declarations on its reduced carbon footprint.

The listing of ethical purchasing criteria make excellent reading although the manner in which these have been applied could have been substantially more informative. In particular, it would have been appropriate if stakeholders were informed whether there were any suppliers who fell foul of the said criteria during the reporting period. The adopted criteria use the available guidelines, standards and tools that have been drawn up globally to facilitate sustainability benchmarking and reporting. They are largely modelled on the social accountability standard SA8000, full compliance to which should lead to the ethical sourcing of goods and services. This standard has also been used by others, among which Avon Products Inc., The Body Shop, Reebok International, Toys ‘R’ Us and The Ethical Trading Initiative.

On a different note, reporting on the radiation emission levels of its base stations and the identification of the standards to which it conforms makes Vodafone’s second CSR report an adequate reporting tool. This is an issue, however, which requires more analysis and discussion.

In line with global CSR reporting standards, Vodafone discloses of being in breach of consumer legislation on one occasion during the reporting period relative to comparative advertising. Such disclosure, though not yet an everyday occurrence in these islands, is an essential element of CSR reporting.

Vodafone’s third CSR report should move a further step forward: Its statements should be subject to an audit and be independently verified as being correct. CSR reporting is as important as financial reporting and should be subject to the same level of assurance.

Vodafone has made an important contribution to CSR reporting in Malta.

Together with BOV, it has made the first strides locally in this previously unexplored domain. It is hoped that the competition in the communications industry in Malta would make equally valid contributions. While Go plc could substantially improve on its 61-word paragraph devoted to CSR in its 2007 annual report (the latest available), stakeholders await Melita’s first utterances on the matter.

Although some tend to equate CSR with corporate philanthropy, this is just one tiny element of CSR. To make sense, corporate philanthropy must be founded on and be the result of a sound CSR. A company can sponsor environmental initiatives but, if its own environmental policy is blurred, the sponsorships dished out could only be considered as an exercise in green-washing. When deciding on sponsorships, business should be consistent with the manner it carries out its day-to-day operations. Corporate philanthropy would thus be much more than another cheap marketing ploy.

Vodafone Malta, through its CSR report is laying its cards on the table. As a result, its corporate philanthropy can be viewed in context. It would be quite a feat if, for example, the banking sector in Malta could follow suit by determining and applying environmental criteria in the advancing of finance to the building industry and, subsequently, informing stakeholders of its achievements through CSR reporting! With just one stroke of a pen, the banking sector in Malta can prevent substantial damage to both the natural and the historical environmental.

The adoption of CSR by business signifies the acceptance of the fact that its shadow is much wider than its shareholders.

Business is responsible towards its shareholders but it is accountable towards its stakeholders: employees, customers, consumers, trade unions, environmental groups and also future generations. It is with this wider stakeholder group that business must develop a dialogue. Such a dialogue must be based on trust and, consequently, it must be both transparent and leading to genuine accountability. It is not just governments that need to be accountable! CSR reporting is a tool that can be of considerable assistance in achieving this purpose.

Waste update : back to the drawing board

by Carmel Cacopardo

published on Saturday February 28, 2009

____________________________________________________________

The Solid Waste Management Strategy update published recently, identifies a zero waste scenario as a long-term aim. It refers to a number of studies commissioned and proceeds to a selective use of conclusions from the said studies, which are still under wraps.

A Situation Audit of the strategy was carried out in 2005. Yet, the only conclusion that has found its way into the proposed update is a statement on the practical non-existence of the interministerial committee set up to coordinate the strategy’s implementation across government. The full Situation Audit should see the light of day. The public has the right to be informed as to the manner in which targets were attained and the reasons as to why others were missed.

The update is incomplete; it postpones updating the strategy on hazardous waste, promising instead a Topic Paper in the future. The management of hazardous waste includes the implementation of the WEEE Directive (Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment), which is way behind schedule.

Producers and their representatives in terms of the WEEE Directive assume full responsibility for the waste generated by their products. Yet, the government, through the simultaneous application of the eco-contribution and the WEEE Directive, has placed them in a situation where they have to pay twice for the handling of electric and electronic waste: The payment of an eco-contribution and shouldering producer responsibility in terms of EU legislation. The result is that while, on paper, the WEEE Directive in Malta has been transposed, in practice its implementation is being obstructed. It is an area of responsibility that EU legislation assigns specifically to the private sector, yet the government is reluctant to lose a substantial chunk of eco-contribution revenues and is consequently applying the brakes.

The regulation of scrap yards does not feature in the update. They are required in order to recycle scrap metal. However, they should operate within a regulatory framework, in particular in conformity to the WEEE and the ELV (End of Life Vehicle) Directives. Recently, it was reported that, during testimony submitted in a planning appeal, concerning the enforcement order relative to the Ta’ Brolli scrap yard in Birzebbuga, it was revealed that part of its business originates from the custom of government departments and corporations!

Some scrap yards process scrap from disused refrigerators! Processing? They just crush them, as a result releasing refrigeration gases to air. These gases are CFCs (chloroflorocarbons), contributors to the depletion of the ozone layer. In a regulated environment in terms of the WEEE Directive, processing disused refrigerators for waste would include the careful collection of the CFCs as a first step. Instead, some Maltese scrap yards are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer in contrast to the provisions of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which Malta has bound itself to observe and implement.

The proposal for an updated strategy encourages a policy favouring waste incineration. It proposes that the use of bio-digestion to convert waste to energy is complemented by a policy favouring incineration. Specifically, it proposes a waste to energy incinerator to be sited at Delimara next to the power station. This could also mean that on waste recovery sites (currently in operation or projected) the two technologies could co-exist.

Incineration is undoubtedly a waste management tool. In my opinion, it should however, only be used as the last option.

Relying on incineration to produce electricity would, on the plus side, reduce required landfill space and the fuel bill. It would still, however, contribute to the production of greenhouse gases and, hence, cannot be described as a source of clean energy. On the minus side, it negates the need to reduce waste generation and produces other possibly toxic emissions, which would vary dependent on the composition of the RDF (refuse derived fuel).

The regulation of these emissions is normally established through a permit issued by Mepa in terms of the EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. The acceptability or otherwise of an incineration facility even as a tool of the last resort would in my view result from two points: The quality of emissions control imposed by Mepa through the conditions established in the IPPC permit, and the enforceability of these conditions.

If the manner in which the Marsa incinerator has operated in the past months is a reliable indicator on the workings of Mepa and Wasteserv, this is sufficient on its own to discard the incinerator option even as a tool of last resort.

These are just a few of the points indicating reasons as to why the proposed waste strategy update needs to go back to the drawing board. Together with the fact that a Strategic Environmental Assessment has not to date been carried out, this is clear evidence of its poor quality. Such a document cannot lead to a fruitful public discussion.

Il-5 Bozoz ta’ Lawrence Gonzi

 

 

Kif tħabbar fil-budget f’data mhux il-bogħod ser nirċievu voucher li jintitolana nġibu 5 bozoz energy savers mill-ħanut tal-għażla tagħna.

Dawn il-bozoz jużaw bejn 66% u 80% inqas enerġija mill-bozoz li aħna mdorrijin nużaw u jibqgħu tajbin għall-użu għall-perjodu ferm itwal.

 

 Issa li l-Gvern beda il-kampanja favur dawn il-bozoz li jaħlu anqas hemm ħtieġa ukoll ta’ kampanja edukattiva dwar :

a)       kemm hu utli li nagħmlu użu minn dawn il-bozoz biex ma naħlux elettriku,

b)       kif niddisponu mill-bozoz li jkunu spiċċaw,

c)       x’għandna nagħmlu meta tinkiser bozza.

 

L-utilita’ tal-użu ta’ dawn il-bozoz m’għandix dubju li jifhimha kważi kulħadd. Mhux ċajta li tifranka sa 80% tal-elettriku li normalment tuża’ biex iddawwal id-dar.

Xi ħaga importanti li s’issa għadu ma ntqal xejn dwarha f’Malta hu kif niddisponu minn dawn il-bozoz energy savers meta jintemm l-użu tagħhom. Dawn il-bozoz fihom ammont żgħir ħafna ta’ merkurju, sustanza perikoluża li insibuha ukoll f’ammont ferm ikbar fit-termometri u l-barometri li għandna minnhom fi djarna. Meta bozza energy saver tispiċċa allura ma tistax tintrema mal-iskart normali u dan biex jiġi kkontrollat it-tixrid tal-merkurju li hu meqjus bħala hazardous waste. Jiena naħseb li l-WasteServe, l-aġenzija tal-Gvern li tieħu ħsieb l-immaniġjar tal-iskart għandha teduka u tinforma lill-pubbliku ta’ x’għandu jsir f’dan ir-rigward.

 

Meta tinkiser bozza m’għandniex nallarmaw ruħna. Kif jgħidu l-esperti f’pajjiżi oħra huwa importanti li meta tinkiser bozza nagħtu ċans lit-trab tal-merkurju joqgħod, jiġifieri li ma jkunx għadu fl-arja u b’hekk ma nassorbuhx man-nifs. Id-Dipartiment tal-Ambjent Ingliż fil-fatt jirrakkomanda li l-kamra li fiha tinkiser bozza energy saver għandha tkun evakwata għal 15-il minuta. Nistenna li l-awtoritajiet f’Malta jispjegaw b’mod iżjed ċar x’għandu jsir

Issa li l-Gvern iddeċieda nittama li jibda kampanja pubbliċitarja ta’ tagħrif biex b’hekk kulħadd ikun infurmat u kulħadd ikun jaf kemm jaqbel nużaw il-bozoz energy savers, kif niddisponu minnhom u x’għandu jsir jekk tinkiser bozza.

 

Ara ukoll dawn il-links :  BBC        u      DEFRA     

 

 

Where does Malta’s e-waste end ?

 

Greenpeace has just published a report on one of the destinations of European electronic waste (e-waste). Entitled Poisoning the poor. Electronic waste in Ghana. this report examines how the trade in e-waste is spreading from Asia to West Africa.

Greenpeace has identified severe contamination with hazardous chemicals in two e-waste scrap yards in Ghana.

This is resulting from illegal exportation of e-waste from European countries and the US. It is also the result of an inadequate take-back scheme from the producers of electronic products.

As a member state of the European Union Malta should have implemented the WEEE Directive ages ago (WEEE means Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment). A legal notice was published some time ago. Government collects an eco-contribution too o all electronic equipment sold. Yet the provisions of the Directive are not being implemented.

These include the putting into practice of “producer responsibility principles”. The retail outlet selling the equipment in conjunction with the importer is bound to take back old equipment in order that it be recycled.   

It is pertinet to ask : what is being done with Maltese e-waste ?

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)

Dik il-bozza

Fil-kampanja elettorali li għada kif intemmet, kemm il-manifest elettorali tal-Alternattiva Demokratika kif ukoll dak tal-Partit Nazzjonalista jitkellmu dwar l-għoti ta’ bozoz energy saving b’xejn.

Issa dawn il-proposti huma frott ta’ pika tajba. Huma motivati mill-idea li n-nies jiġu mħajra ma jaħlux. Għax il-bozza li ma taħlix tiswa iktar, għall-bidu biex jitħajru jew biex ma jitgerrxux nies saret il-proposta tal-għotja ta’ bozoz b’xejn. Hi proposta li saret ukoll u ġiet attwata f’pajjiżi oħra. Miżura żgħira li ftit tinvolvi spejjes imma kien hemm ukoll min ipprova jirredikolha.

Tfisser li taħli inqas elettriku (inqas surcharge) u allura tnaqqas l-impatti ambjentali li jeffettwaw lil kulħadd. Teffettwa lil butek, lill-kaxxa ta’ Malta u lis-saħħa ta’ kulħadd minħabba inqas emissjonijiet !

Imma hemm affarijiet oħra li m’huwiex ċar jekk humiex qed jiġu meqjusa bir-reqqa neċessarja. Il-bozoz energy savers fihom ammont żgħir ta’ merkurju. X’passi qed jittieħdu biex dawn il-bozoz, meta jagħmlu żmienhom ma jispiċċawx mal-bqija tal-iskart ? Jekk bozza tinkiser nafu li t-trab tal-merkurju li fihom jista’ jkun ta’ periklu ? Tajjeb li jkun hemm min jispjega ftit.

Għal iktar informazzjoni ara ftit dan l-artiklu ‘Shining a light on hazards of fluorescent bulbs‘