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

Advertisements

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

Il-proġett Central Link: riżultat ta’ inkompetenza

Ilkoll naqblu li l-konġestjoni tat-traffiku fit-toroq tagħna hi problema kbira.

Imma hi sfortuna kbira li dawk responsabbli biex jimplimentaw il-politika dwar it-trasport qieshom mhumiex konxji li meta qed japprovaw il-proġett Central Link qed jinjoraw il-kawża tal-problema u minflok qed jikkonċentraw fuq l-effetti. Il-konġestjoni tat-toroq tagħna mhix ikkawżata mit-tul jew mill-wisa’ tat-toroq imma min-numru ta’ karozzi li jagħmlu użu minnhom.

It-toroq tagħna ma jesgħux iktar karozzi li żdiedu b’mod sproporzjonat għad-daqs u l-ħtiġijiet ta’ dawn il-gżejjer.

Id-dibattitu fuq il-proġett Central Link iffoka fuq ħafna materji importanti: l-kwalità tal-arja, l-ħarsien tal-agrikultura, l-ħarsien tas-siġar, l-passaġġi riżervati għar-roti, imma li lkoll kemm huma għandhom importanza marġinali għas-soluzzjoni tal-problema reali tal-konġestjoni tat-traffiku. Il-kawża tal-problema mhix id-daqs tat-toroq imma n-numru tal-karozzi li jagħmlu użu minnhom u li sirna dipendenti wisq fuqhom.

Il-Pjan Nazzjonali għat-Trasport fih referenza għall-analiżi bażika li tindika x’qed jikkawża l-problemi tagħna: s’issa ma konniex kapaċi nħarsu fit-tul fl-ippjanar tat-trasport. Jiġifieri aħna nfittxu l-benefiċċji mmedjati u ninjoraw l-impatti fit-tul.
B’mod speċifiku taħt it-titlu “Intejbu l-ippjanar u d-diżinn għat-traport integrat u li jħares fit-tul” il-Pjan Nazzjonali għat-Trasport jgħid hekk: “……….. nistgħu naraw, mill-esperjenza, li l-politika u l-ippjanar tat-trasport f’Malta ġeneralment ħares lejn l-immedjat ( 4 sa 5 snin). In-nuqqas li tingħata importanza lejn l-ippjanar fit-tul ifisser li ma hemm l-ebda pjan integrat ibbażat fuq analiżi solida, b’miri ċari li jħarsu fit-tul. Dan wassal għal nuqqas ta’ direzzjonji strateġika u n-nuqqas ta’ kapaċità li jkunu indirizzati materji diffiċli bħall-kontroll fuq l-użu ta’ karozzi privati. Is-soċjetà Maltija bil-mod biex tiċċaqlaq, u dan f’kuntrast mal-ħtieġa għal azzjoni biex il-problema tat-traffiku tkun indirizzata kemm illum kif ukoll fil-futur. Dan iwassal biex il-vjaġġatur Malti jistenna li kulħadd jibdel id-drawwiet tiegħu ħalli hu jkun jista’ jibqa’ jsuq il-karozza. ” (sezzjoni 2.2.1 tal-Pjan Nazzjonali tat-Transport)

L-affarijiet ma jistgħux ikunu iktar ċari minn hekk. Il-problema hi waħda: d-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi. Toroq li jkunu usa’ jew itwal jistgħu jsolvu l-problema tal-konġestjoni tat-traffiku għal żmien limitat. Imma kif ġie repetutament ippruvat minn studji li saru f’diversi pajjiżi oħra, l-interventi fl-infrastruttura tat-toroq, fl-aħħar jispiċċaw biex iżidu l-konġestjoni tat-traffiku, u dan għax iżidu it-traffiku.

Min-naħa l-oħra, il-proċess biex jitnaqqas id-dipendenza fuq il-karozza jieħu l-ħin, u l-votanti mhux ser jieħdu ġost!

Sfortunatament, uħud mill-dawk li kienu kritiċi tal-proġett iffukaw fuq id-dettalji u ma ħarsux lejn il-proġett fih innifsu, fit-totalità tiegħu, u allura ma rnexxilhomx japprezzaw kemm hi kbira l-ħsara li ser jagħmel il-proġett fit-totalità tiegħu.

Dan il-proġett m’għandniex bżonnu. Neħtieġu li niffukaw fuq il-problema li ġiet evitata kontinwament għax il-politiċi fil-Parlament u fil-Gvern ma jridux jieħdu deċiżjonijiet li m’humiex popolari. Għal din ir-raġuni iroxxu l-flus u jonfquhom, taparsi qed isolvu l-problemi. Mhux flushom, ovvjament, imma dak li jiġbru mit-taxxi minn fuqna. Il-problemi tal-lum, b’hekk, ikunu trasferiti f’ħoġor il-ġenerazzjonjiet futuri.

Is-soluzzjoni meħtieġa ma tinvolvix ħafna xogħol infrastrutturali imma prinċipalment inizjattivi politiċi biex jinkoraġixxu l-użu ta’ mezzi alternattivi ta’ mobilità u dan flimkien ma inizjattivi li jippenalizzaw l-użu tal-karozzi privati.

Biex inkun ġust fil-kritika tiegħi ngħid li xi inizjattivi ittieħdu diġà u oħrajn bla dubju jitwettqu ukoll. Żdied sostanzjalment is-sussidju għat-trasport pubbliku. Ittieħdu inizjattivi diversi dwar aċċess b’xejn għat-trasport pubbliku lil diversi kategoriji u eventwalment hu ippjanat li dan ikun b’xejn għal kulħadd. Dan kollu tajjeb, iżda mhux biżżejjed. Flimkien ma dawn il-miżuri u bosta oħrajn hemm bżonn inizjattivi li jippenalizzaw l-użu tal-karozzi privati. Dawn jistgħu jinkludu żieda fit-taxxi applikabbli kemm għar-reġistrazzjoni tal-karozzi kif ukoll għall-liċenzji. Dan iwassal għal tnaqqis fin-numru tal-karozzi fit-toroq.

It-taxxi ambjentali jagħmlu l-ġid. Huma l-għodda politika li jekk użati tajjeb jgħinu biex tissolva l-problema tal-konġestjoni tat-traffiku illum.

Għax il-konġestjoni tat-traffiku hu l-prezz li l-ġenerazzjoni tal-lum qed tħallas għall-inkompetenza akkumulata tal-gvernijiet differenti fl-amministrazzjoni tal-politika tat-trasport. Sal-lum ġie evitat li jkunu ndirizzati l-problemi reali. Fir-realtà ma hemmx soluzzjonjijiet maġiċi: irridu naffrontaw il-problema. Sakemm nagħmlu hekk, il-problema tikber tista’.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 21 ta’ Lulju 2019

Central Link project: the cost of incompetence

We are all in agreement that traffic congestion is a massive problem.

However, it is indeed unfortunate that those responsible for implementing transport policy at times give the impression that they are not aware that, in approving the Central Link project they are ignoring the cause of the problem and instead they are focusing on the effects. The issue in question is not the length or width of our roads but the number of cars making use of them.

Our roads are bursting at the seams as a result of an ever-increasing number of cars that is out of proportion to the size and needs of our islands.

The debate on the Central Link project focused on many important issues: air quality, the protection of agriculture, the protection of trees, cycling lanes –  all of which are of marginal significance to the real issue. The cause of the problem is not the size of our roads but the number of cars on which we are so dependent.

The National Transport Master Plan contains a reference to the basic analysis which identifies our transport problems: a lack of long-term vision. We seek immediate gains and ignore the long-term impact.

Specifically, under the heading “Improve integrated and long-term strategic transport planning and design” the following is included in the National Transport Master Plan: “This objective has been defined since, historically, it can be seen from experience that the approach to transport planning and policy in Malta has generally been more short-term (4-5 years) in nature. The lack of importance given to long-term planning means that a long-term integrated plan based on solid analysis with clear objectives and targets is lacking. This has resulted in the lack of strategic direction and the inherent inability to address difficult issues such as private vehicle restraint. There is a strong reluctance for Maltese society to change but this is in contrast with the need for communal action to address the traffic problems existing now and in the future. This results in the Maltese traveller expecting that everyone else will change their travel habits so that they can continue to drive their car.” (section 2.2.1 of Transport Master Plan)

Can it be clearer than this? The problem is car dependency and nothing else. Congestion can be temporarily solved with new and wider roads. It has been proven by studies carried out in other countries that infrastructural interventions in the road network will, in the end, increase traffic congestion because they end up generating more traffic.

On the other hand, addressing car dependency adequately will take a long time and it comes with a voter backlash!

Unfortunately, some critics have focused on the details and ignored the holistic view of the whole project, and consequently failed to grasp the real damaging issues at stake. We do not need a central link. We require focusing on the central problem which has been avoided time and again because politicians in Parliament and in government do not want to make unpopular decisions. Hence, they throw money at problems, thereby postponing them into the future. Today’s problems being once more shifted onto future generations.

The solution required should not involve substantial infrastructural work but policy initiatives which encourage the use of alternative means of mobility, as well as initiatives that penalise the use of private cars. We need to use both carrots and sticks as effective policy instruments.

In fairness, some initiatives are being taken and others are undoubtedly in the pipeline. Subsidies applicable to public transport have been increased substantially. Initiatives regarding access to free public transport – presently for various categories but eventually free to everyone – are laudable carrots. On their own, however, they are not enough. They need to be coupled with adequate policy initiatives which penalise the use of private cars. This could include increase to car registration tax as well as in car circulation taxes.

Environmental taxation is not a dirty expression. It is a policy that holds the keys to the solution of our traffic congestion that we should be solving now.

Traffic congestion is, in reality, the cost that the present generation is paying for the accumulated incompetence of our governments to date in managing transport policy. So far, the real issues have been avoided. It is about time we realise that there is no magical solution: we have to face the real cause of our problem head-on and, until this happens, the problem will get worse.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 21 July 2019

In-Natura m’għandhiex vot

Infrastruttura Malta hi insensittiva għal dak kollu li għandu x’jaqsam mal-ekoloġija. Ittrasformat trejqiet fil-widien u madwarhom f’toroq wisgħin bl-użu ta’ volumi kbar ta’ konkos kif għamlet fil-Wied Tal-Isqof u Wied is-Sewda. Dan ser ikollu impatt negattiv konsiderevoli fuq l-ambjent rurali, fuq il-komunitajiet rurali u fuq il-pajsaġġ.
Dawn it-trejqiet li ġew ittrasformati f’toroq, issa, inevitabilment ser ikunu użati minn iktar traffiku: il-problemi tat-traffiku ser ikunu trasferiti miż-żoni urbani għall-kampanja.

Il-widien huma parti integrali mill-eko-sistema tagħna, b’rikkezzi kbar ta’ bijodiversità. In-natura, li timla kull rokna tal-kampanja tagħna hi taħt theddida kontinwa. Mhux Infrastruttura Malta biss hi responsabbli għal dan.

L-eko-sistema taħdem f’sintonia kważi perfetta, b’rabta sħiħa bejn kull fjura u jew insett u l-bqija tal-madwar. L-ekoloġija ma żżidx biss mal-kuluri tal-pajsaġġ tagħna, imma hi l-bażi essenzjali tal-ħajja innifisha. Permezz ta’ diversi organiżmi li jistkennu fil-kampanja u l-widien in-natura tipprovdi servizzi essenzjali għall-agrikultura.

In-natura mhix dekorazzjoni tajba biss għar-ritratti, videos jew pitturi. Mhix qegħda hemm biex niggustawha.

Sfortunatament qed ngħixu f’dinja li ftit li xejn tagħti kaz ta’ dak kollu li m’għandux valur espress fi flus. Din hi r-raġuni ewlenija għan-nuqqas ta’ ħafna li jifhmu u japprezzaw l-importanza tal-ekoloġija fil-ħajja ta’ kuljum. Uħud ma għandhom l-ebda idea li aħna ma ngħixux f’ekonomija imma niffurmaw parti integrali minn eko-sistema!

Fil-passat saru diversi attentati biex tiġi kkoreġuta din l-attitudni permezz ta’ studji li ippruvaw jikkwantifika il-valur ekonomiku tal-bijodiversità. Dan sar kemm fuq livell Ewropew kif ukoll minn pajjiżi individwali. Dawn l-istudji jesploraw u jippruvaw jikkwantifikaw kemm jiswa’ biex ikunu sostitwiti s-servizzi li n-natura tipprovdilna b’xejn għal erbgħa u għoxrin siegħa kuljum. L-ammont jitkejjel bil-biljuni.

Hemm ħtieġa li nifhmu li l-bniedem huwa dipendenti fuq is-servizzi li n-natura tipprovdilna l-ħin kollu bla ebda ħlas. Dawn jinkludu l-ilma, l-ħamrija u l-arja nadifa li qed isofru attakk frontali kontinwu minn dak li nsejħulu żvilupp.

Is-siġar qed jitqaċċtu biex jagħmlu l-wisgħa għall-kostruzzjoni bla rażan li għaddejja bħalissa. Dan jinkludi l-proġetti mhux meħtieġa ta’ toroq li qed iseħħu f’dan il-ħin.

Is-siġar huma rigal li tagħtina n-natura. Jagħtuna l-ossiġnu li mingħajru ma nieħdux nifs. Dan l-ossignu jipproduċuh billi jassorbu id-dijossidju tal-carbonju mill-atmosfera, u jżommu l-karbonju depositat fiz-zokk u l-friegħi tas-siġra. B’dan il-mod is-siġar jagħtuna żewġ servizzi essenzjali bla ħlas: l-ossiġnu biex nieħdu n-nifs u depożitu naturali għall-karbonju. Dawn is-servizzi huma l-alternattivi naturali għat-teknoloġija magħrufa bħala “carbon capture technology” li tiswa’ l-miljuni. In-natura tipprovdilna alternattiva u aħna din ninjorawha. Huwa servizz bla ħlas u allura mhuwiex apprezzat. It-tibdil fil-klima huwa (in-parti) riżultat ta’ diforestazzjoni fuq skala kbira, akkumulata tul is-snin.

Aħna niddependu fuq in-natura ferm iktar milli niddependu fuq l-ekonomija. Imma fil-waqt li ninkwetaw meta pajjiżna jiffaċċja żbilanċ finanzjarju, ħafna jinjoraw l-iżbilanċ ambjentali li qiegħed isir dejjem iktar agħar milli qatt kien. Li nindirizzaw dan l-iżbilanċ ambjentali huwa essenzjali qabel ma jkun tard wisq. Mhux kulħadd hu konxju li ħadd ma hu ser jagħmlilna tajjeb għal dan l-iżbilanċ. Ma hemm l-ebda bale-out għal dan l-iżbilanċ!

Għandna Ministru tal-Kabinet li hu responsabbli mill-Iżvilupp Sostenibbli. Sfortunatament, kif ngħidu, lanqas jaf x’laqtu! Bħala riżultat ta’ dan hu ovvju li hawn nuqqas ta’ strateġija ta’ sostenibilità fis-settur pubbliku kollu.

L-impatt ta’ dan kollu jinħass fit-tul. Ma jidher li hemm l-ebda għaġla, għax in-natura m’għandiex vot. Imma dawk minna li għandhom vot għandna responsabbiltà etika li naġixxu f’isimha. Dak li tagħmel Alternattiva Demokratika.

ippubblikat fuq Illum Il-Ħadd 10 ta’ Marzu 2019

Nature has no vote

Infrastructure Malta is insensitive to all sorts of ecological issues. It has transformed country lanes in and around valleys into quasi-highways through the indiscriminate use of large volumes of concrete, which will have a considerable negative impact on the rural environment, the rural communities and on the rural landscape.

These former country lanes will inevitably now be used by more traffic, moving traffic- related problems from the urban areas into our countryside.

Valleys are an integral part of our eco-system: so rich in biodiversity. Wildlife, so abundant in our valleys and countryside, is continuously under threat as a result of this insensitivity. But Infrastructure Malta is not the only culprit.

There is an intricate inter-relationship between the different constituent parts forming our eco-system. Ecology does not just add colour to our landscapes but it is the very foundation of life itself. Nature is not just a desirable decoration to be captured on photographs, videos or paintings. Through a multitude of organisms sheltering in our valleys and the countryside, nature provides essential services to our agriculture through the provision of shelter to pollinators.

Unfortunately, we live in a world which tends to ignore non-monetary value. This is the underlying reason for the general failure to appreciate the importance of ecology in our daily lives. In fact, to some it is incomprehensible that we live in an eco-system and not in an economy! In the past, in an effort to try and remedy this myopic approach, there has been an attempt to quantify the economic value of biodiversity. Various studies have been undertaken to quantify this value on both a European level as well as an individual country basis. These studies explore and try to quantify what it would cost to replace the services that nature provides free on a 24/7 basis. This cost is measured in billions of euros.

We need to understand that humankind is dependent on the eco-system services that is freely provided by nature. These include water, fertile soil and clean air – all of which are being meticulously ruined as a result of so-called “development”.

Trees are being chopped down to make way for the current building spree, including the large scale road infrastructural overhaul currently in hand.

Trees are a gift of nature. They give us oxygen, without which we cannot breathe. They produce this oxygen by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide, retaining the carbon in the process. By doing this, trees give us two essential services free: oxygen to breathe and a natural deposit for carbon – what we refer to as a “carbon sink”. Trees are the natural alternative to carbon capture technology. Carbon capture technology – used as part of the technological response to climate change – costs millions to produce and operate. Yet we have a natural alternative which we continuously discard. It is a free service and hence it is not appreciated. Climate change is partly the result of large-scale deforestation accumulated over the years.

We are significantly more dependent on nature than on the size of our country’s GDP and yet while we worry when our country is faced with a financial deficit, many ignore the ever-increasing environmental deficit. Addressing this deficit is essential before it is too late. Not everyone is aware that no one will bale-us out.

We have a Cabinet Minister responsible for Sustainable Development who, unfortunately, he has no idea of his brief. As a result, a focused sustainability driven strategy is very obviously missing right through the Maltese public sector.

The resulting impacts from all this are long-term. There seems to be no hurry to act, because nature has no vote. Yet those of us who do have a vote also have an ethical responsibility to act on its behalf. It is what we do at Alternattiva Demokratika-the Green Party.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 10 March 2019

It-tibdil fil-klima hi kawża ta’ inġustizzji

Kulħadd hu konxju li f’partijiet differenti tad-dinja t-temp għaddej minn estrem għall-ieħor. In-National Geographic, riċentement, taħt it-titlu “It-tibdil fil-klima tisforza Gwatemali biex jemigraw” irrappurtat ukoll li “n-nixfa u t-tibdil fil-klima qed jagħmilha diffiċli għall-bdiewa ta’ mezzi żgħar biex jgħajxu lill-familji tagħhom. Dan qed iwassal għal kriżi umanitarja.”

L-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tal-Ikel (FAO) u l-Programm Dinji tal-Ikel tal-Ġnus Magħquda huma kkonċernati li n-nixfa qed ikollha impatt sostanzjali fuq dawk l-iktar vulnerabbli fl-Amerika Ċentrali. Din diġa wasslet biex intilfu 280,000 ettaru ta’ raba’ fil-Gwatemala, l-El Salvador u l-Honduras, u bħala riżultat ta’ dan effettwat is-sigurta tal-ikel ta’ żewġ miljun ruħ.

Nafu anke minn esperjenza tagħna stess f’Malta kif in-nixfa u l-għargħar huma kawża ta’ ħsara kbira lill-uċuħ tar-raba’: ħsara li qed tkun iktar spissa.

Xi pajjiżi qed isofru min-nuqqas ta’ xita. Oħrajn għaddejjin minn esperjenza differenti: fi ftit ġranet ikollhom ix-xita kollha li normalment tagħmel f’sena u dan bil-konsegwenza ta’ għargħar kbar. Dan it-tibdil fil-klima qed iseħħ ħtija tal-ħidma u l-imġieba tal-bniedem, ħidma mifruxa fuq ħafna snin li wasslet għal żidiet sostanzjali ta’ emissjonijiet ta’ karbonju (carbon emissions).

Hu ċar li t-tibdil fil-klima hu theddida għar-riżorsi bażiċi tal-ikel u l-ilma li fuqhom jiddependu l-komunitajiet tal-ġnus: dan kollu hu ostaklu kbir għad-dritt għal ħajja li għandu kull wieħed u waħda minna.

Il-politika dwar il-bidla fil-klima, fuq inizjattiva u l-insistenza ta’ stati gżejjer, ewlenin fosthom il-gżejjer fil-Paċifiku, preżentement qed tiffoka fuq il-ħtieġa li ż-żieda fit-temperatura tad-dinja ma taqbiżx 1.5 grad Celsius fuq it-temperatura pre-industrijali. Hemm kunsens fost il-komunità xjentifika globali li jekk iż-żieda taqbeż din iċ-ċifra hemm possibilità kbira ta’ apokalissi klimatika. Dan ma jikkawżax biss estremitajiet ta’ nixfa u għargħar imma ukoll jogħla l-livell tal-baħar b’mod li jinqerdu z-zoni kostali kif ukoll gżejjer diversi jispiċċaw taħt wiċċ l-ilma.

Ir-rapport speċjali tal-lnter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ippubblikat f’Ottubru li għadda jispjega fid-dettall il-veduti tal-komunità xjentifika globali dwar x’inhu jiġri: jispjega x-xjenza tal-bidla fil-klima u l-effett ta’ dan fuq id-dinja. 224 xjenzjat ewlieni minn 40 pajjiż differenti eżaminaw 30,000 studju xjentifku: il-konklużjonijiet tagħhom ma jistgħux ikunu injorati.

Ir-rapport tal-IPPC iwissina li t-temperatura tad-dinja diġa għoliet bi grad Celsius fuq it-temperatura pre-industrijali. Jekk nibqgħu għaddejjin bl-istess livell ta’ attività, sa mhux iktar tard mis-sena 2050 din it-temperatura ser tiżdied b’nofs grad Celsius ieħor, ikompli jwissina r-rapport. Għal din ir-raġuni l-komunità xjentifika hi tal-fehma li l-emmissjonijiet tal-karbonju għandhom jonqsu tant li sa mhux iktar tard mis-sena 2050 l-emmissjonijiet netti jkunu zero.

Hemm resistenza għal dan l-oġġettiv f’numru ta’ pajjiżi. Erbgħa minnhom (ir-Russia, l-Istati Uniti tal-Amerika, l-Kuwajt u l-Arabja Sawdita) ippruvaw ixellfu l-kunsens globali dwar il-konklużjonijiet tar-rapport tal-IPPC waqt il-laqgħa f’Katowice dwar il-klima iktar kmieni dan ix-xahar.

Kull pajjiż għandu sehem x’jagħti biex it-tnaqqis fl-emmissjonijiet jintlaħaq, u dan soġġett għall-prinċipju ambjentali li jistabilixxi li r-responsabbilta għalkemm hi waħda komuni tintrefa b’mod differenti (principle of common but differentiated responsibility). Anke Malta teħtieġ li terfa’ is-sehem tagħha ta’ din ir-responsabbiltà b’mod li tikkontribwixxi biex jonqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju ħalli jkun assigurat li ż-żieda ta’ 1.5 gradi fit-temperatura tad-dinja ma tinqabizx.

Meta l-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija f’Malta ma baqgħitx issir bl-użu tal-HFO (heavy fuel oil), żejt maħmuġ, u minflok qlibna għall-gass sar pass importanti l-quddiem. Imma meta nħarsu fit-tul dan mhux biżżejjed għax il-gass hu fuel ta’ transizzjoni: transizzjoni fit-triq lejn enerġija li tkun iġġenerata kompletament minn sorsi renovabbli. Neħtieġu iktar enerġija ġġenerata mix-xemx u mir-riħ kif ukoll għandna bżonn nagħrfu nagħmlu użu tajjeb mill-enerġija ġġenerata mill-mewġ li hi abbundanti fl-ibħra madwarna.

L-applikazzjoni tat-teknologija f’dawn l-oqsma toħloq xogħol sostenibbli u fl-istess ħin ittejjeb il-kwalità tal-ħajja ta’ kulħadd.

F’dan is-sens il-qasam tat-trasport f’Malta għadu ta’ uġiegħ ta’ ras u dan minħabba l-emmissjonijiet tal-karbonju li jirriżultaw miż-żieda astronomika ta’ karozzi fit-toroq tagħna. Sfortunatament, flok ma jinvesti f’trasport sostenibbli, l-gvern għaddej bi programm intensiv ta’ żvilupp tal-infrastruttura tat-toroq li inevitabilment ser iwassal biex jinkoraġixxi użu ikbar tal-karozzi fit-toroq tagħna. Dan iwassal biex jikkanċella l-progress li sar biż-żieda reġistrat fl-użu tat-trasport pubbliku.

Biex tkompli tagħmel l-affarijiet agħar, il-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex hi essenzjalment mina għall-karozzi,mhux mina għan-nies. Hu stmat li bħala riżultat ta’ din il-mina proposta ċ-ċaqlieq ta’ karozzi bejn iż-żewġ gżejjer jiżdied minn medja ta’ 3,000 għal medja ta’ 9,000 kuljum, u dan fi żmien 15-il sena. Hu possibli li jkun provdut serviz alternattiv u sostenibbli, indirizzat biss lejn in-nies, permezz ta’ dak li nirreferu għalih bħala fast ferry. Dan jista’ jwassal lin-nies dritt minn Għawdex saċ-ċentri kummerċjali tal-pajjiż. Il-karozzi, imma, huma fattur ċentrali għall-mina proġettata u dan għax il-ħlas li jsir għall-użu tal-mina huwa dipendenti fuq in-numru ta’ karozzi li jagħmlu użu minnha!

Dan kollu jmur kontra l-ispirtu tal-Pjan Nazzjonali għat-Trasport-2025 li jistabilixxi l-oġġettiv ta’ tnaqqis ta’ karozzi mit-toroq tagħna bħala mira li tista’ tintlaħaq. It-tnaqqis tal-karozzi mit-toroq tagħna mhux biss itejjeb il-kwalità tal-arja li permezz tagħha nieħdu n-nifs: hu ukoll il-kontribut żgħir tagħna bħala pajjiż kontra l-inġustizzji maħluqa minn tibdil fil-klima għax inkun qed innaqqsu l-emissjonijiet tal-karbonju bil-konsegwenza ta’ tnaqqis fiż-żieda tat-temperatura tad-dinja.

Għax il-ġlieda kontra l-inġustizzji li qed jinħolqu bit-tibdil fil-klima hi responsabbiltà tagħna ukoll.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 30 ta’ Diċembru 2018

Climate justice is our responsibility too

Everyone is aware that different parts of the world are experiencing weather extremes.  Under the heading “Changing climate forces desperate Guatemalans to emigrate”, National Geographic recently reported that “Drought and shifting weather are making it difficult for many small-scale farmers to feed their families, fuelling a human crisis”.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme of the United Nations are concerned that drought is having a considerable impact on the most vulnerable in Central America. It has led to a loss of 280,000 hectares of agricultural land in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, as a result affecting the food security of more than two million human persons.

We are aware, even as a result of local experience, that drought and floods cause considerable damage to agriculture and are occurring with increasing frequency. Some countries are experiencing an acute lack of rain while others are experiencing a concentration of a year’s rainfall in the space of a few days. These changing patterns of the weather are the result of human behaviour, accumulated over a large number of years through ever-increasing carbon emissions.

Clearly, climate change threatens essential resources – such as water and food – on which communities depend, putting in question their very right to life.

The politics of Climate Change, on the initiative and insistence of island states, in particular Pacific island micro-states, is currently focusing on the need to limit increases in global warming to not more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. There is a consensus among the global scientific community that, beyond such an increase, a climatic apocalypse would be more likely. This will be the cause of not just more drought and floods but also of unprecedented rise in sea level, as a result wiping out coastal areas, and low-lying islands all around the globe.

The special report issued by the lnter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October explains in detail the views of the global scientific community on the current state of play: it explains the science of climate change and the future of the Earth. A total of 224 leading scientists from 40 countries have assessed 30,000 scientific papers and their conclusions cannot be ignored.

Its report warns that the earth has already warmed by one degree Celsius more than the pre-industrial age. If we retain the present level of activity, we are warned that the temperature will rise a further half of a degree before the year 2050.

This is the reason why the scientific community considers that carbon emissions must be reduced, achieving net zero emissions before the year 2050. However, there are various pockets of resistance to attaining such an objective in a number of countries. So much that four of them (Russia, the United States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) have sought to water down the global consensus on the IPPC report conclusions in Katowice, at the climate change summit held earlier this month.

Each and every country has a role in achieving this substantial reduction of carbon emissions, subject to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Malta also has such a responsibility to contribute to a reduction of carbon emissions in order to ensure that the 1.5 degree barrier is not breached.

In Malta, the switching of energy generation from one dependent on heavy fuel oil to gas was a positive step. However, in the long term, this is not enough as gas is considered a transition fuel: a step on the path to energy generation completely dependent on renewable sources. We require more energy generated from the sun and wind and we also need to ensure that good use is made of energy generated from waves – so abundant in the sea around us. The application of technology will lead to the creation of new, sustainable jobs and simultaneously contribute to an improvement in the quality of life for everyone.

Transport, however, is still a major problem considering Malta’s carbon emissions due the astronomic increase in the number of cars on our roads. Unfortunately, instead of investing in sustainable transport, the government has embarked on a massive programme of further development of the road infrastructure which will only result in encouraging more cars on our roads. Consequently, this will cancel out the progress being achieved with the registered increase in the use of public transport.

To add insult to injury, the proposed tunnel below the seabed between Malta and Gozo is essentially a tunnel for the use of cars. It is estimated that, as a result of this tunnel, the vehicle movement between the two islands will increase from 3000 to 9000 vehicle movements daily over a 15-year period. An alternative sustainable service providing for the movement of people would be a fast ferry service from Gozo to the commercial centres of Malta. However, the encouragement of the use of cars is central to the projected tunnel as tolls will be paid by car owners.

All this runs counter to the National Transport Master-Plan 2025 which establishes the reduction of cars from Maltese roads as an achievable target.

Reducing the number of cars on our roads will not only improve the quality of the air we breath but will also be a small but important contribution to global climate justice through a reduction in carbon emission levels.

Climate justice is our responsibility too.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 30 December 2018

Ir-raba’ ta’ Buleben għandna bżonnu

 

Bħalissa qed nisimgħu dwar it-tkabbir taż-żona industrijali ta’ Buleben. Ser jittieħdu 120,000 metri kwadri ta’ raba’ li hi tajba u qed tinħadem biex tagħmel il-wisa’ għall-fabbriki.

It-traġedja tkompli tikber. Kull ġimgħa b’xi ħaġa ġdida.

Ftit snin ilu niftakru li kellna żona industrijali oħra, dik tar-Rikażli li għamlet il-wisa għal proġett ta’ spekulazzjoni tal-art f’dak li jissejjaħ Smart City. Smart City waqgħet lura u l-ispazju ta’ dik iż-żona industrijali issa ġejna bżonna. Minflok ser nibqgħu nżarmaw il-biedja.

Jekk il-fabbriki għandna bżonnhom, daqstant ieħor għandna bżonn il-biedja.

Ritratt meħud mis-sit fuq Facebook tal-NGO Wirt iż-Żejtun

New Petrol Stations: immediate moratorium needed

For a short period of time, the number of new petrol stations in Malta was on the decline but recently this trend has reversed, undoubtedly as a result of the Planning Authority 2015 Fuel Service Station Policy.

New petrol stations are mushrooming all over the place, and not only is it easier to obtain a development permit to construct a petrol station but you get the added “concession” to ruin up to 3,000 square metres of surrounding land.

Those proposing the development of new petrol stations claim to be doing us a favour. They argue that the increasing number of cars on the road necessitates more and more petrol stations. The number of petrol stations in the Maltese islands currently stands at around 80 and new ones are mushrooming, undoubtedly fuelled by the 3,000 square metres permissible footprint in the 2015 planning policy.

It is submitted that the policy on the development of fuel stations should complement the policy on the phasing out of internal combustion engines and an immediate moratorium on the development of new petrol stations is essential.

During the 2017 General Election campaign, Alternattiva Demokratika proposed the phasing out of vehicles running on internal combustion engines in Malta over a 20-year period. This time-frame was deemed sufficient to develop an infrastructure for electric-driven cars. It was also deemed to be a reasonable time-frame to permit those who possessed vehicles running on internal combustion engines to adjust to a new reality without petrol or diesel.

This position was also taken up by the Labour government in Malta after the June election. However the details have not yet been determined.

Various other countries have decided on, or are considering, eliminating internal combustion engine driven vehicles from their roads, including Norway (by 2025), the Netherlands (by 2025), Germany (by 2030), France (by 2040), the United Kingdom (by 2040), India (by 2040) and China (by 2040). Others will soon inevitably follow.

In addition, car manufacturers are considering shifting to a manufacturing mode that will only produce hybrid or fully electric cars. Volvo will proceed on such a path by 2019 and no doubt others will follow fast on Volvo’s heels.

Within this context, does it make any sense to continue issuing development permits for more petrol stations?

We need an in-depth examination of transport related policies. It is clear to everyone  that our roads are bursting at the seams and that the further development of our road infrastructure is opening up our roads to more cars, as a consequence adding to our pollution problems and simultaneously making our accessibility worse.

An overhaul of Malta’s transport policies should seek to promote sustainable transport policies thereby reducing the number of cars on our roads.

Yesterday, I addressed a press conference on the site of the proposed extension to the road network at Attard. This project, when implemented, will take up valuable irrigated agricultural land. This is one more instance which will increase the number of cars on our roads, gobble up agricultural land and ruin the life of full time farmers.

Transport policy on these islands seems to be multi-directional, sending mixed signals in all directions. Some coherence is required. Establishing a moratorium on the construction of new petrol stations and establishing a date by which internal combustion engine driven vehicles are phased out from our roads would be a good first step. This should then be followed by ending the crazy spree of the development of new roads.

It is a process which will lead us to reclaim our roads for our own use, but then it will take some time.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 3 December 2017