Nirrikunsidraw is-sussidji tal-enerġija, l-ilma u l-fuel

Bla ebda dubju hu l-każ li l-użu tal-enerġija u l-ilma jkun issussidjat f’dan il-mument ta’ kriżi. Dan is-sussidju għandu jkun immirat biex jindirizza l-impatti soċjali ta’ żieda fil-prezz tal-enerġija u l-ilma sakemm nibqgħu taħt l-effett tal-impatti tal-invażjoni tal-Ukrajina. M’għandniex nieħdu t-triq il-faċli li twassal għal abbuż minn fondi pubbliċi imferrxa fuq kulħadd.

Is-sussidji għandhom ikunu indirizzat lejn min għandu l-ħtieġa tagħhom. Xi ħtieġa hemm li tissussidja lil min għandu l-mezzi biex ikampa?

Il-konsum bażiku tal-enerġija u l-ilma fid-djar tagħna għandu definittivament jibqa’ protett bis-sussidji għaż-żmien li ġej. Din hi neċessità soċjali biex primarjament ikunu mħarsa l-vulnerabbli u dawk bi dħul baxx. Imma lil hinn mis-sussidji applikati għal dan il-konsum basiku ta’ enerġija u ilma ma hemm l-ebda raġuni biex dan is-sussidju jkun japplika għal konsum iktar minn dak bażiku. Min għandu l-mezzi li jwasslu għal konsum ikbar għandu jkollu ukoll ir-riżorsi biex jerfa’ l-ispiża addizzjonali tal-konsum tiegħu jew tagħha.

Ma hemm xejn ikkumplikat f’dak li qed ngħid. Huwa l-mod kif wara kollox diġa jinħadmu l-kontijiet għall-ilma li nikkunsmaw: il-konsum bażiku tal-ilma jitħallas b’rati sussidjati, filwaqt li konsum ikbar tal-ilma diġa jitħallas b’rati kummerċjali. M’għandu jkun hemm l-ebda diffikultà li dan jinftiehem: huwa l-mod kif il-kontijiet tal-ilma ilhom jinħadmu għal iktar minn tletin sena!

Dan kollu hu ukoll dibattibbli meta nikkunsidraw il-konsum ta’ ilma u l-enerġija meta dan il-konsum ma jsirx fir-residenzi. Hu raġjonevoli li napplikaw is-sussidji biex inħarsu l-impiegi. Jeħtieġ imma li s-sussidji jkunu iffukati. Ikun għaqli għalhekk li perjodikament neżaminaw mill-ġdid il-kif u l-kemm b’mod li dawn is-sussidji jkunu raġjonevoli u mhux iktar milli nifilħu bħala pajjiż.

Ma jagħmilx sens imma, li l-użu kollu tal-enerġija u l-ilma jkun issussidjat. Hu meħtieġ li r-riżorsi limitati li għandna nużawhom bir-reqqa.

Iżda l-kaz tas-sussidji għall-konsum tal-fuels, jiġifieri s-sussidji applikati għall-petrol u d-dijżil hi storja kompletament differenti. Il-Gvern diġa, wara ftit ġimgħat, biddel ftit il-proposta oriġinali tiegħu billi ma baqax jissussidja l-konsum tal-fuel (primarjament dijżil) fil-każ ta’ opri tal-baħar imdaqqsa.

Ma hemm l-ebda ħtieġa soċjali biex ikun issussidjat il-petrol u d-dijżil. In-numru żgħir ta’ każi fejn l-użu ta’ karozzi privati hu meħtieġ biex tkun indirizzata d-diżabilita konnessa mal-mobilità jistgħu faċilment ikollhom għajnuna iffukata għall-ħtiġijiet partikolari tagħhom.

It-tneħħija tas-sussidji fuq il-konsum tal-fuel ikun ifisser żieda sostanzjali fil-prezz tal-petrolu u d-dijżil. L-impatt ewlieni tat-tneħħija ta’ dan is-sussidju fuq jkun wieħed pożittiv għax iwassal għal tnaqqis immedjat ta’ karozzi mit-toroq tagħna. Dan iwassal ukoll għal titjib fil-kwalità tal-arja.

Tajjeb li uħud jiftakru li 50 fil-mija tal-vjaġġi li nagħmlu bil-karozzi privati fit-toroq tagħna huma vjaġġi għal distanzi qosra. Il-parti l-kbira ta’ dawn il-vjaġġi, bi prezz rejalistiku tal-petrol u d-dijżil ma jsirux u minflok jintuża t-trasport pubbliku jew forom oħra ta’ mobilità sostenibbli. It-trasport pubbliku kif nafu hu bla ħlas!

Il-partiti parlamentari presentement qed jargumentaw b’veduti dijametrikament opposti. Min-naħa l-waħda l-Labour irid jibqa’ b’sussidji fuq il-konsum kollu filwaqt li l-PN qed jargumenta favur li dawn is-sussidji jkunu eliminati. Dan il-kuntrast bejn il-PLPN  dwar iż-żamma jew it-tneħħija tas-sussidji iħawwad l-imħuħ. Neħtieġu nimxu bir-raġuni anke meta nitkellmu dwar is-sussidji f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi.

Ir-riżorsi tagħna huma limitati. Irridu nużawhom bil-għaqal biex inkunu nistgħu nibqgħu ngħinu lill-vulnerabbli.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 30 t’April 2023

Revisiting energy, water and fuel subsidies

There is definitely a case to make in favour of subsidised energy and water use in this particular time of crisis. This should be aimed at mitigating the social impacts of an increase in energy and water rates for as long as the impacts of the Ukraine invasion remain. We should not, however, take the easier way out and splash public funds around indiscriminately. Subsidies should be focused on those who need them. Why subsidise those who can cope?

The basic energy and water consumption of residential households should definitely remain protected and subject to subsidies in the medium term. This is a social necessity in order, primarily to protect the vulnerable and low earners. However, beyond subsidies applied to basic and essential energy (and water) consumption, there are no valid reasons for the current across the board energy/water subsidies of residential households. Those who can afford to run large domestic properties should be able to shoulder the increased cost of the energy and water which they consume.

This is not rocket science. It is in fact the manner in which we are already billed for our water consumption: basic water consumption is billed at subsidised rates whilst beyond that, commercial rates apply. It should not be too difficult to understand: it is how our water bills have been computed for the past thirty years or so!

The matter is also debatable when considering non- residential energy and water consumption. When protecting existing employment, in the short to medium term, subsidies to energy and water rates are reasonable. Beyond that, however one needs to be more focused and revisit the workings to determine whether and the extent to which such subsidies may be reasonable and affordable to the national exchequer.

Blanket long-term energy and water subsidies for non-residential use are not on. We must be capable of living within our limited means.

The case of subsidies applied to fuel consumption, that is to say subsidies applied to petrol and diesel use is completely different. Government has already after a few weeks tweaked its original decision and removed the applicability of subsidies when applied to fuel consumption (primarily diesel) in the case of large boats.

There is generally no social need to subsidise petrol and diesel. The small number of cases where private vehicle use is required to address issues of disability can be addressed directly by introducing adequate focused help.

Removal of fuel subsidies would signify a substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel. The primary impact of the removal of subsidies applied to petrol and diesel would be beneficial as it would signify an immediate reduction of cars from our roads and a consequent immediate improvement in air quality.

Some may need to be reminded that 50 per cent of private car trips on our roads is for the travelling of short distances. Most of these trips could, as a result of a realistic price of fuel, be shifted to public transport or other alternative modes of sustainable mobility.  As we know public transport is free of charge.

The Parliamentary parties are at present arguing on two diametrically opposed views. On one hand Labour is emphasising the need of complete subsidisation while the PN is in favour of the complete removal of these subsidies. The contrasting views on the retention of subsidies or their negation, advocated by PLPN, are not at all helpful. We need reasonableness even when considering the application of subsidies in such situations.

Our resources are limited. We must use them judiciously in order to be able to continue helping the vulnerable.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 30 April 2023

X’ser inħallu warajna?

Jekk irridu nirreġistraw progress, il-legat li ser inħallu warajna lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jeħtieġ li jkun bosta aħjar minn dak li ħallewlna dawk li ġew qabilna. It-triq meħtieġa biex nirreġistraw dan il-progress għandha tkun il-mira tal-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli li sa nhar il-Ħamis li għadda kienet soġġetta għall-konsultazzjoni pubblika.

Roman Krznaric, fil-ktieb riċenti tiegħu The Good Ancestor jistaqsina mistoqsija diretta: “X’legat ser inħallu lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri? Ser ikunilhom ta’ għajnuna, jew ser ikissirhom?”  Hi mistoqsija li neħtieġu nwieġbu għaliha aħna ukoll, kuljum.

Il-politika dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tfittex li tagħti tweġiba sura għal din il-mistoqsija. Jekk titmexxa sewwa, din il-poltika tista’ tagħti libsa xierqa lill-futur u dan bħala riżultat ta’ ħidma responsabbli li issir illum.  Dan isir billi nassiguraw li l-ħtiġijiet tagħna illum nissodisfawhom mingħajr ma nikkompromettu l-possibiltà li anke l-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri jkun possibli għalihom li huma ukoll ikunu f’posizzjoni li jissodifaw il-ħtiġijiet tagħhom.

Dan, fi ftit kliem, jiddependi fuq kemm aħna kapaċi nħarsu fit-tul, il-bogħod, f’dinja li kontinwament tikkostrinġina naħsbu u naġixxu f’termini ta’ mil-lum għal għada. Anzi, jgħidulna “għada min raħ?”

Il-Gvernijiet, minkejja l-ħafna paroli tagħhom, ftit li xejn jagħtu importanza lill-iżvilupp sostenibbli propju minħabba li din mhiex dwar illum, iżda iktar dwar għada u lil hinn minnu.  Hi dwar kif il-ħidma tal-lum ma tkunx ta’ preġudizzju għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Il-politiku ma jagħtix biżżejjed kaz ta’ dan għax l-interess tiegħu ħafna drabi ma jwassalx iktar minn ħames snin: jiġifieri kemm hemm żmien bejn elezzjoni u oħra.  Jeħtieġ li nippjanaw ħafna iktar fit-tul, fl-interess tal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri.

Dan il-punt ġie sottolinejat minn Gro Harlem Brundtland li kienet fi żmien Prim Ministru soċjal-demokratiku tan-Norveġja. Dan għamlitu fir-rapport influwenti li ħejjiet fl-1987 għall-Ġnus Magħquda bit-titlu: Our Common Future. F’dan ir-rapport, fost oħrajn, hi emfasizzat li “Naġixxu b’dan il-mod għax naħsbu li nistgħu neħilsuha ħafif: il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri ma jivvutawx; la għandhom poter politiku u l-anqas poter finanzjarju; mhumiex f’posizzjoni li jikkontestaw id-deċiżjonijiet tagħna.” (We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.)

Dan kollu joħroġ ċar mill-kuntrast bejn dak li jipproponi (jew li jħalli barra) l-abbozz ta’ strateġija għall-iżvilupp sostenibbli u l-politika attwali u l-ħidma fil-prattika tal-Gvern.

Ħarsu per eżempju lejn il-politika dwar it-trasport.

L-istrateġija proposta titkellem fit-tul dwar viżjoni u oġġettivi biex jiżdied l-użu tat-trasport pubbliku. Tidentifika mira għall-2030 biex jonqos in-numru ta’ dawk li jsuqu l-karozzi b’41 fil-mija meta dan ikun imqabbel maċ-ċifri tal-1990.

Kliem dan li ħadd ma’ jista’ jemmnu, iktar u iktar meta wieħed iqabblu mal-ħidma f’direzzjoni kompletament opposta li fis-snin passati.

Il-politika tal-Gvern illum tinkoraġixxi l-użu tal-karozzi privati: hi politika li kontinwament tibgħat sinjali konfliġġenti.  Hu sew li l-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tfittex li tkun indirizzata id-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi. F’kuntrast ma’ dan l-oġġettiv il-politika tal-Gvern permezz ta’ investiment massiċċ fl-infrastruttura tat-toroq kif ukoll permezz tas-sussidju tal-petrol/diesel qed twassal messagg kompletament differenti. Messaġġ li ma jħalli l-ebda dubju li l-użu tal-karozzi hu inkoraġġit.

Il-konġestjoni tat-traffiku fit-toroq tagħna mhiex il-kawża tal-problemi tagħna. Fil-fatt din hi l-effett tad-dipendenza tagħna fuq il-karozzi. F’dan il-kuntest hu ġustifikat li l-istrateġija timmira lejn tnaqqis sostanzjali fid-dipendenza fuq il-karozzi. Fil-fatt m’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ daqshekk karozzi biex nivvjaġġjaw daqstant distanzi qosra. Anke l-istrateġija l-oħra, dik dwar it-Trasport tfakkarna li nofs il-vjaġġi li nagħmlu bil-karozzi privati huma għal distanzi li jieħdu inqas minn ħmistax-il minuta.

Insibu iktar sinjali kunfliġġenti fl-abbozz tal-istrateġija dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli.

Numru ta’ miri huma spjegati b’mod ċar, bħall-klima, skart, xiri bi kritierji ambjentali, kwalità tal-arja, bijodiversità, tagħlim għall-ħajja, diġitalizzazzzjoni u l-ħtieġa ta’ għajnuna edukattiva lil studenti emigranti, fost oħrajn. Min-naħa l-oħra, per eżempju, ħlief għal xi kummenti ġenerali ftit li xejn hemm direzzjoni dwar materji li jikkonċernaw l-użu tal-art. Riżorsa għalina skarsa u f’diversi ċirkustanzi użata ħażin kontra l-interess pubbliku.

Fid-dawl tal-gimmicks politiċi kurrenti dwar l-ispazji miftuħa jistona n-nuqqas ta’ referenza għall-ħtieġa li nipproteġu l-ispazju miftuħ diġà eżistenti fiż-żoni urbani u l-irħula tagħna. Dan jinkludi ġonna privati, uħud kbar, li huma taħt assedju mill-ispekulaturi li huma daqstant u kontinwament aġevolati.

Ftit li xejn ukoll hemm referenza għall-importanza li tinħadem l-art agrikola u li din tkun difiża mill-assedju li għaddej mill-forzi spekulattivi. X’utilità hemm li tinvesti  €700 million fi spazji miftuħa meta fl-istess nifs qed jintilfu spazji miftuħa kbar kontinwament u dan riżultat tal-falliment tal-ippjanar fl-użu tal-art?

B’din ir-rata il-legat li ser inħallu lill-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri huwa wieħed negattiv ħafna.  Inħarsu sal-ponta ta’ mneħirna, mhemmx viżjoni fit-tul.  Dan mhux legat li ser jagħmel il-ġid: ser ikun ta’ ħsara kbira għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. Kif qalet Brundtland: dan isir għax il-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri m’għandhomx vot!

B’dawn in-nuqqasijiet is-siwi tal-istrateġija proposta dwar l-iżvilupp sostenibbli hu wieħed limitat. Ikun iktar utli li titfassal mill-ġdid.

ippibblikat fuq Ilum: 12 ta’ Frar 2023

Being Good Ancestors

If we are to register any significant progress, our legacy to future generations should be a substantial improvement of what we ourselves have inherited from our predecessors. The roadmap to achieving this improvement should be the objective of the sustainable development strategy which was subject to public consultation until last Thursday.

Roman Krznaric, in his recent book The Good Ancestor asks a very pointed question: “Will our legacy to future generations be one that benefits them or will be it one that cripples them?” It is the question to which we must provide an answer, day in day out.

The politics of sustainable development seeks to mould such an answer. Properly managed it can shape the future as a result of acting in a responsible manner today. It does so by ensuring that our present-day needs are achieved without compromising the ability of future generations in meeting their own needs. It all boils down to how we can think (and plan) long-term in a short-term world.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, governments do not give sufficient importance to sustainable development as this is not just about today. It is rather about how today’s activity should not prejudice tomorrow and future generations. This is not sufficiently on the radar of today’s politicians. Their interest, generally, does not span more than five years: that is until the next general election. We need to think and plan far more into the future.

This is a point underlined by former Norwegian social democrat Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in her seminal UN Report Our Common Future published in 1987. She emphasised that “We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

This is most evident in the contrast between what the draft sustainable development strategy proposes (or omits) and the actual policy and practice of government.

Consider for example, the issue of transport policy.

The proposed sustainable development strategy speaks at length on vision and objectives relative to an increased use of public transport. It even identifies as a 2030 target the reduction of car drivers through the use of the following words: reduce the modal share of car drivers to 41% compared to 1990.

No one in his right senses can believe a single word of this statement in view of the fact that there has been a considerable effort in the past years in a completely opposite direction!

Current government policy encourages the use of private cars and continuously sends conflicting signals. The sustainable development strategy rightly seeks to address car dependency. In contrast to this objective government policy, through investing heavily in new road infrastructure and through the subsidisation of fuels sends a completely different signal: one which without a shadow of doubt encourages car dependency.

The congestion of our roads is not the cause of our problems: it is the effect of our malady which is car dependency. Hence it is right that the strategy aims to address and reduce car dependency. We do not need so many cars to travel the short distances so prevalent in this country! As our Transport Master Plan reminds us, 50 per cent of private car trips are for distances taking less than 15 minutes.

We find other conflicting signals in the draft strategy on sustainable development.

While there are a number of specific objectives spelled out in clear language (for example: climate change, waste, green purchasing, air quality, biodiversity, lifelong learning, digitalisation, migrant induction learning …….) beyond some general comments and observations, I fail to see any emphasis on land use issues. This is not right in view of the limited availability of land and its rampant misuse, contrary to the public interest.

In view of the current political gimmicks relative to open spaces one cannot but note the omission from the strategy on any reference to the urgent need to protect existing open space in our urban areas and in our villages. This includes large private gardens continuously targeted by speculative forces on the good books of this administration. 

There is also scant reference to the need to safeguard agricultural land. What is the purpose in investing €700 million in open spaces if we are losing existing ones at an exponential rate as a result of the current practise of land use planning?

At this rate the legacy to future generations is generally negative. The short-term view is completely obliterating any possible long-term view. This is not a beneficial legacy; it is rather a very crippling one. As Brundtland pointed out: this is done as future generations have no vote!

We need to go back to the drawing board and have the strategy redrafted.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 February 2023