Climate change: Malta slacks yet again

Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. Human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, has significantly increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth's atmosphere - the main culprit being carbon dioxide.

In May 1992, various governments throughout the world adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They then went a step further on December 11, 1997 with the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol.

On a regional level, in January 2005, the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) subsequently commenced operation. The latter is the first international trading system for carbon dioxide in the world and covers over 11,500 energy-intensive installations in the EU (half of Europe's emissions of carbon dioxide).

The aim of the EU ETS is to help EU member states achieve compliance with their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Letting participating companies buy or sell emission allowances means that the targets can be achieved at least cost. If the Emissions Trading Scheme had not been adopted, other - more costly - measures would probably have had to be introduced.

As part of the EU ETS scheme, each member state was to draw up and submit a National Allocation Plan (NAP) for the second trading phase commencing on 2008 and ending in 2012. The National Allocation Plans (NAPs) are aimed at determining the total quantity of CO2 emissions that member states grant to their companies, which can then be sold or bought by the companies themselves.

Of the 25 EU member states that were due to submit NAPs, only 10 crossed the finish line by the requisite deadline. Unfortunately, Malta did not manage to submit the required plans. Consequently, the Commission has decided to take legal action against the 15 who have not observed their legal obligation to present their carbon emission plans for the second phase. As a result these member states must reply to Brussels within a month's time or risk court proceedings at a later stage. The Commission has expressed preference towards pressing member states to finalise their plans, as opposed to court proceedings.

The Maltese government has been put in a situation that requires speedy initiative and reflex. The only question left to ask is: will Malta pull her socks up before the end of the year or will she linger in honouring such commitments?