On putting tigers in the (think) tank

The Times editorials for May 1 and May 3 were both inspired by Martin Scicluna's talk at the Malta Today business breakfast, whence came the clarion call that "proper planning involves hard choices and hard decisions".

Unfortunately neither Mr Scicluna nor the leader writer set much store by good information, possibly because both started off by assuming that they were broadcasting startling news and "imaginative and workable solutions" for present and future ills - and that to the hoi barbaroi.

Take a central point made in one of the editorials: "As to renewable energy, action to date - with less than 0.1 per cent of energy coming from this source - is lamentable". But in his talk Mr Scicluna, apart from his rhetorical invocation of nuclear energy, simply swallowed current policy, particularly on wind farms. In another forum, Mr Scicluna or his interviewer confused a target of 0.31 per cent with an actual achievement of 0.31 i.e. 31 per cent of electrical energy from renewable sources.

Take another point made by Mr Scicluna and an editorial: Malta shall also be under increasing pressure to reduce its CO2 producing supply sources completely (my emphasis). To reduce CO2 emissions yes; to reduce completely, which I take to mean to reduce to zero, is a completely wild statement which has no correspondence in fact. Mr Scicluna did mention "a low carbon" economy later on in his talk, but that is not serious evidence for much "intellectual rigour, experience and good judgement".

The parts on water policy are basically sound but skirt around some vital issues. One is that the problem of over-extraction of ground water from the sea-level aquifer may have no solution other than "nationalisation" of ground water supplies. Look at Gozo, supplied by a badly-fractured water table subjected to ruthless over-pumping. By EU standards, the water is undrinkable now not within a decade - which is why there is a (R.O.) polishing plant in operation. There is no information on cost per treated litre, on the size of the inevitable reject fraction and on use, if any, of said fraction. Still less is there any inclination to bring offenders to book.

Another important issue is that of second class water from sewage treatment. This is too saline to use directly in agriculture, partly through hotel use of sea-water to flush toilets. We need cost estimates for the further treatment of such water before deciding on potential uses. Similar problems could afflict collected storm water: actual contamination with sewage (the other side of the no-wells coin, with roof run-off illegally connected to main sewers which overflow on to the streets in heavy rain), and with sump oil drip from parked cars.

So when the think tank materialises, can its creators make sure that there are some real tigers inside?