In 50 years we will need a second planet

When you wonder what our members of the European Parliament are up to, you may get an inkling of what they do from their actions on important issues. Climate change is on everyone's lips these days and the European Parliament is continuously pressing for action to reverse this phenomenon.

Information provided by the European Parliament on the debate on climate change is worrying but good because citizens are provided with as many facts as they need to understand the threat it poses to them. One thing is certain: time is not on our side and unless something is done quickly to remedy the situation we may cause this planet irreparable damage and make it unlivable.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned that "if we continue to consume as much energy, in 50 years we will need a second planet". Getting to that second planet is the problem.

On January 10 the European Commission outlined plans for a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. That is a reduction by one fifth in the next 13 years or so. Malta must begin striving from now to meet that target. We cannot be laid back. The sooner we start the better for our economy as well, and for our reputation.

An international panel on climate change forecasts global temperature rises of between 1.8°C and 4°C by 2100. When the issue of climate change was debated in the European Parliament MEPs favoured a more drastic cut of greenhouse gases, a 30 per cent reduction from present levels, as opposed to the 20 per cent proposed by the Commission.

Nuclear energy

It is clear that the carbon-hungry economies of the industrialised world must find alterative forms of energy if they wish to reduce CO2 emissions. How to achieve this was a crucial part of the EP debate. One option is the use of nuclear fuel.

Herbert Reul of the European People's Party said this "would give us 70 per cent of electrical production but in a CO2 free manner". For the Liberal ALDE group Anne Laperrouze called for fiscal measures to promote energy efficiency, for increased use of biofuels and renewable energy.

One thing that all MEPs agreed on was the urgency of the problem. Socialist MEP Matthias Groote told the House that "in the politics of climate change the expression 'time is money' has another meaning".

But the use of nuclear fuel is not problem free. There is the issue of nuclear safety. The greater the number of nuclear power plants the greater the danger of an accidental leak.

Cars fuel climate change

A key aspect of the debate was the extent to which transport - and in particular cars - were making climate change worse. In the EP debate German Green Rebecca Harms launched a scathing attack on the Berlin government: "Germany torpedoed the goals of CO2 reduction for the automobile industry because it protects the small segment of the big luxurious limousines, which are produced in Germany. Suddenly we don't talk about climate protection any more but about Porsches!"

Mr Gabriel said this was not the case and that the "objective of 120 g of CO2/km can be achieved by combining improved vehicle technology and the use of bio fuels".

Graham Watson for the Liberals picked up the same point, asking fellow MEPs "do we really need cars that go from 0 to 100 km per hour in less than six seconds if it will destroy our planet in less than six decades?"

For many MEPs increasing the emphasis on public transport was vital. This is something that we have been doing here in Malta. Some progress has been registered but not enough. Progress in this sector needs to be geared up and the bus service improved considerably if we are to entice people to use it.

And we should also be thinking in terms of a bus service running on clean fuel and renewable energy.

For the Socialist Group Gyula Hegyi pointed out that "road transport uses five times more energy than train transport for the same number of passengers. That is why public transport should be a priority for us".

Partnership with China and India

The extent to which the EU should project its power onto the international stage was also a vital part of the debate. Francis Wurtz of the European United Left pointed out that the EU has made a bad start in meeting its Kyoto commitments and that if this continues it will "lead the planet to an unsustainable upheaval".

As to what the EU should do to influence countries like China and India that are experiencing rapid economic growth with increasing carbon usage, Anders Wijkman of the European People's Party asked: "Why not establish partnership with China and India?" He warned that failure to do so would turn "what we are doing... marginal".

Calls for rise in use of renewable energy

Last April Parliament adopted a regulation to reduce and prohibit the use of fluorinated gases used in the production of air-conditioning units, refrigerators and insulating foam.

In January 2006 MEPs passed a resolution on climate change, restating the commitment to "undertake strong emissions reductions for developed countries of 30 per cent by 2020".

It calls for better technology co-operation to combat climate change. A further resolution on climate change called for renewable energy to make up 25 per cent of the EU total by 2020.