Editorial

The European Union has commendably set an example to the world in the battle to avert catastrophic climate change. All member states have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions - the cause of global warming - by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. States have also agreed to produce 20 per cent of their energy needs from renewable sources within the same timescale.

It is against this backdrop that Malta's spat with the EU Commission over the allocation of carbon dioxide emission limits should be viewed. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is the cornerstone of the strategy for fighting climate change. Its aim is to help states to meet their commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a cost effective way. The scheme is underpinned by a system of National Allocation Plans which determine the total quantity of CO2 emissions allowances that member states may grant their industry or power plant companies. This means that for each trading period each state must decide in advance how many allowances to allocate in total and how many allowances each plant covered by the scheme will receive.

Malta's National Allocation Plan for the trading period 2008-2012 - the subject of the current contretemps - has been assessed by the EU's Climate Change Committee against a dozen criteria to ensure that the over-riding need to control, and to reduce, emissions is achieved. Malta's submission has failed the test. We requested an allocation of 2.96 million tonnes of emissions until 2012, while the Commission has capped our allocation at 2.1 million tonnes, a not insignificant cut.

Malta has objected to this and may now be mounting a legal challenge in the European Court of Justice - our first - to reverse, or at least mitigate, the Commission's final decision. In this we will not be alone. We have joined a court action over the same issue and based on the same arguments initiated by Slovakia. Other member states - Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Estonia - have also initiated cases against the Commission.

Malta's argument for an increased allocation centres on the contention that the cut from our original demand proposed by the Commission would inhibit the economic expansion of what is still effectively "a developing economy". We argue that, in the wider scale of things, Malta's greenhouse gas emissions are very small when compared to those of the EU as a whole and constitutes one of the lowest emission rates in the Union on a per capita basis. We also underline that single "events" (such as the advent of the Mater Dei Hospital and SmartCity) have a disproportionate impact on electricity demand and, thus, on the greenhouse gas emissions.

These arguments have failed to sway the Commission, which has rumbled Malta's still indeterminate short- and long-term energy plans and its woefully inadequate efforts to switch to alternative, renewable energy sources or improve efficiency. It is the job of the Commission to ensure that the ambitious reduction targets which Heads of State have recently agreed are rigorously implemented. It clearly feels that Malta's plans, as exposed in the National Allocation Plan, fall short of what is needed. It is up to us to demonstrate our good intentions in a more credible manner through the urgent implementation of a comprehensive, vitally needed energy plan. The European Court of justice will need to be persuaded of this if we are to win the argument to increase our allocations beyond what the Commission feels is justified.