Editorial

The European Commission has rejected Malta's case for raising its allocation of carbon dioxide emissions for the period 2008-2012 and effectively imposed a 30 per cent reduction. Malta based its case for the allocation on the assumption that "increased economic growth" would lead to greater demand for energy, but this argument did not sway the Commission.

Malta is now faced with two courses: either to abide by the Commission's allocation decision, or to challenge it in the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In reaching its decision, the government must weigh in the scales two key factors. The first is that it has to make a calculation about the European Commission's determination to adhere to the CO2 emissions allocation it has set, as well as the force of argument it can bring to bear on the ECJ to persuade it that its case is reasonable. Secondly, the government should now consider seriously how much more it can do to tame CO2 emissions and the benefits that can accrue from reducing them.

Nobody who has followed the debate about climate change can be in any doubt of the determination of European Heads of State to reduce greenhouse gases significantly in the next few years. The Commission is charged with ensuring that the targets which have been set are met. It is confident that if the EU's emissions trading scheme with national allocation plans are successfully implemented by member states, the EU is likely to be able to meet its Kyoto Protocol target. Hence, the crucial importance to the Commission and, indeed, to member states, of ensuring that national allocation plans are adhered to.

We should, therefore, be in no doubt of the Commission's commitment in this matter, nor of the force of the moral argument which it will present to the ECJ that unless deep emission reductions are achieved by all countries - regardless of their size - the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic. Against this background, the government must now decide whether going to the ECJ would be either winnable or, indeed, right.

It will need to consider seriously whether it is doing enough to reduce CO2 emissions. Malta has a responsibility like any other advanced nation to do its bit to avert climate change. It is also unarguable that Malta would benefit enormously, both economically and environmentally, if it were to reduce its dependence on fossil fuel for electricity generation, the prime cause of Malta's CO2 emissions. Our efforts to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels have been dilatory. We now need to tackle the issue wholeheartedly. There must be a reduction in electricity consumption. Conservation and greater fuel efficiency must be given priority.

The drive to implement renewable energy sources must begin in earnest. The widespread use of photovoltaic panels to generate electricity and solar panels for heating must be actively encouraged. Wind farms in one or two suitable locations should be established. The replacement of the antiquated Marsa and Delimara CO2-producing power stations must be speeded up.

We have to shift to a low carbon economy. But we have to do this by achieving energy security through greater energy efficiency, conservation and the diversification of energy sources and supplies. Increasingly, high energy costs and climate change are setting the agenda for us. The discipline which the reduced national allocation plan for 2008-2012 laid down by the Commission imposes on us should be seen as an opportunity which any responsible government should seize, not dispute.