Editorial

At last week's meeting in Davos for political and business leaders, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke on the need of an internationally-agreed low-carbon economy. Taking whatever action is necessary to address climate change is as much a challenge as solving the economic malaise the world is facing.

Against this background, it is opportune to refer to two reports touching on climate change and fossil fuels.

One is the recently-published consultation report - National Strategy For Policy And Abatement Measures Relating To The Reduction Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - drawn up by the Climate Change Committee. The other, Towards A Low Carbon Society, The Nation's Health, Energy Security And Fossil Fuel, released last June by the independent public policy think-tank, The Today Public Policy Institute.

Although the subject matter of both reports overlap, their objectives are different so that they do not in any way replace or supersede each other. While the highly-detailed report drawn up by the government's climate change committee dwells on climate change, the think-tank study addresses Malta's more immediate problems of the adverse effects of fossil fuel pollution on the nation's health and the urgent need to introduce alternative sources of energy. Both reports emphasise the cost of inaction but with the difference that the climate change committee places its emphasis on the financial cost of inaction in terms of carbon emission trading while the think-tank focuses on the serious damage to health and Malta's energy security.

While the reports were written independently, it is instructive to observe the extent to which they supplement each other in the sense that what one report omits the other includes. This is particularly so because the climate change report is a powerful administrative instrument that largely embraces medium- to long-term measures at government level. The think-tank report is more of a nuts-and-bolts handbook recommending a holistic array of measures and lifestyle changes aimed at reducing pollution in urban environment. Both reports, therefore, should be used in conjunction because their ultimate objectives are the same, though via widely differing approaches and levels of implementation targets.

There is one area where the reports are at odds: private transport. The climate change committee follows the well-trodden Maltese path of indirectly promoting private car use through easing the flow of traffic whereas the think-tank advises rather the opposite, suggesting ways to get people out of their cars. Easing Malta's traffic woes, though desirable, could result in greater carbon emissions as it might increase car dependency. Consideration needs to be given to which of these approaches will serve Malta better. An essential element in the equation is health. The car is responsible for ill-health, through lack of physical activity and toxic exhaust pollution.

There have been other related reports in the past, such as Malta's first communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2004, which included a host of concrete recommendations. The climate change committee's report is action-oriented and includes target dates, thus putting the ball firmly in the government's court. The time for debate is now over. It is time for action. It is now up to the government to implement the recommendations in both reports without further delay.