Tackling climate change

Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said yesterday that investment needed to curb CO2 emissions would be financed through tariffs "paid by all".

Mr Fenech was introducing a two-session parliamentary discussion on the national strategy on policy measures needed to reduce emissions that contribute towards global warming. The climate change committee had presented its strategy within a year of being formed, and this stimulated discussion on the issue.

The debate was being moved in the House now at the request of the opposition because the government would have preferred the discussion to take place last July, before the summer recess. He criticised the opposition for failing to make any proposals on climate change except for a motion requesting the government to move a Bill.

Minister Fenech said the aim was to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 from 1990 levels. The strategy would also increase alternative energy by 10 per cent over the same period. The EU had raised targets to encourage as many countries as possible to reduce emissions.

Declaring that he was confident such targets were reachable, Mr Fenech said the measures to be adopted had a financial and economic impact. If Malta did not reach these targets it would have to buy credits under the emissions trading scheme. Positive consequences included the selling of such unconsumed credits to other countries if the targets were surpassed.

The country, added Minister Fenech, needed to invest heavily to reach these targets. Investment in energy production and interconnectivity with Sicily involved an expenditure of €800 million, with €25 million coming from EU funds. Enemalta was the main player, having to reach the right environmental standards at its Delimara powerplant.

This investment would be financed through tariffs "to be paid by all", and just substituting oil with natural gas would cost Malta €400 million more. This would include building a proper plant while ensuring regular gas supply delivery, when there was a shortage of gas in the world.

Another target that had to be reached was that of generating alternative energy sources such as wind farms, photovoltaic cells and solar water heaters.

Opposition climate change spokesman Leo Brincat explained that the aim of his Private Members' Bill was to ask for legislation in relation to climate change, as this would have been the foundation stone in creating a binding system. A plan of action without legislation often lacked implementation, and he augured that this would not be the case with climate change.

He described the document produced by the climate change committee as a "nice" document which lacked implementation measures. The report was nothing more than a "wishlist", rather than one that put forward a plan of action.

The government had wanted a small committee so as to receive a focused report within a short period of time containing good proposals. It had also given the impression that the document would be presented as approved by Cabinet. Yet Mr Fenech had confirmed in his introduction that the report was presented for debate purposes only, on the insistence of the opposition.

Mr Brincat reiterated that it was the government, and not the opposition, which had sought a postponement of the parliamentary debate on climate change before the summer recess.

It was unclear whether the report presented yesterday in Parliament was the same one originally presented to Cabinet. The government had promised to implement the plan of action by taking administrative and strategic measures, but no concrete measures were proposed.

Moreover, the original opposition proposal included an annual reporting procedure to Parliament. Again, yesterday Mr Fenech had stated that government had accepted the PL's proposal to debate climate change, and this was through the current debate. It remained unclear whether Parliament would have the function of monitoring the implementation of the plan of action through the annual reporting system originally proposed.

The opposition's main reservations on the document presented by Mr Fenech were that it did not sufficiently address today's circumstances and sought to mitigate the problem, rather than proposing measures of adaptation.

Mr Brincat said the opposition had asked for concrete information on how emissions would be decreased, the costings of the proposed action and the sources of financing. Minister Fenech should also have explained not only whether the EU-imposed timeframes would be reached but also how these would be reached.

The government had not undertaken, and was not bound, to move towards the use of gas, but the document indirectly implied that such a decision was still pending. The language used in the strategy had changed from the use of "will" to "should". A holistic strategy must also have a solid assessment of how climate change measures would affect social economic factors.

Issues such as the link between the proposed strategy and how EU climate-change regulations were being addressed, or how Malta would build its carbon market, remained unanswered.

The opposition proposed that the aggregate of emissions by sectors was to be considered annually so as to ensure that targets were being reached. Moreover, the sectors that must be addressed in issues of climate change must be identified and taken on board. Recommendations for a more robust system on greenhouse emissions were useless if the relevant data were not collected.

Mr Brincat called upon the government to inform the public on Malta's input towards the debate on the Copenhagen negotiations. Since the government had decided that Malta should be classified under Annex 1, it was obliged to assess the effects and responsibilities of this classification and the strengthening of the administrative set-up to ensure that Malta would not be penalised under this system. The tools must be effective to address CO2 emissions, while no strategy had been forthcoming in saying how the emissions trading schemes would be implemented.

The first draft of the strategy was data-rich but lacked focus.

The private sector and industry ought to have been better consulted, as this was the order in modern societies and not for the government to work on such issues in isolation.

Although the document focused on a number of sectors, no priorities were identified. Mr Brincat said the strategy made 36 proposals and measures which were even more "wishy-washy" than the content of the original document. The involvement of the private sector from the very outset of the process would have been beneficial, yet no one representing the private sector was appointed on the climate change committee.

The original report was an academic document rather than a strategic document, and did not include a high-level financial review of the effects of the proposed measures.

Mr Brincat pointed out that he was not criticising the strategy but the systematic tactical approach, especially the sector-by-sector approach. He said the strategy was weak.

The concept of the climate-change fund was missing from the document, and if this surfaced one needed to ensure that this fund was used for climate-change purposes and not for other purposes.

The shadow price of carbon had been due to be established last month. The document did not establish this but stated that this might be established next year.

Climate change had effects on economic issues and there must be a climate-change budget which was not tied only to the emissions trading scheme.

The strategy proposed the setting up of an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions which was to be undertaken by the climate division at MRA, rather than the ministry itself as originally proposed.

Mr Brincat expressed agreement with the establishment of an inter-ministerial committee on climate change, but he augured that if chaired by the Prime Minister, it would have more success than the tourism inter-ministerial committee.

It was good that although the Resource Ministry was going to be the focal point, other ministries would also assume the responsibility to implement the strategy from their end. Duplication of work was to be avoided.

Mr Brincat said that the most important aspect of the government policy was the conciliation between the first draft and the actions proposed in the final document.

These included details about CO2 emissions.

The government was right in taking up the suggestion by a main environmentalist that it would buy credits under the emissions trading scheme from the international market if it was less costly than the local production. This formed part of the abatement measures. However he criticised the lack of government commitment to make the emissions trading scheme fully operational by 2013.

He called on the government to give the necessary human resources to the climate change division, adding that the number of employees envisaged at present should be the minimum acceptable when one had to consider the four main areas on which they had to concentrate. The resources for implementation and enforcement were still weak.

Mr Brincat called on the government to introduce incentives to encourage industry to take energy-generating measures. The government had to keep its commitment to have 75 per cent of homes using energy-saving lighting by 2015. Studies had to be concluded and implemented so that the smart street-lighting grid for arterial roads could be introduced.

Facilitating bio-fuel expansion made more sense than extending it, as had been proposed in the initial document. He criticised the Malta Resources Authority as being least effective and lacking dynamism as a regulator.

He welcomed the traffic information centre to be set up. This was long overdue. The success of the transport reform depended on the use of public transport, and he asked the minister to explain why the recommendation of considering stations which monitored air quality did not form part of the final document. There was nothing wrong with making the linkage with the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology, but he ask what its direct input on climate change would be. Malta needed to make the best use of its academics in research, although foreign expertise was also needed.

Mr Brincat referred to energy performance on buildings where Malta had to abide by EU directives. New buildings and property contracts concluded from last January were going against the directive, and he hoped this directive would not reduce the rhythm of activity in the property market.

An education campaign was needed on carbon footprints.

He asked whether the MRA had introduced its energy schemes correctly, because it had failed to attract people to these schemes. As a result, people who were considering renewable energy projects were given different versions by people in government on how to implement them.

The feed-in tariffs did not feature in the final document. Many people in the farming sector did not know anything about the agricultural waste management plan. The LPG proposal for Gozo had been watered down. The public transport sector did not feature in the targets for the island's eco-friendly plan.

On the education sector, Mr Brincat said that a clear environmental policy was needed. He asked whether a feasibility study on staggering opening and closing times of schools had been made. It was too late for the government to consider photovoltaic cells on roofs of government building; this should have been done long ago.

As for the waste management plan, Mr Brincat said politicians sought to give the impression that Malta was on the ball in each sector, but non-political people said differently. The current level of government preparedness left a lot to be desired.

In the mitigation adaptation policy Malta must achieve a 20 per cent reduction in its emissions. The importance of emission reduction management was great, and so could be its effect on tourism and business. He had imagined there would be a new emphasis on this in the document, even in view of what Mr Spiteri Gingell had had to say about it, but there was not much in the final report.

Sea warming in the Mediterranean meant less fish to catch. Malta must ensure greater protection of its shores. It was good that the importance of geothermal energy, which had not even been mentioned in the original document, was now being given due recognition.

He wondered if air scientists were involved in what was going on.

Mr Brincat said it would have been interesting to see a more holistic treatment of flooding. The report mentioned storm water penetration into the water table, but there was no mention of water runoff into the sea.

He looked forward to the right measures being taken at a national level in spite of individuals' vested interests. As things stood right now, Malta was still fully dependent on hydrocarbons.

Coastal protection schemes seemed to have been ignored in spite of increasing erosion.

A regular review of the situation every three years would not be enough.

Labour's approach was that in spite of all its reservations, the current plan was better than none at all. It was unfortunate that politicians might sometimes not feel close to certain aspects and tended to be short-sighted, but they should know better.

Mr Brincat said that one sector on which climate change could have a direct effect was climate refugees. Sometimes people might decide to migrate to a foreign country that was as poor as theirs but had a better climate. This could yet be a big problem for Malta, especially in addition to other refugees.

No matter how scenarios might vary, the only way to minimise climate change was by controlling carbon emissions. While the environment must perforce be balanced with economics, it should be remembered that climate change was not only an environmental consideration. The environment was a big and important aspect, but climate change brought with it dimensions of foreign, security and other considerations, including ecology, socio-economic, health and quality of life.

Looking forward to Copenhagen, he augured full success at the meeting. Even if political agreement seemed probable, there was a real risk of agreement not being reached on all details, and any agreement would probably be non-binding. This would effectively only leave the door open for whole more months of discussions. At this stage, even cautious optimism seemed almost too optimistic. The situation would require months of negotiations before finalisation.

Nationalist MP Philip Mifsud and Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt also spoke. Their speeches will be reported tomorrow. The debate will continue this evening.