Editorial
Dragging our feet on renewable energy
Malta has yet to submit its report to the European Commission forecasting its 2020 renewable energy targets and giving reliable predictions of the share of renewables in its future energy mix. The fact that 12 other European Union member states are also late in their submissions is scant consolation and no excuse.
The document was scheduled to have been submitted a month ago and should then have been followed up by a more detailed plan, called the National Renewable Energy Action Plan, outlining the concrete measures being taken to meet the national target of the provision of 10 per cent of energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. The deadline for this plan is the end of June this year.
Malta is the only EU member state that is totally dependent on fossil fuels for its energy requirements. Before joining the EU, the island had committed itself to producing five per cent of all its electricity needs and 1.25 per cent of all fuel used in transport from renewable sources by 2010. That is, this year!
Malta is still at its starting blocks despite plans - still on the drawing board - for the development of three wind farms, one offshore and two land-based, and an interconnection cable linking Malta to the European grid in Sicily. Admittedly no mean feat but we have long known that we had to take action, serious and meaningful action.
Indeed, we have been talking about this matter for well over six years, yet action on the ground seems to elude us. It bears repeating that the issue is difficult and challenging. The human skills and expertise needed and the investment costs are formidable. The time-lag between decision and implementation is inevitably long. But these are issues being faced by all other EU countries too. It begs the question, therefore, why Malta should be such a laggard. It is, presumably, because decisiveness, priority, drive and commitment at the political level have been absent or, at best, half-hearted.
The achievement of energy security is one of the most important issues confronting Malta. Its water security is another grossly neglected area of government policy. The country's future economic, social and environmental sustainability depend on both these crucial challenges being successfully overcome.
There is an urgent need to replace Malta's fossil fuel-burning plants with less polluting and more reliable energy sources. Action is belatedly in hand. But there is an equally urgent need to back this up with alternative and renewable sources of energy.
It is not simply a matter of meeting, or not meeting, the commitments to the EU Commission. Of course, the country should deliver what it has promised. But this issue is more fundamental than any broken promises - or delays - to date. It is about Malta's long-term survival as an advanced economy in a world where fossil fuels are contributing to global warming, are increasingly more costly to produce and, over the long term, in ever dwindling supply. It is also about quality of life, where reducing the dependence on fossil fuel will help to mitigate the poisonous effects of air pollution.
The essential need to make real and tangible advances in the introduction of at least 10 per cent of energy requirements from renewable energy should be viewed against the government's own declared objectives of achieving greater energy efficiency, stabilising energy supplies and the pressing requirement to cut emissions and pollution. Action is now long overdue. There have been enough declarations.
Popular Stories
Labour Party resorts to political...
Why calling an election now makes sense
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Top businessman touches some raw nerves
The only way forward for the government
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Smoke signals of the very worrying kind
Did justice prevail in the Lockerbie...
In Discussion
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
The only way forward for the government
Stemming the tide of migrants
Roadworks, traffic chaos and...
Labour Party resorts to political...
Does it really pay to use public...
Migration challenges must be addressed
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
This country must remain competitive
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Caruana
Jan 27th 2010, 10:19
"But this issue is more fundamental than any broken promises - or delays - to date."
Indeed. And as some contributers have already pointed out, there are increasing doubts on how accurate the "doomsday " climate predictions are. We have already the financial consequences of such "worst case scenario" predictions on the H1N1 flu pandemic.
Before the world commits absurd amounts of money to deal with "climate change", money which can be better spent elsewhere, let us double check, this time around, these probably overpessimistic predictions.
E.Muscat
Jan 26th 2010, 17:47
@A.Ellul:getting a million results from google does not make anything right ! : if you believe that 'vox populi' or 'vox internet' has any truth in it, proof and a good evaluation is a must before you decide.
Updating oneself means much more than googling.
D.Calleja
Jan 26th 2010, 16:55
Will those advocating for action please tell us how much we would have to pay per unit of energy produced from each alternative source?
We have already swallowed a biiter pill with the utility rates as they stand. Do you realise that the costs of obtaining energy from renewable sources has to be factored in when you are preaching to the public about the pros and cons of moving on with these projects?
I ask you what can even a 20% reduction in Malta's emissions achieve on the global scale? Don’t rush for your calculator; I will relieve you of the hassle of working it out. - the answer is zilch!! On the other hand a 10% shift from fossil fuel to renewable sources will leave a huge impact on the finances of the Maltese families!!
E.Muscat
Jan 26th 2010, 16:50
@Messrs Whelan,Grech,and Ellul:we do need a cool- headed discussion,not a 'xarabank' free for all.If you were to read David MacKay 'Sustainable Energy-without the hot air' which is available as a pdf free of charge on the internet you would be doing yourselves and others a favour.
Alex Ellul
Jan 26th 2010, 16:07
The following is the introduction to a damning report found in Der Spiegel on-line version: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,673944,00.html
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been heavily criticized for erroneous projections. In the following editorial, climate researchers Richard Tol, Roger Pielke and Hans von Storch call for a reform of the IPCC and the resignation of its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
We have seen a crisis of confidence gathering momentum around climate science in recent weeks. Following the unauthorized release of e-mails from the University of East Anglia, showing climate scientists not at their best, now comes a flurry of attention to errors in official reports and accusations of conflicts of interest.
The crisis centers on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization, and its chair, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Without significant institutional reform, the IPCC, and climate science as a whole, risks more than just bad press. It risks losing its credibility and trust.
The Glacier Error is not Unique
Alex Ellul
Jan 26th 2010, 15:55
@George Debono: I'm afraid that you require updating yourself with current affairs. You cannot keep on denying the false science that came from the 'climate scientists' and the emerging science on climate variability. I am not going to give you links or references. all you need to do is just google a few words and you will have a million hits on climate science.
The climate of climate-change is changing George, scientists are cooling off of global warming, only they are doing it in a subtle way without having their reputation tarnished. The only ones still adamant on the thing are those who are still riding the climate-change gravy train such as Mr. Pachauri, the CRU scientists, James Hansen, Michael Mann and a thousand journalists who have made climate-change their raison t'etre.
Alex Ellul
Jan 26th 2010, 15:38
continued...This Indian scientist was later employed at TATA Industries where Mr. Pachauri, the UN's IPCC chairman, occupies a high position.
This is the type of machinations being produced at the United Nations, that same organisation that is spending billions of dollars on fake climate-change science, but unable to get food and medicine to the Haitians even 2 weeks after the great earthquake. The UN is incapable of doing anything right it seems, except spending great billions of our monies in dubious projects. It seems that the transgressions perpetrated by UN officials do not fall under anybody's jurisdiction and remain unpunished, just as the Kofi Annan son's financial scandal.of a few years ago.
Forcibly spending our taxes on expensive renawbles does not make economic sense. Let the scientists develop cheap, affordable and reliable energy systems, then, and only then we should start investing WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.
Alex Ellul
Jan 26th 2010, 15:15
A news streamer on BBC News last night said that climate-change politics (taxing people to force expensive renewables on the people) is keeping the world in a recession. Spain has invested heavily in renewables and its unemployment has shot up to 20%. Other countries have experienced same, while the USA businesses have threatened Climate-change-crazy Mr. Obama that they would go out of the US and invest in China and India if Carbon taxes such as Cap-and-Trade are introduced in the US.
As Mr. Whelan rightly commented, all the predictions made by the climate-change 'scientists' have gone wrong. Up to now there has been the following gates: Briffa scandal, climategate UK, Climategate USA (considered to be ground zero of all the gates), and now glaciergate. This glaciergate thing refers to a report by an Indian climateologist who in 1999 predicted that all |Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Now this 'scientist' has recanted, saying it was all a mistake. However, since that time, he has been quoted by the IPCC, Al Gore of Inconvenient Truth fame, and all media around the world. This Indian scientist was later employed at TATA Industries where by Mr. Pachauri, IPCC chairman, continued....
George Debono
Jan 26th 2010, 13:39
James
RE "This has nothing whatsoever to do with the mythical 'man-made global warming' ( AGW). Readers of the Times may be aware of the latest revelations of the 'errors' perpetrated by the 'settled science' of the IPCC. There are no recorded increases of raw temperature data, no melting glaciers, and ice-caps are net constant...&C &C &C.
Bla Bla Bla
James, Stop talking to yourself.
G
James Grech
Jan 26th 2010, 13:27
The editor, rightly so, points out this issue which seems to have been shelved and forgotten. Government does not seem to be able to prioritise over such important issues. Furthermore it seem to be making yet another wrong decision that will take us further away from actually reaching good quality standards as requested by EU legislations. In fact, Government's decision to go ahead and adopt a solution using heavy fuel oil rather then less polluting solutions, such as gas or diesel, is very worrying to say the least.
james whelan
Jan 26th 2010, 11:01
Security of energy supply is vital for any nation. Economically and from a security perspective, reliance on one fuel source ( oil) is not sensible. The timely introduction of interconnectors, cable for electricity and pipelines for gas, would produce diversity of supply and the possibility of price competition. Together with the existing power stations on Malta ,this would enable Malta to 'experiment' with adding a modest amount of non-firm generation to the mix.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the mythical 'man-made global warming' ( AGW). Readers of the Times may be aware of the latest revelations of the 'errors' perpetrated by the 'settled science' of the IPCC. There are no recorded increases of raw temperature data, no melting glaciers, and ice-caps are net constant. CO2 is not a pollutant,not a poison.
However really harmful emissions like SOX and NOX and particulants ( soot) from fossil-fueled power stations can and should be minimised , the technology for this is readily available ( at a price).
Sensibly planning an electricity power network requires diversity and security of supply. Gas is plentiful and getting cheaper. 'Renewables' are non-firm , uneconomic generation that contribute nothing to security of supply.