A lice is leaving wonderland and is settling in Marsaxlokk Bay. She has now decided to come down to the real world and much has been said about the effect on the people who will be living next door to Alice.
The proposal for a power station extension using gas that was announced by the Labour Party in the beginning of last year’s electoral campaign was dubbed as an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ idea – a fantasy that cannot but remain in the realm of fiction.
This was the PN’s reaction to Labour’s proposal and it was, of course, a non-starter.
The PN’s reaction to the technical aspect of the proposal was incredibly naïve and obviously flawed, but the PN soldiered on, adhering to the advice of people who should have known better.
When I said the idea was technically doable, with the caveats that I did not know whether it would eventually actually lead to cheaper electricity production and whether the indicated two-year time parameter was achievable, many concluded that I had decided to abandon the PN and abet Labour in its quest to win the election.
For such is the stuff of the wonderland we live in: one must agree with whatever one’s party dishes out and disagree with whatever the other party says. Otherwise, one is dubbed a traitor to the cause.
Betraying one’s own beliefs and inner instincts and flying in the face of what to you is an obvious truth is considered to be the correct way of doing things if the alternative is ‘betraying’ one’s party. Only Lewis Carrol’s Alice could follow such ‘logic’, of course.
For what it was worth, I contacted people involved in the PN campaign and tried to get the message across that Labour’s proposal should not be attacked as technically impossible; but attempting to understand anyone not agreeing with what they had already decided was not on the cards.
I thought – and still think – that the previous administration and the party itself had been misled on its energy policy and there were some who had given it the wrong advice, even during the electoral campaign, not through ignorance but with ulterior motives.
It was these thoughts that crossed my mind last Monday after following what went on in a marathon eight-hour Mepa board session that eventually led to the approval of the requested permits.
The session did not produce anything new: all the arguments for and against made during the session had been repeatedly made in the media for weeks. The main flaw in Mepa’s procedure – the lack of a maritime impact assessment – was even tackled wrongly by those opposing the project.
When the Planning Directorate at Mepa asks for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) during the processing of a permit application, it sets out the terms of reference for such an assessment. The question was, therefore, not why the people responsible for the EIA had not carried out a maritime impact assessment but why this was not part of the terms of reference of the EIA. The watchdogs were barking up the wrong tree.
Even so, the most shocking bit of information was that, except for one NGO, no formal objections to the applications were made during the time allowed by law. It is only objectors registering such submissions in the prescribed period that can appeal against a Mepa decision. As things stand, an appeal against the decisions taken can be made only by Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) whose objection centred on the possible archaeological sensitivity of the site.
Even more astounding was the Prime Minister’s ill-advised decision to send a letter to the Mepa chairman indicating that the government intends to proceed with the project if it is approved, even if there is an appeal against the decision. This was an unnecessary piece of ham-handedness with a ring of arrogance that, understandably, irked many.
The Prime Minister had staked his political future on the achievability of the two-year timeframe
In truth, according to law, in such a project of national importance, the government can call on the Appeals Board to make a recommendation rather than take a decision, with the final verdict being taken by Cabinet. In these circumstances, the Prime Minister’s letter was a public relations boob of incredible proportions.
The argument that it was better if the huge LNG tanker (that will be an aesthetic eyesore) were to be situated outside Marsaxlokk Bay made sense to the uninitiated; and perhaps Mepa, rather than just considering the submitted proposal, should have asked for a study justifying why this alternative was not considered by the applicant.
In a less hurried way of doing things, one could then compare the risk of accidents in the two scenarios and evaluate the difference in risk in the context of the huge difference in cost. Only in this way, could a logical conclusion, rather than an emotional one, have been reached.
But the government was in a hurry.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister had staked his political future on the achievability of the two-year timeframe.
It was a needless and immature pronouncement, as without it, Labour would have won the election just the same.
But such are the ways of wonderland.
micfal@maltanet.net