In Malta, as elsewhere, declaring a “climate emergency” can produce a political sound bite. But this will remain an empty slogan if it is not accompanied by a strategy for a climate-friendly economy that sets out specific measures and ensures accountability for their timely implementation. Nor should it become a partisan political football, since the challenge of climate change stretches well beyond electoral calendars.
On account of its diminutive size, Malta cannot be more than a symbolic contributor to the effort to scale back emissions of the “greenhouse” gases that accumulate in the atmosphere and destabilise the global climate. But it can exert political leverage by casting its vote at December’s EU Council in favour of an ambitious collective emissions reduction target for 2030, as a step towards achieving “net zero” emissions by 2050 – both goals being inspired by the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement and by scientific evidence emerging from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
If they are serious in declaring a “climate emergency”, our parliament and government should be at the forefront of the movement towards these EU goals.
Yet, our government is still holding back from endorsing a strong 2030 target.
On a related point, current discussions in and around parliament needs to distinguish between reducing the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect and improving local air quality, even though these two aims sometimes overlap.
For example, one comes across blithe political references to the introduction of electric cars as a measure against climate change. Yet, the evident effect of abandoning fuel combustion engines will be to improve air quality.
The net climatic effect of the technological switch will depend on the volume of greenhouse gases that may be emitted in producing the electricity needed to power those vehicles.
And one would also have to factor in any negative climatic impacts from the production and disposal of vehicle batteries. Thus, the political rhetoric on electric cars needs to be fine-tuned.
Another issue receiving political attention is the prevalence of respiratory illnesses resulting from poor air quality in the Grand Harbour area, where particulate matter from the now-defunct power stations has been replaced by pollution from cruise ships on their daily stopovers.
However, ships’ engines powered by fossil fuels also emit atmospheric greenhouse gases. So, while the local health impact of visiting ships must be controlled, the major sustainability issue for Malta in the domain of maritime transport is the significant climatic impact of atmospheric emissions from ships registered in Malta – currently the sixth largest international fleet.
Is our government, backed by parliament, ready to sustain a position in the International Maritime Organisation that would lend credibility to a declaration of “climate emergency” – a position encouraging ambitious targets for the transition to climate-friendly technologies in international shipping?
Or will Malta’s position be more sensitive to short-term economic interests wrapped up in our maritime flag?