A claim made by several political leaders at the COP26 Climate Summit currently being held in Scotland, is that any economic restructuring resulting from the need to combat climate change cannot result in making several nations poorer.

This is because there is the fear that the measures that will be taken to address climate change will impact negatively economies around the world, creating a greater divide between richer nations and the poor nations. Poverty will also strike certain regions, even if not the whole nation, and also segments of the population who may find themselves without a job.

The reality is that any “big” event or “revolution” in the history of mankind has resulted, at least initially, in creating poverty. The spread of the coronavirus is a case in point. It has contributed to an increase of poverty on a global scale as some countries and their population lost significant chunks of their income. We can also take the example of the industrial revolution, which did contribute to increased wealth, but also contributed to people becoming poorer.

With regard to climate change, we also need to emphasise that if nothing is done to address the issue, this will also lead to an increase in poverty and an increase in income inequality. There would be less production of food, water will become more scarce and there will be mass migration away from areas that will become no longer habitable. Therefore, the world as a whole community is in a catch-22 situation.

If nothing is done to address [climate change], this will also lead to an increase in poverty and income inequality. There would be less production of food, water will become more scarce and there will be mass migration away from areas that will become no longer habitable

When faced with the issue of poverty, I believe that most of us start to feel uncomfortable and we tend to rationalise it. If we watch some news item about poverty in other nations, we may think that this is due to the fact that their government has not been capable to generate economic activity, or that it spends most of its money on armaments, or that it is very corrupt. We tend to quieten our conscience by donating some money to charity, foolishly thinking that it will make the problem go away.

When faced with poverty in our own country, we may think that we pay enough taxes as it is and that it is up to the government to make sure that poor people are adequately supported through the social welfare system. The fact that we pay our taxes keeps our conscience quiet.

Addressing poverty is not something that excites us or motivates us, and we would rather shift responsibility on to other people or on to those who are entrapped in poverty.

Very often, when we speak of poverty, we may think of people not having enough food to eat, or not having a roof over their head, or not having adequate clothing. Such people do exist and we may argue as to whether they are increasing or decreasing in numbers. Thanks to our social welfare system and to strong family bonds, I do believe that such poverty is not so widespread in Malta.

However, should we ask whether poverty may take other forms? The recent initiative launched by President Emeritus Marie-Louise Coleiro related to access to a computer device among children and young people is a case in point.

The whole argument here is that if a child does not have adequate access to a computer device, will their education be hampered, and if so, will this lead to them being in a disadvantaged situation? And if it does lead to them being in a disadvantaged situation, will it hinder their earning potential later on in life, and could it lead them closer to poverty? To my mind, the answer to all these questions is an unqualified yes. As such, we should open up our perspective to defining poverty, even though we may still be thinking of the subject from the economic perspective.

We need to remind ourselves that one of the objectives of macroeconomic policy is to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth and income, hence social justice. This is required both at a national and a global level.

Solidarity and the common good are two principles that need to be applied everywhere and all the time. We can address poverty only if we prioritise these two principles.