Cars are the main contributors to carbon emissions in this country. Over 40 per cent of Malta’s carbon emissions are generated by transport.
Last week, the Nationalist Party tabled a motion in Parliament seeking to declare climate change a national emergency. A similar declaration has already been made in other countries, such as the UK. According to a European Commission report on the Paris Climate Agreement published last year, Malta is the only EU country that still falls short of its reduction targets and which resorted to buying emission credits from other member states.
The Opposition had also sought to set up a parliamentary committee that would enforce legally binding targets to reduce emissions by specific deadlines, 2030 and 2050, in line with what is expected from other EU states. This committee would have served as a watchdog to ensure that the country consistently works towards meeting its emission reduction goals.
The government rejected these ideas and pointed out that climate change legislation had already been unanimously approved by Parliament in 2015.
It stated that this legislation provides the necessary framework for Malta to reach its emission reduction goals, also working through a climate action board and climate ambassador.
The Opposition insisted the reduction targets must be more specific and legally enforceable. Climate Action Network Europe also wrote to both the government and the Opposition, urging them to put climate change at the top of Parliament’s agenda and to go beyond the minimum needed to reach Malta’s 2030 targets.
In the end, a compromise consensus was reached and a climate emergency declared by Parliament, binding the government to declare, by the middle of next year, a cut-off date for the importation of petrol and diesel-engined cars and to draw up a programme of further measures in connection with climate action.
The function of the parliamentary committee sought by the Opposition to enforce targets has been absorbed into the committee that already deals with environment and planning issues.
The government also says that it will promote a circular economy, afforestation, more open spaces and pedestrianised areas. It will draft a plan to reduce pollution generated by government vehicles and from public transport. It will incentivise alternative transport and provide the necessary infrastructure for it.
It will evaluate the possibility for all schools and government buildings to become carbon-neutral.
These plans are laudable. The reality on the ground, however, suggests a different direction. The daily increase of cars on the road and the overheated construction sector are likely to outweigh any afforestation initiatives or future plans to green the government vehicle fleet.
No major innovations in public transport have been put forward. The government continues to actively support the construction of more buildings, more roads, more power stations – on which the electric cars replacing combustion engines and planned shore-to-ship links for cruise liners will largely depend. This trend shows no signs of letting up.
Plans and long-term targets are good and necessary. But it is pointless to speak of an emergency when the can is kicked down the road. The setting of stringent and enforceable targets are urgently required. It is a pity that the momentum potentially generated by the Opposition’s motion has been allowed to flag.
When it comes to protecting the environment, the government lacks ambition. It ticks the boxes but then lags behind.