Climate change is a continuous tragedy that humanity is self-inflicting. Our behaviour is turning the world into something none of us wants to see in the future. The Glasgow climate change summit was depicted as the last chance to avoid a catastrophe. Was it a success?
It seems like the summit was more of a case of managing to steer the boat just enough not to sink but far from being out of the danger zone.
It should be made clear that Glasgow was never going to be a ‘fix it all’ conference resolving all the issues around climate change. This may have been the impression wrongly given by some.
The UN process is a slow and bureaucratic one and has clear difficulties in responding swiftly to problems it was designed to address, let alone challenges it was not designed to tackle. Essentially, Glasgow is not only about what governments agreed to implement but also how citizens will make the changes required to make a difference.
People’s ability to change their lifestyle to a greener one and express their voting preferences (where possible) towards those who truly have the environment at heart is the basis for any success in climate action across the globe.
However, we have to see the shortcoming of Glasgow within its context.
It’s no failure that many large nations committed to further reduce their emissions, significantly closing the gap between what is committed and what is needed to ensure the target of the Paris agreement is kept in sight.
Media coverage seemingly focused on the missing agreements on finance and the ability of richer countries to support the transition to lower carbon societies.
The Glasgow summit was more of a case of managing to steer the boat just enough not to sink- Robert Cutajar
The Maltese government made some good statements on climate change, which, at face value, seem great but which are not backed up by its own track record. How can a government which forgot the fight against climate change for eight years, missing target after target, be credible about achieving this ambitious long-term climate target announced.
Mixed messages came from our environment minister, claiming proudly that we are committed to climate neutrality by 2050 and also claiming success when negotiating down Malta’s targets for 2030. Does this sound a bit like doing the minimum today and leaving it all for the next generation? We need to listen to youths and environmental NGOs who are asking us to raise our targets and to ensure we can meet them in a timely manner.
The PN’s own plan is to keep to the promise of neutrality made by the government but, contrary to this government, we are truly committed to this. The PN in opposition is proposing, through its energy plan, feasible and well-thought-out measures which will not lead to emission reductions after 2030 but would gear our country to the needed transformation in this decade. Large-scale renewables, energy efficiency and electrification will be key to reduce pollution from greenhouse gases.
We shall be looking closer beyond what is suggested or imposed at an EU level, to the needs of the people, more specifically through our communities, local councils and NGOs. This policy is driven from the bottom upwards. We are committed to provide a tree map with green scoring for localities, to provide open spaces in all localities and to work towards cleaner air. We also want to ensure that our agriculture sector can thrive in a changing world.
We need to ensure as much as possible that we make the right choices and ensure the needs of the country translate into formal commitments and not the other way round. We must ensure that the challenge of climate change is tackled and prevent it from harming the most vulnerable strata of society.
Robert Cutajar is PN spokesperson on the environment.