Why Malta is doing absolutely nothing to mitigate Climate Change

COP21 is the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference that is currently underway in Paris. The main aim of this conference is to present and ratify a legally binding and universal agreement on the Earth’s Climate. Should this happen, it will be a much anticipated end to over 20 years of UN negotiations on the topic. But how is Malta fairing when it comes to reducing its carbon footprint?

Malta is truly united for action against climate change, united in a never ending sea of polluting traffic jams. This photo has been adapted from a Commission poster found here)

Frankly, let us just say that Malta has not done much in terms of improving its impact on the Earth’s Climate. At COP21, Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat spoke on behalf of Commonwealth Nations, were he  “urged practical and swift action by governments and all other stakeholders, public and private, to implement and reinforce the outcome of COP 21, especially in favour of climate vulnerable states and communities”.

This is all fine and dandy, but it is a bit irritating that developed countries such as Malta still think that throwing money at developing countries counts as some sort of reprieve from making a change themselves. The follow are recent infographics taken from the European Commission’s website in the run up to COP21, which illustrate just how well Malta is performing.

The Main sources of GHG emissions from the European Union (Photo credit: European Commission)

 As a bloc, the EU is producing greenhosue gases from six main sources; Energy, Industry, Transport, Agriculture, Residential and Commercial buildings, and waste production. Different EU Member States have different emission profiles, so it doesn’t really matter if Malta is producing more GHG from Waste when compared to Belgium per se. What really matters is how Malta has performed since 1990, which is illustrated in the images below, all oh which have been obtained from the the Commission’s statistics office Eurostat:

The key facts are the following:

• Malta’s GHG emissions have increased by 57.3% between 1990 and 2012
• The main sources of GHG in Malta is energy and transport
• Malta has only produced 2% renewable energy since 1990
• Malta is landfilling more waste in 2013 than it was in 1995.

It is embarrassing to say the least. Malta does not take the prospect of renewable energy seriously, as I discussed in an article two years ago. Yet, it is fine for the current Maltese government to help Montenegro build wind farms, but God forbid it decides to take the initiative domestically.

The problem with waste is that there is no proper national strategy to address issues such as recycling, which the European Environment Agency has recently revealed was on the decrease in Malta.

When it comes to transport, well just read the following blog post I wrote about traffic in Malta, and the population’s lack of will to choose greener alternative modes of transport.

Malta can be considered as being the most sanctimonious nation of the European Union. We play cool in front of other nations in summits such as the United Nations Climate Assembly in 2014, and the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in Malta, but when it comes to actually doing something we would much rather play hookey and take a ‘meh, let the big boys handle it’ mentality.

Irrespective of the fact that Malta is exceptionally small compared to other nations, we have a moral obligation to act on climate change just as much as every other country in world. The environment does not belong to the Maltese to dispense with as they see fit. We already have a knack for killing Europe’s Birds and damaging the Mediterranean’s Posidonia seagrass meadows, so the least we can do is try and present some concrete plans of how we can reduce the nation’s carbon footprint.

And while Malta is not the lowest rated country in the EU, there is no excuse why we should not aim for higher ground.

 

 

 

 

Have you heard of Environmental Migration?

The Valletta Summit on Migration is currently underway in Malta, following the unprecedented rise of migrants and refugees making harrowing journeys across the Mediterranean to reach Europe. With the spotlight clearly focused on those people that are fleeing their home countries as a result of conflict, human rights violations, and political and economic in stability, Europeans should also be aware of Environmental Migration.

Sahel food crisis 2012: drought response in Mauritania (Photo credit: Oxfam International)

So what is Environmental Migration? Put simply, and according to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), this is a form of migration that results from environmental issues that make a location “less habitable due to factors such as climate change, deterioration of agricultural lands, desertification, and water pollution”.

There are a number of communities spread across the world that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change and other environmental issues, making their life in their home unsustainable. Despite this, it would be ignorant for us to view this form of migration as simply the failure of these communities to adapt to climate change. We often blame migrants for having to leave their home, but can you imagine being in their same situation?

Scores of studies have proven that migration is one of the different types of ways which people have chosen to adapt to the realities of a changing environment. In addition, environmental migrants are more likely to use migration as a means of improving the local community from which they departed from. The IOM report highlights how studies from Côte d’Ivoire have shown that migrants from Burkina Faso regularly send remittances they earn back home, which in turn are invested in schools, hospitals and in water and irrigation systems. Moreover, research from countries such as El Salvador, Jamaica, Botswana and the Philippines has also shown that migrant remittances are essential in the advent of a natural disaster in their home country, which are used to provide relief to affected communities.

Map by UNEP showing the main regions that are strongly affected by climate issues, and also the reason why environmental migrants leave their country. (Photo credit: The Green Market Oracle)

Environmental Migrants in Southern Europe?

Among the thousands of refugees and migrants arriving in Southern Europe, the is a small proportion of these that migrate as a result of unfavourable environmental issues.

The following is a brief summary of a 2012 study carried out by fellow reseacher Eleni Damianou (Ευχαριστώ!!), who studied the securitization of environmental migration in southern Member States of European Union at University College London.

The work focused on environmental migration and its framing as a security issue by the European Union, especially in the  southern part. In general, and as can be observed from recent events, the EU considers migration and climate change as security issues. However, what has not been examined is whether environmental migration follows the same path as migration that results from conflict and economic hardships.

Damianou conducted this research through archive analysis of official documents of the European Institutions and interviews with officials from the EU and the Greek government. Even though the research focused Greece as a case study, which was rather serendipitous gives the issues the islands of Kos and Lesbos are currently witnessing, it also mentioned Southern EU Member States including Malta, Italy, France, Spain and Cyprus.

Locals surveying a huge pile of deflated dinghies, tubes and life vests left by arriving refugees and migrants on the Greek island of Lesbos in September 2015 (Photo credit: Daily News/YANNIS BEHRAKIS)

Results obtained from this study indicate that environmental migration has indeed started to be framed as a securitized issue, and it is included in the official papers that concern the Union’s security. Moreover, the European surveillance authorities have started to treat environmental migration as a security trigger, especially in vulnerable countries.

The Greek example used in the study exposes the gap between the European and national policies; even though there are certain EU practices and policies in play, there is a strong militarization language around the migration issue, and a general societal crisis with racist and xenophobic phenomena that are against the European policies. These results reflect a general sentiment in Southern Europe, and not just amongst the Greek population.

With Africa and the Middle East on Europe’s doorstep, it is very hard to differentiate between environmental migrants and political and economic migrants, since the situation in these countries constitutes a combination of such factors that push people to migrate. In addition, there is not a way to know whether those people who migrate because of the climatic changes will follow legal or the illegal routes, so their number would be difficult to quantify since they would be lumped with the rest of those seeking asylum through illegal means.

Environmental migration is a reality that has not been widely discussed. It merges two main issues that the EU faces in this lifetime – migration and climate change. There is no way to predict whether migration resulting from climate change will have a significant impact on southern EU Member States in the future. However, like most issues centring around migration, the EU cannot afford to not tackle the root of the problem in the countries from which people are departing.

It is hoped that EU Member States can also address this issue in COP21, the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, as it is quite regressive for migration and climate change to be viewed as independent issues when they are so evidently interlinked.

Every single human being is responsible for climate change, so we should see environmental migration as something which we are indirectly contributing to. It is time to adopt a more sensitised approach to the different types of migration, which has not been clearly specified in the 2015 Valletta Summit on Migration. However, it is hoped that the Emergency Trust Fund to assist African countries will also be used to tackle issues relating to climate change – the description provided so far to fund “Projects supporting basic services for local populations such as food and nutrition security, health, education and social protection, as well as environmental sustainability”, is simply too generic.

Fat and Lazy: And then we wonder why traffic is an issue in Malta

Traffic is everywhere in Malta during autumn, on the roads, on my newsfeed, on the newspapers, on the radio, in my daily conversations…literally everywhere. With each passing year, the situation becomes more troublesome and aggravating, yet how can we expect to solve this issue when Maltese people are too lazy to change their lifestyle?

Traffic during a not so sunny day (Photo credit: MaltaToday)

Malta is the laziest country in the world – FACT. According to a study conducted by The Lancet, Maltese people are 71.9% inactive, the highest rate for any country in world. In addition, Malta is also the most obese country in the European Union bloc, and the third fattest European nation after Andorra and Turkey. Even though I did scrutinise this study in relation to other health issues in a previous post, I did comment about how defensive Maltese people get when the original study emerged.

However, it is unfortunately true: Maltese people are lazy and don’t care about physical exercise. Couple this with a sense of entitlement, such as “I have a right to own a car and use it, so I shall!”, and then we wonder why we have a traffic issue in Malta.

Everyone wants to own a car, everyone wants to use this car to go to work, and then everyone proceeds to complain about how much time they are wasting in the early hours of the morning playing Candy Crush in a metal box behind other metal boxes also containing people playing Candy Crush (or soda Crush perhaps).

We often condemn the lack of infrastructure, when we should be really blaming ourselves and our inability to try and change our bad practices. No amount of EU funded junctions and road widening projects will solve the traffic situation in Malta unless people accept they they need to change their behaviour and start walking, jogging or cycling to work.

Not all Doom and Gloom

To avoid being too negative, and possibly offending some ‘fat’ and ‘lazy’ people’s ‘fat’ and ‘lazy’ hearts, here are some things that you can do to make the traffic situation more bearable for yourself and your fellow commuters – SIDE NOTE:- I am assuming that common courtesy and chivalry are not dead…

Don’t Drive your Kids to school (For F***s Sake)

Children have been waking up early for school for decades, but it seems that 21st Century children might spontaneously combust if they wake up before 7am.

Whinging parents will always use the ‘Vans are too expensive’ excuse, yet mummy and daddy are not willing to cut down on smoking, television sport packages, fancy gadgets, nail and hair appointments, online shopping, alcoholic beverages and so on and so forth.

It’s 2015, car pool already

I was one of the first people amongst my friends to have a car, so my first year as a driver was pretty much spent as a chauffeur. This wasn’t as bad as it seems, because it engrained a car pooling mentality that I still use with my same friends today. But obviously, everyone loves to have the freedom to “leave and return when I want, without having to wait to drive other people home”.

I used to car pool during my day at the University of Malta, and they have since launched a green travel incentive that has been horribly marketed (if at all). People from the same household who work in localities that are close to each other should consider car pooling. Please do, pretty please!

Bike/Walk/Jog It!

Lack of infrastructure, it is too dangerous, what if it rains?, too much exhaust, it is too far away, it’s too hot, it’s too cold, i’m so unfit, my legs hurt, qtugh ta laham – NOPE you are just lazy. The only legitimate excuse is if your employer does not have showering facilities, especially when travelling during summer. Having said that, most people at the European Commission cycle to work, and they do not particularly smell after their morning cycle.

But a typical Maltese person would be like “Mela ma tarax nimxija minn San Gwann sa tas-Sliema?”.

Ask to work from home?

This is more practical rather than travel related. If you are consistently getting stuck in traffic in the morning, ask your boss if you can work the first hours of the morning from home. Some work can be conducted remotely, such as replying to emails, drafting reports and so on. If companies start staggering the starting times of their employees, it would not only benefit the productivity of their employees, but also other commuters.

Try your luck with Public Transport

If everyone complains at how shitty the Maltese public transport system is, no one will use it and it will just get worse. We are inadvertently making public transport worse by not using it and creating more congestion through which buses cannot pass – typical negative feedback scenario.

And to be perfectly honest, Maltese people do not like to use buses because they are lazy: “Why would I catch a bus to work when I can park directly in front of the office?”. Or else, “Ugh, the bus stop is too far away. Can you imagine having to walk 7 minutes in the morning when it rains?”.

What can the Government do?

A recent study by the Institute for Climate Change and Sustainable Development from the University of Malta showed that unless the government and transport authorities improve public transport, reduce private car ownership, and change school hours, increased traffic will cost Malta a total of €317 million by 2020.

(Photo credit: TimesofMalta)

This figure represents a total of €89 million in costs related to traffic accidents, €15.3 million in air pollution costs, €51.2 million in climate change costs, €10.4 million in noise costs, and a whopping €151 million in costs resulting from traffic congestion.

In terms of school hours, I personally do not believe it would make such as big difference. It would be more beneficial if the government could subsidise school transport for those families that actually cannot afford it (even for those ones that can but wish to pretend that they cannot). As mentioned above, there is so much that can be done on the subject of Public Transport – people need to use it, and from that aspect the Government is providing incentives for people to do so.

The area where the government can and should work on is that concerning private car ownerships. Ideally, it should start taxing the number of cars per households. There is no need for more than two cars in a household of four individuals. If people can afford to pay for and upkeep an additional car, then they can also afford to pay a tax on it as well. However, this idea would be unfavourable with voters, so no political party would ever consider it.

Furthermore, the government should also enforce the point system with which people can lose their licence. This will reduce private car ownership and also cleanse the streets of negligent and selfish drivers.

Maybe Prince Charles will educate Malta about sustainability during the CHOGM?

Malta is set to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting for the second time in late November this year. With  Queen Elizabeth heading the CHOGM, and accompanied by her husband Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, it would be a good opportunity to put the environment on the agenda…

HRH Prince Charles giving his inaugural speech as the new President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Uk in September 2011 (Photo credit: benvironment)

…but we shouldn’t hold our breaths. It would be quite ironic if the CHOGM fora were to touch on the issue of sustainability and the environment when Malta consistently flaunts national and European environmental legislation. In any case, CHOGM 2015 is an opportunity wasted for Malta and its environment credentials, especially when Prince Charles has been a vociferous advocate of sustainability and climate impacts for many decades.

The Prince of Wales is the patron and president of several charities that form part of The Prince’s Charities Foundation, which also deals with issues of sustainability and wildlife crime. He has been regularly involved in the climate change discourse, pushing for a more balanced use of resources and advocating governments to fall-in line with switching to a greener economy.

It would be interesting if Prince Charles were to perhaps speak about ending wildlife crimes in Malta, such as spring hunting and  finch trapping which are outlawed by the EU. Or possibly point out issues of illegal wildlife trade in Malta, given the increase of the illegal smuggling of live song birds from  Italy. What about mentioning to Joseph Muscat that allowing an illegal Zoo to operate at Montekristo Estates, with countless protected and endangered species, is a big no no?

One may ponder on this, and hope that Prince Charles’ candid attitude towards issues of such a sensitive nature would entice him to publicly ask Joseph Muscat a question or two.

Let us just hope that the government will not cart out our goodwill ambassador for sustainable development for the sake of her pretending to care about the environment. You know how evasive she is of things that have a political undertone, and we wouldn’t want her to have to take a stance on any environmental/sustainability issue that is part of a political agenda.

In any case, here is a fabulous statement by the Prince of Wales that practically sums up all that is wrong with Malta at the moment, and how our generation is irresponsibly destroying the local environment for the sake of a sea view apartment and a couple of extra Euros:

“History will not judge us by how much economic growth we achieve in the immediate years ahead, nor by how much we expand material consumption, but by the legacy for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

We are consuming what is rightfully theirs by sacrificing long-term progress on the altar of immediate satisfaction. That is hardly responsible behaviour. There is an urgent need for all of us to concentrate our efforts on sustaining, nurturing and protecting the Earth’s natural capital and, moreover, reshaping our economic system so that Nature sits at the very heart of our thinking”

Britain had the ‘Mad Cow’ and Malta will have the ‘Deadly Gas Explosion’, like Cyprus!

With the deadline for the completion of the 2015 Malta gas fired power station etching closer, experts continue weighing in on the infeasibility of this project. Of great concern amongst the scientific, environmental and infrastructural community is the government’s decision to place the gas supply next to the actual power station. If history tells us anything, can we really trust a politician’s word as opposed to the technocrats when it comes to public safety?

Artist’s impression of where the gas supply will be store on a ship, permanently moored next to the Delimara power station (Photo credit: TimesofMalta)

The latest statement issued by the energy minister Konrad Mizzi insists that “Storing gas on ship in Marsaxlokk will be safe”. Even though Maltese people cannot seem to set aside their political preferences on any issue, there are many, many worrying things that come across from Konrad Mizzi’s interview in the above link.

As any graduate from any discipline can possibly understand, one needs to conduct preliminary studies or a detailed ‘literature review’ to start a project, assignment or dissertation for example. Yet, in this interview all that is being said is how “studies are still underway”, “studies will be conducted” or “Process is still ongoing – in reference to the risk assessments”. How can anyone determine what the outcome will be (in this case where the gas supply will be placed), unless proper study is conducted? Such a modus operandi completely contradicts even the most basic form of project management.

My personal worry is that the minister has already initiated a form of “assurance campaign”, where he is publicly declaring the safety of this venture and advising people to not worry. While many people will most probably believe or reject this simply based on their political colours, such a statement took me back to my studies on how environmental issues are conveyed in the media by politicians. It made me recall one of the most prominent environmental stories of our time – the BSE (Mad Cow disease) case in Great Britain.

The ‘Mad’ approach by the British government to BSE

In December 1984, cow number 133 fell ill at Pitsham Farm, near Midhurst, West Sussex, showing very strange symptoms and an erratic behaviour. It died the following year and scientists discovered peculiar lesions in its brain, a finding which would become all too familiar in following years. While technocrats were raising concerns, the Ministry of Agriculture ignored the warning signs for around two years, until it acknowledged the disease in 1986 following numerous cases across the country.

The British government stalled decisions on this issue for years, launching a public assurance campaign stating how British beef was scientifically tested and safe to eat. The propaganda reached it height in 1990 when then agriculture minister John Gummer famously feeding his four-year old daughter Cordelia a hamburger to personally guarantee the beef’s safety during the mad cow outbreak. Interestingly, it was later claimed that the photographs were staged and that the burger had actually been bitten into by a civil servant.

Beef Eater: John Gummer and his daughter eating a hamburger as part of a public campaign to assure British beef is safe (Photo credit: Hedin“>dailymail.co.uk)

Needless to say, the BSE case is recognized as the worst animal epidemic and public health scare in British history, claiming almost 180,000 cattle in the UK alone with another 4.4 million being destroyed as a precaution. This cost the taxpayer more than £5 billion, all because the government failed to listen to what experts were saying. Furthermore, the disease claimed around 200 people worldwide, and left a long lasting impact on people who lived in the UK between 1980 and 1996  as they cannot give blood since this carries the risk of transmitting the human form of mad cow disease.

Should Malta brace itself?

If you managed to arrive thus far into this post, it will be easy for you to see the similarities between John Gummer and Konrad Mizzi. Even worse for Malta, rudimentary aspects of this project are being green lit without even bothering to complete the necessary preliminary work!

The only thing that can possibly come out of such a rushed approach to building this power station is a possible disaster that like the mad cow disease case will cost people their lives and the taxpayers millions. This is the time for the public to put politics aside and acknowledge the need for caution in such projects and demand a more responsible approach.

It is also time for the government and Konrad Mizzi to acknowledge the Social Impact Assessment results and heed the concerns of residents in the vicinity of this project.

What if there was an incident?

If such an incident where to happen, what would be the possible effects for the Maltese people? Well, we do not need to look too far away from our shores to find the answer. On the 11th July 2011, an explosion occurred at the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base in Cyprus, a direct result of an incompetent government’s decision to store 98 containers of explosive next to the island’s largest power station in Zygi; a highly explosive substance next to a power station – sound familiar?

Cyprus’ largest power station (Vasiliko power station), estimated to supply power to half of the island, was severely damaged as a result of an explosion which could have been avoided (Photo credit: CBCNews)

This resulted in 12 casualties and scores injured in the immediate vicinity, and complete blackout across half of Cyprus (remember that Cyprus is 29 times large in size than Malta, so an explosive in the latter would wipe out the entire energy grid). The immediate aftermath included a cost of €2 billion for the repair of what was left of the power station, and sanctioned electricity from neighbouring Northern Cyprus at an unpublished cost.

Following the explosion, Moody’s rating agency downgrading Cyprus’ rating from A2 to Baa1 with a negative outlook  since such an event has considerable “fiscal and economic consequences” when it occurs in such a small economy. This led to the start of Cyprus’ financial woes, leading up to the 2013 bailout by the European Union.

It does not that a genius to figure out where Malta is heading with this new gas fired power station, all thanks to political naivety and ignorance in the face of experts and chilling tales from our neighbours. How many cow number 133s and power station explosions in other EU member states need to happen for the Maltese government to get a clue?

UPDATED

Maltese MEP Roberta Metsola has launched an online petition to the European Parliament against the floating gas storage discussed above, in order for it to look into the risk to public safety should this project go ahead.

Prevention is better than cure, so I urge people to follow the link below and sign this petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Petition-on-Marsaxlokk-Gas-Storage-Unit

More information: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-02-18/news/metsola-leads-petitionto-eu-to-remove-risk-toresidents-aroundmarsaxlokk-bay-3993239558/

New Energy Taxes in Malta? Wait for it

The British government’s website describes green taxes as taxes that “encourage businesses to operate in a more environmentally friendly way”. The most common forms of such taxes that governments worldwide employ are generally attributed to climate change mitigation. Given Malta’s recent pledge to build a gas powered power station, and the finance minister’s confirmation that indirect taxation will be used in the upcoming budget, will Malta be seeing the introduction of further energy taxes?

Many people are in favour of carbon taxes, as these will aid in the propagation of renewable energy sources. However, people are in some countries are becoming increasingly skeptic about such taxes as the revenue which they generally are not materializing into new and concrete alternative energy sources. Photo credit: paolaharvey

Green taxes are described as Pigovian taxes, which aim to sanction a particular market activity that is causing a negative externality – a harmful outcome that rises from activities or transaction and affects an otherwise unaffected party. In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, any person that emits unacceptable levels of this greenhouse gas is indirectly affecting the entire world population through his/her contribution to climate change.

In theory, green taxes are a positive way of how a country that control ‘environmental offenders’ who overuse energy, funneling the money towards research and investment into alternative energy as a means of reducing a country’s CO2 emissions. However, in most countries such taxes have just become another means at how governments can collect money from citizens, as the government itself is failing to reduce  set up new green energy initiatives and meet carbon emissions.

Let us take the UK as a case study. The government lists the following green taxes that it currently uses:

• Climate Change Levy
• CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
• Emissions Trading
• Capital allowances on energy-efficient items
• Landfill tax
• Aggregates Levy

The majority of such taxes in the UK are designed to limit the consumption of fossil fuels and the subsequent reduction in CO2 emission. These taxes are then (supposedly) used to drive the use and investment in alternative energy sources, which in turn will contribute to a diverse energy grid and less green levies in the future. However, there is an all rounded sense of confusion as to how effective and fair these taxes are on consumers.

The current UK coalition government, composed of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, seems to have some internal strife about green taxes. While both parties aim to reduce energy bills, Conservatives are looking into relaxing Green taxes to achieve this, while Liberal Democrats are advocating for retention of  these taxes, which would help in reducing future bills.

Photo credit: DECCgovuk

British Gas (one of the largest UK energy suppliers) have just announced a 9.2% increase in their energy tariffs, which would amount to an average annual increment of £123 per household. The harsh reality in the UK is that energy tariffs keep on increasing too frequently for consumers to handle, and the imposed taxes do not seem to be aiding in alternative energy investment. It becomes evident that green taxes in the UK are simply another source of income for the government, as it has so far failed to improve its alternative energy output. Such a rationale could explain the reasoning behind the Conservative’s decision to reduce current green taxes, even though the situation is still very open for debate.

EU Environmental taxes

A recent Eurostat report has indicated that environmental taxes in the EU-27 account for 6.2% of all revenues from taxes and social contributions. Environmental taxes can be of four types: energy, transport, pollution and resource taxes. Energy taxes include taxes on energy products (e.g. coal, oil products, natural gas and electricity) used for both stationary purposes and transport purposes. As exemplified above by the type of taxes used in the UK, in 2010 almost 75% of all environmental taxes were energy taxes. By convention, CO2 taxes are also included in this tax category since they are usually levied on energy products.

Transport taxes are also considered to be green taxes, and these mainly include taxes related to the ownership and use of motor vehicles. In2010, 21% of EU-27 total environmental tax revenue came from transport taxes. Pollution and resource taxes cover several taxes, including the taxes on the extraction of raw materials, those on measured or estimated emissions  of pollutants to air (e.g. NOx and SO2) and water; noise pollution (e.g. airports) and on the management of waste (e.g. landfills).

Green taxes in Malta?

Unbeknownst to most people, there are many environmental taxes currently used in Malta., with thee most common being ‘Eco-taxes’ and ‘Eco-contributions’. Eco-contributions are levies which people pay on certain products such as bottles, plastic bags, plastic disposables, tyres, mattresses, electronic equipment – any item which is perceived to end up as a pollutant. The Malta VAT department has issued an informative presentation on the Eco-Contribution –> click here.

Maltese citizens are also subject to the Eco-tax, which is mainly a charge on air travel, ship and hunting licences, water consumption and several motor vehicles taxes. A comprehensive list of eco-taxes is also available –> click here.

Source: Eurostat

As a total percentage of revenue from taxes and social contributions, Malta places fourth in the EU with 9.55%, of which Energy taxes are 4.89%, Transport taxes are 4.24%, and Pollution/Resource taxes are 0.42%. Despite these figures, it should be noted that the majority of energy taxes are obtained from industry, with households only contributing 18% to the total energy taxes.

As such, it can be hypothesized that there is a large room for taxation on Maltese energy bills, since Maltese households are the ones that contribute the least to energy taxes in the EU. On comparison, UK households currently contribute almost three times as much in energy taxes as Maltese households do.

With the implementation of a new gas fired power station, and all the associated environmental sanctions imposed by the EU, there is a high probability that Maltese consumers will need to start forking out huge sums on their energy bills in the form of energy taxes. This will mainly be attributed to the use of another type of fuel source, including transport and storage taxation as subject by EU standards, which will have to be covered directly by the government and indirectly by the consumer. Such is a result of a government that aims to meet immediate energy demands with gas as opposed to the much needed investment in alternative sources.

Energy bills: Going Green may save you Green!

The UK is still desperately trying to improve its renewable energy output, despite the fact that their current conservative government is boldly pledging to build more gas powered power stations. The Maltese government is also planning a new gas fired power station, and is claiming that its new energy plans will not have an effect on energy bills. What is the potential future of energy tariffs in Malta if it continues to ignore renewable energy commitments?

The guardian has recently reported that the UK is breaking domestic records in the installation of Solar installations, with an investment of £1.6 billion. However, it is claimed that the sector is still experiencing a considerable amount of pressure from the annually rising energy bills, which is driving the British government to plan a scrap of green subsidies and reduce potential investment in the sector.

Ovenden Moor Wind Farm in Yorkshire is one of the many wind farms in the UK that. according to Michael Liebreich, have generated enough wind energy during some periods between 2008 and 2012 to reduce wholesale short-term prices of energy (Photo credit: fruity monkey)

Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and widely recognized leading energy analyst, said that such a move would be a mistake and would not bring down the costs of energy bills.

“Gas prices have risen more than 8% – we know that it is gas prices that are pushing up bills. I don’t follow the logic of how that has to do with green subsidies.”

UK Labour Party leader Ed Miliband has pledged that he would aim at solving energy tariff issues by freezing energy prices for 20 months. Liebreich also criticized Miliband’s plan: “If you control the price, there is less investment, therefore less supply, therefore prices go up. Anyone who says you can reduce prices through controls has been asleep for the past 30 years.”

British conservatives have argued that Miliband’s pledge is merely a gimmick, since “there is one thing governments can’t control and that is the international wholesale price of gas”. The way the current British government is coping with increasing energy prices and meeting its own environmental targets (or lower carbon emission targets) is by imposing green taxes or levies on household bills.

Possible future of Maltese energy bills?

Personally, I would forecast a fixed price on energy bills for the first five years, as dictated by the agreement made between energy minister Konrad Mizzi and the investors. This would satisfy the pledge made by the Labour Party to keep energy prices at a fixed rate. Once this five-year deal is up, there is no way of telling how much the price of gas will increase.

As argued above by Liebreich and British Conservatives, there is no control over international gas prices, which are currently on the increase. Should the purchasing price of gas by the Maltese government go up, energy tariffs will most definitely increase.

Furthermore, with mounting pressure by the EU to reduce our carbon footprint (which Malta has been failing to tackle since its accession), there is a high probability of green taxes being imposed.

It doesn’t make a difference which political party is in power, as the relevant parties in both the UK and Malta are not handling the issue of energy well. Investing heavily in gas as an energy source is a gross mistake, and a leap backwards. Investments in green energy is the way forward, as this is the only real energy source that can reduce energy tariffs. While recent plans to install a solar farm at the Malta Freeport is a welcome venture, it is still too early to tell what contribution this will have to national energy grid and future energy prices.

 

Make no mistake: Gas fuel is not cleaner

Times of Malta has reported how the deal on the new Gas fired power station has been finalised, with Electro Gas Malta consortium  chosen to build a new plant and related gas supply infrastructure. While the rest of the EU and the developed world moves towards securing renewable energy sources, Malta continues in its sluggish path away from them!

The Delimara Power Station is the proposed site for the new Gas fired power station (Photo credit: MEPA)

This gas fired power station scenario is the typical ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, where the government is dressing its economic aspirations in environmental ones. I would just like to state something for the general Maltese public:

Any Hydrocarbon/Fossil Fuel fired power station DOES NOT constitute a form of CLEANER energy or environment

If the government wants to build this new power station, it should do so without trying to blindside the general public into believing that we are producing cleaner air. Gas fuel will still produce Carbon Dioxide, which will contribute to climate change, which will see us increasing our carbon footprint as opposed to reducing it.

Clean Energy is defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as “includ[ing] energy efficiency and clean energy supply options like highly efficient combined heat and power as well as renewable energy sources” – so where is the combination of green alternatives? Malta has long been dragging its feet in being a legitimate produced of renewable energy. Despite the numerous pilot projects and feasibility studies conducted by previous governments, there has been no significant change towards a future that is less reliant on fossil fuels. The move by the new government will further exasperate this situation. I have to reiterate the UK’s controversial decision to build 40 new gas powered power station and the campaigns in place to counter this (No Dash for Gas).

It is also quite baffling why this project is being rushed to such a degree. The current Environment Impact Statement (link to pdf –> GAS Power station environment impact statement) issued by MEPA  has been deemed as unsatisfactory by local NGOs, which indicate that the current report itself states that the operator has not yet decided to which level of detail the assessment should be carried out.

I also am curious to know whether or not a public consultation will be properly carried out, since the PM pledged at the UN General Assembly to aim for a people oriented decision-making process. The previous government failed catastrophically at such as an approach, so we have to wait and see what happens with this.

* * *

MEPA’s project description for the Gas Power station –> Gas Power station project description)

Renewable Energy in Malta – the facts you don’t know

Climate change has become a staple headline topic, now even weeding its way through our educational systems, corporate structures and pretty much every aspect of daily life. While there is an ongoing debate about whether or not switching to renewable energy alternatives will contribute to an imminent positive change in the global climate, governments are doing their utmost to do their part. As an institution, the EU is working towards establishing a common energy policy, where member states agreed in March 2007 to increase their share of renewable energy. The target set for all of the EU is 20% by 2020 – but despite grand claims of improvement, is Malta really committed to this target?

Marfa Harbour lighthouse in the north of Malta being used as a solar energy capture point (Photo credit: KNOW MALTA by Peter Grima)

The EU’s 2008 Energy Fact Sheet for Malta indicates that the country’s targets share is 10% renewable energy (RES) production by 2020, alongside the mandatory 10% target for transport which equally concerns all EU member states. By 2011, Malta RES contribution for transport has been 1.38%. Total contribution (or national energy consumption) by 2005 was 0%, which in 2010 went up to 0.4% and has since minimally increased.In fact, Malta is at the end of the table when compared to other EU countries, alongside Luxembourg (2.9%), the United Kingdom (3.8%), Belgium (4.1%) and the Netherlands (4.3%).

Graph of total electricity production from different energy fuel sources. You may be able to make out a very think green sliver of renewable energy in the top right corner of the graph (Photo credit: OECd/IEA 2013)

The renewable energy forerunners are Sweden (46.8% of renewable energy sources in total consumption), Latvia (33.1%), Finland (31.8%) and Austria (30.9%). Even the newly joined Croatia has had a total consumption of 15.7% – which is very close to its personal target of 20%.

There is a general concern that the EU might itself not meet its own deadline, as in 2011, RES production was estimated to have contributed 13% of total energy consumption in the EU27, an improvement over the 7.9% in 2004 and 12.1% in 2010. There is no doubt that many countries are putting a lot of effort into such strategies, but it is regrettable and embarrassing that Malta is still below the 1% mark.

Sympathy for the devil…

To be fair, one needs to account for the entire scenario in an argument. As a country with no natural resources (apart from our cultural charm), Malta imports all of the fuel needed for consumption. In the entire history of Malta’s existence, it has only produced its own energy since 2009-10, in the form renewables (the <1%). The reality is that Malta cannot possibly compete with other countries that are far larger, resource plentiful and economically stable than we are.

Furthermore, many of the renewable alternatives are logistically and obviously impossible to make use of. The natural components of rivers, wood/corn, thermal energy in the Earth’s crust and high tides are respectively missing for hydropower, biomass energy, geothermal energy and tidal energy. Unfortunately, this eliminates the former two options which are the biggest source of RES in the US.

…or maybe not?

With the same argument used above, size and economical and natural resources should not act as barriers for a country to produce renewable energy. Taking the UK as an example, it has an undeniable potential to produce RES, but it is struggling considerably to meet its 15% deadline with its current 3.8% production. While I am not an expert on the matter, I believe that UK Chancellor George Osborne’s decision to build new 40 gas-power power stations across the UK is part of the problem.

It appears that the UK government is far more concerned with providing an immediate fix to energy demands and ignore RES targets and climate change concerns – is this situation comparable to what the current Maltese government is doing in terms of constructing an unnecessary gas fired power plant? Many people in the UK were not very happy about Osborne’s move, prompting the launch of the No Dash for Gas campaign, calling for the government to reverse this motion and commit itself to a future that is less dependent on fossil fuels.

In addition, if we take Cyprus as an example (which has long been used as a comparison to Malta in the EU) it is fairing quite well in meeting its 13% target with a current 5.4% considering its size, economical situation and natural resource levels – so why are we continuously providing excuses?

what about Malta?

The only resources that are currently in use are Solar and Biomass & waste. Solar energy can be captured domestically in houses or on larger scales in solar farms. Despite this, it is a very unpopular renewable energy source on a global scale, since the technology is often expensive to deploy and improvements to systems do not happen in such a scale that merit them consideration in most countries. In fact, in the US this is the LEAST from of RES currently used. The only reason it is so popular in Malta is a result of the ‘gold rush’ situation created by government schemes that encourage people to install photovoltaic panels on their roofs at very reduced costs.

Graph of energy production for Malta (Photo credit: OECD/IEA 2013)

Biomass energy consists of the burning of biological material to produce energy. The most common forms are usually wood and food crops (corn/sugar cane/soybeans) that are specially grown for this purpose. This also includes biofuel (bio-diesel/bioethanol) that is produced through the  fermentation process of biomass and the product is mainly as a source of transport energy. Malta currently imports all biofuel, even though a 2011 article claimed that a foreign investor was interested in opening bioethanol plants in the country – what the hell happened there?

Malta also obtains a large portion of its renewable energy from waste sources – the energy that is recovered from waste. This form of energy is currently obtained from landfill gases, water treatment plants (such as Sant’ Antnin) and sewage treatment plants, where gases and heat produced during the treatment process are used to generate electricity.

Wind energy and wave energy as other possible sources are still being looked into. A wave energy trail project kicked off last year, but has also fallen off the radar with local media. Wind energy has so far been met with numerous and exhausting speculation about its viability, with recent headlines forecasting significant difficulty in using this resource.

The wave energy trial project (Photo credit: TimesofMalta)

The biggest issue I personally have with this scenario is the evident lack of motivation behind Maltese governments to tackle the issue of renewable energy. Fixing a couple of thousand PV panels on the Freeport will do nothing to solve our energy crisis – governments need to abandon this fixation with Solar Panels and move on.

The obvious reason behind these is that PV panels provide an imminent source of revenue, especially given Malta’s recent deal with China on the production of these panels for sale within the EU. The reality is that no government will be willing to invest money in research, feasibility studies or pilot projects to figure out whether or not a new renewable energy source is viable. That is why Malta is still dragging its feet at the end of the EU table, occasionally mentioning wind, wave or biofuel production to make itself seem more eco-friendly than it actually is. But who can possibly blame the poor government? It’s only the future of our climate and environment we’re playing with!

* * *

Further Reading (if you’re up for it!)

Current RES energy trends by all EU member states – Eurostat

2013 Malta Country Fact Sheet – European Commission

2009 Energy Balance Sheet for Malta – International Energy Agency

Joseph Muscat: practice what you preach

The Maltese Prime Minister just addressed the UN General Assembly currently being held in New York. In a brave attempt to sound at par with other world leaders, our Prime Minister gave a very bland speech, fueled with seemingly textbook quoted phrases. Does his speech, addressed to entire world (literally), translate into how his administration is tackling issues of energy and climate change?

Photo credit: TimesofMalta

This is an excerpt from the PM’s speech in which he mentions issues of climate change and energy:

“People need to be involved in the decision making since it affects their lives and their livelihoods. They should be foremost on our minds as we consider the world’s natural resources and tackle global concerns such as climate change. There is never one way of doing things and we can only achieve our targets if we listen to the people we are meant to represent and make them part of the decision-making process”.

It is quite comical how politicians’ behaviour changes when they take an international platform. While many people will feel proud that Malta was given an opportunity to speak in this important assembly, I am quite disappointed at the hypocritical comments being made.

What Joseph Muscat just argued completely contradicts how current energy projects are being handled in Malta. There was no public participation in decision-making processes, but a behind-doors-closed negotiation with third parties. How can the government commission the construction of a gas fueled power station without consulting the people who will have “their lives and livelihoods affected”?

Furthermore, can someone please explain to me how we can “tackle global concerns such as climate change” when we have two separate ministries handling the portfolios of energy and climate change, which are intrinsically connected? Is it any wonder how all pf the power station discussion have been devoid of climate change issues?