Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1322776
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 DECEMBER 2020 OPINION Carbon-neutrality: no small feat heads – or the technologies that they used – that loudly proclaim the humanity of those predeces- sors of ours. It is also abundantly evident, from all the clues they've left behind. Consider, for instance, this ex- cerpt from the same study: 'The people arriving to Malta with grazing animals 8,000 years ago burnt much of the natural vege- tation around their settlements […] Cultivation, grazing, burning and drought caused severe soil erosion […] as centuries passed the soil erosion and climate con- ditions worsened, as evidenced by the different types of pollen in the soil, the diminishing number of tree remains, and the human bones wracked with evidence of dietary deficiencies…" This led the researchers to conclude that: "human over-ex- ploitation of natural resources in fragile environments invariably results in episodes of quite dra- matic retrenchment, and even complete collapse." Be honest, now: how very differ- ent is that, from the situation fac- ing today's population of Malta: where we are likewise 'over-ex- ploiting natural resources', to maintain what we all know is an increasingly unsustainable life- style? While I'm at it: how different is it from the situation facing con- temporary humanity as a whole? Then as now, we are confronted with challenges posed by climate change – most likely caused by human activity: which is highly unlikely to have been the case with our Neolithic forebears – and our only response likewise seems to be to stubbornly cling to the technologies we know: even if they are likely to bring about a 'collapse' of our own civilisation, in the fullness of time… just as it had done in the case of the tem- ple-builders, five thousand years ago. This similarity, alone, is enough to confirm that the owner of that supposedly 'elongated skull' was - and could only have been – eminently human. But there is, perhaps, a small difference between us (and I'm not talking about negligible variations in cra- nium-size, either) No: the only real difference is that Malta's temple-builders at least had the excuse of pre-liter- ate ignorance – not to mention the lack of any real alternative lifestyle - to justify their (unin- tentional) mistreatment of the environment. We, on the other hand, don't. And this, ultimately, is what I think really fuels all this 'alien or- igins' conspiracy nonsense in the first place. For the alternative to that hypothesis is that they were 'just humans', like us. And we clearly don't like to be reminded that – in some ways – humanity itself hasn't really changed that much at all, in a full five thousand years… CLIMATE change has a negative impact on the socio-economic fabric of a country. This is not a theoretical statement anymore and its effects are being felt now. Not only is the situation urgent, but it's also very close to home – impacting our everyday lives. Wellbeing, in all its forms, has risen to the top of every country's agen- da and understandably so as the toll of eco- system depletion manifests itself. We have proven to be quite a resilient country, time and time again, despite our vulnerabilities. But until the primary met- rics of progress remain the various econom- ic parameters such as the increase in gross domestic product, we will remain hemmed into a dark corner. This is a short-sighted approach as we gradually compromise our resilience to shocks. In fact, the pandemic exposed some of our vulnerabilities – and it is time to act on them. Being vulnerable to the effects of climate change is simply a risk we cannot afford. But we have been proactive. As a coun- try we have already made significant gains in the area of climate. To this end it helps to understand some context: the text of the draft Council conclusions on which Heads of State and Government began their cli- mate discussions in the afternoon of 10 December 2020 did not take into consider- ation Malta's specificities in any clear form. It grouped the need to take into account all national circumstances when discussing the breakdown of the enhanced 2030 target in a general manner without recognizing the special situation of Island Member States. Malta made it clear from the start that, whilst we acknowledge the need for the EU to step up its efforts and raise its 2030 ambition to an at least 55% reduction tar- get, when it comes to determining national targets, this ambition must fully take into account the evolution of member states' emissions mitigation potentials; that the approach must be socially just and cost-ef- fective, and that no member state is to be unduly left behind. As a small island state at the periphery of the European Union, Malta made the case that with the lowest emissions per capita across the EU, limited emissions-reduction poten- tial, and unfavourable economies of scale, it is also imperative that the methodology for breaking down the 55% target recognised the situation of island member states. Malta saw the successful introduction of the notion of 'Island Member States' when referring to the need to take into account the different starting points and circumstances of member states. We maintained that it was important to also introduce references to the emission reduction potential within the vari- ables, as this is important for Malta given that it has a service-orientated economy, with no major polluting industrial outputs. Overall, the achievements of these intense negotiations have put Malta on a path to en- sure that the EU moves forward with an en- hanced target for 2030 of 55% as opposed to the current 40%; to align itself with the EU's commitment to reach climate neutrality by 2050, in a manner that takes due account of actual emission reduction potential, fair- ness, proportionality and cost-effectiveness, not just for continental Europe but all for member states, including the smallest island member state. This will allow Malta to de- sign a decarbonization path that can target those sectors which have emission potential reduction, in a manner that benefits our en- vironment and our economy. The policy document which will lead us in this mission to decarbonize the economy is the Low Carbon Development Strategy. The Prime Minister's economic vision for 2020-2050 gave maximum importance to the attainment of carbon neutrality by 2050 – suitably so, as the vision's main focus is creating a better quality of life for all. His bold leadership here was evident. Achieving carbon-neutrality is no small feat. Going for carbon neutrality means that some sectors need to restructure and reinvent themselves, and as government we need to ensure a just transition. We need to start by recognising the neg- ative impact of transport on our emission levels. As government we are already incen- tivising the use of electric cars, and surely enough we will step up our efforts in this crucial sector. This, while continuing to in- vest in improved transport infrastructure and looking at a mass transit system. Pro- moting more sustainable mobility would be beneficial for all. Renewable energy plants, as well as our shift towards better, cleaner and greener buildings and more intelligent planning will also help us in decarbonizing our economy, as will our massive invest- ments in state-of-the-art waste manage- ment plants coupled with our Long-Term Waste-Management Plan. The reality is that the economy and well- being of our society depend on a healthy environment. With the private sector, civil society, and the country on board with gov- ernment's plans, we will be able to make huge gains towards mitigating the effects of climate change. As a government, we are committed to ensuring that sustainabili- ty remains at the core of our plans in both economic and environmental strategies and measures – and that no one is left behind. Aaron Farrugia Aaron Farrugia is minister for the environment