Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1504229
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 23 JULY 2023 9 INTERVIEW means 'changing the way we live' those 12 EU states did take some important decisions. They embarked on the emis- sions trading scheme, which brought about the idea that businesses – and particularly, power plants - could actually become more energy efficient, consume less, etc. But clearly, it was not enough. Had it been enough – and especially, had Europe acted at a faster pace - perhaps we wouldn't have the problem we have today, with regard to the Ukraine war: where Russia has a lot of leverage over Eu- rope, because it is an importer of gas. On the subject of how 'slow' the political process has been: do you interpret that delay as a result of all the diplomatic dif- ficulties, in getting countries to ever agree on a common position... or could it also be due to the technological dif- ficulties, in actually replacing fossil fuels with 'renewable energy' (which cannot deliver as much energy, as quickly or reliably)? I would say it's a bit of both: because while renewables are definitely the answer, there will have to be an energy mix. One can also consider that even nu- clear energy, for some coun- tries, will be an option. And as long as it is safe and well-regu- lated, it could be accepted. But the major source of en- ergy still has to come from renewables. And it is true, as you're saying, that, technolog- ically, it is not always an easy option. Renewables have their drawbacks. Solar power, for instance, is only available dur- ing the day. Now we're talking about battery storage so that renewables can be controlled, in order to be accessible when necessary. If we want to have permanent access to power, in the way we do today - by just 'switching it on or off' - then you have to have some kind of intermediate phase. And that would be battery storage, whereby you can store solar or wind energy to be available whenever you need it. At the same time, however: technology has improved a great deal. We've seen this im- provement over the past dec- ades; and were it not for the pressure to become more ener- gy efficient; and to switch to re- newables, and so on... technol- ogy would not have improved. Because as they say, 'necessity is the mother of invention'. So what we're seeing now is that - because of the ongoing drive; and particularly the drive within the EU – we now have a clear target to work towards. We call it 'becoming a carbon neutral continent by 2050' - the first carbon neutral continent - and that is actually implement- ing the Paris agreement to the letter, basically... How realistic is that target in practice, though? Already we are seeing that the political cost of implementing those measures is high. Climate change is arguably one of the issues – alongside immigra- tion – that is toppling Europe- an governments, even as we speak, in places like Spain and the Netherlands. Are you con- cerned by the fact that climate change scepticism is gaining the upper hand, in European politics? Maybe more than the 'scepti- cism gaining the upper hand', I think it's a case that... let me put it this way. Personally, I think that most of the people in Europe - even in Malta – really are determined to fight climate change. We all say that we are very concerned about it. And we all want to work towards 'neutralising' it, as much as possible. But then, I also think that people don't always realise that, every time governments introduce a measure that can be socio-economically painful - sometimes even 'behaviour- ally' painful – well, that's what 'fighting climate change' actu- ally means. So there is this kind of 'lost in translation' effect: whereby the message is not be- ing delivered well enough, per- haps. If I'm understanding you cor- rectly: 'everyone wants to fight climate change; but no one wants to actually make any sac- rifices while fighting'. Correct? Well, I wouldn't quite say 'no one wants to make sacrifices'. There are, of course, people who do understand the mes- sage quite well. But otherwise, yes. 'Fighting climate change' implies accepting 'behavioural change', up to a certain extent. If, for instance, your definition of 'quality of life' means that you see it as a 'plus', to have to rely on your private car... then yes, that will bring about a kind of 'discomfort', in your life. But then again: if we really do want to fight climate change, this is the kind of behavioural change that one has to actual- ly carry out, as much as possi- ble: by using public transport, for instance; on even better, by walking more - although not in the current temperatures, of course – and in a few words, by becoming part of the mobility shift, because it keeps the plan- et healthyl and even helps to keep us healthy, too... At the end of the day, howev- er, I think it's all a question of understanding the basic mes- sage. It's very much like a di- et, you know. After all: why do people go on diets? Why do we make sacrifices in what we eat? Is it because we want to 'punish ourselves'? Or because we want to feel healthy, and look good... and possibly, even to extend our lives, by avoiding any of the health issues associated with being overweight? That, I think, is the best anal- ogy: because it's the same with climate change. Obviously, technology will be there to help make our behavioural changes more... comfortable, perhaps. Like, for example, making the appliances we use more ener- gy efficient; or reducing our buildings into 'zero emissions' level, through using the right materials. But again, it comes down to the issue of how much will it cost to have a zero-emission building. And that is something that we have to be ready to pay for, at the end of the day. Naturally, this also raises oth- er issues: such as, is everybody in a position to pay that price? Is everybody in the right so- cio-economic bracket, to even afford making such changes? Or is it going to be something that is only accessible to people with a certain a certain level of income, for instance? Ultimately, these are the is- sues that we talk about, when it comes to 'climate justice'. In fact, if you look at what's hap- pening in the countries you've mentioned [Germany, Spain, The Netherlands]... very of- ten, it was a case that measures were introduced, either with- out the right kind of informa- tion given to the public... or else, they were introduced too quickly; without giving enough time for adjustment; and with- out providing the people with proper alternatives. Sometimes, for instance, you hear people say things like: "Okay, I would be willing to use my private car less, if I could rely on a mode of transport that makes me arrive on time; that is efficient, etc." So some shift problems can be avoided, by simply providing an alter- native first; or by providing the right level of support, to make the changes easier to bear. Once again, I feel that the di- et analogy works best. It is one thing for people to decide to, say, 'go vegetarian', or 'Vegan'... but that change cannot really hap- pen, in practice, if people don't also have access to the right sort of organic food; and if there are no restaurants offering Vegans and vegetarians with dedicated options, on their menus. Having that sort of support, and all the alternatives in place, will certainly help people make that switch more easily. If we don't have any of that, howev- er: the transition will be a huge self-sacrifice. It's the same with climate change. We all need to be will- ing to do our own bit, and make our own sacrifices... but we also need to be given all the neces- sary information; and above all, be provided with the necessary alternatives, and tools, to make the change happen. In fact, this has been my 'mot- to', so to speak, throughout more than 30 years of climate diplomacy. 'Giving up is not an option'. Fighting Climate Change requires a collective ef- fort, by everybody...