Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1511521
12 OPINION maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 15 NOVEMBER 2023 I'M sure you're all familiar with that Internet meme, which juxtaposes two images of similar urban streetscapes – one shaded by foliage; and the other with no tree‑cover at all – and invites us to compare the precise tempera‑ tures, in both. Just in case, however, I'm reproduc‑ ing that meme (or one of many simi‑ lar ones, anyway) here on this page. So take a good look for yourselves, and… well, decide which of those two streets you'd rather be on, at noon on any Au‑ gust day: either walking; or waiting for a bus; or sitting on a bench… or even just driving through in your die‑ sel‑guzzling, exhaust‑belching 'Sports Utility Vehicle' (and giving Greta Thunberg the good old middle finger, while you're at it…) I don't know about you, of course; but personally, I'd much rather do any of those things in '26 degrees Celsius', instead of '50'. You can probably im‑ agine, then, how'd enthusiastically I'd be performing those activities… in an all‑too‑near future, when '50 degrees Celsius' might actually refer to one of the COOLEST days of summer (a sea‑ son which will probably end up lasting for around nine months of the year: from April, to December…) THAT, I fear, is when the loss of all those mature Ficus trees, in Mosta's Rotunda Square, will be most keenly felt… only by Mosta's human residents, this time. (Let's face it: Mosta's White Wagtail population has already borne the full brunt, of this sudden ‑ and judging by the online videos, terribly 'traumatic' ‑ loss of their natural hab‑ itat. They will probably no longer even be around, by then…) And Mosta, of course, is far from be‑ ing the only Maltese locality to have suffered what can only be described as a deliberate, systematic – and increas‑ ingly inhumane, if you ask me – 'urban deforestation', on a truly industrial scale. Which brings me to a teenie‑little question that I have long been mean‑ ing to ask (and probably already have, several times over). Why is this coun‑ try so hell‑bent on destroying its al‑ ready meagre 'arboreal flora' – that's 'TREES', to you and me – when we are supposed to be: a) Governed by a 'National Trees and Woodlands Strategy Action Plan', which intends to "assist in the imple‑ mentation of actions favouring GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE [my emphasis] and recreational areas linked with trees and woodlands, also acting as a means of adaptation and MITIGATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES [ditto]"; b) Committed to international tar‑ gets of achieving both 'Full Carbon Neutrality' AND 'Zero Emissions', by 2050 (and in case the government hasn't noticed yet: the same 'trees' that we're cutting down today, just happen to be our only natural 'allies' against climate change); and lastly, c) Under a Labour government which, once upon a time – little over a year ago, as I recall ‑ promised us that it would 'invest more in green spaces', because (and I quote from an article by Energy Minister Miriam Dalli): "Creat‑ ing green spaces in urban areas is es‑ sential for the wellbeing of residents, not only because green spaces absorb greenhouse gases and improve air qual‑ ity, but also because they have a posi‑ tive impact on our mental health…"? Erm… sorry to have to repeat that question once more, but: it wasn't ex‑ actly 'rhetorical', you know. It is one thing, I suppose, to 'renege on an elec‑ toral promise', because it proved too 'expensive' (or otherwise 'unrealistic') to actually keep. But to simply 'prom‑ ise one thing, today'… and then 'de‑ liver the TOTAL OPPOSITE of your promise', the next day… without even bothering to offer us so much as an EX‑ PLANATION, for the U‑turn in poli‑ cy‑direction? It's kind of 'a little too much', don't you think? But back to that meme. Naturally, I myself have never undertaken to 'fact‑ check' the scientific claim it's making – i.e., that 'tree‑shade' automatically reduces nearby temperature by almost exactly HALF – because… let's face it, the precise 'temperature‑reduction statistics' hardly matter, in the long run. We've all experienced the 'shade of a tree', haven't we? And we've all cer‑ tainly experienced the merciless heat of the Malta summer sun (a good deal more, I would imagine). We all likewise know (also from experience) that the shade cast by trees is far more effective – not to mention pleasant ‑ than any artificial shading known to man... … whether we know the actual reason for this, however, is another question altogether. In fact, this would be the ideal mo‑ ment for me to humbly hand over the mic to a qualified Botanist, to do all the explaining for us; but seeing as Bota‑ nists are in short supply, right now (who would have ever guessed, in a country which systematically kills all its plants before they have a chance to study them?)… I'm afraid you're just going to have to make do with… ME. Why do trees cast such pleasant, effec‑ tive shade, you ask? I'd say it has some‑ thing to do 'photosynthesis': which – apart from being a natural process that (to the best of my knowledge) 'cannot be replicated by artificial, laboratory means' – has the multiple effects of: a) Extracting Hydrogen atoms from the water molecules in which they were trapped (thus releasing Oxygen into the atmosphere, as useless excreta); b) Absorbing Carbon Dioxide from the surrounding atmosphere; c) Using energy directly from sun‑ light, to transform all that into suste‑ nance for itself (in the form of sugars...) Oh, OK, I got most of that from Wiki‑ pedia. Fact remains, however, that 'trees cast shade', not merely because they're 'getting in the way of the sun' (which, incidentally, is the most that can be said of any other 'artificial shad‑ ing')… no, they also actually 'absorb heat (and humidity, by the way) from the surrounding atmosphere'. In other words: trees functions as 'natural air‑conditioning units'… on‑ ly without any of the associated en‑ ergy costs; and above all, without any 'pollution' whatsoever, except Ox‑ ygen (which we require to… erm… 'BREATHE', FFS!!) I mean, honestly though: how much The trouble with trees is that… they're irreplaceable, really Raphael Vassallo