Climate of mistrust

Article from Malta Independent.

“I might not be an aficionado of jazz music, but I could not but feel concerned and dismayed that the jazz musicians performing at the Malta Jazz Festival had to actually vie with the noisy fireworks that were being held concurrently. I am not saying this to rubbish the fireworks displays nearby but to reiterate a point I had made earlier on within the context of the decision – rather than mere proposal by now – that we should have an open air theatre instead of the old, classical Opera House in Valletta”

What struck me most during the recent Commonwealth Parlia-mentary Conference on Climate Change was the intervention by Lord Turner, who chairs the Climate Change Committee in Britain.

His Committee – which is a truly independent one – might be appointed by government but it is in no way bound to be influenced in any way by government.

It is free to speak its own mind – which it invariably does – and reports to Parliament on an annual basis rather than to government itself.

This Committee was not set up on the spur of the moment or as a political gimmick.

On the contrary it is a provision enshrined in the climate change Bill that the UK parliament had approved a couple of years back.

An idea that I had formally proposed within a purely local context, but which as expected had ended up against a brick wall, under the false pretext that since we were an EU member state such national initiatives were not all that needed after all.

As explained by Lord Turner it was not part of their brief to actually deliver change on the ground in this sector, but to monitor government’s performance objectively and benchmark all initiatives undertaken with those committed to.

It also served as a link between the parliamentary dimension and the business sector while trying to get both the corporate sector and citizens in general more deeply involved in the whole process.

The committee also advised government on what targets it should be laying down; targets which at a later stage government felt obliged to legislate on.

Lord Turner made it clear that reaching certain ambitious targets – such as striving to reduce per capita emissions from a 1990 level of 10-11 tonnes per capita in 1990 to circa two or 2.5 tonnes by 2050 is no mean feat, and it also comes at a price to the economy. He calculates that the overall spend/cost would be equivalent to circa 1-2 per cent of the UK’s total GDP. But as he made it clear although this sum might sound daunting in actual fact, it only meant giving up one year of economic growth over a 40-year period and all this to make our quality of life more sustainable.

Last year – as I hinted in my intervention during the said conference – created far more of a climate of mistrust rather than giving climate change issues a boost.

We had three issues or developments which risked throwing climate on the back burner (if one pardons the pun!);

• the negative and inconclusive outcome of the Copenhagen summit;

• the set backs in financial commitments resultant from the impact that the financial crisis had on most would-be donor countries;

• the effective manner in which climate sceptics managed to cool public opinion towards climate issues by trying to blow up, out of proportion any questionable findings on the scientific – rather than the political – aspects of climate change.

While we were in the UK, Britain had just joined up with Germany and France to jointly call for the EU to deepen its planned reductions in green house gas emissions from 20-30 per cent by 2020.

This runs diametrically opposed to the position that the Maltese government adopted recently in spite of our boasts of having just assumed Annexe 1 status on climate issues.

While the Maltese government had made the point that we risk imposing new burdens and becoming less competitive by going for the 30 per cent target, the three countries I mentioned argued to the contrary that if ‘we’ stick to a 20 per cent cut, Europe is likely to lose the race to compete in the low carbon world to countries such as China, Japan or the US – all of which are looking to create a more attractive environment for low carbon investment.

The joint commentary did not – to be fair – specifically suggest that the 30 per cent should be a unilateral initiative, but it stated that the EU should raise its emissions target.

The point which the Maltese government seems to be missing is the point that the three countries’ environment ministers made – primarily that a 30 per cent cut would not only help meet the international target of limiting global warming to a two degrees Centigrade level, but also even more importantly perhaps – that it would also spur green investment by boosting the cost of carbon pollution.

While in Malta these things might sound remote and even unthinkable, in the UK both parties inspite of rubbishing themselves on other issues, boast of having worked alongside each other in passing the climate change Bill through parliament. This they did by actually giving direct inputs as to how to improve upon the other parties’ positions.

The present Minister for Climate Gregory Barker will be joining David Cameron shortly in India where climate issues should take centre stage in their high level discussions. He brings with him a wealth of experience as former Shadow Minister for Climate until the recent general elections.

Although we come from parties of a different political orientation, the impression he gave to most delegates present including yours truly was that:

• he is a no nonsense person;

• he does not duck issues;

• has a pro-active and forward looking approach;

• is ready to take on board new ideas wherever they may come from.

While we were in the UK the House of Commons also debated renewable energy and Barker spoke about how localism could come into play not only within the context of the environment and climate change but also regarding the engagement at local council level on renewable energy initiatives by thus creating the right framework for building a low carbon economy.

Whether they will get there still needs to be seen but at least the impression I got was that there seems to be a British commitment to put climate issues on top of the agenda domestically and even internationally.

One can fault Labour on various issues in the UK but their climate efforts were commendable.

On the other hand as a Labour back bencher argued, even if the new government might have resorted to the wholesale theft of his own party’s manifesto on this issue by pledging to empower local councils to generate electricity from renewable sources, given that the British Labour Party has just lost the election they were not in a position to implement that pledge any time soon so in the most pragmatic of ways he argued – it is good that the Government took it up!

We look forward to such days when our Parliament can boast of such a pragmatic and positive way forward.

All that jazz!

I might not be an aficionado of jazz music, but I could not but feel concerned and dismayed that the jazz musicians performing at the Malta Jazz Festival had to actually vie with the noisy fireworks that were being run concurrently.

I am not saying this to rubbish the fireworks displays nearby but to reiterate a point I had made earlier on within the context of the decision – rather than mere proposal by now – that we should have an open air theatre instead of the old, classical Opera House in Valletta.

After all, what the jazz musicians had to face up with, was the same experience Joseph Calleja went through when he organised what I believe was his first ever live concert in Malta when fire works and petards at both the Valletta and Gzira Karmnu festivities took place concurrently.

So much for the ‘benefit’ of having an open air concert theatre in Valletta!



A worthy initiative

With a background in Corporate Research & Analysis, and having always been one to do as much research as I could for my parliamentary inputs, it came as more than a welcome surprise that thanks to the initiative of Mr Speaker, MPs will as from next month be able to have access to certain online archives of local newspapers, which in certain instances even date back to the 30s.

I think parliamentarians especially those like us who serve on the Foreign & European Committee should be also given free online access to various quality journals that could update us with key developments linked to EU affairs, the Middle East as well as transatlantic relations.

If anything, this should be looked upon as a qualitative investment that should be hopefully more conducive towards researched debates in the House itself as well as in our respective committees, rather than having certain off the cuff speeches which continue to jar inspite of their frequency.



Wry or just a cad?

It is not for me to pass judgment on whether Peter Mandelson’s ‘memoirs’ have confirmed that he is a wry person or else whether they have shown him up to be a mere cad. Anyway I have not yet had time to get to grips with the said memoirs.

But I must confess that this quote attributed by Mandelson as having been said by Blair to Mandelson himself is a cherry indeed:

“There are three groups in the Labour Party. There’s Old Labour. There are people who are not Old Labour and who will follow New Labour, but who aren’t really New Labour. And there are those who are genuinely New Labour... Who are they I asked. He replied… Me. You. And that’s about it!”

One might end up hating the book and its author but I simply loved this quote.
 

Please visit the article archive for a list of available articles.