Many countries in Europe have now made it obligatory to show a certificate that one has been vaccinated against covid-19 before allowing entry to a restaurant or a cafe (though not all establishments carry out the required inspections with the same assiduity).
As the fourth wave of infections rolls forward, governments have been considering changing the period of validity of the certificate in order to take account of the third vaccination (the so-called booster) they wish to launch across the board for everyone.
Cynicism and a sense of being fed up have spread among many and not just those who have continued to refuse getting inoculated.
However no matter whatever the anti-vaxxers say, they never try to show they can offer a better solution. The claim about an enormous conspiracy that is intended to enable the big pharmaceutical firms make enormous profits are unconvincing. Vaccination and the deployment of its “green pass” remain the best tools we have as of now by which to still live a “normal” life while striving to contain the virus.
***
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Five member countries of the EU -- Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria, Denmark and Germany -- have issued a joint statement to insist that they disagree investments in nuclear energy should be considered as valid projects in the effort to roll back climate warming. Projects that do get this recognition can then benefit from improved financing conditions, which make them more attractive.
The objections to nuclear power as a source of energy remain what they always have been: the threat of a catastrophic accident can never be completely put aside; and the huge difficulties that persist to really ensure that the radioactive waste from the processes which generate nuclear power are effectively disposed of.
On the other hand, from the climate point of view, nuclear plants make no contribution at all to warming, and unless they “explode”, they do supply energy at a stable price.
I once remember a Maltese Prime Minister asking me whether I agreed with the idea of a (mini)nuclear plant to cater for the generation of electricity in Malta. I replied I wouldn’t exclude the option.
***
AGAINST THE METRO
One objection to the construction of a metro which I find curious runs as follows: The tunnelling that the project would entail shall surely have a great negative impact on the island’s natural and archaeological heritage underground.
As if great damage is not already being done, and to a larger extent, with all the building that is allowed to mushroom practically everywhere...
There is then the point that metro systems exist and are still being expanded in top European cities, like Paris, Rome and London and I do not know where else, all places which have historic centres and where underground, the historical remains must be as precious as ours and more. So, what did they do while building their metro system, to conserve their heritage? And if they did, why cannot others?
I understand that it is always worthwhile to ensure that arguments that can be made against any project are really put forward robustly, assuming they have a good enough basis. But some claims that are at at the margin of making little to no sense, render even valid arguments much less compelling.