The expression “A commitment to commit” is not mine. It was recently made by Lord Stern of Brentford when he made two important statements: that the financial crisis should promote clean energy and that global financial turmoil must not block the creation of a low-carbon economy.
But it definitely should, could and must be also applied within a purely local context in Malta given the inertia that exists among certain political leaders on this subject. As well as the ham fisted manner in which government reacted by dismissing my private member’s bill in favour of climate change legislation as “premature” – something which flies in the face of the public support long standing NGOs like Friends of the Earth and Flimkien ghall-Ambjent Ahjar have given to my initiative. Through its childish behaviour the government is indeed showing a strong reluctance and near refusal to engage in a “commitment to commit”!
When Lawrence Gonzi had made a clever strategic and tactical move before the elections by announcing that he would assume full responsibility for Mepa, upon realising that it “sucked” as an organisation and was in free fall, little did we realise that the expected momentum and gravitas would be nowhere to be seen or felt, at least to date – seven months after the elections proper.
On the contrary Minister Pullicino, who was not so politely brushed aside from his Mepa and environment brief, is nowadays conveniently referred to by the government leaning media as the Environment Minister, arguably but possibly to keep the heat off Lawrence Gonzi’s back.
In the final analysis we must realise that it is a misnomer to call Minister Pullicino the Environment Minister any longer.
He is the Resources Minister – apart from his rural and agricultural brief – responsible for climate change, alternative energy and waste management. But a quick look at the job description of every single minister will reveal that:
a) The Environment Minister is the Prime Minister
b) The Minister responsible for MEPA is the Prime Minister
c) The Minister responsible for Sustainable Development is the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister seems to have developed a penchant for putting his key ministers in the firing line to avoid taking most of the flack of any controversial issues that might be on the boil.
This might work in terms of damage limitation exercises, but it surely does not do the same as far as providing tangible proof of commitment is concerned.
Lawrence Gonzi is suddenly realising that the chickens are coming home to roost not only at a hefty price for Maltese law abiding citizens and taxpayers but also at a hefty political price for his own party and government.
I really felt embarrassed during the recent Wilton Park conference I attended when trying to match the platitudes that the PM has been feeding us even throughout the past week on how we need to conserve energy, on how we need to become energy efficient and how we need to rely on alternative sources of energy, when at the same time that he was making such announcements I realised that even virtually failed states like Burkina Faso are doing their utmost to take both the environment and climate change seriously while Tanzania, which still has a sizeable chunk of its population without any reliable water and electricity supply, has already moved strongly in the direction of alternative energy dependent on wind, solar and biogas among other areas, apart from its reliance on hydro.
A Turkish lady I met mentioned that since they are an EU candidate country they were doing their best to diversify into alternative energy areas. All this at a time when I know that it might take decades before Turkey is finally taken on board as a full member of the EU – if ever!
Comparing these admirable efforts with our dismal performance in the alternative energy area so far one soon realises that Lawrence Gonzi’s field of specialisation is hot air.
The divorce issue
When I was recently interviewed on my way to Parliament by the Xarabank crew as to where I stand on the divorce issue, I made it clear that I am pro divorce without any reservations, but also feel that this should be subjected to a free vote in Parliament – in full respect of all those parliamentarians on both sides of the House who might have a different opinion.
On my way back from Denmark I came across an otherwise interesting investigative article in another section of the local media which stated that the divorce bill is doomed because according to them “What God has joined together, not even Joseph Muscat can put asunder.”
From the list of “uncertains” mentioned in the survey I am sure that I can detect more than a name or two of parliamentarians who are in actual fact pro-divorce and who privately told me that they would go for divorce if a free vote had to be taken in the House. These include government MPs.
I say so to register the opinion that although I agree with the journalist in question that this will be an uphill struggle for the promoters of such an initiative, I would rather not jump the gun at this stage and declare agreement that as implied the divorce bill is dead in the water.
It will all depend on whether Lawrence Gonzi will rein in his own ministers and MPs and deny them the right of a free vote on such a pivotal issue.
I was equally perturbed to note the evasive manner in which PM Gonzi replied to a parliamentary question of mine when I highlighted the fact that after Dr Gonzi had come out strongly against divorce the same way that his predecessor had done, he had then seemed to be in agreement in principle about a national dialogue on the lines suggested by Social Policy Minister John Dalli.
What worried me was that in true and typical fashion, in his reply the PM preferred to refuse to tie himself down to the specifics I called for:
a) as to when the dialogue process on divorce is likely to begin;
b) what are the modalities of such a dialogue;
c) who will be conducting such a dialogue;
d) over what period of time will be it stretched and extended before the whole consultation process is concluded in the hope that the dialogue, discussions and deliberations will be able to lead to some form of conclusions.
To call one another a slippery eel is admittedly politically incorrect. But then one must admit that there are quite a few who without wanting to might arguably fit into this category by the way they go about doing politics in what was meant to be a differently styled and structured manner!
Dear Karl
These few lines are being jotted down early Sunday evening after having just heard the bad news about Karl’s demise. Karl’s loss will not only be strongly felt among his numerous constituents and patients but first and foremost by his ever loving family who showered so much deserved care and attention on him, particularly during his protracted illness.
He will also be sorely missed in Parliament itself, by colleagues of his on both sides of the House. There was never any animosity in Karl’s parliamentary interventions even when he tried to drive a strong political point or argument home forcefully.
I know from first hand experience that Karl used to go through a high level of preparation before delivering speeches in the House, researching them as best can rather than talking off the cuff. He always reflected the positive side rather than the dark side of politics and this is something that will be as sorely missed as his charm, charisma and engaging personality. He still had a bright political future ahead of him and had recently been appointed to prestigious post of Main Opposition Spokesperson for Health. But nothing can beat one’s destiny. With this harsh reality in mind, under such circumstances all that we can do while cherishing the bright moments that we shared together is to remember him in our thoughts and prayers.
e-mail: brincat.leo@ gmail.com
Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokesperson for the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate Change