Much has been said about climate change these days. In Malta, we manage to turn a subject on which there should be consensus into a political football too, with the government and the opposition trying to take the credit for being the pioneer in taking the initiative to promote efforts to curb the damage being caused to the climate.

Last week we had an example of this when a motion presented by Labour MP Leo Brincat in Parliament, which was eventually discussed last Thursday, was pre-empted by the government which published a report it had commissioned on climate change a few hours before.

Yet, on the whole, what is important is that something is done to improve the situation, and the more consensus there is on the matter, the better the country will be able to tackle the problems and find solutions.

If the motion presented by Leo Brincat resulted in pushing the government into hurrying up the finalisation of the climate change report, then this is a clear example of how the opposition has become more pro-active, rather than reactive, on subjects of national importance.

But the issue goes beyond who should take the credit. It revolves on the comprehensive way the country should follow in order to give its own contribution towards combating a phenomenon that needs all the attention it can get.

Of course, being a small country, this contribution will be small considering that the negative effects on the environment are limited. Yet, in a way, Malta could set an example that other, bigger countries might follow.

Malta has always been at the forefront of international initiatives that are still remembered to this day. For example, in 1988 it was Malta who led the way for the adoption of the Convention on Climate Change, and this happened in spite of the initial reservations on its importance by the international community.

Professor David Attard was the man behind the Maltese government’s proposal, and the interview he gave to The Malta Independent last week clearly explained the difficulties that Malta encountered to push the idea through.

To come back to the present days, the government and the opposition should seek each other’s ideas more to work hand in hand in this regard. We need a concerted effort to implement what needs to be done for Malta to play its part, and political controversies on such a delicate subject should be avoided.

The news that Enemalta Corporation will be investing e1.21 billion to modernise its facilities to enable Malta, among other things, to meet its carbon dioxide emissions obligations is most welcome.

The amount that has been mentioned is staggering, but it is certainly required for Malta to fulfil its duties. As climate change committee chairman David Spiteri Gingell explained, it will be costlier if the government simply ignored the situation.

Malta must cut its CO2 emissions by about 50 per cent by the year 2020, otherwise it runs the risk of being sanctioned by the European Union. Considering that 62 per cent of these emissions is generated through the production of energy, then much needs to be done to improve the situation in this area.

And this is why the government and the opposition need to work closer together to formulate the plans as to how this can be done. The country needs a long-term programme that spans over three government terms, and therefore a form of continuity is required.

Any change of plan with a change of government will not be beneficial, as this would mean that time and money would have been wasted. The government and the opposition need to find some kind of common ground that will see Malta fulfilling its obligations over the next 12 years.