The environmental vote tracker published by the European Green Party, rather than a “manipulated exercise” to gain “political mileage”, as stated by Simon Busuttil (TMIS, 12 April), is a clear snapshot of what a Green Party in the European Parliament will do when faced by today’s environmental and energy challenges.
It further confirms other well-known statistics, which show that the Greens are the most consistent with regard to environmental legislation, while the EPP group has the worst record in this regard.
The question is whether you talk the Green talk, or really walk the Green walk. It is not enough to sport an electric car when launching your “green” campaign or touting “environmental” candidates within an anti-environmental framework” to gain that necessary Green political mileage.
“Carta canta” as the Italians would say. The EPP and PES votes on the environment are there to be scrutinised. The votes have been cast as can be seen on http://stopclimatechange.net/votetracker/.
Dr Busuttil’s counter-claims may be telling his side of the story but they also reveal where his groups’ green credentials lie: big industry and corporate lobbies first, citizens later. It is in fact rather simplistic to argue that green policies are detrimental to jobs, as even these votes must be seen in the wider context of the Green Group’s general proposals. A case in point is the Green New Deal advocating a massive EU-wide stimulus package along the lines of the Obama recovery plan to create five million “green-collar” jobs in five years.
Interpreting votes in the EP is surely the easiest way to extract your kind of truth from the myriad of stages an EU document goes through. The vote-tracker is a more transparent way of really knowing where everyone stands on the environmental front.
There are many other examples that could be discussed relating to the sectors of environment, public health and food safety. Here are a few.
As regards global warming, it is sufficient to say that we are already late. We can only avoid the worst by acting very fast. Offsetting – favoured by old-style politicians, is just a delaying tactic. President Obama is investing in a new economy, Europe and Malta risk being left behind. In Malta we have not even started moving towards a new clean energy based economy, let alone prepare for the effects of climate change. Suffice to say that other EU countries have already planned and started working on mitigation measures to counteract the effects of the rise in sea levels and on agriculture among others. In Malta it is business as usual for the Gonzi government. On 14 February 2008, Lawrence Gonzi promised that by 2010 20 per cent of all energy in Malta will be generated from alternative sources – it is already 2009 and we are still at about 0% of energy from alternative sources.
Despite the “no” vote by PN MEPs, binding energy targets were still approved by the European Parliament. Dr Busuttil’s statement that Malta is still in the process of “adopting options… when it comes to environmentally friendly technologies” confirms the neglect of the Maltese government in this area – we are missing the boat once again, we will miss out on new high paying jobs in this important sector.
As for car emissions, the usual scaremongering arguments are that serious, effective limits will spell the death of the car industry. The car industry will surely die if it does not innovate – innovation come also through what is called “technology forcing” which history shows to be a very effective tool for innovation and economic sustainability. Contrary to claims made by Simon Busuttil, high standards will mean more work for all, Maltese companies included.
There is ample evidence of this. I will just quote one tiny section from a report submitted to the G20 London Summit authored by Sir Nicholas Stern entitled “Towards a Global Green Recovery. Recommendations for Immediate G20 Action”.
“G20 members should at least triple their total spending on R&D related to energy efficiency, renewables and CCS.
“They should establish publicly financed venture capital funds that target innovative clean-energy technologies and develop a G20 Strategic Energy Technology Plan.”
Simon Busuttil’s assertions about aviation are lopsided. The most important thing is to maintain a level playing field for all actors in a particular sector, that is, not giving an advantage to one airline while penalizing others. Carbon trading is one method that will lead to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and lead to technological innovation in aviation. It is obvious that member States, because of their particular geographical locations different and where alternative modes of transport exist, should carry a greater part of responsibility. This is something AD always insists on. Letting them off the hook easily is not a solution. AD is no fool. Malta will have to, sooner or later, cut down on flight pollution, as all other countries in Europe. But we have a particular situation being an island State. On this issue, an AD MEP will go for the established international principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. Responsibility towards future generations and islands, which will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, should remain the guiding principle.
Other interesting votes in the EP are the EPP and PES, including Maltese MEPs’ votes to sustain and subsidize the nuclear energy industry. Malta will be sandwiched between four nuclear plants in Italy and nuclear plants built and subsidized by EU member States in North Africa, including Libya. The latter will not be operated according to EU standards and laws for such plants. Maltese MEPs, the PN government and the PL have still to comment on this issue. We are for reform that will take us out of the current crisis and for the creation of jobs that respect the health and well being of all. Pitting jobs against people’s health, quality of life and the environment is old hat.
[email protected]
Mr Cassar is AD’s PRO and a
councillor of the Attard local council