I chose an acronym title for my contribution so as to condense the many expletives with which I wish to describe Steve Borg’s article published in this paper last Sunday.
D for despicable on two counts. It is utterly despicable that a supposedly green candidate attacks another candidate who has always championed green issues, albeit now from a different party. I had erroneously assumed that green issues triumphed over partisan considerations for Steve, but I was wrong. I recall Steve resorting to my help, as a columnist for The Sunday Times, to feature prominently planning issues specific to the Marsascala area. It seems those days of camaraderie are long over as partisan politics have completely engrossed Steve and clouded his judgement.
Secondly, I am frankly disillusioned by Steve’s shallow arguments and reasoning to support his stand, especially since I previously held him in high esteem in view of his academic background.
He cites “public outcry” as a good enough reason to stop projects, saying that Europe is currently experiencing a wave of outcry against incineration. So, are we to assume that public outcry should win the day when it comes to taking decisions? Should informed and technical opinion be sidelined in favour of populism? I would have thought that Steve would go for the informed approach and would rather educate and inform the public as to what incineration is all about rather than latching on opportunistically to public sentiment.
His claims that the Sicilians are preoccupied about the Marsaxlokk incinerator border on the hilarious and on the shocking at the same time, since it reveals the blighted perception of the environment Steve and the PL have.
Does Steve have scientific data to prove his point? It’s science at the end of the day that should call the shots and not cheap scaremongering.
O for opportunist. It is highly opportunistic and convenient for candidates to keep their ear to the ground and ride the wave of populism as it strikes.
On Thursday 16 April, a public consultation meeting was held in the parish square in Marsaxlokk, organised by the MRRA for all residents of Marsaxlokk and beyond, on the incineration issue. The same melee and undignified behaviour that characterised the public meeting on the Sant’Antnin waste management plant ensued, with the minister and his entourage being treated to little less than verbal abuse and being almost literally elbowed out of the way. Is this the type of public consultation Steve Borg is advocating?
In Marsaxlokk, it dawned upon Sharon Ellul Bonici that the environment was a potential vote-catcher – hence, she changed tack and, while she had never ever spoken about the environment before, she chose to hold a petition on the following Sunday against the approval of the incinerator at Marsaxlokk. Does Sharon understand what Refuse-derived-fuel is? The expression “casting pearl before swine”, springs to mine at this moment. Having the luxury of a minister ready to debate such controversial issues in a public meeting does not prevent us from squandering such an opportunity. Were any constructive proposals fielded that day? A mature and impassionate debate on such delicate environmental issues seems light years away with candidates like Steve Borg and Sharon Ellul Bonici who are very adept at riding the wave of opportunism.
I for irresponsible on three counts. Yes, with the 20/20/20 targets looming large on the horizon, the PL and its supposedly green candidate Steve Borg are shooting down every renewable energy proposal the government is making.
Steve may dismiss the penalties Malta will face if it defaults on its obligations as trivial but some harping on such figures is legitimate. If Malta defaults by just one per cent on the 10 per cent figure (i.e. 10 per cent of the energy we consume, not of the energy we generate), Malta will face fines to the tune of €900 million.
I assume that the PL is aspiring to govern this country one day – if it is elected next time round, say in 2013, going by the five-year script. It will have to face the same 20/20/20 obligations the Nationalist government is facing today since such obligations apply in a similar manner to Nationalists and Labourites. Isn’t it in the PL’s interest that we get the chance to do something as from now? If it manages to bog down government proposals now by latching on to raw nerves, will it manage to meet such obligations itself from 2013 to 2020?
Secondly, Steve and the PL should pull up their socks and come up with viable alternatives. If an incinerator at Delimara is not one, where should it be sited then? If incineration is not on, can they propose how the 10 per cent elusive figure can be attained? Steve was deceitful in his article when he omitted the fact that the PL had once again shirked its responsibility in the Sant’Antnin case and did not propose alternative sites itself.
Why doesn’t he elaborate on the PL’s proposals for Sant’Antnin Plant way back in 1996-1998 so that we compare them with the PN’s? Why does he omit the fact that three Labour MEP’s as well as himself strove in every possible manner to divert the €17 million of European funds to upgrade the plant?
Thirdly, quoting from my website and construing that I am therefore in favour of the incinerator at Delimara is outright irresponsible. This is tantamount to labelling someone who is concerned about Malta’s illegal immigration burden as xenophobic or racist.
On a final note, I must thank Steve Borg for having made my day when he quoted from my website as this bolstered the number of site visitors. I must say I have given his a miss so far, since he has failed to capture my imagination with any innovative proposals. He has been very predictable in his campaign, toeing the party line to the full, whereas I have confronted my own party when the need arose.
Dr Deidun is a PN
candidate in the forthcoming EP elections.