Sunday, November 9, 2014

Climate Change -- It-Tibdil tal-Klima


Climate Change

A family was at the seaside. The youngest child finished eating his Twistees and threw away the empty bag on the sand. His elder sister reported him to her dad saying “Look at what my brother has done! Say something to him, dad!” The father looked around him and replied “It doesn't matter, my daughter. When the other families stop littering, we'll stop as well!”

This fictitious story always comes to mind when I hear the argument of the Australian coalition government, that they would be ready to consider an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) only if other major countries do the same. From my perspective, this is an immoral position.

It's clear that the government does not want to be counted as a global leader in this respect, and prefers to be one of the laggards. There's quite a good chance that's exactly what will happen.

The EU has been operating an ETS since 2005, and aims to reduce carbon pollution by 20% by 2020, 40% by 2030 and at least 80% by 2050.1 Malta forms part of this initiative, although the region to which it is attached has looser targets until 2020.2

China already had seven pilot ETS schemes in place, and a national market is expected to start by 2015.3

India has two market based systems which aren't an ETS directly.4 One system, called Perform Achieve and Trade (PAT) is aimed at reducing the intensity of emissions, and another called Renewable Energy Credit (REC) promotes investment into sustainable sources of energy, similar to the Renewable Energy Target (RET) in Australia (that the government is trying to reduce).

In the United States there is no national system, although there is a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which includes nine states including New York, and there is another system in California.5

I think Prime Minister Tony Abbott can rest assured that Australia will be one of the last of the developed countries that has an effective system to reduce carbon pollution.

It seems that the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, is quite happy for Australia to stop at having a target of a 5% reduction of pollution by 2020. The system that has been adopted by Australia, Direct Action, sees the taxes you and I pay, used to finance companies that reduce or compensate for this pollution. The poor paying the rich.

When talking about climate change, Minister Hunt seems to be more determined not to let electricity prices rise than to avoid the damage of climate change.

To be honest, I don't blame the government when taking this position. It was known before the election that it disagreed with an ETS. Tony Abbott split the Liberal party on the eve of voting in favour of this scheme in 2009, then called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Today, he says that man does contribute to climate change, but never says that man is principally to blame unless he is outside Australia.

It is we who voted the Coalition into government, so serve us right.

In my view, the main blame for the current situation lies, paradoxically, with the Green Party, the ones who most agitate for the environment. In 2009, this party voted with the Coalition against the CPRS, arguing it had too much compensation for the big emitters, and wanted a better system.

The Greens did not appreciate the historic moment we were in, and that there was a consensus in the country in favour of such a system. They did not understand that many times an imperfect system that is generally going in the right direction, is better than nothing. A bent system can be straightened with the wisdom of experience. When you aim for perfection at once, you can fail.

This does not mean that Labour had no part of the blame. We shouldn't forget that the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, after the fiasco of the CPRS, and the other fiasco of the Copenhagen negotiations at the United Nations, decided before the 2010 election to postpone legislation on this subject. The message that we were given was that it wasn't urgent any more to take action on climate change.

As we know, after the 2010 election, Labour and the Greens passed an ETS with a fixed price for the first years, which is equivalent to a carbon tax. Some prices were expected to rise, and the government provided compensation. However the right time had passed, people had lost interest, and a few weeks ago the Coalition government removed this scheme.

Now on one side we have the United Nations warning that climate change is coming from the burning of fossilised sources of energy, which is resulting in the climate becoming irreversibly more extreme.6 On the other hand we have Prime Minister Abbott telling us that coal is good for humanity and should continue to be used for the production of energy,7 passing legislation with the party of Clive Palmer, who has big interests in the production of coal.8

What does it matter if the acidification of the ocean damages the Great Barrier Reef, and that islands in the Pacific sink? What does it matter that the future industry of sustainable energy establishes itself everywhere except Australia? What matters is that the price of electricity came down by 5%!


8http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/clive-palmer-s-$6-4-billion-coal-mine-project-1, retrieved 4/11/2014


----------------------------------------------

It-Tibdil tal-Klima

Familja kienet fuq xtajta ħdejn il-baħar. It-tifel iż-żgħir spiċċa jiekol it-Twistees li kellu u rema l-borża vojta fuq ir-ramel. Oħtu l-kbira gżatu lil missierha u qalet “Ara x'għamel ħija. Għidlu xi ħaġa, Pa!” Il-missier ħares waħda madwaru, u qalilha “Ma jimpurtax binti. Meta l-familji l-oħra jieqfu jarmu fl-art, nieqfu aħna wkoll!”

Din hi storja fittizja li dejjem tiġini f'rasi meta nisma' l-argument tal-gvern ta' Koalizzjoni Awstraljan, illi lesti li jikkunsidraw Skema ta' Kummerċ fl-Emissjonijiet (Emissions Trading Scheme - ETS) biss jekk il-pajjiżi l-kbar l-oħra kollha jagħmlu l-istess. Din għalija hija pożizzjoni immorali.

Jidher ċar li l-gvern ma jridx jingħadd bħala wieħed mill-mexxejja globali f'dan il-qasam, u pjuttost beħsiebu jkun minn tal-aħħar. U hemm ċans tajjeb li hekk se jiġri.

L-UE ilha li adottat ETS sa mill-2005, u timmira li tnaqqas it-tniġġis b'20% sal-2020, 40% sal-2030 u mill-inqas 80% sal-2050.1 Malta tifforma parti minn din l-inizjattiva, għalkemm ir-reġjun li qegħda fih għandu miri daqsxejn iktar laxki sal-2020.2

Fiċ-Ċina, diġà hemm seba' sistemi pilota tal-ETS jaħdmu, u suq nazzjonali għandu jibda fil-2016.3

L-Indja għandha żewġ sistemi li għalkemm huma bbażati fuq is-suq, mhumiex ETS direttament.4 Sistema waħda (Perform Achieve and Trade - PAT) hija mmirata għat-tnaqqis tal-intensita' tal-emissjonijiet, u oħra (Renewable Energy Credit - REC) li tippromwovi l-investiment f'sorsi sostenibbli tal-enerġija, simili għar-Renewable Energy Target - RET tal-Awstralja (li l-gvern qed jipprova jnaqqas).

Fl-Istati Uniti mhemmx sistema nazzjonali, imma hemm sistema reġjonali msejħa Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative - RGGI, li tinkludi disa' stati nkluża New York, u hemm sistema oħra f'Kalifornja.5

Naħseb li l-Prim Ministru Tony Abbott jista' jserraħ rasu li l-Awstralja se tkun minn tal-aħħarnett mill-pajjiżi żviluppati biex ikollha sistema effettiva biex jitnaqqas it-tniġġis mil-dijossidu tal-karbonju.

Jidher li l-Ministru tal-Ambjent, Greg Hunt, huwa kuntent li l-Awstralja se jkollha l-mira ta' tnaqqis ta' 5% tat-tniġġis sal-2020, u daqshekk. Is-sistema li adottat l-Awstralja, l-Azzjoni Diretta (Direct Action) hi li mit-taxxi tiegħi u tiegħek, jitħallsu l-kumpanniji sabiex inaqqsu jew jikkumpensaw għal dan it-tniġġis. Il-fqir iħallas lis-sinjur.

Meta jitkellem fuq it-tibdil tal-klima, fil-Ministru Hunt iktar tispikka d-determinazzjoni tiegħu li ma jogħliex il-prezz tal-elettriku milli ma ssirx ħsara mit-tibdil tal-klima.

Biex ngħid kollox, jien ma nagħtix tort lill-gvern attwali li jieħu din il-pożizzjoni. Kien magħruf minn qabel l-elezzjoni li għaddiet li ma jaqbilx ma' ETS. Tony Abbott qasam il-partit Liberali lejliet li kien se jivvota favur din is-sistema fil-2009, dakinhar imsejha Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - CPRS. Illum jgħid li l-bniedem għandu sehem fit-tibdil tal-klima, imma qatt ma jgħid li għandu s-sehem prinċipali f'dan ħlief meta jkun barra mill-Awstralja.

Aħna ivvutajna lill-Koalizzjoni biex ikunu fil-gvern, u għalhekk aħna irridu ngawduhom.

It-tort prinċipali tas-sitwazzjoni preżenti ntiha, paradossalment, lill-Partit tal-Ħodor, l-iktar li jitkellmu favur l-ambjent. Fl-2009, dan il-Partit ivvota mal-Koalizzjoni kontra s-CPRS, għax kellha wisq kumpens lejn min kien l-iktar li jniġġes, u riedu sistema aħjar.

Il-Ħodor ma fehmux il-mument storiku li konna qegħdin fih, u li kien hemm kunsens fil-pajjiż favur sistema simili. Ma fehmux li ħafna drabi aħjar ikollok sistema imperfetta li sejra fid-direzzjoni t-tajba, milli xejn. Sistema mgħawġa tiddrittaha bl-għaqal u l-esperjenza. Meta timmira għall-perfezzjoni mall-ewwel, tista' tfalli.

Dan ma jfissirx li l-Laburisti ma kellhom tort ukoll. Ma ninsewx li l-Prim Ministru ta' dak iż-żmien Kevin Rudd, wara l-fjask tas-CPRS, u l-fjask l-ieħor tan-neġozjati f'Kopenħagen tal-Ġnus Magħquda fuq it-tibdil tal-klima, iddeċieda qabel l-elezzjoni tal-2010 li kien se jipposponi li jilleġisla fuq dan is-suġġett. Il-messaġġ li ngħatajna kien li m'għadux urġenti li tittieħed azzjoni fuq it-tibdil tal-klima.

Bħal ma nafu, wara l-elezzjoni tal-2010, il-Laburisti u l-Ħodor għaddew ETS bi prezz fiss għall-ewwel snin, li hija ekwivalenti għal taxxa fuq il-karbonju. Xi prezzijiet kienu mistennija li jogħlew, u l-gvern kien ta' kumpens għal dan. Imma iż-żmien kien għadda, il-poplu kien tilef l-interess, u ftit ġimgħat ilu l-gvern ta' Koalizzjoni neħħa din l-iskema.

Issa fuq naħa għandna l-Ġnus Magħquda twissi li t-tibdil fil-klima ġej mill-ħruq ta' sorsi ffossilizzati tal-enerġija, u li qed jirriżulta fil-klima li qed issir irriversibbilment iktar estrema.6 Fuq in-naħa l-oħra għandna lill-Prim Ministru Abbot għidilna li l-faħam huwa tajjeb għall-umanità u għandu jibqa' jintuża fil-produzzjoni tal-enerġija,7 u jgħaddi l-leġislazzjoni flimkien mal-partit ta' Clive Palmer, li għandu interessi kbar fil-produzzjoni tal-faħam.8

X'jimporta jekk l-aċidifikazzjoni tal-oċejan jagħmel ħsara lill-Great Barrier Reef, u jegħrqu xi gżejjer fil-Paċifiku? X'jimporta li l-industrija tal-enerġija sostenibbli tal-futur tistabbilixxi ruħha kullimkien ħlief fl-Awstralja? L-aqwa li l-prezz tal-elettriku naqas b'5%!


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)