Is the sale of armaments immoral? -- Il-bejgħ tal-armamenti immorali?

I had one question going through my head I couldn’t immediately resolve while reading about the Australian federal government’s declaration about its strategy for the country to become one of the top ten exporters globally within 10 years.1

 

For other questions I quickly arrived at a conclusion.  For example, why is this governmetn ready to offer billions of dollars ($3.8 billion to be exact) to finance enterprises wishing to export arms, while it stopped financial assistance to Australian manufacturers of cars and wants to stop helping the sustainable energy industry?  One quickly realises that the pejorative label of ‘social services to industry’ is used selectively and that decisions are truly based on ideology.

 

Another example: is it possible that the government is ready to offer this finance while reducing drastically foreign humanitarian aid, by more than a billion dollars in the past few years?2  Not only is this possible, but has happened already.  How heartless, shame on you!

 

As for the principal question – is the selling of armaments in principle moral or not?  Let’s set aside for the moment in which position of the exporting country table Australia finds itself in 10 years, or how many billions of dollars are saved from people in foreign countries dying of hunger to finance arm producers – mere details.

 

Tim Costello, from World Vision Australia, wrote that there is only one aim of producing arms, and that is to kill someone with.  Naturally, this is a bit of a simplification, as some arms exist that are purely defensive, and even offensive arms can be decided to be used only in defensive situations, however I really don’t want to piddle, as the general principle of armaments is as described by Costello.  We know how many millions of people have died from their use over the years, and are still doing their deadly business up to today.

 

I detest violence, of any type, and armaments, wars and the injustices that cause them no less. Does this mean that the country should not have armaments and armed forces?  If there were no threat, or the potential of any threat, or if noe one else had armed forces or armaments, I would say no.

 

However we all know this is just a dream, even if one that you could spend your life working hard to achieve.  In truth, we know that armies have been trying to build empires for thousands of years by attacking their neighbours, who from their part use their own armies to confront these attacks.

 

It does not seem to me we’re at a point where this threat has disappeared.  On the contrary.

 

Therefore, I think it is legitimate for a country to have a military force, and to have arms capable enough to defeat the enemy.  To be clear, the objective can not be other than to be victorious.  To be a loser is unthinkable.

 

If you accept this (and I know not everyone does), the consequence is that armaments need to be bought from somewhere.  Should there be a rule saying that arms can only be bought into, and cannot be sold out of, this country Australia?

 

It has been said that those exporting armaments are exporting death and profiting from killing, which is a tragic truth.  Nevertheless, once you accept the need to have armed forces and armaments, you’ve already accepted to be ready to use them with the potential to cause death.  It is true one could limit where this is allowed to happen, however there will in fact be circumstances where death will happen.

 

If we as a country are already participating in the armaments industry as buyers, I don’t see a worse situation when participating as sellers.  In fact, this is already happening, and what is being proposed is that this sale increases.

 

With all this, I do not want to give the impression I’m comfortable with the value system of this government, or with the details of its strategy, but only commenting upon the narrow question of whether it’s morally acceptable to sell arms.  From my perspective, yes.

 

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

 

Jien kelli mistoqsija waħda għaddejja minn moħħi li domt ftit biex inweġibha waqt li kont qiegħed naqra fuq stqarrija mill-gvern federali Awstraljan dwar strateġija biex dan il-pajjiż isir wieħed mill-ikbar għaxar pajjiżi esportaturi tal-armamenti fid-dinja fi żmien għaxar snin.1

 

Mistoqsijiet oħra malajr wasalt għal konklużjonijiet fuqhom.  Per eżempju, għaliex dan il-gvern lest li joffri biljuni ta’ dollari ($3.8 biljun biex inkun eżatt) biex jiffinanzja kumpanniji li jixtiequ jesportaw l-armamenti, waqt li waqqaf għajnuniet finanzjarji lill-manifatturi Awstraljani tal-karrozzi u ma jridx jgħin iktar lill-industrija tal-enerġija sostenibbli?  Malajr tinduna li t-tabella peġorattiva ta’ ‘għajnuna soċjali lil intrapriżi’ tintuża b’mod selettiva u d-deċiżjonijiet tassew isiru abbażi ta’ ideoloġija.

 

Eżempju ieħor: possibbli li l-gvern lest li joffri dan l-iffinanzjar waqt li jnaqqas drastikament l-għajnuna barranija umanitarja, b’iktar minn biljun dollaru f’dawn l-aħħar snin?2  Mhux biss possibbli, imma hekk hu.  Tassew bla qalb, bħu għalihom!

 

Issa niġi għall-mistoqsija prinċipali – il-prinċipju tal-bejgħ tal-armamenti huwa morali jew le?  Ejja nwarrbu għall-mument f’liema pożizzjoni tal-gradwatorja tal-esportaturi tispiċċa l-Awstralja għaxar snin oħra, jew kemm biljuni ta’ dollari se jiġu ffrankati min-nies f’pajjiżi barranin li qed imutu bil-ġuħ biex jintefqu fuq il-produtturi tal-armamenti – dettalji biss.

 

Tim Costello, minn World Vision Australia, kiteb li hemm skop wieħed biss li jsiru l-armamenti, u dan hu biex jinqatel xi ħadd bihom.  Naturalment, din kienet daqsxejn ta’ simplifikazzjoni, għax jeżistu armamenti li huma biss difensivi, u anke armamenti offensivi jista’ jiġi deċiż li jintużaw biss f’sitwazzjoni difensivi, madankollu ma rridx infettaq, għax bħala prinċipju ġenerali l-armamenti xogħolhom huwa kif iddeskrivihom Costello.  Nafu kemm inqatlu miljuni ta’ nies bihom matul is-snin, u għadhom joqtlu sal-ġurnata mqaddsa tal-lum.

 

Jien il-vjolenza nobogħdha, ta’ kull tip, u l-armamenti, il-gwerer u l-inġustizzji li jikkawżawhom xejn inqas.  Dan ifisser li l-pajjiż m’għandux ikollu l-armamenti u forzi armati?  Kieku m’hemm l-ebda theddida, jew il-potenzjal ta’ theddida, jew li ħadd iktar m’għandu forzi armati jew armamenti, kieku ngħid li le.

 

Imma lkoll nafu li din hija biss ħolma, anke jekk waħda li wieħed jista’ jagħmel ħajtu jaħdem bla heda biex javvanza.  Fil-verità, nafu li armati militari ilhom eluf ta’ snin jippruvaw jibnu imperi billi jattakkaw lill-ġirien tagħhom, li min-naħa tagħhom jużaw l-armati militari tagħhom biex jilqgħu għal dawn l-attakki.

 

Jien ma jidhirlix li wasalna f’punt fejn din it-theddida għebhet.  Tutt’altru.

 

Għalhekk, naħseb li huwa leġittimu li l-pajjiż ikollu forza militari, u li jkollu armamenti ta’ stoffa li bihom ikun jista’ jegħleb lill-għadu.  Biex inkunu ċari, hawn l-oġġettiv jista’ biss ikun li toħroġ rebbieħ.  Li toħroġ tellief lanqas trid toħlomha.

 

Jekk taċċetta dan (u naf li mhux kulħadd jaċċettah), il-konsegwenza hija li l-armamenti jridu jinxtraw minn x’imkien.  Għandu jkun hemm regola li tgħid li l-armamenti jridu jinxtraw biss minn barra l-pajjiż, u ma jridux iridu jinħadmu hawnhekk, fl-Awstralja?

 

Intqal li min jesporta l-armamenti qiegħed jesporta l-mewt u jagħmel flus mill-qtil, li hija verità traġika.  Madankollu, malli taċċetta li jkollok forzi armati u armamenti, diġà tkun qiegħed tgħid li lest tużahom bil-potenzjali li tikkawża l-mewt.  Veru li wieħed jista’ jagħmel limiti stretti fejn dan jitħalla jiġri, biss jibqa’ l-fatt li xi darba jkun hemm ċirkostanzi fejn din il-ħaġa se ssir.

 

Jekk aħna diġà parteċipi bħala pajjiż fis-suq tal-armamenti bħala xerrejja, ma narax sitwazzjoni agħar morali meta nipparteċipaw bħala bejjiegħa.  Fil-fatt, dan diġà qiegħed jiġri, u li qiegħed jiġi propost li dan il-bejgħ jiżdied.

 

B’dan ma rridx nagħti l-impressjoni li jien komdu bl-iskala tal-valuri ta’ dan il-gvern, jew bid-dettalji tal-istrateġija tiegħu, imma biss biex nikkummenta fuq il-kwestjoni stretta jekk hux moralment aċċettabbli li jsir bejgħ ta’ armamenti.  Mill-perspettiva tiegħi, iva.

 

1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/australia-unveils-plan-to-become-one-of-worlds-top-10-arms-exporters, retrieved 13/2/2018

2http://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854, retrieved 13/2/2018

1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/australia-unveils-plan-to-become-one-of-worlds-top-10-arms-exporters, retrieved 13/2/2018

2http://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854, retrieved 13/2/2018

The sugar industry future -- Il-futur tal-industrija taz-zokkor

A few weeks ago, there was much ado in Australia about sugar content in food.  The Australian Medical Association (AMA) made its concern known about the negative implications to human health of added sugar content in processed food, and in drinks with high sugar content.

 

The AMA, amongst other recommendations, proposed a tax on drinks with added sugar in order to reduce consumption; that people be encouraged to drink water instead; that the food industry reduce portion sizes as well as sugar, salt and fat content in processed food.1

 

The Federal Government immediately declared it was against the idea of a sugar tax, as it had done when the idea had been brought up a few years ago.2  It is known that the food industry is strongly against such a step, which has the potential of reducing sales in many products containing added sugar.

 

Personally speaking, I have never understood how a soft drink bottle, full of sugar, costing less than a bottle of water in the supermarket.  If a buyer is hard up for cash, it is easy to understand how he/she would purchase the cheapest, where decisions on the family’s nutrition ends up being purely an economic one.  With this background I understand, and agree with, the calls by the AMA.

 

It is easy to turn on the food industry and accuse them of placing profits before human health.  Nevertheless I wanted to make an observation on part of this industry, which produces sugar in the fertile sugar cane fields of Australia, especially Queensland, and industry that has provided so many work opportunities, back breaking even, to the pioneers of Maltese immigration into this country, some of whom are still involved in a big way today.

 

This industry is massive.  Sugar is the second biggest farming product exported from Australia, after wheat, with an income of around $2 billion.  95% is produced in Queensland and the rest in northern NSW.  80-85% of the product is exported, and Australia is the second (or third depending on who you ask) biggest exporter in the world behind Brasil.  It is said that the industry employs 40,000 people.3

 

I understand it is sensitive to talk about an industry that provides the livelihood to so many people, nevertheless I was surprised to read about Fiona Nash, previously Senator of the National Party and Minister for Rural Health, having declared that she didn’t even want to discuss the matter.4

 

I do understand an industry standing up for its interests, although I won’t get into the irony of a minister for health prioritising industry over health.  Nevertheless, I do ask why not even discuss the subject?  Is it not through discussion that problems are identified and solutions crafted?

 

I understand the fear that a tax imposed on added sugar can lead, as expected, to a reduction in sugar consumed as food by Australians, which leads to a reduction in revenue from this source.  However this reduction in revenue can be compensated by other revenue, one that has a significant potential for growth.

 

I’m referring to the biofuel industry, primarily ethanol, which is produced by the fermentation of glucose which in turn is derived, amongst other sources, from sugar cane.5  Today in Australia it’s common for drivers of petrol vehicles to purchase E10, a mix of 90% petrol and 10% ethanol, without the necessity of modification to the vehicle’s engine.  States like NSW have legislated for 6% of petrol purchased in this state be ethanol, and in Queensland this figure is 3%.6

 

These targets can be increased by state governments, which leads to a higher need for the raw materials for manufacture, including from sugar cane.  Promotion can also be made of other biofuel mixes containing ethanol in a ratio higher than 10%, most common amongst which are E25 (in Brazil), E85 (in the US and Sweden) and E100 (in Brazil).  These need engine modifications, therefore the introduction of these biofuels is necessarily slower, however if you never start you never get there.

 

The presence of Brazil in the biofuel landscape is notable, as it’s clear that as a global producer of sugar cane it’s doing all it can to broaden the market for this product of national importance, and exploit this resource as much as it can, and has been on this track since the seventies.  Is this strategic thinking impossible to be made in Australia?

 

After all, E85 already exists in Australia, produced by Caltex and United Petroleum, and used mostly in racing cars.  Where is its promotion for general use?  Don’t federal and state governments have a role to encourage change that has a multitude of benefits?

 

To be conservative and protect an industry is something I can understand, but to do so obstinately and close mindedly I do not.  A discussion does need to be had.  Human health does need to be protected, and new opportunities exist for the sugar industry that can compensate for a reduction of that product in processed food.

 

We need visionary leaders, that look to new solutions that sometimes kill two birds with one stone.  Innovation should be more than an electoral slogan.

 

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

 

Ftit tal-ġimgħat ilu, reġa’ qam kjass fl-Awstralja dwar il-kontenut taz-zokkor fl-ikel.  L-Australian Medical Association (AMA) għamlet l-inkwiet tagħha ċar fuq l-implikazzjonijiet ħżiena għas-saħħa taż-żieda taz-zokkor fl-ikel ipproċessat, u fix-xorb li fih ħafna zokkor.

 

L-AMA, fost ħafna rakkomandazzjonijiet oħra, ipproponiet taxxa fuq ix-xorb b’zokkor miżjud sabiex jitnaqqas il-konsum, li n-nies jiġu nkoraġġiti li jixorbu l-ilma minflok, u li l-industrija tal-ikel tnaqqas il-porzjonijiet tal-ikel, u tnaqqas zokkor, melħ u xaħmijiet mill-ikel ipproċessat.1

 

Il-gvern Federali mallewwel stqarr li hu kuntrarju għall-ideja ta’ taxxa fuq iz-zokkor, bħal ma kien għamel meta l-ideja kienet issemmiet xi snin ilu.2  Huwa magħruf li l-industrija tal-ikel hija bil-qawwa kontra miżura bħal din, li għandha l-potenzjal li tnaqqas il-bejgħ ta’ ħafna prodotti li fihom zokkor miżjud.

 

Jien ngħid għalija, qatt ma fhimt kif flixkun tal-luminata, kollu zokkor, jkun jiswa inqas minn flixkun ilma fis-supermarkit.  Jekk xerrejja tkun magħfusa fil-flus, faċli wieħed jifhem kif tispiċċa tixtri dak li hu irħas, fejn deċiżjoni fuq in-nutrizzjoni tal-familja tagħha tispiċċa tkun waħda sempliċement ekonomika.  U f’dan l-isfond li nifhem, u naqbel ma’, l-għajta tal-AMA.

 

Huwa faċli li wieħed idur fuq l-industrija tal-ikel u jakkużahom li jpoġġu l-profitti qabel is-saħħa tal-bniedem.  Madankollu xtaqt nagħmel osservazzjoni fuq parti minn din l-industrija, dik li tipproduċi z-zokkor fil-kannamieli għammiela tal-Awstralja, speċjalment fi Queensland, industrija li tant ipprovdiet opportunitajiet ta’ xogħol, anke jekk iebes, lill-pijunieri tal-immigrazzjoni Maltija f’dan il-pajjiż, wħud minnhom għadhom involuti bil-kbir sal-lum.

 

Din l-industrija hija kbira ferm.  Iz-zokkor huwa t-tieni l-ikbar prodott esportat tal-biedja mill-Awstralja, wara l-qamħ, bi dħul ta’ kważi $2 biljun.  95% tiegħu jiġi prodott fi Queensland, u l-bqija fit-tramuntana ta’ NSW.  80-85% tal-prodott jiġi esportat, u l-Awstralja hija t-tieni (jew it-tielet, skont lil min tistaqsi) l-ikbar esportatur fid-dinja wara l-Brażil.  Jingħad li din l-industrija timpjega 40,000 ruħ.3

 

Nifhem li huwa sensittiv li wieħed jitkellem fuq industrija li tipprovdi l-għajxien lil tant nies, madankollu kont sorpriż naqra li Fiona Nash, ex-senatur tal-Partit Nazzjonali u Ministru għas-Saħħa Rurali, kienet stqarret li lanqas biss riedet tiddiskuti l-affari.4

 

Jien nifhem li industrija taqbeż għall-interessi tagħha, għalkemm m’iniex se nidħol fl-ironija ta’ ministru tas-saħħa jipproritizza industrija fuq is-saħħa.  Madankollu, nistaqsi għaliex lanqas jiġi diskuss is-suġġett?  Mhux b’diskussjoni joħorġu l-problemi u jitfasslu s-soluzzjonijiet.

 

Jien nifhem il-biża’ li t-taxxa proposta fuq iz-zokkor miżjud tista’ twassal, kif inhu mistenni, għal tnaqqis fl-ammont ta’ zokkor kkonsmat bħala ikel mill-Awstraljani, li jwassal għal nuqqas ta’ dħul minn dan is-sors.  Imma dan in-nuqqas jista’ jkun ikkompensat minn dħul ieħor, wieħed li għandu potenzjal sinjifikanti anke ta’ tkabbir.

 

Qiegħed nirreferi għall-industrija tal-bijofuwil, primarjament l-etanol, li jiġi prodott b’fermentazzjoni tal-glukows li jiġi, fost l-oħrajn, miz-zokkor tal-kannamiela.5  Illum fl-Awstralja huwa komuni li sewwieqa ta’ karrozzi tal-petrol jixtru l-E10, li huwa taħlita ta’ 90% petrol u 10% etanol, mingħajr il-ħtieġa ta’ modifikazzjoni tal-magna.  Stati bħal NSW illeġislaw biex 6% tal-petrol li jinbigħ f’dan l-istat ikun etanol, u fi Queensland din il-figura hija ta’ 3%.6

 

Dawn il-miri jistgħu jiżdiedu mill-gvernijiet statali, li jwassal għal iktar bżonn ta’ materja prima għall-manifattura, inkluż mill-kannamieli.  Jista’ wkoll jiġi promoss l-użu ta’ taħliti oħra ta’ bijofuwils li fihom etanol f’persentaġġ ikbar minn 10%, li komuni fosthom huma E25 (fil-Brażil), E85 (fl-Istati Uniti u l-Isvezja) u E100 (fil-Brażil).  Dawn jeħtieġu modifikazzjonijiet fil-magna, għalhekk l-introduzzjoni ta’ dawn neċessarjament issir iktar bil-mod, imma jekk ma tibdiex ma tasalx.

 

Ta’ min jinnota l-preżenza tal-Brażil fix-xenarju tal-bijofuwils, fejn jidher ċar li bħala produttur globali tal-kannamieli qiegħed jagħmel minn kollox biex iwessa s-suq għal dan il-prodott ta’ importanza nazzjonali, u jisfrutta kemm jista’ dan ir-riżors tiegħu, u ilhom mexjin f’din it-triq mis-sebgħinijiet.  Dawn il-ħsieb strateġiku huma impossibbli li jsir fl-Awstralja?

 

Wara kollox, l-E85 diġa jeżista fl-Awstralja, prodott mill-Caltex u l-United Petroleum, użat l-iktar fil-karrozzi tat-tlielaq.  Fejn hi l-promozzjoni tiegħu għall-użu ġenerali?  M’għandhomx rwol il-gvern federali u dawk statali li jinkoraġġixxu bidla li għandha benefiċċji biex tbigħ?

 

Li wieħed ikun konservattiv u jipproteġi industrija lest li nifhimha, imma li tagħmel dan bi stinazzjoni u moħħ magħluq le ma nifhimhiex.  Diskussjoni hemm bżonn li ssir.  Is-saħħa tal-bniedem trid tiġi mħarsa, u jeżistu opportunitajiet ġodda għall-industrija taz-zokkor li jistgħu jpattu għat-tnaqqis ta’ dak il-prodott fl-ikel ipproċessat.

 

Għandna bżonn ta’ mexxejja b’viżjoni, li jħarsu lejn soluzzjonijiet ġodda li kultant jolqtu żewġ għasafar b’ġebla waħda.  L-innovazzjoni trid tkun mhux biss għajta elettorali.

1https://ama.com.au/position-statement/nutrition-2018#references, retrieved 30/1/2018

2https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/07/australian-medical-association-wants-tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-ban-on-junk-food-ads, retrieved 30/1/2018

3http://www.sugaraustralia.com.au/Industry.aspx, retrieved 30/1/2017

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-24/sugar-tax-and-the-power-of-big-business/9353626, retrieved 30/1/2017

5http://biofuelsassociation.com.au/biofuels/ethanol/how-is-ethanol-made/, retrieved 30/1/2017

6https://www.caltex.com.au/our-company/environment/biofuels#, retrieved 30/1/2017

1https://ama.com.au/position-statement/nutrition-2018#references, retrieved 30/1/2018

2https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/07/australian-medical-association-wants-tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-ban-on-junk-food-ads, retrieved 30/1/2018

3http://www.sugaraustralia.com.au/Industry.aspx, retrieved 30/1/2017

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-24/sugar-tax-and-the-power-of-big-business/9353626, retrieved 30/1/2017

5http://biofuelsassociation.com.au/biofuels/ethanol/how-is-ethanol-made/, retrieved 30/1/2017

6https://www.caltex.com.au/our-company/environment/biofuels#, retrieved 30/1/2017

Incineration -- L-inċinerazzjoni

With this technology waste is burnt in controlled conditions, firstly to reduce waste volume and secondly to possibly harness the burning energy for useful ends, like generating electricity.

 

It’s a good idea, in principle.  So why then is there so much opposition to this practice, around the world?  A recent example of this opposition is on display in Western Sydney, where such proposal is being made by an organisation in Eastern Creek called Dial A Dump.1  This company already operates a recycling yard in that location.

 

The proposal is to deviate 500,000 tonnes of waste that usually ends up as landfill and use them to power 100,000 homes.2  It is claimed that this plant, if built, would be the largest in Australia.3

The proposal documents are very detailed, talking about the types of waste proposed to be used, environmental considertions, the residue from burning, technology used and treatment of waste gases, how energy is recovered, control and monitoring etc.

In projects such as these, the problem is always the same.  For residents living around the proposed plant site, how can they trust the developers, and the operators, that the project will operate perfectly according to its design documents?

For example, although a number of parameters are supposed to be continuously monitored (such as carbon monoxide, ammonia, particulate matter etc) and other at a frequency to be agreed with the regulator (like dioxins and toxic metals), can we trust the operator to report immediately when some parameter is superseded, and stop plant operations when necessary?

How can you trust a commercial operation to do the right thing even when against its commercial interest?  And what guarantee can ever be provided against an unexpected disaster that hits the plant?

In such operations, the risk is carried by people living around the site, and by the environment, while the benefits are not enjoyed by the same people but by the commercial enterprise.  The risk is not small, and I’m sure we all heard about cases where operators hid issues, even serious ones, from authorities even when obliged to notify and take necessary steps.

It seems that the NSW Health Department and the Environmental Protection Authority are opposed to the project, with concerns about air quality, impacts to human health and uncertainty on what exaxtly will be included in the mix to be burnt.4

I think that the main problem is that the proposed plant it too close to residential centres in Western Sydney, incidentally bang in the middle of ‘Little Malta’ where so many first and subsequent generations of Maltese live.  It might be wise for the plant be proposed to be situated elsewhere.

As I had written in The Voice No. 169, we do need to mature in our attitude to consumption, as at the end of the day, when we don’t require an object any longer, we can chuck it away (and generate waste); when it breaks we can repair (instead of binning) it and reuse; we can send it for recycling; and finally, we can think about whether in fact we need it at all!

I’m not one of those to oppose such a project at all costs.  I recognise society does have a present problem with waste, and practical solutions are needed to reduce this.  It is true that there are bad examples of incineration, but it is not necessarily so.  Potential benefits are there also, therefore a proposal similar to this but in a more remote location and with strict audits and conditions might be considered.

It needs to be clear nevertheless that a plant operating out of sight does not mean out of mind and there is less need to be so strict, as we still need to avoid an environmental disaster.  After all, we need to take responsible care of this land from which we live as much as the first Australians (the aborinals) who consider themselves the traditional custodians of the land.

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

Din hija teknoloġija li minnha l-iskart jinħaraq taħt kundizzjonijiet kontrollati, l-ewwelnett biex jitnaqqas il-volum tal-iskart, u t-tieninett biex possibilment tintuża l-enerġija tal-ħruq għal-affarijiet utli, bħaġ-ġenerazzjoni tal-elettriku.

 

Idea tajba, fil-prinċipju.  Mela allura għalfejn hemm tant oppożizzjoni għal din il-prattika, madwar id-dinja?  Eżempju riċenti ta’ din l-oppożizzjoni qiegħda tidher bħalissa fil-punent ta’ Sydney, fejn hemm proposta ta’ stabbilment f’Eastern Creek mill-kumpannija Dial A Dump.1  Il-kumpannija diġà topera impjant ta’ reċiklaġġ f’dak il-lokal.

 

Il-proposta hi li jiġu ddevjati 500,000 tunnellata ta’ skart li s-soltu jispiċċaw f’xi miżbla u jintużaw biex jipprovdu enerġija lil 100,000 dar.2  Huwa mistqarr li l-impjant, jekk jinbena, jkun l-ikbar wieħed fl-Awstralja.3

 

Id-dokumenti tal-proposta huma ddettaljati ħafna, jitkellmu fuq x’tip ta’ skart huwa propost jintuża, kunsiderazzjonijiet ambjentali, dak li jibqa’ wara l-ħruq, it-teknoloġija tal-ħruq u x’trattament isir lill-gassijiet, kif l-enerġija tiġi rkuprata, kontroll u mmonitorjar eċċ.

 

F’proġetti bħal dawn, il-problema tibqa’ dejjem l-istess waħda.  Il-poplu li jgħix madwar is-sit tal-impjant propost, kif se jafda lill-iżviluppaturi, u lill-operaturi, li l-proġett se jopera perfettament skont id-dokumenti tad-disinn tiegħu?

 

Per eżempju, għalkemm hemm numru ta’ parametri li suppost iridu jiġu osservati l-ħin kollu (bħall-monossidu tal-karbonju, l-ammonja, il-partikulati eċċ) u oħrajn bi frekwenza miftiehma mar-regolatur (bħad-dijossina u metalli tossiċi), nistgħu nafdaw lill-operatur li jirrapporta mallewwel meta xi parametru jinqabeż, u li titwaqqaf l-operazzjoni tal-impjant jekk ikun hemm bżonn?

 

Kif tista’ tafda operazzjoni kummerċjali li tagħmel dak li hu suppost anke meta jkun kontra l-interess kummerċjali tagħha?  U x’garanziji qatt jistgħu jiġu jingħataw kontra xi diżastru mhux mistenni li jolqot l-impjant?

 

F’operat bħal dan, ir-riskju jinġarr kollu mill-persuni li jgħixu madwar l-impjant, u mill-ambjent, filwaqt li l-benefiċċju ma jitteħidx mill-istess persuni imma mill-intrapriża kummerċjali.  Ir-riskju mhux żgħir, u persważ li lkoll smajna f’każijiet fejn operaturi ħbew problemi, anke serjissmi, mill-awtoritajiet anke jekk kienu obbligati li jgħarrfu b’dan u jieħdu l-passi neċessarji.

 

Jidher li d-Dipartiment tas-Saħħa ta’ NSW, kif ukoll l-Awtorità dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Ambjent ukoll qed jopponu din il-proposta, bi tħassib dwar il-kwalità tal-arja, l-impatt fuq is-saħħat tal-bniedem u inċertezza fuq eżattament x’se jintefa għall-ħruq.4

 

Jien naħseb li l-problema prinċipali hi li l-impjant huwa propost qrib wisq taċ-ċentri tal-abitazzjoni tal-punent ta’ Sydney, inċidentalment qalb ‘Malta ż-Żgħira’ fejn joqogħdu tant nies jew imwielda Malta jew ta’ dixxendenza Maltija.  Forsi jkun iktar għaqli li l-proposta tkun għal impjant iktar imwarrab minn hekk.

 

Bħal ma ktibt f’The Voice Nru. 169, hemm bżonn nimmaturaw fl-attitudni tagħna tal-konsum, għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, meta oġġett m’għandniex bżonnu iktar, nistgħu narmuh (u niġġeneraw skart); jekk jinkiser nistgħu insewwuh minflok narmuh u nergħu nużawh; nistgħu nibgħatuh għar-riċiklaġġ; u fl-aħħarnett, nistgħu wkoll naħsbu jekk fil-fatt għandniex bħonnu wara kollox!

 

Jien m’iniex wieħed minn dawk li jopponu proġett bħal dan akkost ta’ kollox.  Nagħraf li s-soċjetà għandha problema preżenti ta’ skart, u soluzzjonijiet prattiċi biex dan jitnaqqas irid ikun hemm.  Huwa veru li hemm eżempji ħżiena ta’ inċinerazzjoni, imma mhux bilfors ikun hekk.  Benefiċċji potenzjali hemm ukoll, għalhekk proposta bħal din imma f’post iktar imwarrab u b’kundizzjonijiet u awditjar strett tista’ tiġi kkunsidrata.

 

Irridu nkunu ċari madankollu li impjant bħal dan li jopera f’post imwarrab ma jfissirx li jista’ jintesa u li m’hemmx għalfejn inkunu daqshekk stretti, għax xorta rridu nevitaw xi diżastru ambjentali.  Wara kollox, għandna nħarsu b’responssabbiltà lejn din l-art li ngħixu minna bħal ma jħarsu lejha l-ewwel Awstraljani (l-aboriġeni) li jqisu lilhom infushom bħal l-kustodji tradizzjonali tal-art.

1https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/blacktown-advocate/protesters-turn-up-the-heat-over-proposed-incinerator-at-eastern-creek/news-story/b072e2bb15184b4902d8765d3392fb0c, retrieved 16/1/2017

2http://www.tngnsw.com.au/proposal/, retrieved 16/1/2017

3Project Definition Brief, revision 3; The Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd; 25/10/2016. p. 7

4http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-grows-to-western-sydney-energyfromwaste-incinerator-20170329-gv97z6.html, retrieved 16/1/2017

1https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/blacktown-advocate/protesters-turn-up-the-heat-over-proposed-incinerator-at-eastern-creek/news-story/b072e2bb15184b4902d8765d3392fb0c, retrieved 16/1/2017

2http://www.tngnsw.com.au/proposal/, retrieved 16/1/2017

3Project Definition Brief, revision 3; The Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd; 25/10/2016. p. 7

4http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-grows-to-western-sydney-energyfromwaste-incinerator-20170329-gv97z6.html, retrieved 16/1/2017