Reference is made to the letter of the Moviment Graffitti (10 March 2010) where the movement accuses Malta of being responsible for opposing the EU’s pledge of moving to an emission reduction target of 30%.
The Moviment Graffiti does not seem to be aware of the history and reasoning behind the EU’s emission reduction pledge. The EU agreed to its so-called Climate Change and Energy package back in December 2008. As evidenced from this agreement, the emission reduction target already agreed to by all the EU members stands at 20% when compared to 1990 levels. The EU’s position for the current international negotiations states that it was ready to move to a 30% emission reduction commitment, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately according to their respective capabilities and responsibilities.
The move to 30% therefore always hinged on both these conditions being satisfied throughout the course of negotiations.
The “Copenhagen Accord”, which was merely “taken note of” and not formally adopted by the 15th session Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen last December, fell considerably short of the expectations of the EU, and of Malta. While the Accord states that actions should be taken to ensure that global warming should not exceed 2°C degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels (the maximum rise considered by science to be consistent with safety) it does not specify precisely who should do what and by when in order to achieve this goal. The mitigation pledges currently on the table are nowhere near what is sufficient to achieve the 2°C goal.
The Copenhagen Accord is a reflection of the political clout and the political interests of China and the USA, the two super emitters, each accounting for some 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Both countries sought and obtained a political deal that did not impose international treaty constraints on their emissions of greenhouse gases and thus on their economic activity.
It is evident that the comparability condition which would justify raising the EU emission reduction target to 30% has not been satisfied.
Moviment Graffiti declares in its letter that from the current situation it is obvious that these targets (presumably referring to the EU emission reduction targets) will not be met. Again, the Moviment Graffitti seems to be unaware of the existence of the ‘National Strategy for Policy and Abatement Measures relating to the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions’. Malta’s national mitigation strategy, puts forward 96 mitigation actions the implementation of which will put Malta in a position to reach its EU targets. Work on the implementation of a good number of the said recommendations is already under way. For example the Climate Change Division will be set up shortly within the Malta Resources Authority, whilst the Government has, as the Moviment Graffitti rightly pointed out in its letter, launched a series of initiatives aimed at promoting renewable energy technologies among the general public.
Unlike what is stated in the Moviment Graffitti’s letter Malta is not wasting time and energy in opposing the EU’s initiative. On the contrary, Malta has been participating actively in the formulation of the EU’s entire climate change negotiating position and strategy through which, it is hoped, a comprehensive legally-binding international agreement will be reached which will hopefully lead other developed states to accept binding legal emission reduction targets in the months leading to COP-16, taking place at the end of 2010 in Cancun, Mexico. Malta together with the large majority of EU Member States has chosen to maintain the position agreed to by the Union in the hope that the other developed states will choose to rise to global challenge and pledge comparable emission reduction targets. Without comparable pledges from other developed countries such as the US, as well as appropriate actions by developing countries auch as China, Brazil and India, the EU’s efforts would be in vain.
The current signatories to the Kyoto Protocol only account for 30% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. If the environmental goals set out by the UNFCCC are to be reached then it is imperative that the climate change regime also includes those countries accountable for the remaining 70% of global emissions in an adequate manner.
The EU’s conditional pledge will only be satisfied if the regime provides for comparable emission reduction commitments by other developed countries and if developing countries contribute adequately according to their respective capabilities and responsibilities. Should this happen, Malta would, as it has always done, support the move to a 30% emission reduction commitment thus honouring such conditional commitment.
Keith Galea,
Communications Officer,
Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
The need to grill Two recent developments have underscored the gulf of difference that separates Malta from the rest of Europe: the first involved the recent hearings before the European Parliament to approve Barroso’s second Commission; the second was last Monday’s ‘grilling’ of Louis Galea by the European Parliament’s budgetary committee.....>>
