Courage to vote… for the environment | Mark Scerri

Mark Scerri is a lecturer in environmental sciences

Looking at all the billboards on the road and listening to the debates, especially between the PL and the PN MEP hopefuls, one might think a general election is imminent. National issues dominate the discussions. However, regardless of the outcome on 8 June, Robert Abela will remain the Prime Minister and the PN will stay in Opposition. Those expecting immediate national changes from these elections will be disappointed. This does not undermine the importance of the MEP elections; it merely highlights that national changes require a general election.

So, why bother voting on 8 June? These elections will shape the European Parliament, which decides significant legislation affecting Malta, including agriculture, fisheries, energy, occupational health and safety, consumer protection, environmental protection, and climate change. The balance of power in the European Parliament will determine whether legislation favours agro-industry or farmers, industrial fishing or marine biodiversity, employees' health and safety or employers’ profits, climate justice or fossil fuel multinationals.

The predicted surge in votes for national conservative and far-right parties (the populists) is concerning. These parties thrive in crises such as the pandemic and wars in Ukraine and Palestine, exploiting fears by spreading conspiracy theories and mystifying facts. They often target migrants, LGBTIQ+ individuals, women’s reproductive rights, and climate protection. Their latest target is the ambitious EU climate change legislation, which could be derailed if they gain too much power.

In Malta, a very high proportion of our environmental legislation originates from the EU and hence the EU parliament. For those who prize environmental issues, I will briefly run through the environmental programmes of the parties contesting these European elections.

Labour Party (PL)

The PL forms part of the Socialist and Democrat group in the European Parliament, which, together with the Greens and the Left, is one of the environmentally progressive groups. However, protection of the environment is so alien to the frame of mind of the (Maltese) Labour Party that they will not manage to find the definition of the term even if they use the latest subscription version of Chat GPT. Their EP manifesto includes one proposal on Climate Change (proposal 04), which says that Labour MEPs will vote for measures that are realistic and adaptable to Malta’s circumstances. The terms “realistic” and “adaptable to Malta’s circumstances” are subjective and are not explained.

For example, when the European Chemicals Agency suggested the prohibition of the use of lead ammunition near wetlands, the proposal was based on the fact that within the EU, 44,000 tonnes of lead per year are dispersed into the environment from sports shooting, hunting, and fishing. It is a well-known fact that dispersing lead in the environment is never a good idea because it could poison wildlife (including birds) or lead residues in game are potentially poisonous for humans. Logical, no? Not for Alex Agius Saliba, though, who objected to this proposal simply by saying that it “puts all countries in the same basket”.

This should perhaps be interpreted that if the proposal could risk hurting the PL’s voter base (which includes most of the hunters), then no matter how beneficial the proposal is, Labour MEPs will always base their votes in the European Parliament on protecting their electoral interests. This is disguised as “standing up for Malta” or “for the rights of the Maltese” and hence their slogan “…. is-saħħa lill-Maltin” [power to the Maltese]. Interestingly enough, saħħa also translates into “health”, but Labour is willing to gloss over issues related to health in order to impress their voter base with their own perception of ‘saħħa’ – strength (power). How will the PL MEPs vote when faced with a proposal to phase out the use of some agricultural pesticide over concerns about its health effects, especially if this is opposed by the agricultural entrepreneurs? The pesticide will affect human health irrespective of any claimed special Maltese circumstances. Whose side will the PL MEPs take? Will they champion health over what they perceive as power? I am not holding my breath.

Nationalist Party (PN)

The PN forms part of a political group (the European People’s Party – EPP) with a dismal track record on environmental issues. The environmental NGOs have grouped the EPP together with other right-wing groups under what they have labelled as “the prehistoric thinkers”. The PN MEPs sometimes break ranks with the EPP; for example, David Casa was one of the few EPP members to vote in favour of the restore nature directive, in favour of the Ambient Air Quality Directive, and the CO2 regulations for cars and vans. Notwithstanding this, the overall track record of the PN in the EP with respect to environmental issues is not very flattering according to the Environmental scoreboard. The PN scores a dismal 18/100, whereas the Dutch ChristenUnie party from the same political family scored 59/100.

The manifesto of the PN is even more dismal, consisting of a mini-manifesto (if it can be called that) made up of seven paragraphs. Their only proposal with respect to environmental issues is to make the environment a fundamental right. The exact meaning, as well as the mechanics of this, escape me. It is not that this proposal is a bad idea per se, but to my mind, making “the environment a fundamental right” requires amending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is outside the powers of the European Parliament and will eventually require ratification by the 27 EU Member States. It is not clear how the PN intends to achieve this.

Apart from this laudable but unachievable proposal, the PN has also included a pledge to “fully support farmers, herdsmen, and fishermen”. Among the things that the PN will do to action this is “work to implement the 5 proposals that the farmers have presented to the authorities”. One of the farmers’ proposals is blocking the Green Deal until it is shown that the impacts on local agriculture will be negligible. The PN should be asked whether they intend to vote against reducing the use and risk of pesticides by 50% by 2030, whether they intend to vote against aligning the CAP (common agricultural policy) with the EU’s biodiversity strategy, and whether they would eventually vote against a new law targeting healthy soils by 2050. The impacts of all of these will not be negligible, but shouldn’t we reduce the use and risk associated with pesticide use, especially in the face of evidence linking certain pesticides to cancers of the endocrine system?

What will the PN MEPs do? Will they vote in favour of the electorate’s health or attempt to woo the more vociferous of the farmers to their cause? Additionally, in the EU, agriculture is responsible for 10% of the total climate-altering emissions, which have hardly decreased in over 20 years. What is the PN going to do when faced with legislation targeting emissions from agriculture? If they want to protect agriculture, they should be spearheading legislation aimed at curbing emissions and not attempting to appease the individuals protesting last February in order to gain their vote.

Arnold Cassola

My disappointment with Arnold Cassola’s environmental manifesto was even bigger. Opportunism is expected from both PL and PN, but I expected better from a person who served as General Secretary of the European Green Party, Member of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy) for the Greens, chairperson of the Maltese Greens, and Green local councillor in Swieqi, especially when his candidature is supported by a number of well-meaning environmentalists.

Cassola’s environmental manifesto includes a number of proposals that would have made sense if this were a general election but make absolutely no sense for the European Parliament elections because they are not EU competences. This includes proposals on a moratorium on high rises, enforcement of local legislation (banning construction work on Sundays and feast days), making sure that the public domain law is actually implemented, reliability of public transport in Malta, extension of the fast ferry service, protecting and mapping Maltese country pathways, waste collection and shifting responsibilities from the local to the regional council, construction in Gozo, and the setting up of a Gozo regional council.

Subsidiarity is one of the main principles of the European Union, and therefore certain issues are Member State competences. Eight out of 14 proposals include issues that Cassola, if elected to the EP, will surely not be working on. The European Parliament is essentially the co-legislator together with the Council, and the MEPs will NEVER get to vote on, e.g., the extension of the fast ferry service in Malta.

Cassola also includes a proposal entitled “Transition towards zero plastic”. Cassola, among other things, proposes to ban plastic products from restaurants and fast-food outlets. Pity that Cassola is five years late! In 2019, the European Union issued the Single-Use Plastics Directive (Directive EU 2019/904), which obliges Member States to prohibit the placing on the market of plastic cutlery, plates, beverage stirrers, etc. On a positive note, we know that at least Cassola will work for the phasing out of plastic packaging and strengthening legislation on packaging waste (whatever that means). The section on zero-plastic waste, however, includes a bizarre sentence: Cassola suggests setting up a system to limit food waste! I don’t know whether Cassola considers plastic to be food; the conventional definition for food waste definitely excludes plastic. The Waste Framework Directive already caters to food waste and sets a 50% reduction target by 2030.

My biggest bone of contention with Cassola is by far the proposal entitled “decarbonisation of industry – climate change”. It is ironic that notwithstanding the title, the proposal is a supreme act of doublespeak because on reading further, one can see that the proposal is all about letting aviation get away with emitting climate-altering substances. Cassola’s argument is essentially the same song sheet as the PL’s “realistic” and “adaptable to Malta’s circumstances” argument.

Cassola is arguing that islands that are “far away” from the mainland should be exempt from the carbon tax on aviation on grounds of “free movement” and “affordable travel”. The reality is that intra-EEA flights (so not only the EU) are already covered by the EU’s emissions trading scheme. The carbon tax will cover the long-haul flights that are responsible for 58% of the emissions of CO2 from aviation. This means that without the carbon tax, the vast majority of the emissions from aviation would not be priced, making achieving the targets of the Paris agreement a pipe dream. Secondly, in this context, the argument of islands far away from the mainland is nonsensical given that we are talking about long-haul flights. How is a flight from Malta to Bangkok different from a flight from Berlin to Bangkok? Environmental implications apart, exempting Malta from the carbon tax will just not fly (no pun intended) with the other Member States.

Cassola proposes imposing a carbon tax on private jets only, which is not a bad idea. I would even consider banning private jets over climate considerations, but the benefits of taxing private jets only are minor. If Cassola bothered to look at the data available on the EEA website together with the report “CO2 emissions of private aviation in Europe”, one can estimate the contribution of private jets to be approximately 9% of climate-altering emissions from aviation. This means that even with zero emissions from private jets, we would not have achieved enough. This is not the first of Cassola’s bloopers on carbon pricing; way back in January 2024, when the EU’s emission trading scheme was extended to shipping, Cassola was quoted as saying that “…prices would increase overnight by 40%”. This is an overinflated figure that is much higher than the forecasts of the shipping agents, which he never bothered to substantiate. I am not sure what Cassola is trying to do with carbon pricing, create a new bogeyman perhaps.

It is the proposal on scrapping the carbon tax on aviation fuel that has made me change my mind with respect to giving any preference at all to Cassola. It is easy to play the “environmentalist” and to take pictures for Facebook hugging trees when it comes to the transplantation of the famous Mosta ficus trees (a species that is alien to the Maltese Islands) and itself an issue of minor to negligible environmental significance (but higher emotional relevance); it is less easy to support issues that have a greater environmental impact but might be less popular unless you are of course a populist. If you are an environmentalist, you act like one always, at the risk of being derided or being less popular.

AD+PD

ADPD's environmental manifesto is largely aligned with that of the European Green Party. The manifesto includes environmental considerations in all policy areas: transport, agriculture, industry, economy, etc. It does away with the notion that environmental considerations should be balanced against social and economic considerations and instead adopts a rationale that is very much in line with the EU’s “Living well within the limits of our planet”. In practical terms, this means that Earth has a limited capacity to handle. It includes ambitious targets to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible in line with scientific recommendations. The manifesto endorses carbon taxes to propel industries, transport, and agriculture towards eco-friendly practices, particularly in vulnerable states like Malta.

They aspire to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2040, with industrial aid linked to clean energy transitions and efficiency. They advocate banning private jets and support fast railways across the continent. They propose using the ESF to fund climate adaptation projects and phasing out petrol and diesel cars. They suggest allocating 10% of the EU budget to biodiversity by 2026 and oppose EU funding for roads that don't prioritise sustainable mobility. They support local food over imported processed foods and subsidies for farmers employing eco-friendly methods. Their plan includes stopping plastic pollution in oceans and ending industrial fishing.

Their tax reforms target higher taxes on polluters and the ultra-rich to reduce taxes on labour. They aim for full circularity by 2040 and ensure trade agreements protect the environment and climate, aligning with global accords like the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal biodiversity agreement.

Volt

The Volt manifesto was a pleasant surprise. Together with ADPD’s manifesto, it was one of the most environmentally progressive manifestos. Volt targets net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, employing carbon capture to offset unavoidable emissions. They aim to generate all energy domestically through renewables, nuclear, and hydrogen by 2040. They plan to implement carbon pricing across all sectors, promote circular practices, and ban planned obsolescence. They advocate for high-speed rail, public transport, clean energy, and sustainable waste management investments. They propose introducing “Green Net GDP” to measure economic progress without environmental harm.

They support urban planning to reduce sprawl, enhance public transport, and uphold the "15-minute city" concept. They aim to protect and restore ecosystems and promote sustainable agriculture. Their policies focus on supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy. They intend to triple funding for green research and innovation and back green startups. They plan to oversee investments in cross-border rail infrastructure and create a unified ticketing platform. They propose reserving 25% of public contracts for SMEs and simplifying procurement processes. They advocate for global communities transitioning to low-emission pathways and lead efforts to maintain global warming below 2°C.

Right-wing parties

The egg thrower’s party (ABBA) seems to have adopted the programme of the European Christian Political Movement (EPCM) without any modification. The programme does mention the environment here and there in a few generic statements. It is not possible to get an indication of how any potential ABBA MEPs would vote on critical environmental issues. For a political group to be recognised, it needs to elect at least 23 MEPs from 7 Member States. The EPCM currently has 6 MEPs that sit with the European Conservatives and Reformists’ Party. As a whole, this party has a poor voting record with respect to environmental issues. The Environmental scoreboard rates their voting record as 10/100. As far as Imperium Europa (IE) is concerned, their white supremacism, the fact that they don’t shy away from the epithet of far-rightists, and the fact that a number of their exponents try to rehabilitate that mass murderer Adolf Hitler is enough reason not to vote for them! To these reasons, one could add that during a debate at the University, the IE representative told the students that it is fine to earmark garigue areas for development!

The bottom line

Voting in the EU elections is about selecting representatives who will shape significant EU laws. Whether you care about climate change, health, or fair policies, it’s vital to choose candidates committed to a better future. Don’t expect instant change at home, but remember these elections influence the broader context that impacts Malta. So, get informed, think about the future, and make your vote count!