Why apathy takes over!

Last week, I wrote an article about the PL’s internal elections. However, I want to address a few points which were also missed by the media. Firstly, I must congratulate John Grech, the newly-elected international secretary, who seems to have already hit the ground running. I’m glad to see him reorganising the secretariat, engaging with diplomats and convening meaningful and insightful discussions at the PL’s Headquarters. I was invited to one of the events but missed attending due to personal matters.

Furthermore, I was delighted to see that the ministry of transport, along with Transport Malta rolled out a short-term solution for the traffic flow, and its impact on the islands, ahead of the start of the new scholastic year. Let’s leave aside the emissions for now, which we are required to reduce, as part of the EU’s decarbonisation strategy. Certainly, any measures to reduce CO2 emissions, as well as the traffic flow are commendable. Land transportation is highly sensitive to climate change because it is one of the sectors that generates high CO2 emissions. However, these short-term measures must be part of a long-term plan, which touches up the physical and transition risks of climate change. Personally, I do not think that the majority of our policy makers, are understanding what I am writing, and what I have been echoing for the past two years. What I noticed, though, is that some of the measures I write about on a weekly basis, are normally reiterated in political speeches. Sincerely, I truly hope that those quoting them, are understanding the policies.

Nevertheless, we need a long-term plan as the one echoed by the transport minister. We must use water transportation along Malta’s eastern coast, if we truly need to reduce CO2 emissions. Let’s for a while forget that the ETS were extended to the maritime industry. We can devise a long-term but feasible infrastructural plan that would see a futuristic concept of perhaps connecting a tram (akin to the one found in Manchester) system, to nearby underground carparks, and further connected to water transportation ferries, as well as bus shuttle services. The idea of coming up with more pedestrian streets, as well as cycling lanes, is also commendable. My assumption is, that now, a contest will be launched, akin to the one launched last year for local councils to submit their proposals. Indeed, last year, I dubbed the competition as “Malta’s Green Talent” in one of my weekly columns.

Frankly, we truly need a holistic infrastructural plan of how we are to reach certain targets. It is irrelevant to propose standalone infrastructural projects without a broader vision devoid of suitable impact assessments. Let’s for a while leave aside the proposed San Ġwann underpass project and the tunnel proposed in Triq Sant’Anna Floriana. Well, logically, even I who happen to be an economist and not an engineer occurred to me, that it wouldn’t be possible to dig a tunnel close to the historical granaries. Even in Dom Mintoff’s time, it was problematic to dig a subway in Triq Sant’Anna, let alone, such a complex excavation project. I am not sure if this was part of the PL’s 100 Idea, back in 2021. What’s certain is, that those who proposed it might need to go back to the drawing board. I hope I did not pierce any egos!

Nonetheless, when we talk about impact assessments, we must certainly factor in climate and environmental risks. For instance, an underground system, is somehow unachievable with the number of people living on the island. My understanding is, that the cost benefit analysis, which was completed by ARUP Group – the company that carried out the underground feasibility study for the Maltese government – seems to have taken the population numbers for its cost benefit analysis to be able to recover the costs of the excavation and the building of the projects. It seems that the profitability of the investment requires a bigger population permanently living in Malta. Nowadays, such studies are outdated, as they must factor in climate and environmental risks. Such massive infrastructural projects would incur supplementary exogenous costs due to the physical risks of climate change. Additionally, such complex projects generate gargantuan amounts of construction and excavation waste and extends to factors affecting nature and biodiversity. Obviously, it is not easy to dispose of such waste unless we decide to opt for land reclamation. We already have a problem to dispose of construction waste.

Recently, I am seeing construction waste debris being dumped in shut and unused quarries, as well as closed elusive sites. From the back of my home terrace, I can see a peak of debris growing in its radius and height. Actually, I am seeing two peaks of debris with progressive growing height radii. The area is close to Dingli, because I can see the historical radar in the distance, along the perimeter of the two peaks of generated debris. Honestly, unless the PL comes up with a long-term but economically feasible infrastructural plan the electorate will not settle. The Opposition is completely oblivious and lacks economic competence. The problems are myriad and complex, extending beyond financial aid and tax benefits. And in all fairness, the current administration is dealing with the negative effects of accelerated economic growth in the preceding decade. This requires a thoughtful plan, bringing all professionals together.

We need engineers because they can tell us if such projects are doable, and achievable. We need economists to tell us whether such projects are economically and financially feasible from a General Equilibrium Modelling perspective. We need climate experts because they must factor in climate and environmental risks, as well as EU regulations for decarbonisation, that in the end are affecting our lives. We need architects and experts specialising in new mode of transportation because they already did the groundwork for other countries. And finally, we need humble politicians because they need to listen to professionals and experts. Oh, and those who are not economists, and never studied the subject, but are holding a position within the industry, please, do study the economic proposals before you present them to the public.

Today, the problem is much wider than simply thinking about an idea and execute it albeit we need creative thinkers. The complexity of EU regulations that are coming out as part of the decarbonisation strategy, as well as the ESG concepts, are requiring professionals to specialise in EU policy to blend it with their work, including the costs of decarbonisation. Unless we know what is happening abroad and incorporate the policies that are accelerated and executed at EU level in our daily decisions, it is going to be difficult to achieve rationalised results. And by rationalised results I mean quality of life. Personally, I already believe that we are late. And postponing further is going to make us less competitive in the future. Sometimes, apathy does take over. However, at times it is also a result of economic success. When people become sufficiently comfortable with the government providing for all their needs, now even for private schools, it induces people into a lethargic mood. This is a consequence of diminishing marginal utility.

This is why the main exponents of the PL government need professionals around them, because the problems are not just related to quality, but how to properly spend money, and effectively nudge consumers into a positive mood.