Carmel Cacopardo

In response to government’s Vision 2050, ADPD The Green Party has this week published an alternative view, a green alternative. It is an alternative which factors in that which government’s squinted view misses out.

The development of a Green Vision necessitates a serious consideration as to the type of investments which are to be encouraged.  Should income derived from labour or pensions be taxed less, and accumulated wealth and income derived from investments be taxed more? A lower tax burden on wages and pensions and a shift to taxation on resource use favours both employees and employers, incentivises efficiency in resource use and can still provide the necessary revenue to support public services.

Should a universal basic income covering basic necessities be introduced funded by a tax on resource use and on speculative activities?

These are issues which have been avoided for too long in the public debate.

Which services and industries are to be encouraged and which must change, be reformed or be phased-out? Should short-term speculative finance, with its negative social and ecological effects be taxed through a Tobin tax?

Taxation, contrary to the current prevalent political lexicon is not a dirty word. It is and should be used as an instrument to facilitate distributive justice. This should be music to progressive ears, yet government continuously harps on reduced taxation while the national debt reaches new heights, currently surpassing the 11-billion-euro mark. This is an injustice towards future generations who are continuously being asked to shoulder today’s burdens. Irrespective of EU benchmarks, this is not in any way sustainable as it reduces the capability of future generations to plan and decide on their own priorities. We cannot keep discounting the future.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, former social democrat Prime Minister of Norway and Chair of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development had, way back in 1987, made the point very clearly in the report entitled Our Common Future which we refer to, mostly, by her name. The Brundtland Report, in fact, emphasizes that: “We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.” 

But then, this is why Parliament in Malta has created the post of Guardian for Future Generations: to speak on behalf of future generations and be their voice. Yet the Guardian is apparently fast asleep.

The choice is between a sustainable economy which serves us all, is socially just and ecologically sound, and an economy based on exploitation of people and resources, locally and abroad, one that implies the prosperity of some at the expense of others.

In ostrich fashion, government’s Vison 2050 conveniently ignores all of these issues as if they do not even exist.

A case in point is that concerning tourism. Government’s Vision 2050 myopically aims for ever-increasing tourist numbers: 4.5 million by 2035 and more beyond that. In contrast a responsible sustainable Green Vision considers that this number should be reduced due to the considerable social and environmental impacts generated. In addition, the current tourist eco-tax should be increased, in application of the polluter pays principle which principle is entrenched in Maltese law, yet, is continuously ignored.

The monies collected through the tourist eco-tax should be applied in regeneration projects in the localities impacted by tourism. This was forcefully underlined by the St Paul’s Bay Local Council recently when it adopted a motion to this effect moved by Green Party Chair and Local Councillor Sandra Gauci.

The government’s Vision 2050 focuses on the short-term and ignores a long-term perspective. It is more of the same as we have become accustomed to date. This is most evident in its ignoring of the impacts of climate change on the Maltese islands in the vision presented for public consultation. Most importantly it ignores the impacts of sea-level rise which has a bearing on the coast, coastal communities and coastal infrastructure. It is pertinent to point out that most of the tourism infrastructure lies along the coast and its immediate surroundings. Yet Vision 2050 is apparently not bothered at all.

I do not have sufficient space to adequately paraphrase a 5000-word document. Vision 2050 should be sent back to the drawing board as it needs an in-depth revision which reflects the real needs of Maltese society in the years to come.

We need a vision that avoids green-washing, one that does not just pay lip service to the environment. On the contrary, the country needs to be more respectful of nature and natural forces.

At the end of the day, we have to realise that we form part of an eco-system. A collapsed eco-system cannot be bailed out. This is the alignment with reality which is required in an alternative Vision 2050. Nature has already fired its warning shots: we continue to ignore them at our peril.

Carmel Cacopardo is ADPD-The Green Party Deputy Chairperson

First published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 14 September 2025