Sustainability? Lol. This was the comment given by Sebastian Tanti Burlo, a political cartoonist who formed part of the panel at the Strip – Rethinking Our Routes debate held by SACES and KSU last night. Joining him in the debate were Prof. Alex Torpiano, Ralph Cassar and Sandro Valentino.
At the start of the discussion, all four immediately agreed that the term "sustainability’ is one of the most abused and misused words out there. Tanti Burlo stated that he remembered learning about its importance at school, yet the development of it never flourished. Participants of the floor reiterated such remarks, with one participant claiming that the lack of education on how to implement sustainable processes is what limits our achievement of it. The debate quickly shifted towards the infamously tragic transport system of our country, with Ralph Cassar stressing the need for there to be fiscal policies implemented in order to monitor the traffic on the roads, and perhaps dissuade individuals from using their cars in order to get from A to B. Whilst I personally am not for the increase in taxation and spending for public transport, this claim seemed to generate some agreement across the panel, with participants also showing a desire for there to be more legislation in order to enable cyclists to get around more easily.
Perhaps the most striking element of the debate was everyone’s recognition that the Maltese government should stop attempting to adhere to trends abroad. It was mentioned that our development plans, specifically the Paceville masterplan (it was agreed that it hardly is masterful), do not take into consideration what is already rooted into our culture. Instead, they aim to promote the image of progress and wealth by formulating the idea of "the bigger the better.’ Prof. Torpiano argued this by referencing an interesting notion that he had once heard; that of 0% growth. To politicians this would seem like a disaster. No growth for them means that nothing effective was carried out throughout the year. However, it was recognised that no growth in GDP for a country could actually mean that all inputs processed in a year generate an equal amount of output. And, thus, the law of equilibrium is finally achieved as demand meets supply. One of the conclusions agreed unanimously during this debate was that zero growth equalled sustainable development.
Another vital aspect to the issue of sustainability in Malta was brought up by Valentino, as he argued that there is a lack of long-term thought involved in designing buildings. As architects scramble to meet the demands of their clients in a short amount of time, i they do not spend time applying aesthetics which are appropriate to the buildings that they design. Thus, if the aesthetics are not sustainable, then the building will not be utilised for a long period of time. In fact, it was said that, when this does occur, architectural firms lobby the government into buying these buildings as social housing. What is the result of this? Resources being wasted on buildings that are not lived in, which results in the government spending money that could be better appropriated to something else (public transport, for example), rather than on already-ruined houses.
It seems like there is no hope. We live in a culture comprised of lazy car-lovers who are too busy trying to find ways to secure their investments in housing to realise the possible detrimental effects on the future. But, it was noticed by all that around 50 individuals were all participating in voicing their concerns on the sorry state of the Maltese environment that cold Wednesday evening. We all were well aware of the problems that needed to be solved. Not only that, but we agreed that through education and increased awareness by us youths, Malta can correct itself. Though we spent much of the time discussing what the government could do to help, we recognised that it is us who shape the government’s agenda. Policies are a response to the wants and need of the population, since the state’s aim is to protect and secure us. Therefore, if we show that the disregard to the environment and its sustainability is a national issue, then change can occur, and no longer shall we "lol’ at the term sustainability.
