Editorial

The 'polluter pays' principle should find general agreement. After all, why should taxpayers pay for the selfish attitude of a few who do not care whether their actions are polluting the environment or not, as long as their immediate needs are satisfied?

It is widely accepted, for example, that whoever is ultimately responsible for an oil spill from a tanker, caused by negligence, which kills fish, birds and other species and scars the natural coastline (as has happened all too often) should pick up the bill for the clean-up and the damage, some of which may be irreparable.

Now the Maltese government too has decided to introduce an eco-tax, which is not exactly the same as making the polluter pay. We shall explain.

By making the polluter pay, as already referred to earlier, one normally understands making whoever is responsible for causing pollution through acts of omission or commission liable to a fine or some other penalty.

Thus, for example, throwing rubbish or chemicals into a water fountain, is causing pollution for which the perpetrator, if caught, must pay. Similarly, if a factory fails to take precautions and allows its incinerators to produce inordinate amounts of soot or particle-laden emissions.

As it is, we see too many instances of pollution around us where the polluters are allowed to get away scot free, and this despite the laws and regulations in place, and the people employed to enforce them. We are, of course, referring to local wardens.

Why is it that wardens seem to be singularly set on enforcing parking regulations while they are oblivious to the rest of the 80-odd infringements on which they are supposed to take action? Why is it that, for example, motorists following a car with a souped-up engine are obliged to swallow plumes of obnoxious and toxic fumes along a high street normally teeming with pedestrians - and wardens? Or that not more vigorous and frequent action is taken against dog owners who fail to clean up the mess left by their pets in public spaces?

These are only a couple of examples of the pollution which goes on daily around us, against which action can and should be taken. The list, of course, is a long one: dumping of refuse and unwanted items in some unbuilt plot; discarding of mattresses and old refrigerators in the countryside, when one could easily make use of the "bulky refuse" service, littering of sandy beaches with plastic water bottles, ice cream wrappers, barbecue leftovers and sundry other items...

And not to mention noise pollution, which is equally damaging to the environment, such as the deafening techno music coming uninterruptedly from a yacht berthed just outside the 200-metre limit at Golden Bay last Sunday, disturbing hundreds of sunbathers and swimmers looking forward to a deserved day's relaxation after a week's hard work.

In other words, decisive action by wardens and the police against the hundreds of persons responsible for polluting the environment every day should have a double effect: driving home the need to keep the environment clean, and raising a tidy sum in revenue for the government.

On the other hand, the eco-contribution (a tax, in effect) contemplated in the Eco-Contribution Bill will be mainly a revenue-raiser (although the government denies this) to the tune of Lm4 million a year on the backs of those who, whether they like it or not, are deemed to be 'polluters' every time they buy a refrigerator, washing machine or air-conditioner, or car tyres, oil for their engines, drinks, toiletries, TV sets or mobile phones. The fact is that the consumer needing any of these products has no choice between buying 'polluting' and 'non-polluting' makes, at least at present.

One can see that the ultimate aim is to promote the use of recyclable material, but this seems to be quite far off, at least as far as most of the 'taxable' items listed are concerned. One wonders whether the tax, in fact, will be a sufficient incentive to importers and manufacturers to come up with recyclable and biodegradable alternatives. After all, it is the consumer who is going to pick up the cost of the 'eco-contribution'.

This brings us to the urgent matter of waste separation at source. Although a few tentative steps have been made, there is not yet a national strategy in place to switch over to waste separation as soon as possible. It goes without saying that a massive educational campaign has to get under way - coupled with the imposition of an 'eco-contribution' for those failing to comply.

Such measures, combined with more decisive action against active polluters such as the ones mentioned earlier, would be fairer, and perhaps more effective, than the 'eco-contribution' being contemplated.