From Mr R. Cassar

Simon Busuttil has every right indeed to be proud of his voting record in the European Parliament (“A record to be proud of”, TMIS, 25 January). I am sure that he voted according to his conscience.

AD’s criticism was above board and based on its vision of environment and public health. I won’t go into which party adopts the most partisan approach in local politics. I leave it up to the readers to award the ‘Fear mongering in politics’ and ‘Below-the-belt’ campaign prizes to whomever they like.

Regarding EPP’s track record on environmental issues – it is not AD who is saying that the EPP has the worst track record of all the European Parliament political groups; AD just quoted the opinion of Friends of the Earth, Europe. Yes, the study was carried out for the 1999-2004 legislature – but it still shows that the EPP’s attitude towards the environment is the most negative of all groups.

Dust abatement is mostly a local issue and has little to do with EU directives. I’ll mention just one example. As a councillor on the Attard local council I myself, together with most local councillors from both the PN and the PL, have had meetings with Mepa to reduce the inconveniences caused by a local quarry. Although I’m glad to say that we made some small progress on the issue, the lack of simple legislation to ensure effective enforcement is conspicuous by its absence. If the government is serious about dust abatement from construction and quarries it should give the police, local councils and Mepa the legal tools to enforce such a simple and basic issue.

The examples quoted in our press conference are examples of our differences on the issue. Yes, of course in some instances Simon Busuttil voted in favour of higher standards for Malta – given the poor record of our government when it comes to the environment it comes as no surprise that even the most diluted EU directives are ‘higher’ than non-existent local standards.

I beg to differ on the reason given by Busuttil for higher limits for air pollution, that is ‘dirtier air’. Stricter limits would have incentivised polluters to invest in new technologies and to re-think their processes. It would also have meant more demand FOR and pollution abatement technologies – with the resulting increase in investment and jobs. I am not ashamed to say that we would have preferred stricter limits – it’s the health of people we’re talking about here. Yes the Greens voted for the diluted final compromise, and yes they voted with the EPP. Contrary to Simon Busuttil’s claim that Greens vote in tandem with the ‘scary’ Communists, I can easily list the times he and the EPP voted in tandem with the far right UEN fascists. Greens also vote in tandem with the EPP, Liberals and Socialists too, on an issue-by-issue, amendment-by-amendment basis. Didn’t the Greens vote together with most of the EPP to ensure that embryos are not used commercially?

As regards industry, it is no secret that the countries with the stricter standards have, not surprisingly, the strongest and most developed and competitive industries: Scandinavia and Germany are shining examples of this. Stricter standards go hand in hand with incentives for industry to reach the set targets. The creation of new jobs through ‘green’ legislation is a fact. Blaming high environmental standards for job losses is the usual trick of conservatives. The opposite is true. Yes, there are lobbies that prefer to continue burdening society with their pollution. We need to stand up to these lobbies such as the German car lobby, which managed to weaken standards on the emissions of carbon dioxide and even dangerous fine particles.

Since AD is serious about climate change I have no problem saying that there should be no two weights and two measures – all industries should be treated the same. Aviation too should be included in an emission-trading scheme. Had the emission trading scheme for airlines gone through, all airlines would have been on a level playing field, so the claim of Air Malta being at a disadvantage is dubious. Busuttil’s claim that this would have meant Air Malta closing down is preposterous – Air Malta’s problems stem from years and years of political interference and mismanagement by government appointees. Emission trading schemes create jobs and a source of funds for entrepreneurs and innovative business people and can also be applied differently to reflect the fact that some countries, such as Malta, are islands and thus isolated from the mainland, where it is easier to use alternative means of transportation such as high-speed trains. Some comments that put the environment and HIGH standards on a collision course with economic growth give the wrong message that it is either jobs or a better quality of life – when in fact the two things go together. At least that is what we Greens strive for.

I agree with Simon Busuttil that the EU is at the forefront when it comes to initiatives on climate change; in fact I would like to congratulate Green Luxembourg MEP Claude Turmes for succeeding in pushing for more money for Renewables, Energy efficiency and Eco-Innovation and for being voted European MEP of the year for 2008.

Finally, our criticism is part of the political dialectic – we may not always agree, but Simon Busuttil should realize that this does not mean that we’re being unreasonable, ‘very partisan’, or ‘hypocritical’. Unfortunately, when it comes to being partisan or to being hypocritical, there are certainly other political parties that do it much ‘better’ than us.

Ralph Cassar

PRO

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party

[email protected]