As you quite rightly say in your editorial (TMID, 5 March), it is only the GRTU, Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises which is in agreement with the government over the eco-contribution on plastic carrier bags. The objection is not to the tax, but because plastic carrier bags are convenient for certain goods, such as fish or meat purchases for instance.

The tax makes no distinction between goods or between biodegradable bags, which makes it shortsighted. And which is a pity, seeing that no one really disagrees with reducing the use of plastics.

But the word is “reduced”, not eliminate. How can you eliminate such a convenient medium? For Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino to describe the GRTU as “exemplary partners” is a shame. It was the GRTU which called for the removal of glass bottles, because shopkeepers did not want to store them. All that shopkeepers want is profit, not storage of glass bottles on which a refund would have been paid. And we have their director-general contesting for the European Parliament elections. Viva l-ambjent!

With the GRTU calling for the removal of glass bottles, the government caved in to the European Commission, discarding a highly useful and environmentally beneficial system, to introduce plastic bottles instead, adding to the plastic waste mountain. The UK did not cave in to the EC on their pounds, inches and miles. Their shopkeepers can still use the pound instead of the kilogramme.

C. Galea

Rabat