It was recently announced that Malta intends to request exemption from EU rules on air quality and PM10 particulate traffic pollution until mid-2011. The standard approach of our Government seems to have become that of ignoring EU policies and then applying for exemptions.
The fact is that there is now irrefutable and damning scientific proof confirming the adverse health effects of traffic pollution, especially that caused by faulty diesel engines. “This is a cause for concern for all of us and especially for parents of children whose health is being damaged through growing up in a polluted environment,” said Dr George Debono, FAA spokesman on health issue. “The highly polluting black smoke emitted by buses and other vehicles triggers asthma and results in defective lung development in growing children. It is a cause of shortened life span, owing chiefly to cardiovascular disorders and increased cancer rates. A recent study also indicates that exposure of pregnant women to pollution can result in lowered intelligence quotients (IQ) of their children.”
An updated report on the long-term effects of exposure to air pollutants on health prepared by the highly-respected UK Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) further strengthens the case against particulates from vehicle exhaust emissions, “We are left with little doubt that long-term exposure to air pollutants has an effect on mortality and, thus, decreases life expectancy.” In spite of such damning evidence, our Transport Authority, our Environment Authority and our Health Department continue to ignore the scientifically proven fact that the health of people and especially children, continues to be jeopardised by blatant pollution from our buses (including many private company buses) and many other diesel-powered vehicles.
If Malta is lagging behind in complying with EU standards, the least that can be done at this point is to immediately deal with offending vehicles. But our Government is also failing here. Over two months ago (15 June) The Times reported that Minster Austin Gatt “demanded the (SMS Alert) system be put back in place.”
Given the gravity of the situation, FAA maintains that requiring three members of the public to report a polluting vehicle is absurd; re-starting the SMS alert system after such a blunder is now merely cosmetic and ineffective; it has ceased to be a solution because so many have lost faith in it. The pollution from so many vehicles is blatant and clearly visible. Unless Dr Gatt and ADT can explain how continuation of this unnecessarily slow method can be justified, the only effective way of dealing with this environmental scourge is for vehicles emitting visible smoke to be reported directly by our police officers and wardens while roadside testing must be intensified and made immediately effective. Most importantly, vehicles must be summarily tested; owners must not be given a chance to temporarily put things right just to pass VRT testing and then revert to previous malpractice.
A further step that can be taken to reduce urban pollution is to disallow further property construction in over-developed, traffic-congested areas. The cost of doing nothing is far too high, both in human term of human lives as well as Government expenditure on health care.
Requesting exemption from EU rules on air quality and traffic pollution until mid-2011 is irresponsible and dodging the issue. As well as dragging its feet in the matter of drawing up an air quality plan, MRRA is also trying to buy yet more time by non-submission to the EU of air quality notification of compliance with the limit values.
Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar reiterates that to continue neglecting to act on the problem is an irresponsible dereliction of the duty of our Government to protect the health of the nation.
www.faa.org.mt [1]
1 Comment To "Street pollution: Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) calls for direct action"
#1 Comment By colin brown On September 22, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
I have recently ( as an outsider ) taken your views to heart and will do all i can to help , i have also recently befreinded Astrid Vella .
On the above article could i point out ,that on the 6th June 2000 the Directive:- 2000/30/EC ON THE TECHNICAL ROADSIDE INSPECTION OF THE ROADWORTHINESS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES CIRCULATING IN THE COMMUNITY .
Even though the Maltese Government are asking to Defer to some of the EU rulings , ARE THEY ASKING TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE FOLLOWING.
THE EUROPEAN PARLIMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Having regard to the treaty establishing the European Community,and in particular Article 71(1)(c) and (d)therof,
Having the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and social Committee(2),
After consulting the Committee of the regions,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),
wherease:
(1)THE Growth of traffic presents the member states with safety and Environmental problems of a similar nature and seriousness.
(2)It is in the interest of road safety, environmental protection and equitable competition that commercial vehicles should be used only if they are maintained to a HIGH DEGREE OF TECHNICAL WORTHINESS
AS THE ARTICLES GO ON A LITTLE AND I DONT WISH TO QUOTE ALL THE ARTICLES I WILL SKIP SOME.
(3)IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTIVE 96/96/EC OF 20 DECEMBER 1996 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and thier trailers(4),Commercial vehicles under go an inspection by an authorised body every year.
blah blah blah
(7)The regulated annual roadworthyiness test is in fact considered not to be sufficient to guarantee that commercial vehicles tested are in roadworthy condition throughout the year.
***********READ THE NEXT ONE******************************
(8)Effective enforcement through targeted additional TECHNICAL ROADSIDE INSPECTION is an important cost effective measure to control the standard of maintenance of commercial vehicles on the road
There are more articles relating to this but it argues the Case for TECHNICAL INSPECTIONS and not members of the public ringing in ( i have to re-iterate that these are directive articles)
i COULD GO ON ,this is a very brief rendition of my findings but the articles clearly state proper inspections of static vehicles etc etc i.e
article (2)(b) “TECHNICAL ROADSIDE INSPECTION” shall mean an inspection of a technical nature ,not announced by authorities etc etc
article (4)(1)(a) A visual assesment of the maintenance condition of the commercial vehicle when stationary.
I THINK THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN ADHEARED TOO
THERE ARE MANY RULES AND REGULATIONS LAID DOWN IN THESE DIRECTIVES I FOUND THESE ON THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE
[5]
HOPE THIS HELPS
COLIN BROWN