Dirty air or Mount Scrapyard?

I read with interest Marisa Micallef Leyson's article "Too dirty for the Japs, just right for us?" (November 5) and failed to see any substantive logic to back her arguments.

I can assure Ms Micallef Leyson that I have every interest in breathing clean air, particularly as I live in an area where the sight of the inhospitable hospital incinerator belching black fumes is no rarity.

However, as the owner of one of the most environment-friendly second-hand Japanese cars that is barely three years old, that was bought in mint condition, is fitted with all the extras Ms Micallef Leyson referred to in her article, and that came equipped with, surprise surprise, a fully functional catalytic converter, her remarks provided much food for thought.

Myth. All second-hand/used cars, and not only Japanese-imported second-hand cars, "will have to be off the road or age faster than newer cars". Isn't that a natural process? However, given the proper maintenance, they can still give their owners years of loyal service. Who can guarantee that newer cars would not have to be off the road soon enough, if not properly maintained?

Fact. New cars today will be older and "dirtier" cars in a few years' time. By Ms Micallef Leyson's argument, their owners too should be made to pay for "their dirtier air". Have they been made to do so up to now? What is the alternative? Are we to introduce the concept of dumping older cars that were new but a few years ago and embark on a frenetic cycle of replacing cars every few years lest we be penalised for having an older car? And exactly where are we expected to dump these vehicles? Create another thrash mountain, this time made of steel, perhaps? Hardly a sociable solution. Better use the land more efficiently, for social housing, for example.

The reality is that now consumers can generally get a good deal without having to pay through the nose. It would be a sad day if the authorities were to give in to any undue pressure.