Editorial

An EU survey on living conditions has noted that Maltese respondents rated low in complaints about basic amenities, such as leaking roofs, absence of indoor flushing toilets and lack of baths or showers. On an even more positive note, Malta was also said to be a relatively safe place with low rates of crime and vandalism. However, Malta rated high in complaints with regard to pollution (35 per cent of respondents), coming in at a close second place to Latvia (37 per cent). The next biggest complaint was noise (25 per cent), another form of pollution.

Pollution has existed since man deliberately ignited the first fire to cook food and to stay warm. More people on this earth means more homes, more industries, more cars and other vehicles, more power stations and, hence, more air pollution. More specifically, in Malta, the primary sources of pollution are the power stations, the waste tips and dumps that are hugely (and unnecessarily) burdened by inert waste produced by the construction industry, the sewage outflows and internal combustion engines in motor vehicles. Even in Malta, a clear association has been shown between living within 250 metres of heavy traffic and asthma.

Both the Marsa and Delimara power stations are oil fired and emit sulfur dioxide, which is a respiratory irritant and corrosive and a trigger for asthma and other allergies. Sulphur also leads to acid rain, which damages buildings, crops and trees and wildlife including birds and fish.

Vehicles on the roads have increased at a rate of about 10,000 annually and this rate of increase is encouraged by an unpopular public transport system. In addition, a medical study had shown that the Maltese have very high levels of blood lead, probably due to the burning of unleaded petrol (thankfully not in use any more) and the burning of used motor oil and lead painted wood by bakeries.

Tap water in Malta is also not of very high quality, with an excessively saline water table due to over extraction and unregulated extraction. Moreover, extracted water also scores high on nitrate content due to leaching from fertilisers.

There are a few positive notes to make,slow and heavy steps that the authorities have grudgingly made to reduce pollution, and these include the elimination of leaded petrol with the introduction of leaded replacement petrol, the switchover from coal- to oil-fired power stations (the burning of oil is slightly less detrimental to heath and to the environment than the burning of coal) and the elimination of the St Luke's Hospital incinerator. Projects are also underway to extract and eliminate harmful gases that continue to be spontaneously generated at the Magħtab landfill (and other landfills such as Qortin and Wied Fulija). The site is also being aesthetically rehabilitated. The ultimate aim is for all waste to be separated and treated in order to reduce the requirement for large landfills.

There are many lessons to learn from other countries and one particular example is that many cities, such as Amsterdam, have waste-to-energy projects. Amsterdam burns solid garbage as fuel. This is less efficient than conventional fossil fuels but the pluses are there for all to see. Garbage is free. In this way, Amsterdam's Waste and Energy Company generates sufficient electricity to run the city's tram and the metro network, the street lighting and designated public buildings. Moreover, the heat generated by waste incineration at the plant is piped directly to heat over 15,000 homes.

There is a lot to work for.