Incineration: No to an ostrich approach - Deidun

PN MEP candidate Alan Deidun denounced the opportunism of PL candidates in the environmental sphere arguing that their environmental proposals for the upcoming elections boiled down to opposing the incinerator, symptomatic of an approach aimed at reacting to and opposing any initiatiev without actually proposing alternatives.

Three PL candidates spoke against incineration, with at least two not having an inkling of what they were talking about, he said.

The anti-incineration camp harped about the need to reduce waste and although this was laudable it was tantamount to wishful thinking, at least in the near future, while the clock was still ticking.

By 2020, Malta needed to achieve the 10 percent benchmark where renewables were involved at the very least and the Ghallis landfill would only last a few more years.

The planned incinerator would extend its lifetime by at least 10 years, eliminating the need to excavate and destroy further agircultural land for an new one.

Despite the PL's claim that it had set up a board/panel on waste management, it has still to pronounce itself on related issues and the present detailed reports.

In addition, the government made public the names of experts it was consulting. PL arguments lacked the phrase Refuse Derived Fuel, that fuel which could be derived from incineration and which was considered clean energy if preceded by waste separation.

The incinerator, Dr Deidun said, would not handle all types of waste, with organic and other types being eliminated beforehand.

He pointed out that PL's track record was dismal in waste management and during the 1996-1998 Labour interlude, no efforts were made to address the Maghtab landfill issue. The PL had then tried to divert European funds to upgrade the Sant’Antnin waste management and recycling plant away from Malta.

The incineration issue, Dr Deidun said, had to be studied in a mature way and not in a sensationalist one. The Spittelau Thermal Waste Treatment Plant in Vienna, which could be considered an incinerator, was less than 100 metres away from the city’s university and was a tourist attraction.

Dr Deidun said he still had not made up his mind about the proposed incinerator and would follow the recommendations made in any EIA that would be eventually commissioned, since the scientific method had to prevail in such sensitive issues.