Environmental concerns have been cited as the reason for the structure of the current taxation system - on that regard it has failed miserably. Environmental concerns are again being trumpeted as the guiding light for the upcoming new system after discussions with "organised stakeholders" the identity of which has not been disclosed.

I would think that they are the same stakeholders consulted in the change from import tax to registration tax in 1994, for the introduction of the "minimum tax" provision on used car imports and its "amendment" a few years ago. The whole issue of passenger car taxation seems to be stuck in quicksand - the more the regulations squirm the more it sinks.

Whatever the new system will consist of, I am convinced that it will have the following characteristics.

It will maintain restriction on car imports and indirect restriction of flight of local currency.

It will do nothing to encourage renewal of the old passenger car fleet.

It will maintain a disincentive to scrapping old and/or polluting cars.

It will continue to deprive the inhabitants of this nation from benefiting from access to the single European (car) market, market competition and free choice.

It will do nothing to improve air quality, road congestion or convince commuters to use alternative means of transport.

It will continue to give a bad deal to the consumer and privileges to the "organised" stakeholders.

Pollution from passenger cars is real but has been blown out of proportion to cover up all other environmental ills from all other sectors.

It is the unsurpassed evil of evils. Everything else is saintly and does not deserve to be taxed as much as these wheeled monsters, destroyers of blue planets. Let me put things into perspective, shake some realisation into the gullible and expose the environmental hypocrisy used in taxing passenger cars. Readers should recall that all other vehicles, including sea craft, have very advantageous taxation regimes and the current alternatives to our mobility requirements fall drastically short of our needs.

Hypocrisy 1: In 2005, Malta imported around 320,000 tons of cement (810kg of cement per capita. Source: Cembureau). Cement production emits 1.25 times its weight in CO2. Malta does not manufacture cement but Malta 's demand for this cement is responsible for the release of 400,000 tons of CO2.

A recent NSO report disclosed that 525Gg (525,000 tons) of CO2 were emitted by the "transport sector" in 2005. The NSO release qualified the transport sector as "road transport" incorporating private passenger cars and all other road vehicles. CO2 emissions from private passenger cars alone are estimated to be 240,000 tons - a large amount indeed but less than that caused by the cement production imported by Malta in 2005. Cement is needed for infrastructural works and the building of more empty apartments.

A 175 square metre apartment built of concrete brick (the norm nowadays) would have generated 18 tons of CO2 from the cement alone, excluding transport and finishing. This is equivalent to a medium sized passenger car covering 110,000 km. The CO2 emissions which will be generated in the construction of the 800+ unit Mistra development will roughly be equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions of 30,000 passenger cars. I put the question to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister: Is there bad CO2 and good CO2? There are other bad road vehicle emissions directly causing ill health but so are the dust emissions from the construction industry, moreover vehicle emissions from the same industry and other commercial and large vehicles are the major contributors to all other noxious vehicle emissions.

Hypocrisy 2: The tourist industry is a major pillar of the Maltese economy, a means of survival of our very people a major source of wealth and employment. Conveniently, the environmental impact of this industry is not prominently placed in the public eye. Excluding its effect on water table depletion, increased power demands and social costs, CO2 emissions from jet fuel used in bringing in 1.2 million visitors is equivalent to 270,000 tons - 250kg per visitor, one way! For every 1kg of CO2 emitted, a tourist spends €0.50 locally. Very cheap carbon! The above mentioned NSO report does not include the emissions due to aviation (jet fuel).

Why was aviation left out when this was routinely included in the State of the Environment Report 2005? It was part of the 25 per cent of Malta 's CO2 emissions created by the transport sector. Aviation emissions have suddenly...eh, taken flight!

We will all stand in awe at the genius behind the legal contortions that will take place to spite the values and the spirit of the European Treaty when the new car taxation system is unveiled.