XN000022-1989-06-05 — Page 7

MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1989

"BUT

PLEASE DO NOT TELL US TO DO LESS, THAT WE ARE AMBITIOUS, OR THAT WE ARE MAKING STANDARDS TOO TIGHT.'

י

BEING TOO

WE

SIR DAVID EXPLAINED THAT HE USED THE WORD COLDLY, "BECAUSE ADMIT PAST MISTAKES WITHOUT APOLOGY AND CONCENTRATE ON AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE DAMAGE THAT HAS RESULTED."

OF AIR INDUSTRIAL

"COMPREHENSIVELY, BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ONE DOCUMENT WE SET DOWN OUR OBJECTIVES FOR TACKLING ALL FORMS OF POLLUTION: AND WATER, NOISE, AND WASTE, REGARDLESS OF SOURCE. WHETHER OR DOMESTIC,' HE SAID.

"AT

"

JUST

WHICH

THE SAME TIME WE SET DOWN WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE: NOT REMEDIAL WORK, BUT ALSO THE ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION AND PLANNING MUST BE SET IN TRAIN TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF PRESENT ILLS,

THE CHIEF SECRETARY POINTED OUT THAT THE NORMAL GREEN STAGE HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH BECAUSE URGENCY DEMANDED UNUSUAL NO MEASURES, ADDING THAT THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTED CONSULTATION,

PAPER

"OF COURSE WE NEED TO HAVE DISCUSSION WITH THOSE AFFECTED IN INDUSTRY, AND WITH ALL OF THOSE AGENCIES ON WHOM THE GOVERNMENT MUST RELY IN IMPLEMENTING ITS PLANS, HE SAID.

"INDEED MANY HAVE BEEN CONSULTED ALREADY BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN DRAWING UP THE DOCUMENT. BUT THIS TIME

ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION IS TO BE FROM A BENCHMARK : CONSULTATION HOW, ON THE PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR ACHIEVING AIMS, NOT ON WHETHER THE AIMS ARE RIGHT.

SIR DAVID POINTED OUT THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGES OF THE WHITE PAPER WAS POLLUTERS SHOULD PAY.

HE SAID NONE OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROPOSED WAS CHEAP, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LEAST $20 BILLION WAS NEEDED FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURAL

IN PROJECTS,

PARTICULAR NEW SEWAGE SYSTEMS. "BUT THESE ARE ALSO AN INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE. AN INVESTMENT WHOSE DIVIDENDS WILL REAPED IN A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND A CHEAPER AND MORE EFFICIENT OF MANAGING IT: BY PREVENTING DAMAGE RATHER THAN REPAIRING IT.'

...

BE

MEANS

THE

HE NOTED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS A FAIR CHARGE ON

AS COMMUNITY

A WHOLE THROUGH TAXATION. "SOME, BUT NOT ALL. WE ALL CONTRIBUTE TO HOUSEHOLD WASTE; WE ALL MUST THEREFORE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS REMOVAL.

+1

"WE DO NOT ALL CONTRIBUTE TO INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION, SO WE SHOULD NOT ALL PAY FOR CLEANING IT UP, HE SAID.

*

"THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE COMMUNITY SHOULD SUBSIDISE DIRTY INDUSTRIES BY TIDYING UP THEIR WASTE PRODUCTS, OR PUTTING RIGHT DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY THEIR CARELESSNESS OR THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO INVEST IN MODERN TREATMENT FACILITIES.

/"THE COST