Lima aftermath

The European Union has, for a long time now, been nourishing the concept of protecting the environment. Its current decision to do away with the proposal that aims to boost recycling and cut air pollution deaths, according to ministers from 11 EU states, is in fact not in congruence with EU’s framework legislation.

The Italian environment minister, Gian Luca Galletti, has very evidently expressed his displeasure over the prospects of doing away with the proposal completely as it reflects on Europe’s scheme to restrain or rather thwart possibilities of climate change. Ministers from 11 EU states have egged the commission on keeping the two packages, as they are cardinal legislative proposals. For Italy the main reason for disappointment is the fact that the Italian prime minister just returned from the Lima conference on climate change, which made decorous progress towards a new global deal on climate change. It is meant to be reached in Paris at the end of 2015. Since waste management is a pressing issue for Italy, binning the proposal altogether will be antithetical to the progress made in Lima. Many of the member states, including Italy, believe that the latter-day air pollution is extremely pernicious and that it puts a lot many lives at stake. To withdraw a package that’ll not only guard the ecosystem and wildlife but also save premature deaths, thereby improving the quality of life, seems impermissible to many of the member states of EU. Italy feels that EU is unfortunately walking backward from its initial plan, it is not inching closer towards positive progressive change but a rather regressive reorientation. Even though the European Union has stepped back from completely gouging out the initial set targets to manage waste and monitor deaths caused due to air pollution, both the segments will be revised on a titanic scale.

Europe very evidently experiences hardship from a meagerness of many critical resources, and an inefficacious utilisation of those available and so placing the maximising profits subject matter before an ecological one prompts trepidation of focusing on a proposal that will only bring pro tempore returns on investment. Many ministers of the EU states believe that it will in fact be a top model built on shifting sands and its edifice will corrode with time. To them it seems like the Commission is preparing a potion to dissolve a number of fundamental legislative proposals. Italy feels that this will not help the road to Paris and so it’ll continue to stand in opposition.