For the last many years, I've been bemused whenever commentators have said that there was no difference between the two major political parties, and no better is either coming or can ever come. Not only is this utterly nihilistic, but it is also totally useless. We might as well all pack our bags and emigrate, or freely admit that we prefer to live in squalor and hopelessness.

An example of this general approach appeared last week in my colleague Peter Espeut's column entitled "Because they are democratic". In it he states "Neither of the two major parties offering themselves to us, care much for the environment. They will say that this is because they are democratic; they do not believe that the voters care much about the environment, and they are responding to the wishes of the voters."

Neither the People's National Party nor the Jamaica Labour Party, however, has said anything remotely resembling that. But the pervasive thinking in the world of Jamaican journalism is that one can make the most outlandish statements as long as one is careful to accuse both parties of it.

This kind of thing has been going on in the country virtually since the February 1989 General Election which the governing JLP lost. The PNP came in, and their strategy upon taking office was to say that nothing had been done in the decade of the 80s, and stick to it.

Readers will remember that after the February election it was being bandied about that there was no economic growth in the country during the 80s. It took forever to get out the official GDP figures for the previous year, while the public debate raged on interminably, it seemed. When everybody had forgotten about it and more or less accepted that no growth took place, eventually the figure was published of 4-5 per cent growth in GDP for the last few years of the 80s. But nobody was interested in the subject any longer.

Today, everybody remembers the negative spin subsequently placed on the economic performance of the 80s. Nobody remembers the facts of the actual production figures, however, which were held up for the longest time, and so this mischief was able to take root. It set in train a pattern of public commentary which has persisted to this day. The refrain became "No better fish, no better barrel".

Mr. Espeut in his column writes indignantly, "I have seen squatter settlements in low-lying areas 'baptised' into legitimacy and official housing schemes built on flood-plains ... Why is it that so many newly-built or repaired roads, bridges and housing schemes seem to be seriously affected by the rains? Why has the road leaving the first bridge on the Old Harbour Bypass (going west) already fallen by several inches? Why was the headquarters of the Highway 2000 work site flooded out last week? Why was the newly-built Angels Housing Scheme flooded during Isidore?" and much more.

Why indeed. Of one thing we can be certain, and it is that the JLP had absolutely nothing to do with any of these public outrages, because they've been out of office for the last 13 years. They're not in power. I don't see therefore why an article filled with a litany of terrible lapses in the PNP Government's administration of this country, made all-too-evident by the recent storms, should start off by trying to implicate the JLP in this grievous matter.

Moreover Mr. Espeut does not offer in his article a single example of the JLP not "caring much for the environment". Since this is the second occasion on which he's made the statement without backing it up, I begin to suspect that he has no evidence whatsoever.

In the decade of the 80s, the environment was just beginning to surface as a credible concern. Prior to that concern about the environment had been the sole preserve of a minority of people generally regarded as Vegan Loonies. Indeed in the early 80s I doubt that even at the United Nations (UN) there was such a thing known as an environmental programme with targets, rather than one simply with general policies.

I would like to bet Mr. Espeut J$100 therefore that he can't come up with any credible evidence against the JLP to back up his statements. In order to collect, he will have to examine the JLP record of government in the 80s and produce it.

Readers must note that in 1987, then Prime Minister Edward Seaga received a leadership award from the United Nations equivalent to that received by the late Michael Manley for the latter's stance against apartheid. The award states "Presented by the United Nations Environment Programme to His Excellency, the Rt. Honourable Edward Seaga, Prime Minister of Jamaica, For leadership, dedication and support of the cause of environmental protection on the occasion of the inauguration of the Regional Coordination Unit of the Caribbean Environment Programme 11 May 1987."

I think Mr. Seaga's genuine personal interest in the environment is further illustrated by his Budget Speech to the House of Representatives this year. In it he speaks at length about the Lucaena plant, about which I know nothing. Seems this is a plant that can be used backwards, sideways, coming and going and which pricked his interest in the 1980s.

He reported to the House that "A small pilot project was launched by Enerplan Ltd., pioneers of the project, led by Dr. Dennis Minott and others, on Caymanas lands in the late 1980s, and some trees were introduced on hillsides.

"Most noteworthy," he continued, "the project was a recipient in 1992 of a Rockefeller Foundation award selected from 1,100 entries across the world, for projects of great promise and merit not implemented for economic or technical reasons. After the 1989 General Election the land used by the pioneers was transferred to others and the project came to a halt. A new JLP Government intends to revive this project."

Anybody who wants to know more about the Lucaena plant will have to ask Mr. Seaga, who evidently enjoys talking about it and looks forward to the opportunity of doing something about it. I'll be glad if he puts some regulation on the yachts which use Maiden Cay. They bury their trash on the Cay, and I have to watch my dogs digging up their bones and half-eaten chicken, instead of enjoying the environment.

Prime Minister P.J. Patterson is being pinned down to specific targets in specific areas on the environment by international standards promoted by the U.N., and can't show performance against those targets. That is Mr. Patterson's fault, not Mr. Seaga's. This is the record of the PNP, not the JLP, and distinctions will have to be made.