Harare — Zimbabwe needs to do its bit to keep carbon emissions down and motor vehicles are a major source of carbon dioxide with inefficient engines aggravating the problem.

But the Environmental Management Agency seems to be ready to go to extremes not seen in many developed countries, let alone developing countries, to ameliorate emissions.

On Thursday, teams of inspectors from the agency were trying to measure the carbon dioxide output from vehicle engines and were ready to offer those whose car engines seemed to be set a bit rich the opportunity to pay an admission of guilt fine of US$20.

For second offenders, the agency wants them jailed for three months, although somehow we doubt that any magistrate would impose such a sentence at this stage.

We understand that the agency has acquired some fancy portable machines, probably in the form of a gift since we doubt if such meters were high on the Treasury's list of priorities, and wish to use them.

But we think the agency is going the wrong way about it.

First of all, we doubt if one motorist in a hundred on Zimbabwe's roads understands the talk of the richness of a fuel-air mixture. This is different from the smoke produced by the engines of some diesel vehicles, although that is often the result of an over-rich mixture as well.

Secondly, few of those aware of the concept and the problem of over-rich mixtures are likely to have any testing equipment readily to hand. Older vehicles, and it is with these that the problem is usually most severe, are not serviced in high-tech service stations.

They are well-serviced at home or by mechanics who have little more than a set of good basic tools.

We would have thought that if the EMA is so concerned over extra carbon emissions from inefficient engines, it would start fixing the problem with an educational campaign.

This would explain the problem and its sources. The EMA could station its testing equipment at car parks and the like and offer free testing to any interested driver, so that they could see if in fact they had a problem, and if so how serious it was.

As the campaign built up, the EMA could consider enforcement orders. These would have to take into account the problems of spares, the cost of spares and such other mundane matters.

Enforcement orders at the beginning would give adequate time to fix the problem, and certainly until after the next service so that a motorist could have all necessary work done more cheaply at one time.

There would be no question of fines at this stage, since few "offenders" would be aware of the crime they were committing and the main objective of the first exercise would be educational rather than criminalizing people.

We would hope the EMA wants to fix the problem rather than criminalise it.

As time goes on the motoring public will be more aware of the need to have efficient engines; enterprising businesses will offer cheap and simple tests, probably at service stations. As testing emissions become part of ordinary life, then the sanctions can be brought into effect.

The EMA can be very bad at public relations. We would have thought that carrying the rational majority with it, and even helping it set the environmental agenda, was absolutely vital. Only in this way can the minority who do not care be brought to heel.

Trying to criminalise something that most people neither understand nor even know it exists is not the way to change a culture or even produce effective action in the end.

There are other ways the EMA can reduce Zimbabwe's carbon footprint effectively, without the use of fancy machinery.

We have suggested before that banning the import of filament light bulbs would be useful, ensuring better management of firewood, so that cut trees are replaced several fold, encouraging the manufacture and sale of cheap and efficient wood stoves (Malawi has a good design), and trying to create a culture that does away with most short or unnecessary driving trips.

Concentrating resources on an arcane area of environmental bad practice is less useful.

Zimbabwe must, like everyone else, develop while simultaneously cutting its carbon emissions. No one disputes this, nor does anyone dispute that the EMA must take a leading role.

But the methods chosen must be appropriate and effective, not what the EMA is trying to do at the start of its roads campaign.