Published in HKEJ ” Professional Eye” on 4th June 2010
Christine HUNG
The Professional Commons
Whenever we are told by the Government that Hong Kong will be marginalized if not doing something to facilitate a higher degree of integration with the Mainland, have we ever thought if we are complacent to let our past success ruin our future and our competitive edges might be lost at the end of the day? Three previous articles of the series have vividly illustrated the performance of the Government in relation to people’s livelihood, public finance and the rule of law has been deteriorating due to the absence of a clear social goal. With only lip service from the Government, how can our mere concern, despite grave, toward environment be transformed into any impetus that works? Under the empty slogan “I love HK I love Green”, Hong Kong ranked 23 out of 58 participating countries under the item “Health and Environment” in the 2010 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook.
Hong Kong: a fugitive of environment
There is a general view that the irresolute Tung and irresponsible Tsang have been the culprit who made the performance of Hong Kong on combating global warming and reducing carbon emission even worse than that of the Mainland. Despite the fact that Hong Kong has been positioned as Asia’s World City and being one of the wealthiest places in the midst of Asian countries, the HKSAR Government only promised a less-than-25% reduction of energy intensity based on the level of 2005 by 2030, same as the commitment of other APEC countries. In addition, under the aegis of its being the inseparable part of China, the SAR Government insisted that “it is not required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to meet specific emission targets.” At the Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen, Hong Kong was only involved in agreeing to promoting electric vehicles. The SAR Government had put itself in complete embarrassment. When Beijing Government agreed to its latest commitment of reducing 40% emission by 2020 from 2005’s level, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau had to follow suit and indicated that “the SAR Government would try to tie in with the country’s effort to achieve the goal of reducing carbon intensity”.
It is Tsang’s strategy to deal with environmental issues in a dilatory manner. To respond to community concerns about global warming, the Government launched a consultancy study on climate change in March 2008. The study was, according to the schedule, to be completed in September 2009, but it was further postponed to early 2010 without specific reasons. It is believed that the Government attempted to dodge the public grievance in the run-up of the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. There is no further disclosure on the progress of the study to date.
Adopting air quality indicator of low standard
Hong Kong people have been devastated to witness the Government’s stagnant policy horizons and visions. The “Air Quality Objectives Review” conducted last year seems to make people believe that Tsang’s administration has the determination to achieve something, but, as far as the Government’s horizon is concerned, it is only confined to issues arising from regional air pollution, which is definitely behind the times in the sense that the whole world is now focusing on climate issues. Even worse, the Government only promised to adopt a standard that is far behind the one set by the World Health Organization.
Also, the current Municipal Solid Waste policy has been proved lacking insight and scientific justification. The primary concern of the Government is the remaining limited capability of landfills, and the Government tried to draw public attention to greater amount of land to be used for extension of the existing landfills. On the other hand, there is no plan to devise a new system that could reduce waste from the source by manipulating the life cycle of solid wastes concerned. I went hiking with friends in Clearwater Bay a few weeks ago, and witnessed how the country park there with beautiful coastline has been engulfed by landfills in expansion. We were all left dumbfounded and speechless.
Additionally, the existing policy does not probe into the real source of most of these municipal solid wastes and put in place more eco-friendly working procedures, as well as to reduce the consumption of toxic materials in the course of production. In this regard, it is highly likely to get instant result in waste reduction if producers are urged to further reduce the materials used in packages, as well as to reduce the use of plastic utensils, wooden chopsticks and foam plastic containers. On the contrary, the implementation of “Producer Responsibility Scheme” to date is mainly applied to individual consumers who do the purchase. Examples include levy on plastic bag and the proposed Producer Responsibility Scheme for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.
Recycling Industry: to be left abandoned
To develop environmental business without a mention of recycling industry is undoubtedly a mere lip service. Under the excuse of non-intervention policy, the Government has refused to support waste collection and recycling industries. Without an effective waste collection system, there would be no adequate and stable supply of recyclable material to sustain the development of this industry. Government’s indifferent attitude had resulted in successive close-down of a number of waste recycling plants of considerable scale in the past, as well as the suspension of the Eco Park project. As far as the Government is concerned, the most effective means of tackling municipal waste problems is by either incineration or transferring the waste disposal to the neighboring regions.
Another proof of the Government’s abdication of responsibility on handling locally-produced wastes is the disposal of substantial amount of untreated toxic material in landfills, while the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre on Tsing Yi Island is not fully utilized. Statistics showed that only 42,696 tonnes of chemical waste were handled in 2008 given its maximum capability of 100,000 tonnes per year. More specifically, only the mercury-related parts of Energy Saving Bulb are collected and handled, whereas the rest being dumped in the landfills. In addition, only about 2,000 tonnes of circuit boards were handled in 2009, far less than the 14,000 tonnes in 1996, implying plenty of its capability has been idled. Furthermore, what makes people depressed is that the Government strives to use this centre to incinerate medical waste in the future, rather than to fully capitalize on its idled capability to handle electronic waste.
It should be noted that the levy could help reduce carbon emission on one hand, and boost the development of recycling industries with the money collected on the other hand. In so doing, the waste collected could be channeled to local recycling factories and their recycled products for local consumption. The saving arising from the reduction of cross-border transportation could reduce energy consumption substantially. Despite these benefits, the levy is expected to arouse extensive controversy across the community where Tsang’s administration is so afraid of stepping into.
The Government has adopted the tactics-of-the-last-century attempting to deal with new problems, which results in our environment and air quality of increasing devastation. One more edge is out of our sight, and Hong Kong is being “marginalized” in the global village.
Comments are closed.