Page 64 of 126
108
# HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
be generated. These substances will not only pollute the environment but also jeopardize human health. That is why the Government closed down incinerators, instead it will use landfills to dispose of domestic waste. In fact, Mr. PATTEN, the Governor, in his policy address also mentioned that $7.3 billion will be used to construct new landfills in remote areas to replace old landfills and incinerators. I do not agree to this waste disposal strategy.
Together with my colleagues I would like to say several comments in favour of incinerators. In fact, to solely rely on landfills to dispose of domestic waste is impracticable because this is only a myopic stop gap. It cannot reduce the amount of refuse in Hong Kong. According to the estimation in 1988, by the year 2000 the amount of refuse will reach 23,000 tonnes. But in fact, in 1992 we have almost reached this level. At present, about 2/3 of the refuse at landfills are construction wastes, of which 63% can be recycled. Therefore, landfills cannot reduce the amount of refuse, instead it will increase the amount of refuse. This is really very ironic. In addition, to transfer refuse to remote landfills through transfer stations will call for huge transportation costs. If we add in the land cost of the landfill as well as the opportunity cost and if the site is to be used for other purposes, then you will see that landfills are not cost-effective at all. And if we use landfills to dispose of waste, carbon dioxide will be produced and greenhouse effect will be generated by carbon dioxide and other toxic gases will be emitted. So I think we should not overestimate the effectiveness of landfills and write off the contribution of incinerators. We should have a comprehensive and cost-effective domestic waste disposal strategy.
The Government is of the view that incinerators will pollute the air, but the authority should not be biased and neglect the fact that advanced incinerators will not have such shortcomings. In Japan, Canada, and Singapore, we discovered that through new and modern incinerators with high technology, toxic gases and ashes can be avoided. Therefore, modern incinerators can be environmentally friendly and the new and modern incinerators can control pollution level up to a level of 99.9995%. And modern incinerators in burning away substances can melt substances that could not be melted by old incinerators such as plastic bags and batteries. And also in the combustion process of modern incinerators, electricity can be generated to be sold to neighbouring areas and factories. Therefore incinerators can reduce the amount of waste. And if we compare the cost-effectiveness between landfills and incinerators, I will see that incinerators are more cost-effective because electricity generated can generate revenue but there was no additional revenue generated by landfills. Therefore the cost is even higher than the incinerators and the cost will decrease year by year for incinerators. So we must have a comprehensive and cost-effective domestic waste disposal strategy. We must classify waste and use flexible methods and we must apply cost-effective principles for waste that can be recycled, for example, paper and construction waste. The Government should encourage the public and contractors to recycle such waste, then we can reduce the creation of waste and reduce the consumption of limited natural resources. Secondly, we must introduce modernized new incinerators to treat waste that cannot be recycled and these will not generate toxic gases and waste and the remaining ashes can be transferred to the landfills. And thirdly, for organic matter which cannot be combusted, this can be transported to landfills. This will also lengthen the life span of landfills. Therefore, we must have a comprehensive and cost-effective domestic waste disposal method including waste classification, recycling, high-tech new incinerators, and landfills. Then we should have a flexible waste disposal method which follows the cost-effectiveness which can reduce the amount of waste generated. So I support today's motion whole-heartedly.
MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in English): Although under the existing legislation, the Urban Council is only the Collection Authority for domestic and street wastes in the urban area while the Central Government remains the Disposal Authority of all types of wastes of the whole territory. It should not imply that the Council will have no say in such an important policy matter as the choice of means of disposal, namely, landfill or high-tech incinerator, since a decision on the subject matter may affect both the quality of our living environment and the cost-effectiveness of a certain amount of public expenditure, both of which are concerns of the Council and of every ordinary citizen.
After having digested the information supplied by the Council Secretariat in the last few days, I have personally arrived at two observations on the question of suitability of continuing the landfill policy.
Firstly, I feel very sad and shocked to find that the landfill operation being practised in Hong Kong is in fact deferring, if not preserving, the waste disposal problem in large scale which is endangering both the living environment and the existing natural ecological system. Our local cleansing contractors engaged in domestic estates only picked up reusable old furniture or equipment, recyclable newspaper, and metal tins, but certainly not organic wastes in plastic bags from kitchens, markets, or restaurants. All these organic wastes are well packed and sealed in plastic bags supplied by the management office of each housing estate and they are collected intact by the Council's Refuse Collection Vehicles to Transfer Stations where they will be further packed into containers on barges to reach the Landfill Sites in Tseung Kwan O, Pillar's Point, or Junk Bay. On the site, millions of these domestic or even UC plastic bags (from our public dust bins everywhere) containing organic or inorganic wastes are being dumped orderly in layers with some separating 'blinding earth' in-between to reach a depth of some 20 or 30 metres depending on the topographical configuration of the site. Organic matters in septic conditions will certainly produce the dangerous gas commonly known as methane which is highly inflammable. It is, however, said that both the aerobic and the anaerobic bacteria will take care of these refuse and will decompose them. But one may have already forgotten that neither the aerobic nor the anaerobic bacteria can decompose the millions of
Page 64 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 64 of 126
109
consumption of limited natural resources. Secondly, we must introduce modernized new incinerators to treat waste that cannot be recycled and these will not generate toxic gases and waste and the remaining ashes can be transferred to the landfills. And thirdly, for organic matter which cannot be combusted, this can be transported to landfills. This will also lengthen the life span of landfills. Therefore, we must have a comprehensive and cost-effective domestic waste disposal method including waste classification, recycling, high-tech new incinerators, and landfills. Then we should have a flexible waste disposal method which follows the cost-effectiveness which can reduce the amount of waste generated. So I support today's motion whole-heartedly.
MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in English):-Although under the existing legislation, the Urban Council is only the Collection Authority for domestic and street wastes in the urban area while the Central Government remains the Disposal Authority of all types of wastes of the whole territory. It should not imply that the Council will have no say in such an important policy matter as the choice of means of disposal, namely, landfill or high-tech incinerator, since a decision on the subject matter may affect both the quality of our living environment and the cost-effectiveness of a certain amount of public expenditure, both of which are concerns of the Council and of every ordinary citizen.
After having digested the information supplied by the Council Secretariat in the last few days, I have personally arrived at two observations on the question of suitability of continuing the landfill policy.
Firstly, I feel very sad and shock to find that the landfill operation being practised in Hong Kong is in fact deferring, if not preserving, the waste disposal problem in large scale which is endangering both the living environment and the existing natural ecological system. Our local cleansing contractors engaged in domestic estates only picked up reusable old furniture or equipments, recyclable newspaper and metal tins, but certainly not organic wastes in plastic bags from kitchens, markets or restaurants. All these organic wastes are well packed and sealed in plastic bags supplied by the management office of each housing estate and they are collected intact by the Council's Refuse Collection Vehicles to Transfer Stations where they will be further packed into containers on barges to reach the Landfill Sites in Tseung Kwan O, Pillar's Points or Junk Bay. On the site, millions of these domestic or even UC plastic bags (from our public dust bins everywhere) containing organic or inorganic wastes are being dumped orderly in layers with some separating 'blinding earth' in-between to reach a depth of some 20 or 30 metres depending on the topographical configuration of the site. Organic matters in septic conditions will certainly produce the dangerous gas commonly known as methane which is highly inflammable. It is, however, said that both the aerobic and the anaerobic bacteria will take care of these refuse and will decompose them. But one may have already forgotten that neither the aerobic nor the anaerobic bacteria can decompose the millions of