Page 60 of 126
101
100
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
This increase brings these fees into line with the Government's own increase for similar services which was introduced on 1st October 1992. Whilst not compulsory for the Urban Council to follow suit, it is obviously adminis-tratively convenient to have uniformity in this matter. Also the increase is reasonable, bearing in mind the type of services and the general rise in the cost of living.
Sir, I beg to move.
MR. LO KING-MAN (in English):---I second the motion.
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
2. MR. PAO PING-WING, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name:
'RESOLVED that this Council urges Government to review its domestic waste disposal policy and to consider introducing modern, cost-effective and environmentally friendly incineration plants as part of the comprehensive approach to the disposal of domestic waste.'
Mr. Chairman, waste disposal has always been a major concern of this Council because any strategy adopted will have significant, and very often, irreversible impact on the environment. While we welcome most heartily Government's initiative in drawing up a definite plan for waste disposal, we deeply regret that it has failed to adopt a comprehensive and diversified approach which is environmentally friendly in the short term and has minimal adverse effects in the longer range.
Despite this Council's repeated advice that incineration should be adopted as part of the overall disposal strategy, Government has insisted on using landfill alone. The argument the Government holds against incineration is that it will aggravate air pollution. However, this argument is based on obsolete and erroneous premises and has also underestimated the pitfalls of using landfill as the only means of waste disposal in Hong Kong.
In suggesting that incineration should remain one of the waste disposal methods, I am fully aware of the many grievances and complaints against the incinerators at Lai Chi Kok, Kennedy Town and Kwai Chung. These are valid complaints directed at the smoke and exhaust generated by the incinerators, which cause serious air pollution in its vicinity. However, these problems are due to the outdated designs of the incinerators which fail to meet modern environmental requirements. Moreover, their location in high density, populous neighbourhoods is also undesirable.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As a public hygiene authority, this Council has, since the publication of the Consultative Document on the Waste Disposal Plan for Hong Kong, visited many overseas cities including Tokyo, Washington D.C. and Vancouver, with incineration facilities for rubbish disposal. We have paid special attention to the environmental impact of the incinerators on their neighbourhoods.
Having seen the operation of these modern incinerators equipped with computerised control and pollution monitoring devices, this Council is convinced that they can be completely pollution free. As a matter of great interest, one of the incinerators visited by this Council, the Meguro Incineration Plant, is built near the centre of Tokyo in the neighbourhood of a high class residential development.
Having established that with the latest technology and design, modern incinerators can be environmentally friendly, I would like to elaborate on the disadvantages of relying on landfills as the only means of waste disposal.
In the first place, landfills take up scarce land resources. Unlike incineration, the landfill method will not reduce the volume of waste. Waste will accumulate at a fast rate and in the long run, old sites will be exhausted and new sites will have to be identified. For those who are genuinely concerned with environmental protection, landfill is probably the worst method: it is simply dumping rubbish into remote areas and eventually damaging the natural environment there.
Worse still, because of the concentration of rubbish, landfills will generate greenhouse gases along with a myriad of toxic substances. Many of these toxic compounds are known to be carcinogenic. On the other hand, greenhouse gases can affect the surrounding area by either escape through the surface into the air or by gas migration.
Our view is that incineration, landfill, and most significant of all, recycling should complement each other to form a comprehensive and suitably diversified waste disposal strategy. Under the comprehensive plan, waste collected will be separated into three categories, to be disposed of by recycling, incineration and landfill. Both recycling and incineration reduce the volume of rubbish and is a very 'clean' method of managing waste. Items which cannot be treated by these waste reduction methods will then be disposed of by landfill. This will reduce the adverse impact landfills will have on the environment and prolong the life of landfill sites. We therefore strongly advocate the adoption of a multi-module waste disposal plan.
I am particularly disappointed to note that Government is not unaware of the pros and cons of the various waste disposal methods and the benefits of a diversified approach. The Consultative Document contains useful and well-researched analysis and based on the scientific findings detailed in Appendix D of that document, I can hardly see how Government would reach the lop-sided and short-sighted conclusion in deciding to rely on landfill as the waste disposal method.
Page 60 of 126
Page 60Page 61
Page 61 of 126
Page 60 of 126
Page 60 of 126
101
100
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
This increase brings these fees into line with the Government's own increase for similar services which was introduced on 1st October 1992. Whilst not compulsory for the Urban Council to follow suit, it is obviously adminis- tratively convenient to have uniformity in this matter. Also the increase is reasonable, bearing in mind the type of services and the general rise in the cost of living.
Sir, I beg to move.
MR. LO KING-MAN (in English):---I second the motion.
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
2. MR. PAO PING-WING, CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name:
'RESOLVED that this Council urges Government to review its domestic waste disposal policy and to consider introducing modern, cost-effective and environmentally friendly incineration plants as part of the comprehensive approach to the disposal of domestic waste.'
Mr. Chairman, waste disposal has always been a major concern of this Council because any strategy adopted will have significant, and very often, irreversible impact on the environment. While we welcome most heartily Government's initiative in drawing up a definite plan for waste disposal, we deeply regret that it has failed to adopt a comprehensive and diversified approach which is environmentally friendly in the short term and has minimal adverse effects in the longer range.
Despite this Council's repeated advice that incineration should be adopted as part of the overall disposal strategy, Government has insisted on using landfill alone. The argument the Government holds against incineration is that it will aggravate air pollution. However, this argument is based on obsolete and erroneous premises and has also underestimated the pitfalls of using landfill as the only means of waste disposal in Hong Kong.
In suggesting that incineration should remain one of the waste disposal methods, I am fully aware of the many grievances and complaints against the incinerators at Lai Chi Kok, Kennedy Town and Kwai Chung. These are valid complaints directed at the smoke and exhaust generated by the incinerators, which cause serious air pollution in its vicinity. However, these problems are due to the outdated designs of the incinerators which fail to meet modern environmental requirements. Moreover, their location in high density, populous neighbourhoods is also undesirable.
Page 60 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As a public hygiene authority, this Council has, since the publication of the Consultative Document on the Waste Disposal Plan for Hong Kong, visited many overseas cities including Tokyo, Washington D.C. and Vancouver, with incineration facilities for rubbish disposal. We have paid special attention to the environmental impact of the incinerators on their neighbourhoods.
Having seen the operation of these modern incinerators equipped with computerised control and pollution monitoring devices, this Council is convinced that they can be completely pollution free. As a matter of great interest, one of the incinerators visited by this Council, the Meguro Incineration Plant, is built near the centre of Tokyo in the neighbourhood of a high class residential development.
Having established that with the latest technology and design, modern incinerators can be environmentally friendly, I would like to elaborate on the disadvantages of relying on landfills as the only means of waste disposal.
In the first place, landfills take up scarce land resources. Unlike incineration, the landfill method will not reduce the volume of waste. Waste will accumulate at a fast rate and in the long run, old sites will be exhausted and new sites will have to be identified. For those who are genuinely concerned with environmental protection, landfill is probably the worst method: it is simply dumping rubbish into remote areas and eventually damaging the natural environment there.
Worse still, because of the concentration of rubbish, landfills will generate greenhouse gases along with a myriad of toxic substances. Many of these toxic compounds are known to be carcinogenic. On the other hand, greenhouse gases can affect the surrounding area by either escape through the surface into the air or by gas migration.
Our view is that incineration, landfill, and most significant of all, recycling should complement each other to form a comprehensive and suitably diversified waste disposal strategy. Under the comprehensive plan, waste collected will be separated into three categories, to be disposed of by recycling, incineration and landfill. Both recycling and incineration reduce the volume of rubbish and is a very 'clean' method of managing waste. Items which cannot be treated by these waste reduction methods will then be disposed of by landfill. This will reduce the adverse impact landfills will have on the environment and prolong the life of landfill sites. We therefore strongly advocate the adoption of a multi-module waste disposal plan.
I am particularly disappointed to note that Government is not unaware of the pros and cons of the various waste disposal methods and the benefits of a diversified approach. The Consultative Document contains useful and well-researched analysis and based on the scientific findings detailed in Appendix D of that document, I can hardly see how Government would reach the lop-sided and short-sighted conclusion in deciding to rely on landfill as the waste disposal method.
Page 60 of 126
Page 60Page 61
Page 61 of 126
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.