Page 104 of 115
196
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
usually settle back to peaceful existence. And above all, the produce of volcanic eruption is usually fertile and provides new impetus for future growth.
I hope patience and tolerance will prevail as these theatrical disturbances, though painful at times, are only temporary and Hong Kong shall overcome and prosperity and stability will prevail.
To ensure that our island will not sink as a result of the volcanic eruption, I propose that we form a disaster rescue unit or back benchers club, or better still, call it by a name we have come to accept, amongst ourselves, the Motorola Fellowship, to provide a platform for alternate views to be heard.
This is possibly my last formal speech in these Chambers for the foreseeable future and I would like to keep it short as I have probably spoken too much already in the last three and a half years. Anyway, I would like to leave more time to those that follow me. It remains for me to thank you, Mr. Chairman and my fellow colleagues of the Urban Council for your tolerance for my occasional outbursts during my term of office. For me, it was a most enjoyable and beneficial vocation. I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Urban Council every success in the future.
With these words, I support the motion.
PROFESSOR LEUNG PING-CHUNG (in English):- Mr. Chairman, I am going to discuss a most important urban problem, namely waste disposal.
Is there a better way for waste disposal? Dumping waste in landfills has been endorsed as the main method of disposing waste in Hong Kong. This was an important Government decision established in 1989 after intensive studies. With this major choice, all forms of incineration were condemned. With this major choice, the 2 Municipal Councils which were responsible for the collection of wastes were to build more and bigger refuse collection points, keep a large refuse collecting fleet of vehicles to get the wastes transferred to the Waste Transfer Stations, thence to the landfills.
8,500 tonnes of waste are produced daily in the domestic households all over Hong Kong. A study on past data indicated gradual rise. It was assumed then that the landfill sites provided and to be built would be sufficient to handle the rapidly increasing demands from the domestic sector and also, an equivalent amount from the commercial industrial sector.
Five years have passed, and the effective refuse delivery system has been functional. Civil servants responsible for environmental protection started to realise that landfills were topped up and filled much more quickly than originally expected. While new landfill sites are not easy to find in a city like Hong Kong, it becomes an urgent business to extend the longevity of the landfills and to look for other effective ways of waste disposal. One assumption says that if less users use the landfills, the landfills could last longer. Is there some means to dissuade the users of landfills? Charge them, and the threat of extra cost would drive them away. This pollute and pay policy is expected to work as an immediate problem-solving means, the 'polluter pay' policy might not be a bad one. Nevertheless, one doubts whether it will be effective.
Page 104 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 104 of 115
197
According to available data, 60% of the waste being dumped into landfills consists of building site refuse, i.e., gravel, wood, debris, etc. If such waste could be diverted to its proper destination, the landfills would take double the amount of time to get filled. Why is this not done? Why is the 60% illegal dumping not channelled to the proper sites? Why should the complicated system of charging be endorsed before doing the simple waste diversion?
Let us look at a more fundamental issue. Even if the landfill could last and new landfill sites could still be identified and created, is it an advisable policy to keep landfill as the only means of waste disposal? The Environmental Protection Department has already commissioned and completed a new study to take a comprehensive look at the problem of waste disposal. The recommendations given have been the following: (1) reduce waste at source, (2) recycle waste, and (3) bulk reduction prior to disposal, in that order of priority.
The principles given in the recommendations appear correct, but if one looks at the practicality and effectiveness, one has to query the order of priority. There are many ways to deal with scientific and technological problems; waste disposal is a scientific and technological problem. One can deal with this problem by using technology, using legislative intervention, and having commercial business sector involvement and public education. If technology is available, it produces immediate results. Legislative intervention, however, needs the right climate, and drastic measures are never advisable. Commercial business interests need initiation and gradual matriculation, whereas public education is even more time-dependent. This is common sense, and with this common sense in mind, let us look at the priorities given in the new proposal.
Waste reduction at source and recycling need awareness, spontaneous and compulsory commitment, which could only be accomplished through legislation or education. It cannot be quick. There will be no immediate result.
Waste reduction, however, could be immediately achieved through technological measures. High-temperature incinerators with powerful filters are now available and being used in major cities for effective waste reduction, while pollution will not result. The ash produced in such incinerators amounts to only 10% of the original waste volume. As I said, this type of incinerator is popular in Europe and Japan. Hong Kong has no land to spare for landfills. It would be wrong for Hong Kong to rigidly stick to its policy of 'No Incinerators, Only Landfills'. A more practical alternative must be adopted. The way to bring about waste reduction should be an immediate establishment of modern incinerators and the gradual introduction of waste reduction at source and practical programmes of waste recycling.
If millions of dollars could be spent on landfills, one or two incinerators can definitely be afforded by Hong Kong to give a quick solution to waste reduction. Obstacles to the new long-term scheme should be identified and patiently tackled to make way for legislation and programmes for waste reduction at source, waste separation, and recycling.
The Urban Services Department, unfortunately, is entrusted only with the duty of waste delivery. This has been a most stupid Government policy. Being the most
Page 104 of 115
Page 104 of 115
196
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
usually settle back to peaceful existence. And above all, the produce of volcanic eruption is usually fertile and provides new impetus for future growth.
I hope patience and tolerance will prevail as these theatrical disturbances, though painful at times, are only temporary and Hong Kong shall overcome and prosperity and stability will prevail.
To ensure that our island will not sink as a result of the volcanic eruption, I propose that we form a disaster rescue unit or back benchers club, or better still, call it by a name we have come to accept, amongst ourselves, the Motorola Fellowship, to provide a platform for alternate views to be heard.
This is possibly my last formal speech in these Chambers for the foreseeable future and I would like to keep it shorts as I have probably spoken too much already in the last three and a half years. Anyway, I would like to leave more time to those that follow me. It remains for me to thank you, Mr. Chairman and my fellow colleagues of the Urban Council for your tolerance for my occasional outbursts during my term of office. For me, it was a most enjoyable and beneficial vocation. I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Urban Council every success in the future.
With these words, I support the motion.
PROFESSOR LEUNG PING-CHUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, I am going to discuss a most important urban problem, namely waste disposal.
Is there a better way for waste disposal? Dumping waste in landfills has been endorsed as the main method of disposing waste in Hong Kong. This was an important Government decision established in 1989 after intensive studies. With this major choice, all forms of incineration were condemned. With this major choice, the 2 Municipal Councils which were responsible for the collection of wastes were to build more and bigger refuse collection points, keep a large refuse collecting fleet of vehicles to get the wastes transferred to the Waste Transfer Stations, thence to the landfills.
8 500 tones of waste are produced daily in the domestic households all over Hong Kong. A study on past data indicated gradual rise. It was assumed then that the landfill sites provided and to be built would be sufficient to handle the rapidly increasing demands from the domestic sector and also, an equivalent amount from the commercial industrial sector.
Five
years have passed, and the effective refuse delivery system has been functional. Civil servants responsible for environmental protection started to realise that landfills were topped up and filled much more quickly than originally expected. While new landfill sites are not easy to find in a city like Hong Kong, it becomes an urgent business to extend the longevity of the landfills and to look for other effective ways of waste disposal. One assumption says that if less users use the landfills, the landfills could last longer. Is there some means to dissuade the users of landfills? Charge them, and the threat of extra cost would drive them away. This pollute and pay policy is expected to work as an immediate problem solving means, the 'polluter pay' policy might not be a bad one. Nevertheless on doubts whether it will be effecitve.
Page 104 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 104 of 115
197
According to available data, 60% of the waste being dumped into landfills consist of building site refuse, i.e. gravel, wood, debris, etc. If such waste could be diverted to its proper destination, the landfills would take double the amount of time to get filled. Why is this not done? Why is the 60% illegal dumping not channeled to the proper sites? Why should the complicated system of charging be endorsed before doing the simple waste diversion?
Let us look at a more fundamental issue. Even if the landfill could last and new landfill sites could still be identified and created, is it an advisable policy to keep landfill as the only means of waste disposal? The Environmental Protection Department has already commissioned and completed a new study to take a comprehensive look at the problem of waste disposal. The recommendations given have been the following; (1) reduce waste at source, (2) recycle waste and (3) bulk reduction prior to disposal, in that order of priority.
The principles given in the recommendations appear correct, but if one looks at the practicality and effectiveness, one has to query the order of priority. There are many ways to deal with scientific and technological problems, waste disposal is a scientific and technoloical problem. One can deal with this problem by using technology, using legislative intervention and having commercial business sector involvement and public education. If technology is available, it produces immediate results. Legislative intervention, however, needs the right climate and drastic measures are never advisable. Commercial business interests need initiation and gradual matriculation whereas public education is even more time dependent. This is common sense and with this common sense in mind, let us look at the priorities given in the new proposal.
Waste reduction at source and recycling need awareness, spontaneous and compulsory commitment which could only accomplished through legislation or education. It cannot be quick. There will be no immediate result.
Waste reduction, however, could be immediately achieved through technological measures. High temperature incinerators with powerful filters are now available and being used in major cities for effective waste reduction while pollution will not result. The ash produced in such incinerators amount to only 10% of the original waste volume. As I said, this type of incinerator is popular in Europe and Japan. Hong Kong has no land to spare for landfills. It would be wrong for Hong Kong to rigidly stick to its policy of 'No Incinerators, Only Landfills'. A more practical alternative must be adopted. The way to bring about waste reduction should be an immediate establishment of modern incinerators and the gradual introduction of waste reduction at source and practical programmes of waste recycling.
If millions of dollars could be spent on landfills, one or two incinerators can definitely be afforded by Hong Kong to give a quick solution to waste reduction. Obstacles to the new long term scheme should be identified and patiently tackled to make way for legislation and programmes for waste reduction at source, waste separation and recycling.
The Urban Services Department unfortunately is entrusted only with the duty of waste delivery. This has been a most stupid Government policy. Being the most
Page 104 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.