Page 374 of 485
88
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. FRANCIS TANG CHI-HO (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, as one of the spokesmen of the Democratic Party on public health, I would like to raise the following question about the disposal of municipal wastes: which is the really better alternative, landfill or incinerator? This has been the subject of international controversies for more than 30 years, and no conclusion is drawn up to this day as both alternatives have their pros and cons. While the former creates methane, adds to the greenhouse effect and generates leachate, the latter produces poisonous gases, especially the cancer-inducing dioxin. Although these problems can be mitigated with the use of modern technology, these two ways of disposal have one extremely serious latent evil in common, which is, to give added inducement to this merchandise-led society to produce wastes. Both convey the misconception that we should feel no qualms about creating wastes endlessly since we are capable of disposing of them. But this is not true. Landfills and incinerators have caused irreparable damage to our planet already. Besides, waste disposal does not mean waste elimination.
In fact, the prerequisite of waste disposal is the reduction of wastes. This is the only way to tackle the problem at root. Any other method can only alleviate the problem. If we are to green the earth, we have to start with creating less wastes, especially those that are non-biodegradable. Towards this end, we must first change our way of life and avoid manipulation by the capitalists' merchandise-led principles. We must identify our actual needs so as to cut down on the consumption of non-essential products that create excessive wastes in the manufacturing process. Otherwise, our society will be dominated by merchandise trade. Secondly, wastes that can be re-cycled and re-used should be separately collected to minimize the volume and possible damage to nature, e.g. by recycling paper, numerous trees can be saved.
However, since people have not fully accepted this idea, it is an undeniable fact that both landfills and incinerators are acceptable as makeshift methods of waste disposal, but both methods should be employed at the same time to complement each other, because when used at the same time they can minimize pollution as well as lengthen the life spans of the landfills. We must however, bear in mind that wastes have to be separated and sorted before disposal by these methods.
In conclusion, to advocate only one of these methods of waste disposal will be inadequate and irresponsible. Therefore, the decision made by the Government in 1989 is unpardonable and bureaucratic, and it should be held responsible for all harm done to the environment. Hence, we agree that as people have not changed their concept of waste disposal at this stage, the two methods mentioned above should be used together and the mistake made by the Government in 1989 must not be repeated. But in the long run, we are duty bound to publicize the true meaning of greening the environment and, in this connection, the best way to counteract the harmful effect of merchandise trade is to change people's concept and behaviour. Only in this way will the endless production of wastes be brought under control, or the wastes will at least decompose instead of causing harm to the ecology of the earth as they are doing today.
Page 374 of 485
Page 374 of 485
Page 374 of 485
Page 374 of 485
88
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. FRANCIS TANG CHI-HO (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, as one of the spokesmen of the Democratic Party on public health, I would like to raise the following question about the disposal of municipal wastes: which is the really better alternative, landfill or incinerator? This has been the subject of international controversies for more than 30 years, and no conclusion is drawn up to this day as both alternatives have their pros and cons. While the former creates methane, adds to the greenhouse effect and generates leachate, the latter produces poisonous gases, especially the cancer-inducing dioxin. Although these problems can be mitigated with the use of modern technology, these two ways of disposal have one extremely serious latent evil in common, which is, to give added inducement to this merchandise-led society to produce wastes. Both convey the misconception that we should feel no qualms about creating wastes endlessly since we are capable of disposing of them. But this is not true. Landfills and incinerators have caused irreparable damage to our planet already. Besides, waste disposal does not mean waste elimination.
In fact, the prerequisite of waste disposal is the reduction of wastes. This is the only way to tackle the problem at root. Any other method can only alleviate the problem. If we are to green the earth, we have to start with creating less wastes, especially those that are non-biodegradable. Towards this end, we must first change our way of life and avoid manipulation by the capitalists' merchandise- led principles. We must identify our actual needs so as to cut down on the consumption of non-essential products that create excessive wastes in the manufacturing process. Otherwise, our society will be dominated by merchandise trade. Secondly, wastes that can be re-cycled and re-used should be separately collected to minimize the volume and possible damage to nature, e.g. by recycling paper, numerous trees can be saved.
However, since people have not fully accepted this idea, it is an undeniable fact that both landfills and incinerators are acceptable as makeshift methods of waste disposal, but both methods should be employed at the same time to complement each other, because when used at the same time they can minimize pollution as well as lengthen the life spans of the landfills. We must however, bear in mind that wastes have to be separated and sorted before disposal by these methods.
In conclusion, to advocate only one of these methods of waste disposal will be inadequate and irresponsible. Therefore, the decision made by the Government in 1989 is unpardonable and bureaucratic, and it should be held responsible for all harm done to the environment. Hence, we agree that as people have not changed their concept of waste disposal at this stage, the two methods mentioned above should be used together and the mistake made by the Government in 1989 must not be repeated. But in the long run, we are duty bound to publicize the true meaning of greening the environment and, in this connection, the best way to counteract the harmful effect of merchandise trade is to change people's concept and behaviour. Only in this way will the endless production of wastes be brought under control, or the wastes will at least decompose instead of causing harm to the ecology of the earth as they are doing today.
Page 374 of 485
Page 374 of 485
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.