HONG KONG URBAN council
135
motion. I support the first part of the motion concerning waste reduction. I understand that there is a special group under the Council to study this matter. The second part of the motion moves incineration from a supporting role in waste management to a mainstream approach. I would like to point out the development in the eighties. During those years, we kept incinerators under observation and we fixed our direction in the order of transfer station, landfill and lastly incinerator. In other words, our aim was to close down incinerator plants. Having moved into the nineties and become aware of the technological development of modern incinerators, we are not ruling them out because we know they can help us manage waste effectively. However, I do feel that in this debate today, we are placing too much emphasis on incineration as the mainstream approach to manage waste. I think this is not fair to the work of the special working group studying the matter. The working group should be given sufficient time to consider all sorts of ideas before coming up with a proposal. If we carry the motion today, we pre-empt the working group and bind it to move in our desired direction. As to whether incineration is the only way to handle waste or whether there are other options, I would like to keep an open mind. I think we should not be restrictive in our perspective. I will abstain from voting, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (in Cantonese):--If no other Member wishes to speak, I would like to exercise my right of reply. I have two reasons for proposing the motion. The first point in my motion concerns commenting on the Draft Paper. In fact, it does not restrict itself to waste management methods. It also covers many aspects. In my speech, I suggest sorting waste into three main categories and three sub-categories so that waste can be handled in different ways. I believe construction and demolition waste should be recovered for use as far as possible before transfer to dumping areas for reclamation purpose. It should not be sent to landfills so as not to take up the capacity of our expensive strategic landfills.
I agree that comments given today should be followed up in the working group. This motion is moved today because of time constraint. I do not want to pre-empt the work of the working group,
As for use of the methane gas generated at strategic landfills, we cannot force people to use it because it is not systematically collected. Newton's first principle is on the conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy and then kinetic energy and electric energy. Energy conversion is the first principle of three and we learnt it in Form Four. We should know it well. I have referred to recovery. In fact, repeating the use of resources means there is no loss of resources. That is my third point in response.
The fourth point I am making is that electricity generation is not to earn profit. It is just that resources should not be wasted and income from power generation can cover some of the cost of landfills and incinerator plants. I did not say that incinerators would be the one way to handle waste or that they
Page 132 of 654
Page 132 of 654
Page 132 of 654
Page 132 of 654
HONG KONG URBAN council
135
motion. I support the first part of the motion concerning waste reduction. I understand that there is a special group under the Council to study this matter. The second part of the motion moves incineration from a supporting role in waste management to a mainstream approach. I would like to point out the development in the eighties. During those years, we kept incinerators under observation and we fixed our direction in the order of transfer station, landfil and lastly incinerator. In other words, our aim was to close down incinerator plants. Having moved into the nineties and become aware of the technological development of modern incinerators, we are not ruling them out because we know they can help us manage waste effectively. However, I do feel that in this debate today, we are placing too much emphasis on incineration as the mainstream approach to manage waste. I think this is not fair to the work of the special working group studying the matter. The working group should be given sufficient time to consider all sorts of ideas before coming up with a proposal. If we carry the motion today, we pre-empt the working group and bind it to move in our desired direction. As to whether incineration is the only way to handle waste or whether there are other options, I would like to keep an open mind. I think we should not be restrictive in our perspective. I will abstain from voting, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (in Cantonese):--If no other Member wishes to speak, I would like to exercise my right of reply. I have two reasons for proposing the motion. The first point in my motion concerns commenting on the Draft Paper. In fact, it does not restrict itself to waste management methods. It also covers many aspects. In my speech. I suggest to sort waste into three main categories and three sub-categories so that waste can be handled in different ways. I believe construction and demolition waste should be recovered for use as far as possible before transfer to dumping areas for reclamation purpose. It should not be sent to landfills so as not to take up the capacity of our expensive strategic landfills.
I agree that comments given today should be followed up in the working group. This motion is moved today because of time constraint. I do not want to pre-empt the work of the working group,
As for use of the methane gas generated at strategic landfills, we cannot force people to use it because it is not systematically collected. Newton's first principle is on the conversion of chemical energy into thermal energy and then kinetic energy and electric energy. Energy conversion is the first principle of three and we learnt it in Form Four. We should know it well. I have referred to recovery. In fact, repeating the use of resources means there is no loss of resources. That is my third point in response.
The fourth point I am making is that electricity generation is not to earn profit. It is just that resources should not be wasted and income from power generation can cover some of the cost of landfills and incinerator plants. I did not say that incinerators would be the one way to handle waste or that they
Page 132 of 654
Page 132 of 654
Page 132 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.