Page 133 of 654
54
136
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
could handle all forms of waste. Let me repeat, incineration reduces waste by 10% in volume. Ashes are still there and we need to dispose of them. At most, there is 30% of reduction by mass and we have to make use of landfills for disposal. I did not say that incineration could reduce waste to nothing. I merely referred to it as a supplementary method.
There is one other thing I want to respond to. Hong Kong has a unique problem, that is the severe lack of land. Money will not help in finding suitable sites as landfills. That is why the problem we are facing is the exhaustion of landfills. They will be filled up to capacity in a few years' time. I am not happy with the suggestion of the Environmental Protection Department as stated on page 30 of the Draft Paper. The function of incinerators is affirmed and three points for study are listed as technology, funds, and site identification. The Environmental Protection Department has not referred to incinerator facilities as a supplementary method; it says the above three points have to be studied. A team of experts will be put to work and they have to take eight years. I object to that length of time because the fire is now at stake and we cannot wait that long. I do not mean to look at incineration as the one and only effective solution. I just look at it as a supplementary solution.
I think we should solve the problem of waste with a multi-prong approach. There is no single foolproof way before us. We should consider the points raised in the Draft Paper comprehensively instead of picking on individual points. I am not saying that incineration is the solution and others are not. That concludes my response and I move my motion. Thank you.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 23 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstentions.
(2) MR. CHAN CHOI-HI Moved as follows:-
"In view of the continuous increase in the amount of waste in Hong Kong, and that the three landfills are expected to reach their maximum capacity in 16 years, the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch published a 'Waste Reduction Plan for Hong Kong (Draft)'. The Council has responded to the suggestions set out in the Government's Waste Reduction Plan for Hong Kong Consultation Paper, but concrete proposals on the method for categorising waste have not yet been made. RESOLVED that before formulating waste categorising measures, the Council conduct the following two surveys: (1) collection of data about the types, weight, and contents of waste in different districts in order to facilitate devising different recycling systems to correspond with the needs of different districts; (2) a questionnaire survey to assess the public's attitude towards waste categorisation and recycling, so as to enhance environmental consciousness from the basic level by providing education to the public that enables their understanding of environmental protection."
Page 133 of 654
Page 133 of 654
54
136
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
could handle all forms of waste. Let me repeat, incineration reduces waste by 10% in volume. Ashes are still there and we need to dispose them. At most, there is 30% of reduction by mass and we have to make use of landfills for disposal. I did not say that incineration could reduce waste to nothing. 1 merely referred to it as a supplementary method.
There is one other thing I want to respond to. Hong Kong has a unique problem, that is the severe lack of land. Money will not help in finding suitable sites as landfills. That is why the problem we are facing is the exhaustion of landfills. They will be filled up to capacity in a few years' time. I am not happy with the suggestion of the Environmental Protection Department as stated oz page 30 of the Draft Paper. The function of incinerators is affirmed and three points for study are listed as technology, funds and site identification. Th: Environmental Protection Department has not referred to incinerator facilities as a supplementary method, it says the above three points have to be studied. A team of experts will be put to work and they have to take eight years. object to that length of time because the fire is now at stake and we cannot wait that long. I do not mean to look at incineration as the one and only effective solution. I just look at it as a supplementary solution.
I think we should solve the problem of waste with a multi-prong approach. There is no single foul proof way before us. We should consider the points raised in the Draft Paper comprehensively instead of pick on individual points. I am not saying that incineration is the solution and others are not. That concludes my response and I move my motion. Thank you.
The question was put.
The motion was carried with 23 votes for, I vote against and 4 abstentions.
(2) MR. CHAN CHOI-HI Moved as follows:-
"In view of the continuous increase in the amount of waste in Hong Kong. and that the three landfills are expected to reach their maximum capacity ic 16 years, the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch published a 'Waste Reduction Plan for Hong Kong (Draft)'. The Council has responded to the suggestions set out in the Government's Waste Reduction Plan for Hong Kong Consultation Paper, but concrete proposals on the method for categorising waste have not yet been made. RESOLVED that before formulating waste categorising measures, the Council conduct the following two surveys: (1) collection of data about the types, weight and contents of waste in different districts in order to facilitate devising different recycling systems to correspond with the needs of different districts; (2) a questionnaire survey to assess the public's attitude towards waste categorisation and recycling, so as to enhance environmental consciousness from the basic level by providing education to the public that enables their understanding of environmental protection.”
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.