Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Email commentary just in from Brian Darvell:
Quote:SpinI came across a copy of Disney’s “Enviroport”, their oddly-named annual (but entirely undated!) report detailing the wonderful things that Disney have done, as they say, “Making a Difference”. The company, they say, “continues to receive accolades for exemplary environmental practices”. Good, set an example. But not like this little item, taken from p. 23:
“Helping Guests make wise conservation choices extends beyond interactions with local wildlife. The subject of sustainable seafood, for example, addresses menu selections that can affect the sustainability of fish populations in oceans around the world. Providing appropriate seafood choices for restaurant menus is the focus of Disney’s Culinary Conservation Committee, which discusses how seafood selections can directly impact the environment. As a result, menu items at several Disney eateries have changed based on recommendations from the committee.One of these choices reached headline proportions as Disney and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) partnered to address the implications of offering shark fin soup at Hong Kong Disneyland. After an intense examination of available sources for the delicacy, shark fin soup was removed from the menu when it became apparent that the sharks would not be harvested humanely and that endangered shark species would not be protected during the fishing process. In a broader effort to address future decisions, Disney’s Animal Kingdom and WWF are working together with seafood purchasers and suppliers in workshops to discuss and address current and future conservation challenges facing the seafood and restaurant industries”.
There are several things here I could comment on; I’ll pick just a few. The word disingenuous springs to mind, as does chutzpah, gall, rose-tinted spectacles, spin, and “You what???”.It is interesting that there appears now to exist a “Culinary Conservation Committee”, of which not a trace was seen last year. Why did they not make a visible attempt to resolve the issue then? This move to discuss is in stark contrast to last years episode in which it was absolutely impossible to get any kind of discussion going with anybody. Pompous and arrogant assertions were all we heard.
We learn that Disney and WWF “partnered” [sic!] in the midst of that debacle. That is not the way it came across then: WWF as I understood it were making great efforts to have Disney see the error of their ways.
We also learn that SFS is off the menu because “it became apparent that the sharks would not be harvested humanely and that endangered shark species would not be protected”. This is the first time that the humane treatment of sharks has figured in their view, as far as I can tell. There was staunch defence of their right to serve the chicken soup with tasteless bits in, but this was dropped when it became abundantly apparent that there was no such thing as a sustainable fishery. There was no mention in any press release that I can recall about other species being protected. Good to see that this is now a factor: let’s hold them to it. So prawns, sole, monkfish, tuna and so on will not appear in any of their restaurants? Right.
If indeed Disney have taken a more positive approach to their menus since then, fine. I am glad to hear it. But I suppose it was too much to expect them to publicize the fact that they were embarassed into a showdown with school children by one irate mother whose lad was being given the run-around, and that their capitulation was an ignominious climb-down from a very high horse. It might have been nice for them to acknowledge the moral guidance they received from children, and show some respect.
As it is, I am not exactly inclined to believe very much of the rest of the 30 pages of self-congratulation.
The kicker is on the back cover:
” The Walt Disney Company is committed to balancing environmental stewardship with its corporate goals and operations throughout the world.”
Would I be too cynical to suggest that “balance” means to the extent that can they get away with it? Sorry, must try harder to be credible.Above that tag line Jiminy Cricket sports a badge saying “Official Conscience”. It’s an old picture. I think he retired long ago…
BWD
Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/06/17 04:45
email received:
Concerning the debate about Tamar and Dioxins, might I direct your
>attention to a blog post of mine.
>
http://www.the-eleven.com/~tjlegg/index.php?/archives/2107-Scientific-Evidence-That-SAR-Government-Is-Dangerously-Stupid.html
>
>The assertions made by Dr. Sarah Liao and her media spokespersons
>are not rooted in science and could be quite hazardous to Hong
>Kong’s environment. As I note in my blog post, the reason the EPD
>can claim dioxins have not been found in marine sediment in Victoria
>Harbour is because the EPD doesn’t test for dioxins. I provide links
>in my blog post to the online data provided by EPD on Marine
>Sediment and Water Testing between 1998-2004 and you can check the
>list of contaminants tested for. Dioxins are not on the list.
>
>Given the list of standard contaminants being tested for does not
>contain dioxins, my guess is that the government’s Environmental
>Impact Assessment for the Tamar site never tested for dioxins as
>well.
>
>As for the assertion that dioxins are not found at naval shipyards
>and only at mass incinerators, note the debacle at Penny’s Bay and
>the acquisition of the Cheoy Lee Shipyard for the construction of
>Disneyland.
>
>Thomas LeggHi Nemo:
Good to have you here; you planning on heading over, maybe with some sea fishing tackle?
Not sure if Charlie’ll divulge a trade secret or two; but can see fishermen on places like rocks by Po Toi (looks like they are left there by boat, and presumably collected later).
Martin
Quote:Chester Yung Taking stronger policy measures to improve air quality could help to avoid the deaths of 1,600 people in Hong Kong, a survey has found. The study "Air Pollution: costs and paths to a solution – Understanding the connection between visibility, air pollution and health cost, in pursuit of accountability, environmental justice and health protection" concluded that air pollution causes discomfort and illness in children and adults, increased use of health care at all levels of the health- care system and premature deaths. Findings were released Thursday by the study’s authors from the Department of Community Medicine at Hong Kong University, the Department of Community and Family Medicine at Chinese University, the Institute for the Environment at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology along with think-tank Civic Exchange. Researchers said air quality improvements could bring benefits of more than HK$20 billion a year. In addition, 64,000 hospital "bed days" and 6.8 million family doctor visits could be avoided, findings show. "If it was an infectious disease, there would be a crisis," professor Anthony Hedley from Hong Kong University’s School of Public Health said. "This is a medical emergency." … The study says Hong Kong has poor visibility 45 percent of the time. The city is worse than Los Angeles, London, New York and Paris in terms of respirable suspended particulate air pollution levels. Researchers counted the number of medical "events" – hospital admissions, doctor consultations or deaths – on a daily basis over a period, and looked at the numbers besides data on the amount of pollutants in the air. They estimated that HK$1.5 billion could be saved per year in tangible health-care costs, HK$500 million could be saved in productivity lost due to pollution-related illness and HK$19 billion in intangible costs, including the value of lost lives and the willingness to pay to avoid illness. … Chinese University professor Wong Tze-wai said that Hong Kong’s air quality objectives were based on the 1987 World Health Organization Air Quality Guidelines for Europe and have not been revised since. "They are clearly outdated and offer no protection to the health of Hong Kong’s citizens," Wong said. …Deadly cost of air pollution You can/could download the report from June 2006 listings at: Civic Exchange
If you’re not keen on the HK Government spending HK$5 billion on new office building at Tamar, right on prime land by the harbour, visit Civic Exchange to send an ecard to government:
a reply just in:
We are also still a drop in the ocean.
Brazil is still mostly beaches and parties and sustainable tourism is still in its infancy here, but we do have government support and our standards are going to be official Brazilian standards.My view is that sustainability makes good economic sense (the tsunami made that point for instance ..). The problem is that it is “slow” money, the returns take longer to come.
I don´t know Hong Kong, but here in Rio, alternative programs like jeep tours, forest hikes, visits to shanty towns, cultural tours are quite succesful now. Rural tourism is also growing. The thing is to start.
– to which I’ve sent:
Hi Ariane:
Oh, of course sust tourism makes sense – long term; it’s just not the way for quick money (reading Collapse by Jared Diamond at the moment, re society choices, environmental impacts and results: if more read this, maybe would be easier arguing for sust tourism and development in general).
Here, too, some more nature oriented tours; grown fast for local people, but less so for overseas visitors – few of whom even known HK has a wild side.
Took a US guy birding yesterday; he was very impressed by bird diversity, scenery.With shopping and dining not drawing quite the crowds they did, promoting ecotourism is timely.
But you’ll see that govt has odd ideas: “ecotourism” to a wetland park with few artificial ponds and an enormous building, and by cable car to a place with temple and fake Chinese “village” thing.Best regards,
MartinPost edited by: martin, at: 2006/05/29 03:23
Marvellous morning on Cheung Chau! (as remnants of Chanchu hit eastern Guangdong) [img]https://www.hkoutdoors.com/components/com_joomlaboard/uploaded/images/chanchudayafter.JPG[/img]
Zhuhai impacted by flooding during Chanchu approach; presumably as easterlies piled up water across Pearl River mouth.
Following typhoon (now 20 May), reports on toll from Chanchu – showing Hong Kong was lucky this time, as little impact, no deaths. Typhoon kills 23 in China, 4 missing
Reflecting size of typhoon, deaths from Philippines across to Vietnam, and north to China: Asia typhoon kills 104
Satellite image – Chanchu looking way less imposing as it nears land (still, remains potent near centre)
This just in – after Charlie Frew and Paul Etherington went down Clear Water Bay Peninsula, to check out waves as Chanchu passed to east; here, surf at mouth of Tat Fong Channel.
Winds strong, northerlies on Cheung Chau this morning – have strengthened, but Chanchu too far away to cause real excitement. Very little rain. Real-time weather charts for Cheung Chau, indicating winds may have peaked, with gusts to 60 km/hr: http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/display_graph_e.htm?cch&menu=otherwxi&rwx&addbar Rough seas, especially south of the island, with some fair waves crashing into rocks – here in southwest.
Winds picking up on Cheung Chau, but hardly powerful, as Chanchu forecast to move closer, then head northeast for landfall east of Hong Kong tomorrow (aft?). Not looking to be major storm for HK. Shot here from Cheung Chau waterfront late this afternoon; rain, some wind by then.
Juat after lunch; ferry arriving Cheung Chau, with rain starting as Chanchu nears.
HK Obs shipping forecast for S China coastal waters also of some interest; includes some readings at coastal stations, inc Guangdong (just now, highest wind recorded Force 5) Forecast winds for some areas up to 12 (hurricane force), with "phenomenal" seas
