Forum Replies Created
- Posts
"16 world cities join Clinton plan to cut emissions" says headline of an item in today’s South China Morning Post. What about Asia’s World City – is that among the 16? you may wonder. Sadly, no; none of the world citles listed are in China. Clinton’s foundation says planned changes will cut building emissions by 20-50% If successful, maybe HK can play catch up? – after Donald Tsang has overseen increase in concreting, which in turn will exacerbate our contributions to and problems from global warming. For info on the plan, see Clinton Foundation website
Amphib and reptiles guide mentions whitish monocellate or bicellate (spectacled) marking across entire dorsal surface of hood of Chinese cobra, which seems to fit.
for king cobra, says dorsal surface of hood banded.Late to this – been hectic lately.
Not good on snakes, but the white mark on back of head maybe suggests a cobra, inc Chinese cobra. Likewise size: can be pretty big.
Olive not quite right, tho; should be blackish or brownish. Light in mangrovs perhaps a factor. Mangrove snake should be smaller – judging by quick check of guide to HK Amphibians and Reptiles.More emails have followed, inc:
Quote:This is a real concern. I know that the reason some of the District Council members want the barrier down is to open up the reservoir area to (IMHO – unsustainable) tourism. Contrary to what some of the villagers in the Country Park wanted, these guys don’t mind if the barrier is just moved to Tsak Yue Wu because they want to be able to start a number of ventures up Man Yee Road. One of them had the idea of the electric bus – which I think is not a bad idea (I’d rather a regulated electric bus than the taxis that have almost run me over a couple of times while walking along that road) but others were a little wilder.and, again from Charles Frew:
Quote:Please note there is already a regular minibus (white) service from Sai Kung town Centre to the Pagoda/Siu Sai Wan (cost $15). Not sure who runs this or how a permit was obtained? How does WSD regulate permits for these roads?Having one company controlling the electric buses will certainly curb the traffic from taxis, but to satisfy all user groups, some mode of transport will have to be in place, otherwise objections will be received by WSD, and it only takes one objection for them to close the case and we are back to where we started.
Either all transport is banned (excluding residents), or a regulated shuttle service put in place. Biking could then perhaps be opened up with even a possible mountain biking route around the whole reservoir.Though it seems inevitable that CLP-Exxon will soon set about harming the Soko Islands, the Living Islands Movement has released a position paper, arguing that Hong Kong doesn’t need an LNG terminal (scroll well down for Chinese version):
Quote:LNG Receiving Terminal: An Unnecessary SchemeThe Living Islands Movement
Summary
1. Will CLP¡¦s proposed Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminal help bring us Blue Skies?
NO, because LNG fuels the smaller part of CLP’s generating capacity, CLP will still have up to 60% of its capacity burning Coal as before. If all generation were to be switched to gas, it would help – but this is not being proposed nor is it feasible.
2. So what could bring us Blue Skies then?
Rapid installation of the long-delayed Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) equipment will cut 95% of the pollution from coal burning.
3. Where will Hong Kong get the gas needed for the generating capacity that can use it?
New gas supplies are becoming available from LNG terminals nearby in South China. HK Electric is already hooked up to one of these!
The existing supplier to CLP, CNOOC, states that it can extend the life of the Yacheng gas field, with some new investment.4. So who would gain from this unnecessary scheme?
CLP and its partner, ExxonMobil, which owns 60% of the generating plant, are the only beneficiaries.
They get to extend their monopolies in electricity generation and distribution to include the sole control of importation and processing of LNG. The EU Competition Commission has been particularly scathing about the anti-competition activities of vertically integrated energy companies and called for their unbundling;
They get to add HK$8.0 billion or more to their asset base, on which they obtain guaranteed, risk-free profits paid for by Hong Kong consumers under the Scheme of Control.5. And who would be the losers?
Hong Kong Consumers will lose, because they would have to pay for it through the Scheme of Control.
Hong Kong would also pay heavily in terms of damage to its Natural Heritage if an intrusive industrial plant is built in scenic South Lantau.
LNG Receiving Terminal: An Unnecessary SchemeThe Castle Peak Company (CAPCo), owned by ExxonMobil and CLP (60/40), proposes to build a LNG receiving terminal in Hong Kong. They have found that the only site suitable for this in Hong Kong is on the Soko islands off Lantau.
This paper draws from the facts that are publicly available and that concludes the only beneficiary will be ExxonMobil. The effects on Hong Kong will be to destroy a part of our dwindling natural heritage and a likely increase in electricity prices. The project has nothing to do with ‘bringing blue skies’.
CAPCo¡¦s case is unfounded
– LNG supplies from China will be coming on line in a time frame comparable to that of building a terminal. Hong Kong Electric has already laid a 93 km pipeline to Guangdong and recently started to use it. No reason has been given for not following this example;
– the need for a replacement gas supply for Black Point Power Station (BPPS) is unproven. The owners of the Yacheng field which currently supplies BPPS, CNOOC, advise that the field’s life can be extended by investing in new wells;
– additional generation is not needed because demand-side growth within Hong Kong is almost non-existent and likely to fall;
– an LNG facility will not significantly improve air quality, nor help CAPCo reach proposed new air quality targets, as it is impossible to easily dispense with coal that currently accounts for 60% of CAPCo¡¦s generating capacity in Hong Kong;
– By far the greater effect on pollution will be the installation of FGD (Flue Gas Desulphurization) plant which is starting soon and will come into use during 2009 – 2011. This will reduce the pollution from coal burning to 5% of the current level. The delay in installing the FGD plant by CAPCo has not been explained;
– The ¡§LNG for Blue Skies¡¨ advertisements by CLP appear to be intended only to mislead both the public and the government;
– CAPCo can meet the proposed new 2010 emission standards by a combination of:
£U accelerating the FGD installation at Castle Peak coal fired station currently in progress;
£U reducing external sales to China;
£U purchasing power from China;
£U assisting to curb the demand side (eg, Australia is to ban incandescent lamps).Alternate LNG supplies for BPPS
The options for supply of gas to BPPS include:-
– extending the life of the existing supply from Yacheng. The field owners CNOOC advise that this is readily achievable. This is the simplest option and capitalizes on existing infrastructure.
– obtaining supply from the Sinopec Zhuhai Receiving Terminal. This is being sited on an island off Zhuhai, a similar distance to BPPS as the Sokos. Sinopec say that they can build the capacity by 2012, and have deliberately sited the terminal to facilitate supply to BPPS by submarine pipeline.
– obtaining supply from the Shenzhen Receiving Terminal at Dapeng near Mirs Bay. Phase 1 of the terminal has been commissioned, and supplies inter alia, unit 9 at Hong Kong Electric¡¦s power station at Lamma. Phase 2 at Dapeng which has yet to commence, has substantial planned capacity, and pipelines already in hand will bring the gas to Shekou, very close to BPPS from whence a short submarine pipeline could reach BPPS.Economics and Governance
The following situations will be created if the project goes ahead:
– Extension of CAPCo’s existing generation and distribution monopolies into the supply of LNG. The EU Competition Commission has been very scathing about the anti-competition activities of vertically integrated energy companies and called for their unbundling;
– an uneven playing field in which CAPCo is, literally, given a potentially lucrative Hong Kong terminal without due process involving open competition;
– an unbreakable monopoly because acceptance of CAPCo’s Environmental Impact Assessment means that the last remaining place to build a terminal – Soko islands – will have been taken;
– CAPCo¡¦s use of the Scheme of Control (SoC) to obtain generous returns on fixed assets within HK, encourages and rewards massive capital investment ($8 Billion for the Sokos terminal) and discourages the use of cost-effective off-shore options;
– the further destruction of HK’s natural heritage for the benefit of a foreign owned company;
– whilst no ‘business plan’ has been shown in public, the information that is available strongly suggests that the project will result in electricity prices that are higher than all the alternatives.The Sokos (claimed to be tbe only place to build it):
– are a group of relatively unspoiled islands off highly scenic South Lantau;
– are intended, in the government public debated 2001 plans, to be a marine park that would, notably, include HK’s signature Pink Dolphin;
– have a very high commercial fishing value;
– have a high natural heritage value and marine recreational value.
– are close to other islands in China’s waters that are already seriously spoiled (see Google Earth at 22¢X07’North; 113¢X53’East). In ‘one country’, the use of one of these should not be insuperable. Exxon/CLP have not pursued this idea seriously, presumably because it would not be eligible for subsidy by Hong Kong consumers under the Scheme of Control.Conclusions
£U Pollution levels will be drastically reduced by the introduction of FGD. Increasing the minority generation that uses gas will not make a marked difference. Only a complete long-term move away from coal will significantly reduce levels below those achieved with FGD.
£U Referring to the supply of LNG that is needed, a LNG receiving terminal in Hong Kong is not necessary – LNG will be available from China following the example set by HK Electric;
£U it must be concluded, therefore, that the purpose of such a terminal is part of the global growth of the sale of LNG by ExxonMobil
£U Hong Kong is chosen because of the favourable terms granted to CAPCo under the SoC wich, notably, will oblige CLP consumers to pay for the HK$8Bn terminal;
£U it has nothing, whatever, to do with ‘blue skies’;
£U it will create a vertically integrated power monopoly that can never be broken in the future;
£U the scheme is all the more reprehensible because it will destroy part of our natural heritage.The Way ahead
– CAPCo should be refused a HK terminal
– CAPCo will be then obliged to seek alternatives which may include:-
£U negotiating with CNOOC for extended gas supplies from Yacheng;
£U securing gas supplies from Sinopec¡¦s Zhuhai Terminal;
£U securing gas supplies from Shenzhen¡¦s Dapeng Terminal.
– should there be, in actual practice, (this is highly debatable) a transitional period of reduced gas supply from Yacheng, the resulting reduction in generation capacity at BPPS might be accommodated by reducing generation demand through:-
£U temporarily suspending sales to China (now 18% of CAPCo¡¦s output);
£U temporarily purchasing power from China (China Power International Development stands ready to deliver);
£U demand-side savings initiatives.
– In any case, introduction of FGD greatly reduces the urgency for a transition to more LNG.Living Islands Movement May 2007
Quote:²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð±µ¦¬¯¸¡G¤@Ó¨S¦³¥²nªºp¹º®qÀ¬¬¡¤O¦æ°Ê
ºKn
1. ¤¤¹q«Øij¿³«Øªº²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð¯¸¡A¯à§_À°§U§ÚÌ¡uÄâ¤âªïÂŤѡv?
¤£¯à¡A¦]¬°¨Ï¥Î²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð¿U®Æ¥u¦û¤¤¹qªº¥Í²£¶q¤@¤p³¡¤À¡A¤¤¹qªº¥Í²£¶qÁÙ¦³60 %¥H¤W¬O¿U·Ñªº¡A¸ò¥H«e¤@¼Ë¡C¦pªG¯à°÷§¹¥þ§ï¥Î¿U¿N¤ÑµM®ð¥h¥Í²£¹q¤O«K¥i¯à¦³¥Î¡A¦ý³o¤è®×¤£¦b«Øij¤§¦C¡A¤]¤£¥i¦æ¡C
2. §ÚÌ«ç¼Ë¤~¯à¡uÄâ¤âªïÂŤѡv¡H
ºÉ§Ö¿³«Ø¤@¦A©ì©µªº·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬I¡A³o¥i´î§C¿N·Ñ¦Ã¬Vªº95 %¡C
3. »´änµ¥¦h¤[¡A¤~¥i±o¨ì¥Í²£©Ò»Ý¹q¶qªº¤ÑµM®ð¡H
«n¤¤°ê²{¤w¶}³]¦hÓ²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð¯¸¡A³o¬O¨ÑÀ³¤ÑµM®ðªº·s®ð·½¡A´ä¿O¤w±µ»é¨ä¤¤¤@Ó¨ÑÀ³¯¸¡I
¤¤¹qªº²{¦³¨ÑÀ³°Ó¤¤°ê®ü¬v¥Ûªo¦³¤½¥q¡]¤¤®üªo¡^ªí¥Ü¡A¼W¥[·s§ë¸ê«á«K¥i©µªø¶}±Ä±V«°®ð¥Ðªº¦~´Á¡C
4. ¨º»ò¦b³oÓ¨S¦³¥²nªºp¹º¤¤¡A½Ö¬O±o¯qªÌ¡H
¬O¤¤¹q¤Î¨ä¹Ù¦ñ®J§J´Ë¬ü§·¡A«áªÌ¦û¦³¸Óµo¹q¼tªº60 % Åv¯q¡C³o¨â®a¤½¥q¬O°ß¤@ªº±o¯qªÌ¡C
³o¨â®a¤½¥q±N¥iÂX¤j¥L̲£¹q©M°â¹qªº±M§Q¡A¥]¬A¿é¤J©M³B²z²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ðªº¿W®a±±¨îÅv¡C¼Ú·ùÄvª§ºÊºÞ©eû·|¤@ª½ÄY¼F§åµû¯à·½¤½¥qÁa¦V¦¡¦X¨Öªº¤ÏÄvª§¬¡°Ê¡An¨D¦³Ãö¤½¥q¤À©î·~°È¡F
³o¨â®a¤½¥qªº¸ê²£±N·|¼WÈ80»õ´ä¤¸¡A¦ý¥L̪ºª`¸ê¥iÀò«O»Ù¡A´N¬O«ö·ÓºÞ¨îp¹º¨óij¡A¥LÌ¥iÀò±o»´ä®ø¶OªÌú¥IªºµL·ÀI§Q¼í¡C
5. ½Ö¬O·l¥¢ªÌ¡H
»´ä®ø¶OªÌ±N¬O·l¥¢ªÌ¡A¦]¬°¥LÌ»Ýn«ö·ÓºÞ¨îp¹º¨óijú¥I¶O¥Î¡C
¦pªG¦b·´ºÀu¶®ªº¤jÀ¬¤s«n³¡¿³«Ø³o®y»P©P³òÀô¹Ò¥þ¤£¨ó½Õªº¼t©Ð¡A¯}Ãa¤F»´äªº¤ÑµM°]²£¡A»´ä«K»Ýn¥I¥X¨I«ªº¥N»ù¡C
²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð±µ¦¬¯¸¡G¤@Ó¨S¦³¥²nªºp¹º
¥Ñ®J§J´Ë¬ü§·©M¤¤¹q¡]60/40¡^¾Ö¦³ªº«C¤sµo¹q¦³¤½¥q¡]«C¹q¡^¡A«Øij¦b»´ä«Ø³]¤@®y²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð±µ¦¬¯¸¡C¥LÌ»{¬°°ß¤@ªº¦X¾A¿ï§}¬O¦b¤jÀ¬¤s¹ï¥~ªº¯Á¯Ë¸s®q¡C
¥»¤å®Ú¾Ú¤j²³¥i¥H§ä¨ìªº¸ê®Æ¡A«ü¥X³o¶µ¤uµ{ªº°ß¤@±o¯qªÌ´N¬O®J§J´Ë¬ü§·¡C¦ý¬O³o¶µ¤uµ{¹ï»´ä±N·|±a¨Ó·¥¤j·l®`¡A·l毁§Ú̶V¨Ó¶V¤Öªº¤ÑµM°]²£¡A¦Ó¥B§ó¥i¯à·|¾É¦Ü¹q¶O¥[»ù¡C³o¶µ¥Ø¹ï©ó¡uÄâ¤âªïÂŤѡv¤@ÂIÀ°§U¤]¨S¦³¡C
«C¹q¶µ¥Ø²z¾Ú¤£¨¬
– ¥HºÞ¹D±q¤¤°ê¿é°e²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ðªº®É¶¡»P¿³«Ø±µ¦¬¯¸¬ÛY¡A¦Ó´ä¿O¤w¾Q³]¤F¤@±ø93¤½¨½ªøªººÞ¹D³s±µ¼sªF¬Ù¡A¨Ã¤w§ë¤JªA°È¡C¦ý¦³Ãö¤è±«o¨S¦³´£¨Ñ¤£±Ä¥Î³o¤èªkªº²z¥Ñ¡F
– ¨S¦³ÃÒ¾Ú¤ä«ù¡AÀs¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t»Ýn§ó´«®ð·½¡C¤¤®üªoªº±V«°®ð¥Ð²{®É¬°Às¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t¨ÑÀ³®ð·½¡A¤¤®üªo»{¬°¥i¥H§ë¸ê¶}µo·s¤«¡A©µªø¶}±Ä±V«°®ð¥Ðªº¦~´Á¡F
– »´äªº¥Î¹q»Ý¨D´X¥G§¹¥þ¨S¦³¼Wªø¡A¬Æ¦Ü¦³¤U¶^ÁͶաA¹ê¦b¨S¦³»Ýn¼W¥[µo¹q¶q¡F
– ¥u±o¤@Ó²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð³]¬I¤£¨¬¥H§ïµ½ªÅ®ð¯À½è¡A¤]¤£¯à°÷À°§U«C¹q¹F¨ì©Ò«Øij·sªºªÅ®ð¯À½è«ü¼Ð¡A¦]¬°¦³Ãö¤è±¤£¯à¨ú¥N¥Î·Ñµo¹q¡A¦Ó¥Î·Ñµo¹q©|¦û«C¹q¦b»´äµo¹q¶qªº60 %¡F
– ¦Ü¤µ¹ï¦Ã¬V°ÝÃD¸û¦³®Äªº¼vÅT±N·|¨Ó¦Û§Y±N¿³«Øªº·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬I¡A©ó2009¡V2011¦~¶¡§ë²£¡C¦¹³]¬I¥i¨Ï¥Ø«e¿N·Ñªº¦Ã¬V¤ô¥°¦Ü²{®Éªº5 %¡C¦ý«C¹q¨Ã¨S¦³¸ÑÄÀ©µ¿ð¿³«Ø·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬Iªºì¦]¡F
– ¤¤¹qªº¡u¸¨¹ê·s®ð·½ Äâ¤âªïÂŤѡv¼s§i¡A¦ü¥G»~¾É¤F¤½²³©M¬F©²¡F
– «C¹q¥iÂǵ²¦X¥H¤U±¹¬I¡A¹F¦Ü«Øij¤¤2010¦~·sªº±Æ©ñ¼Ð·Ç¡G
– ¥[§Ö§¹¦¨«C¤s¿U·Ñµo¹q¼t·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬I¡F
– ´î¤Ö¦V¤¤°ê¤º¦a¾P°â¹q¤O¡F
– ±q¤¤°ê¤º¦aÁʶR¹q¤O¡F
– °§C¹q¤O»Ý¨D¶q¡]¨Ò¦p¡G¿D¬w¸T¥Î¥Õ¿K¿O¡^¡C
Às¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t¥i¿ï¾Ü¨ä¥L²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð·½
Às¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t¥i¿ï¾Ü¨ä¥L²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð·½¡A¥]¬A¡G
¡P ©µªø±V«°®ð¥Ðªº¨ÑÀ³¦~´Á¡C«ù¦³±V«°®ð¥Ðªº¤¤®üªoªí¥Ü¥i¦æ¡A³o¬O³Ì²³æªº°µªk¡A¥R¥÷¨Ï¥Î²{¦³ªº³]³Æ¡C
¡P ±q¤¤°ê¥Û¤Æ¯]®ü±µ¦¬¯¸´£¨ú®ð·½¡C³oÓ±µ¦¬¯¸¦ì©ó¯]®ü¹ï¥Xªº¤@Ó®q¤W¡A»PÀs¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t¸ò¯Á¯Ë¸s®qªº¶ZÂ÷¬ÛY¡C¤¤°ê¥Û¤Æªí¥Ü¥i¦b2012¦~§¹¤u¡A¦©ó¿ï§}®É¤w¥J²Ó¦Ò¼{¨ì¥i¥H§Q¥Î®ü©³ºÞ¹D¨Ñ®ð¤©Às¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t¡C
¡P ±q¤jÄPÆWªþªñªº¤jÄP²`¦`±µ¦¬¯¸´£¨ú®ð·½¡C±µ¦¬¯¸²Ä¤@´Á¤w¸¨¦¨¡A¨Ã¦V´ä¿O«n¤X®qµo¹q¼t²Ä¤E¸¹¾÷²Õ¨ÑÀ³¤ÑµM®ð¡C¤jÄPªº²Ä¤G´Á¤uµ{©|¥¼¶}©l¡A¹w´Á¨ÑÀ³¶q¤Q¤ÀÃe¤j¡F¦Ü©ó¤w¾Q³]ªººÞ¹D¥i¿é®ð¦Ü³D¤f¡A³o»PÀs¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t«D±`±µªñ¡A¥i±q¨º¸Ì¾Q³]µuªº®ü©³ºÞ¹D±µ»é¦ÜÀs¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t¡C
¸gÀ٤κ޲z
¦pªG¦³Ãöp¹º¦p¹ê¶i¦æ¡A±N·|¥H¤U«áªG¡G
– ©µÄò«C¹q²{¦³²£¹q©M°â¹qªº±M§Q¦Ü²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ðªº·~°È½d³ò¡C¼Ú·ùÄvª§ºÊºÞ©eû·|¤@ª½ÄY¼F§åµû¯à·½¤½¥qÁa¦V¦¡¦X¨Öªº¤ÏÄvª§¬¡°Ê¡An¨D¦³Ãö¤½¥q¤À©î·~°È¡F
– ³y¦¨¤£¤½¥Ävª§ªºÀô¹Ò¡Aµ¹¤©«C¹q¤@Ó»´ä±µ¦¬¯¸¥HÁȨú¬Õ§Q¡A¨S¦³«ê·í¦a¤½¶}Äv§ë¡F
– ³y¦¨¨c¤£¥i¯}ªº±M§Q§½±¡C¦pªG³q¹L¤F«C¹qªºÀô¹Ò¼vÅTµû¦ô¡A§Y³Ì«á¤@Ó¿³«Ø±µ¦¬¯¸ªº¦aÂI¡X¡X¯Á¯Ë¸s®q¡X¡X±N³Q«C¹q¦û¦³¡F
– «C¹q§Q¥ÎºÞ¨îp¹º¨óij¡]ºÞ¨î¨óij¡^¡AɥΩT©w¸ê²£¦b»´ä®M¨úÂ׫p¦¬¯q¡A¦¹Á|¹ªÀy¨Ã¦^³ø¥¨ÃBªº¸êª÷§ë¸ê¡]¯Á¯Ë¸s®q±µ¦¬¯¸§ë¸ê¹F80»õ¤¸¡^¡A«oªýÄd¤F¯à¨Ï¥Î¹F¦Ü¦¨¥»®Ä¯qªºÂ÷©¤¤è®×¡F
– ¶i¤@¨B¯}Ãa»´äªº¤ÑµM°]²£¡A¥u¬°´À¬Y¶¡¥~¦a¤½¥q¿Ñ¨ú§Q¯q¡F
– ¨S¦³¦V¤j²³¤½¶}¡u·~°Èp¹º¡v¡C²{¦³¸ê®Æ©úÅãªí¥Ü¡A¸Ó¶µ¥Ø·|¸û¨ä¥L¤è®×¾É¦Ü¦¬¨ú§ó©ù¶Qªº¹q¶O¡C
¯Á¯Ë¸s®q¡]¾ÚºÙ¬O°ß¤@¥i¿³«Ø±µ¦¬¯¸ªº¦aÂI¡^¡G
– ¬O¤@¸s¬Û¹ï¦Ó¨¥¥¼¨ü¦Ã¬Vªº®qÀ¬¡A¦ì©ó·´º©É¤Hªº«n¤jÀ¬¤s¤§¥~¡F
– ¦³p¹ºµo®i¬°®ü©¤¤½¶é¡A¯S§O¥]§t»´ä¿W¦³ªº¤¤µØ¥Õ®ü³b¡]¨£¤½²³ÅG½×ªº¬F©²2001¦~p¹º¡^¡F
– º®·~»ùȤQ¤À°ª¡F
– ¨ã¦³¬Û·í°ªªº¤ÑµM°]²£©M®ü¬v±d¼Ö¬¡°Ê»ùÈ¡F
– ±µªñ¤¤°ê¤ô°ì¤ºÄY«¦Ã¬Vªº®qÀ¬¡]°ÑGoogle Earth¥_½n22¢X 07’¡AªF¸g113¢X 53’¡^¡C¦b¡u¤@°ê¡vì«h¤U¡A¨Ï¥Î³o¸Ì¨ä¤¤¤@Ó®qÀ¬µ´¤£¬OÃø¥H§JªAªº§xÃø¡A®J§J´Ë/¤¤¹q¨Ã¨S¦³©P¸Ô¦Ò¼{¡A¦]¬°³o±N¤£¥i¥H«öºÞ¨îp¹º¨óij±o¨ì»´ä®ø¶OªÌªº¸ê§U¡C
Á`µ²
* ·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬I¥i¤j¤j´î§C¦Ã¬V¡C¦ý¤p³W¼Ò¨Ï¥Î®ðÅéµo¹q©ó¨ÆµL¸É¡A±N¤£·|¦³©úÅã°Ï§O¡F¥u¦³§¹¥þ©Mªø´Á©ñ±ó¥Î·Ñµo¹q¤~¥i¤j¶q´î§C¦Ã¬V¡A¦¨®Ä¦b¨Ï¥Î·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬I¤§¤W¡F
* ¦Ò¼{±Ä¥Î¹ê»Ú»Ýnªº²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð·½¡A»´ä«K¤£»Ýn¦³²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð±µ¦¬¯¸¡C«ö´ä¿Oªº°µªk¡A»´ä¥i±q¤¤°ê¤º¦a¿é¤J²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð¡F
* ¦]¦¹§Ú̪ºµ²½×¬O¡A¿³«Ø¸Ó±µ¦¬¯¸¥u¬O®J§J´Ë¬ü§·¼W¥[¨ä¥þ²y²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ð¾P°â¶qªº¤@¶µp¹º¦Ó¤w¡F
* ¥LÌ¿ï¾Ü»´ä¡A¬O¦]¬°«C¹q«ö·ÓºÞ¨î¨óij¨É¦³Àu«p±ø¥ó¡F³o±N·|±j¹G¤¤¹q«È¤á¤ä¥I80»õ´ä¤¸¥h¿³«Ø±µ¦¬¯¸¡F
* ¸Óp¹º»Pªï±µ¡uÂŤѡv§¹¥þ¨S¦³Ãö«Y¡F
* ¸Óp¹º²£¥Í¤@ÓÁa¦V¦¡¦X¨Öªº¹q¤O±M§Q¤½¥q¡A¨Ï¤é«á±N¦AµLªk¥´¯}ÃbÂ_§½±¡F
* ¸Óp¹º¯}Ãa¤ÑµM°]²£¡AÀ³¨üÄY¼F»º³d¡C«e¤
– «C¹q¤£À³Àò§å㿳«Ø»´ä±µ¦¬¯¸
– «C¹q¶·´M§ä¨ä¥L¤è®×¡A¥]¬A¡G
¡P »P¤¤®üªo°Óij©µÄò±V«°¨Ñ®ð¡F
¡P ¦V¤¤°ê¥Û¤Æ¯]®ü±µ¦¬¯¸¨ú±o®ð·½¨ÑÀ³¡F
¡P ¦V²`¦`¤jÄP±µ¦¬¯¸¨ú±o®ð·½¨ÑÀ³¡C
– ¦p¦b¹ê»Ú¤W¡]³oÂI«D±`ª§Ä³¡^±V«°´î¤Ö¨Ñ®ð¡A¦b³o¹L´ç´Á¡AÀs¹ªÅyµo¹q¼t±N¥i¯à¦]¦¹´î²£¡A¦ý§ÚÌ¥i¥Î¤U¦C¤èªk´î§C¨Ñ¹q»Ý¨D¡G
¡P ¼È®É¦V¤¤°ê°±°â¹q¤O¡]²{¦û«C¹q18 % ²£¹q¶q¡^¡F
¡P ¼È®É¦V¤¤°êÁʶR¹q¤O¡]¤¤°ê¹q¤O°ê»Úµo®i¥i¥HÀH®É¨Ñ¹q¡^¡F
¡P ±À¦æ¸`¬ù¥Î¹q±¹¬I¡C
– µL½×¦p¦ó¡A¿³«Ø·Ï®ð²æ²¸³]¬I¥i¤j¤j´î½wÂà¥Î§ó¦h²G¤Æ¤ÑµM®ðªº«æ¤Á©Ê¡C
®qÀ¬¬¡¤O¦æ°Ê
2007¦~5¤ë
Thanks for the comment, Simon.
More emails on the issue here from sustainable tourism group:Quote:My understanding of the Man Yee Road situation is that it a WSD service road that is sub-standard for public traffic. To open it to public traffic worthy, it has to be upgraded. Upgrading may mean widening, gradient adjustment, passing places, parking spaces, lightings, speed limits, barriers, embankments, etc⋯ a lot of money, a lot of work, a lot of environmental degradation within CP precinct. The police also said it has difficulties enforcing traffic laws in a substandard private road. Not being a public road lessens the liability of WSD or its road manager, the AFCD as Country Park Authority. The villages surrounded by the SKE Country Park have been pressing that the road be upgraded and opened. This issue has also been linked to the issue of opening the Pak Tam Chung Gate. Even with the lifting of the gate, the two service roads on both sides of the reservoir would remain closed, hence very little to be gained unless they are done in tandem. The Wong Shek and Ko Tong branch road is already at par with public roads, I¡¦m afraid only needing unwanted street lights to diminish accidents. I cannot see how the DWS and DAFC would agree to take responsibility of allowing the public to ride bicycles in their private road. I would propose creating a bicycle trail between Tui Min Hoi and Ho Chung through Pak Kong and Tai Chung Hau, to be located mostly at the fringe of Ma On Shan Country Park, depending on the topography.+
Quote:I have driven along the road ¡V legally, with the relevant pass. The road is not sub-standard, it is in very good condition ¡V it is a real road. Taxis are allowed to use it. In fact, they used to drive so fast along the road that experimental speed bumps were placed along the road to slow them down. If the road is safe enough for taxis, then it is safe enough for mountain bikes. The Sai Kung Police supported the idea. It¡¦s perfect ¡V emergency vehicles can drive in and rescue anybody in difficulty ¡V it is a contained area, so easy to manage. I suggest we take out the taxis and speed bumps, and allow in bicycles. A scenic route, dedicated to bicycles, would be marvelous. Locals and tourists alike would love it.I will dig out my original correspondence on the matter and circulate it.
I think the more ideas for cycling routes that we can consider, the better! There is a dearth of safe places ¡V and certainly nowhere in Sai Kung Country park where I live where I can take my children for a family bike ride, which saddens me. I grew up in Singapore ¡V my greatest joy was going off on my bike. I would like my kids and everybody elses¡¦ children to have the same opportunity. I would like to help turn this around! There is a lot we could do ⋯
from HK Outdoors contributor Charles Frew:
Quote:So as not to ‘restrict’ access to those wanting to reach Long Kei Wan (elderly, kids etc) by taking away the ‘taxi’ run, WSD/AFCD should be encouraged to provide an electric trolley shuttle bus service, taking ‘users’ to either Siu Sai Wan/Pagoda or to the end of the High Island Reservoir; a small fee should be levied.
This would negate the use of taxis, yet still allow access to these points. The terrain of the service road is not overly hilly and therefore should not impede the buses performance. The start point of such a service could either be at Pat Tam Chung or at the top of the roundabout.
Perhaps this solution provides controlled safe access and still allows use of the road for mountain biking and hikers as well, thus reducing the need for taxis.prompt response to Charlie’s idea:
Quote:That is a good idea but I doubt that they will do anything like that. There is insurance, and other liability issues. Perhaps the idea should be to keep motorized vehicles off the road for safety issues. If they did, perhaps electric cars or at least non-polluting vehicles.Post edited by: Martin, at: 2007/05/12 12:52
Quick answer:
Well, improving blighted areas seems good idea.
But when money’s limited, best to focus on certain ones – and I’m afraid Aberdeen wouldn’t be my top choice: just too many problems, and no longer a great place for a fisherman’s wharf type attraction.Can think of city buildings and streets that surely deserve attention, and which could become genuine attractions: market streets, streets and buildings with real Hong Kong character (Wanchai, north Kowloon etc).
Not sure always have to dictate re being “green” or whatever: but something akin to keep it real: take living area, do some improvements, and have it still pulsing with life. Not, say, create some phony marketplace as at Ngong Ping!Rather similar in rural areas: can help with villages etc, as well as help our natural environment.
But purse strings not held by people with many such sensibilities.
Instead, get schemes like Wetland Park, Aberdeen plans, Ngong Ping ersatz village-thing, harbour reclamation (bringing the harbour to the people by, err, filling in even more harbour!).
Might be a little hope after furore over Star Ferry and Queen’s piers; and that garden that was saved from concreting a few months ago (in western NT?)Entertaining stuff; but other readers shouldn’t go getting ideas!
Maybe of interest: Cape D’Aguilar’s become popular with local birders as place to go to watch for seabirds during tropical storms including typhoons: sometimes, excellent numbers of seabirds, which can be hard to see here normally (tho regular boat trips last spring and this have helped show there are more around than had been thought).
A few friends of mine were even at Cape D’Ag thro the eye of Typoon York – which proved a poor typhoon for birds.
Po Toi has since proven a better watchpoint for seabirds, tho as yet only once with observations during a trop storm: Chanchu last spring, with most notable record a raft of shearwaters on sheltered patch of water.Stage 7 of the Hong Kong Trail – from Tai Tam to To Tei Wan – gets you down towards Cape D’Ag; at end, a flight of steps up to the road. Much of it about dead level, alongside a catchwater.
Don’t think there’s level option other than road to get closer to the Cape itself – and access to southern tip restricted as must pass thro communications base. There’s also a fairly level trail winding along west slopes of Dragon’s Back. One way onto it is from near Tai Tam Road: steps or winding road up past correctional facility, then south along stage 8 of HK Trail. Instead of keeping to the HK Trail as it turns up to D Back, keep straight on, along the more level trail (tho maybe at end, have some steps to go down).
I’ve read of the cabins being built by missionaries some time ago
Googled, found a little info on HK Trampers. Cabins still privately owned; but wasn’t info on how to hire them.
Martin
Pathfinder covers part of the route I think – the Pat Sin Leng Nature Trail, which now passes the pavilion. But went down to Bride’s Pool, covered that area; and the day I did this route for the article (SCMP first, later in book) I was very glad a taxi happened by as I reached Plover Cove Res.
Not sure re whether there’ll be another edition: been some time since publisher has coughed up my royalties.
Thanks for the above info; seems I should explore the falls above Cheung Sha some time – maybe before strolling the beach and meal at or by the Stoep.
Perhaps of interest for others reading this thread: there’s also a good waterfall south of Tai O. Walk south along coastal trail to Yi O (small bay), then look for a small path leading uphill – goes to bottom of a good fall, which can seem a secret place.
Martin
Hi Simon:
Thanks for this report. (For others who read: the trail that avoids Yi O is good, with grand views over sw Lantau and Pearl River mouth – but indeed involves some climbing).
Without checking maps re lengths, some flat or fairly level hikes that occur to me:
From Tai O towards northeast, and round to Tung Chung. Undulates in places, with some flights of steps.
Around Shing Mun Reservoir: not so long, but a fine walk.
High Island Reservoir southern edge – level, and takes you to eastern dam, which is impressive place, w cliffs w columnar jointing in the area. But, then either retrace steps, or some ups n downs before walking down the road to north of the res.
Catchwaters in several places. One along southern slopes of main Lantau hills is good I'm told (inc for cycling).
From Hoi Hal westwards, to Sham Chung and then south thro Yung Shu O involves only a little uphill, which is pretty gentle.
A few circuits of Tung Ping Chau!
Hopefully some other folk can suggest more. Martin
After piffling public debate (how much did you see re the issues?), and very fast process, govt has given CLP – ExxonMobil green light for harming the Sokos and surrounding waters.
Govt has made requirement re environment, however: CLP – ExxonMobil need to have a committee to oversee environmental aspects. That should make them tremble in the boardrooms – I don’t think (can imagine them laughing now, and getting ready for the inflows of money).
Bah! :sick:
More info from Earthwatch, inc a short online video, at:
Eating Sustainable Seafood – Three Tips to Steer Clear of Fisheries Collapse
