Email to me a few days ago:
My name is Steven Chan. I am working in a local environmental group “The Green Earth”. My organisation has been working on various environmental issues, and waste reduction, plastic pollution and light pollution have been our main areas of concern since establishment in 2017.
With the postponement of the waste charging scheme, Hong Kong will face a lot of challenges in waste reduction. Yet, many people think Hong Kong can burn its way out of the waste problem.
I am now researching waste incineration in Hong Kong. I believe incineration brings more harm than good to Hong Kong because it entails great pollution risks, large carbon footprint and high monetary cost.
I read your article about the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator posted on Mingpao some 12 years ago. The article is archived and available on the website of the Legislative Council: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1385-2-e.pdf
I am deeply surprised by your comments because they are still relevant today despite all the technological advancements. I wonder what you think about the government’s proposal to build the second (and even the third!) incinerator.
Best wishes,
Steven Chan
Assistant Environmental Affairs Manager
The Green Earth
I replied at some length:
Dear Steve:
Thanks for the email.
Too bad my article remains current.
Worse still, the EPD’s reasons for shutting incinerators late last century are still relevant.
Think I’ve quoted these somewhere. [Adding here]
Incinerators are a major source of pollution in the urban areas.
They account for approximately 18% of all respirable particulates emitted into the atmosphere of the territory and can be a source also of trace quantities of highly toxic substances. Government therefore intends to phase out the existing municipal incinerators as land-based disposal facilities are introduced to replace them.
White Paper: A Time to Act [1989]
Waste charging was bollocks here anyway, given lack of alternatives to help people reduce waste.
Wastage is rampant here, baked into system; and pisspoor efforts to reduce despite boasts – as EPD around year 2000; cf Taiwan, say [Taiwan did much to reduce waste per person, from around Hong Kong levels to substantially less.]
Incineration remains horrible.
I got into it as Cheung Chau, where I live, is near what is surely an appalling site for an incinerator.
Realised incineration sucks; involved in opposing incinerator, which I think delayed project maybe a couple of years.
Elvis Au became – to me – like liar in chief for the project [the design would suit Shek Kwu Chau vicinity – blatantly untrue if you see the almost completed monstrosity; it will become a tourist attraction; and more]; he called me something like an “old friend”, another lie; karma since failing in him becoming some sort of professor, should be shunned by environmentalists. – this was at a meeting where he was really friendly with engineering companies etc.
I did much that’s online.
Policy framework ideas mostly ignored as incineration emphasised
Put partial summary here, including:
The “Policy Framework for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste (2005-2014)” set out “a framework for requisite action of managing MSW in terms of waste avoidance and minimization, and reuse, recovery and recycling of suitable recyclable materials. It also proposed the adoption of advanced technologies to treat unavoidable waste in a sustainable manner [including incineration].”
Yet emphasis was then placed on incineration; measures like deposits for drink containers were simply ignored. In a damning report in 2015, the Audit Commission noted: “The over-estimation of the quantities of MSW recovered (and MSW generated) had distorted the effectiveness of the Government’s efforts to increase MSW recovery and recycling.”1
This report prompted an investigation by the Legco Public Accounts Committee, which likewise produced a damning report, and found it “appalling and inexcusable that”, among other things, “although the 2005 Policy Framework set a target of reducing the percentage of MSW disposed of at landfills from 60% in 2004 to 25% in 2014, more than 63% of MSW was disposed of at landfills in 2013 and 2014 respectively”.2
Zero Waste Policies Ignored
While other places in the world such as San Francisco aim for zero waste to landfill or incineration, Hong Kong is ignoring such efforts; instead has “burn or bury” strategy with focus on landfill and incineration. Billions of dollars earmarked for these; minimal resources for recycling, reuse, reduction of packaging materials etc.
Shek Kwu Chau Incinerator Dodgy Dealings and Outrageous Claims
Presentation I gave to legco:
[those were the days! – when it was possible to give such presentations]
It’s over three years since I became involved in opposing the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator.
First because of the location being beautiful and home to wildlife including endangered finless porpoises.
But over time, opposing incineration anywhere in Hong Kong because of the poison emissions, toxic ash, expense, and sheer wastefulness.
There has been considerable disinformation.
For instance, the EPD claimed incineration will destroy all organic pollutants. This is not true.
I once asked Elvis Au, why not put the incinerator in Central?
He said no, the air quality objectives would be exceeded.
Our environmental officials make no mention of research revealing health issues with modern incinerators, like cancers, premature births, children with stunted growth.
Chemicals cleaned from the chimney – including dioxins and heavy metals – will go into the ash. Ideas for dumping this in a landfill island would create a toxic time bomb for future generations.
People have suggested alternatives to incineration and expanding landfills.
For each, the EPD comes up with supposed failings.
There are widespread moves towards Zero Waste to landfills or incineration.
Why not in Hong Kong?
Plasma arc gasification has almost no emissions, no toxic ash, and can be used to produce jet fuel, and mine landfills. I helped with and fully support the plan from the New Territories Concern Group.
Air Products has invested over US$1 billion in the technology, and just completed a major facility in England.
Oddly, the Environmental Bureau is more interested in an incinerator with a ski slope that won’t even be ready for 3 years.
Food waste treatment is worthwhile, too.
But the north Lantau plant will supposedly cost an enormous HK$1.5 billion; eight a similar sized plant in the UK!
Panel members may ask: where will the excess HK$1.3 billion go?
It does seem that the main supporters of the government’s plan including the Big Crazy Bonfire are those who are benefiting and will benefit financially.
With construction costs, and landfill extensions and so forth, measures discussed here today look set to cost over HK$40 billion.
This is an outrageous figure.
But hopefully, panel members will again reject the government’s appalling waste plans.
In making your decision regarding the waste plans, please avoid being swayed by scaremongering about waste piling up on the streets.
Instead, note that alternative plans can be implemented more quickly and far more cheaply than the incinerator plus landfill expansions.
With a can-do attitude, coupled with science and wisdom, we can make Hong Kong a role model for waste treatment and environmental protection.
Legco presentation inc disinformation on incinerator and landfills
No environmental impact assessment focused on Shek Kwu Chau site
Couple of letters in South China Morning Post, including:
In Mr Au’s view, a “thorough environmental impact assessment study” is required for the Green Island Cement plan. Yet such a study is also lacking for the proposed Shek Kwu Chau incinerator scheme. All that I am aware of is an assessment focusing on selecting an incinerator site. This was commissioned by the Environmental Protection Department, which, conveniently, was also responsible for passing the study.
Information in the impact assessment report is often scant. For instance, emissions including particulates are a major concern, yet what little data there is has evidently been plucked out of thin air, rather than from trials involving Hong Kong waste.
I noticed no mention of studies finding links between proximity to incinerators and increased risks of birth defects and cancer. When it comes to its own project, the department seems unperturbed by data that is lacking or muddled.
Incinerator-promoting Hong Kong EPD unfazed by poor data
On judicial review re incinerator: https://www.hkoutdoors.com/forums/topic/legco-presentation-inc-disinformation-on-incinerator-and-landfills/?swcfpc=1
Several threads in Hong Kong outdoors [which I run] forum, about incineration, with news from elsewhere etc – China also had some resistance to incinerators, say:
So I think it sucks the government is building even one incinerator, let alone planning a third.
Just seems laziest option; when it should come after substantial efforts to reduce waste.
And should – very much should! – include waste sorting, only burning suitable waste.
Organic waste, as the huge amount of food waste, should be treated in other ways; anaerobic digestion say, which EPD seemed biased against. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665906924000047 just on google]
Anyhoo, it’s the government, and has long liked to railroad projects through. [!!! – get consultations, but government not really looking to do anything other than forge ahead with projects]
