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
綠色地球
I replied at some length:
Dear Steve:
感謝您的電子郵件。
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
零廢棄物政策被忽視
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.
石鼓洲焚化爐不正當交易及離譜索賠
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.
首先是因為這里風景優美，是瀕臨滅絕的江豚等野生動物的家園。
但隨著時間的推移，由於毒物排放、有毒灰燼、費用和純粹的浪費，香港反對焚燒任何地方。
有相當多的虛假信息。
例如，環保署聲稱焚燒會銷毀所有有機污染物。這不是真的。
我曾經問過Elvis Au，為什麼不把焚化爐放在中環？
他說不，會超過空氣質量目標。
我們的環境官員隻字未提揭示現代焚化爐存在健康問題的研究，例如癌症、早產、兒童發育遲緩。
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.
人們提出了焚燒和擴大垃圾填埋場的替代方案。
對於每一個，EPD 都提出了假設的失敗。
向垃圾填埋場或焚燒的零廢物方向廣泛採取行動。
為什麼不在香港？
等離子弧氣化幾乎無排放，無毒灰，可用於生產噴氣燃料、礦山填埋場。我協助並全力支持新界關注小組的計劃。
Air Products 已在該技術上投資超過 US$10 億美元，並且剛剛在英國完成了一個主要設施。
Oddly, the Environmental Bureau is more interested in an incinerator with a ski slope that won’t even be ready for 3 years.
食物垃圾處理也是值得的。
但大嶼山北部的工廠據稱將耗資 HK$15 億；八個類似規模的英國工廠！
小組成員可能會問：多出的HK$13億元將何去何從？
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.
加上建築成本和垃圾填埋場擴建等，今天在這裡討論的措施看起來將耗資超過 $400 億港元。
這是一個離譜的數字。
But hopefully, panel members will again reject the government’s appalling waste plans.
在做出有關廢物計劃的決定時，請避免被關於垃圾堆積在街上的危言聳聽所左右。
相反，請注意，與焚化爐加垃圾填埋場擴建相比，替代計劃可以更快、更便宜地實施。
以敢為人先的態度，再加上科學和智慧，我們可以使香港成為廢物處理和環境保護的榜樣。
立法會簡報公司就焚化爐和垃圾填埋場提供虛假信息
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.
影響評估報告中的信息往往很少。例如，包括顆粒物在內的排放是一個主要問題，但僅有的少量數據顯然是憑空獲得的，而不是來自涉及香港廢物的試驗。
我注意到沒有提及任何研究發現靠近焚燒爐與出生缺陷和癌症風險增加之間的聯繫。當談到自己的項目時，該部門似乎對數據的缺乏或混亂並不感到不安。
垃圾焚燒廠推廣 香港環保署未受不良數據影響
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]
