Uncategorized

Clear the Air says: Finally it seems we have a new Chief Executive of the Populus majority instead of the tycoon minority.

CY comes from a working family background, not silver spoon-fed oafs who deem themselves another class of human being beyond the Law of the land.

As for the current Bow Tie incumbent – ‘In carcere requiescat’ is our wish for his malfeasance in public office.

This meet-the-people / kiss-the-babies  is how a modern leader should lead, with policies for the people’s health, wealth, housing, education  and interest ahead of the concrete pouring, tycoon

developer pleasing, position abusing incumbent.

CY has already spent more time meeting the plebs of Hong Kong than Bow Tie and his sad overpaid underworked ilk (who deem themselves special) did in 7 years.

Clear the Air welcomes CY Leung and we trust his policies will improve our environment, human and animal health that Bow Tie has damaged through his abuse of power and ineffective policies that

placed the wishes of the minority ahead of the needs of the majority.

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Abraham Lincoln

“that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Abraham Lincoln

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Waste:_balancing_business_and_the_environment.html?cid=32817740

Image Caption: The international transport of rubbish is good business. Here, the Emma Maersk is the biggest container ship in the world (Ex-press)

RELATED STORIES

• ·        Digging for treasure in the waste market
• ·        Room to grow in Swiss plastic recycling
• ·        E-waste casts shadow over Basel Convention

by Jean-Michel Berthoud, swissinfo.ch

The cross border traffic of waste is today a global business and sometimes even makes ecological sense, according to experts. The important thing is for future problems to be dealt with efficiently and with international cooperation.

In Naples in January 2008, lack of waste collection meant some 110,000 tonnes of rubbish piled up in the streets. Fourteen Swiss waste incineration facilities held talks with the Neapolitan authorities about importing the rubbish.

The Swiss were not the only ones offering to help, however; foreign competitors were also interested.

The Federal Environment Office told swissinfo.ch at the time that importing other countries’ refuse made sense because Switzerland could make the most of the available capacity of its incineration plants.

It admitted that importing rubbish wasn’t a long-term solution, but in the short term it could prevent environmental pollution.

WWF Switzerland agreed that from a short-term point of view it was surely better to get rid of the rubbish in Swiss incinerators than burning it on Italian streets. The environmental group believed it would be wrong, however, to increase the capacity in Switzerland on economic grounds in order to burn foreign rubbish.

Lucrative

The deal with Naples never happened – the rubbish was disposed of in Italy – but the international trafficking of waste is today a lucrative business.

In the Bazenheid incinerator in canton St Gallen, getting rid of one tonne of household waste a few years ago cost SFr250 ($258). Burning 110,000 tonnes would therefore have brought in SFr27.5 million.

“Obviously it makes most sense to get rid of the rubbish in the place where it comes from,” Felix Meier from WWF toldswissinfo.ch.

“But if this isn’t possible in an environmentally sound way, then it makes sense to export the rubbish – even big distances, as would have been the case with Naples. Especially when the clean Swiss incinerators have capacity.”

Basel Convention

The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal is also valid in Switzerland.

“This stipulates autonomy of disposal, which in Switzerland has been implemented, for exports among other areas,” André Hauser from the Federal Environment Office told swissinfo.ch.

“For example, exports of municipal waste or of exports of waste to be disposed of in surface landfills are not permitted.”

The Basel Convention also covers imports, with the import of rubbish to be deposited in Swiss storage facilities also banned.

“As long as the capacity and the technology is available, it should be possible to import waste. What’s more, the latest technology means incinerating municipal waste is better for the environment that dumping it in a landfill.”

Safe trains

Switzerland exports around 500,000 tonnes of hazardous waste every year and imports just over 30,000 tonnes. How safe is transporting it?

“The dangerous goods law should guarantee safe transport on the roads or railways. If it’s also a question of waste, the regulations also cover packaging and other conditions,” Hauser said.

Meier from WWF said that for hazardous waste there had been an international accord for more than ten years, according to which the exporter has to take care of the disposal of the waste and bears responsibility should something go wrong.

“This is not an absolute guarantee, but exporters are very much aware of it,” he said.

Hauser said it basically made more sense to transport waste across borders using trains.

“There are no clauses in the waste law which demand that. We’re just checking whether disposal per se is ecologically compatible,” he said.

For Meier, trains “clearly have the lead” when it comes to the environment and safety.

“In this respect the state could support the railways more and also check the safety requirements for freight trains.”

Export of rubbish

Switzerland is considered a recycling world champion, yet the country still exports rubbish.

Hauser believes exporting rubbish can make sense, “above all when it concerns recycling”.

He said Switzerland had few possibilities to take care of rare or precious metals, for which there are only a few specialist plants around the world.

“Even if you consider the remediation of contaminated sites which is currently taking place in Switzerland, we don’t have enough capacity to treat the waste according to the state-of-the-art technology,” he said.

He added, however, that as a general principle waste should be disposed of within Switzerland.

“But municipal waste, sewage sludge and combustible construction waste should not be exported at all.”

Felix Meier said practically all Swiss household waste was disposed of in advanced incineration facilities.

He said it was often not worth building special disposal plants for refuse which accumulated in smaller quantities, such as hazardous waste. “There are just as good and better value options abroad.”

Waste as commodity

“Our massive consumption of goods means we use up three times as much as our planet can provide. Our resources are thus becoming increasingly scarce and more expensive,” Meier said.

He added that, as a result, using waste as a source for new resources was growing strongly.

“For example the amount of gold in [all] our mobile phones is greater than in most goldmines. Linked to that, waste is turning into a commodity – in other words, it’s becoming a goldmine,” he said.

“Today, there’s already a good market for relatively clean collected waste like paper, aluminium and batteries. This also benefits the environment.”

Jean-Michel Berthoud, swissinfo.ch
(Translated from French by Thomas Stephens)

Kelly Ip  HK Standard

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Catering sector lawmaker Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, who set off public anger in 2010 by suggesting a minimum wage of HK$20 an hour, is making waves again as pay is reviewed.

He’s saying the lowest legal wage should be raised by just HK$1 from the HK$28 an hour set last year despite his opposition.

Employers cannot afford more than HK$29 an hour, Cheung argues. But grassroots groups want a raise to between HK$33 and HK$35 an hour and also seek an annual review of the minimum wage.

Cheung said he sent questionnaires to 60 catering firms with 1,000 outlets, and 36 replied. Of those, 22 percent were willing to pay an extra dollar but others wanted the HK$28 minimum to stay.

There is a ripple effect with any increase, Cheung said. “The government expected the minimum wage would add 3 percent to operating costs, but the actual cost was 15 to 16 percent.”

With juniors’ wages raised, he said, people higher up the ladder wanted increases too. And there are many job levels in catering, he added.

According to Cheung, small and medium-scale restaurants were hit hard at HK$28. Half the operators he checked with had complained of an average 4 percent drop in revenue.

Fuk Yuen Group chairman Lo Ho- wan, with six restaurants and 500 employees, said he felt the squeeze.

One restaurant in Causeway Bay had to be closed when the rent doubled from around HK$200,000 a month, and 20 employees had to be laid off.

Related to that, Chinese General Chamber of Commerce vice chairman

David Fong Man-hung told a Legislative Council manpower panel that more restaurants will close because of costs. He also said that, despite offering HK$33, an hour some catering firms were unable to hire capable dishwashers.

And he doubted the situation would improve even if the minimum wage went to HK$40 as other sectors paid much more than jobs in catering.

But the chief executive of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, Mung Siu-tat, had another take on it.

“A company should improve the working environment and reduce working hours to attract job-seekers instead of blaming the minimum wage,” he said.

Based on current inflation, Mung said, the HK$28 of last year was comparable to HK$24 today.

Luk Kam-shing, 40, currently earning HK$28 an hour for taking charge of table linen at a clubhouse in Causeway Bay, earns HK$7,812 a month for working nine hours a day, six days a week.

Her husband, also in catering, makes HK$10,000 a month. “Everything is getting more expensive now,” Luk said. “The government always approves applications to raise transport fares. How about our wages?

“Imagine having to pay HK$40 for lunch in Causeway Bay when I only earn HK$28 an hour.”

The couple have sons aged 10 and five, and Luk said they can barely afford textbooks. “I also feel sorry for our older boy as I had to cut back on his ping- pong training.” She hopes a new minimum wage will be at least HK$33.

Creation of 1,500 hectares of land in the region is flawed on environmental and demographic grounds, say experts

Hong Kong’s Tolo harbour: tonnes of construction waste could be dumped here, if planners get their way. Photograph: Philip Dunn/Rex Features

Green hillsides stretch out behind Ruy Barretto’s stone house and trains to China slip under the hill in the designated conservation area where his family home has stood for generations. Down by the waterfront, Tolo harbour is teeming with visitors. Behind it, a narrow, neglected road crawls up theSha Lo Tung hillside through dense trees, birdsong, wild rushes, ferns and fresh air.

But if Hong Kong’s planners have their way, tonnes of construction waste will be dumped in and around Tolo harbour, disfiguring shorelines, despoiling uninhabited islands and wrecking a rare recreational resource.

The plan is part of a broader aim to create 1,500 hectares of land to provide homes and land space for millions more people. The planners talk of creating 25 islands and waterfront extensions of hundreds of hectares each. They would dump concrete in the sea to join up islands where weekend sailors see porpoises and turtles, and wipe out natural pebble and sand beaches.

Possible Hong Kong reclamation sites. Photograph: Graphic

Thousands have signed petitions against the plans. Experts on population, environment, urban design and sustainability say that instead of creating new lifestyles for residents, the plans will allow the government to save the cost of shipping waste to China and garner huge profits from land sales.

“They are trying to kill two birds with one profitable stone,” says Barretto, a barrister. The WWF says the environmental cost of the redevelopment is too high. Among the sites targeted for reclamation, Po Toi island is home to Romer’s tree frog; Hei Ling Chau island is home to a special burrowing lizard; and the waters around Beaufort island support more than 30 species of coral. Porpoises, mangroves and spawning grounds for fish would all be put at risk.

However, the 25-location plan will create land in one of the planet’s most heavily populated places. The authorities are also thinking about creating new land for a third runway at the international airport.

The government’s civil engineering and development department (Cedd), which refused to be interviewed, says it is merely seeking public opinion on the best way to meet future development needs. It issued a brochure suggesting that new land could be created at 25 locations outside Hong Kong’s central harbour area, which is protected from development by law. It embarked on a “public engagement process”, in which the plan was outlined at seminars and exhibitions. Responses are being analysed with a view to shortening the list of 25 sites down to 10.

The trouble, says a range of experts, is that the department’s assumptions are wrong, its reasoning faulty, and the process flawed. Take the Cedd’s claim that Hong Kong’s population (of 6.9 million) will reach 8.9 million by 2039. “I don’t believe it,” said Prof Paul Yip, Hong Kong’s top demographer, from the University of Hong Kong’s department of social work and social administration.

Hong Kong has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, at 1.04%, and a rapidly ageing population. The daily quota for 150 new migrants from mainland China is rarely full. Without a massive inward migration programme it is hard to see how it could produce such significant population growth.

As for the need for new land, the countryside is already scarred by storage of shipping containers and old factory areas are left to rot. The government has admitted that 200,000 flats are standing empty; more than 5,000 hectares of other land has also been identified for rezoning.

“Reclamation should be the last resort,” said Roy Tam Hoi-pong, chairman of environmental pressure group Green Sense. The Hong Kong Institute of Planners says that reclamation “at an appropriate scale and level of overall sustainability is a possible option” but warns that study of a large number of criteria, including environmental and ecological, is necessary.

“The identification of 25 sites, prematurely released and belatedly presented, is confusing … ‘island’ sites in particular are extremely unlikely to be viable,” it said in a submission to the government.

Government sources the Cedd’s plan was a surprise to policy units usually involved in such significant planning processes. A 2007 government study called Hong Kong 2030 stressed the need for a more sustainable quality of life and warned against rampant reclamation.

“We’re suffering from a lack of decision-making,” said Peter Cookson Smith, architect, urban planner and president of the Institute of Planners.

Some allege a broader lack of vision, saying Hong Kong’s land needs depend on its future relationship to the mainland. The border between the two different jurisdictions is becoming more porous, which is partly why mainland Chinese feel less need to live in more expensive Hong Kong. It also raises questions about why Hong Kong should build more land, when there is the huge space of China next door. For Barretto, the most disturbing aspect of the 25-site plan is that the government appears to have forgotten, or thrown out, the most basic principles of international practice for sustainable planning.

After researching the figures, local commentator Tom Holland said: “It’s hard to conclude anything except that the planners and their construction industry cronies have run completely amok, crazed by the prospect of getting their hands on the government’s huge fiscal reserves, and using them to build ever more grandiose, expensive and unneeded civil engineering projects. They need to be stopped.”

Hong Kong’s reclamation tradition

When British and other foreign traders’ ships first sought safe harbour in Hong Kong in the 1840s, the island offered a mere strip of flat land which rose precipitously to the 550-metre peak. Reclamation – taking land from the sea – was envisaged from the start.

Begun in 1889, the first major project added almost 4.5 hectares of new land, creating what is now called Central, the primary business district A subsequent reclamation of what is now called Wanchai added another 4.8 hectares.

Since then, Hong Kong has grown exponentially. The government has been creating 500-700 hectares of land every five years, until 2005 when new environmental awareness and legal sanction cut the growth back to under 100 hectares over five years.

As of early 2011, about 6% of land in Hong Kong (6,824 hectares) has come from reclamation, the government says.

Traditionally, reclamation has been done by dredging, using rock and sand fill and taking out mud that could not be built upon. New techniques involve the use of large concrete blocks. This involves less dumping of mud, and makes better use of existing construction waste. Engineers say it also provides more stable land.

Hong Kong’s international airport was built on new land made by taking marine mud away. If a third runway is agreed, the new land it will require will almost certainly involve the use of construction waste.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/27/hong-kong-islands-threat-wildlife?newsfeed=true

http://grist.org/article/check-the-math-study-touting-safer-fracking-reveals-big-oils-ties-to-academia/

What do you call a report that makes major math mistakes, pulls language directly from other publications without citation, and fails to disclose the researchers’ financial conflicts of interest?

In the fight over fracking, it might just be called “peer-reviewed” science.

The most recent example of such sketchy research comes from the University of Buffalo, which released a report [PDF] this month concluding that fracking is getting safer and pointing for proof to Pennsylvania, ground zero for drilling.

The problem isn’t just that the study itself is misleading and riddled with errors (which it is). It’s that in their efforts to win public favor, the fracking industry increasingly hides behind academia to circulate misinformation — and the University of Buffalo is the latest cover.

Let’s deconstruct: The study’s key claim is that the rate of major environmental violations in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale declined from 2008 to 2011. But a look at the study’s data shows that, using the researchers’ own methodology, the rate of major environmental accidents actually increased by more than 30 percent.

Large chunks of the report appear to be lifted verbatim from a document previously published by three of the report’s four authors for a conservative think tank called the Manhattan Institute. This matters because the university study fails to cite the think tank. In this case, it’s very relevant:

The Manhattan Institute receives financial support from oil and gas companies heavily invested in fracking, like ExxonMobil. Instead, the study released this month is stamped only with the University of Buffalo’s academic imprimatur.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

Funding sources The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985–2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, theScaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.^[63] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, CIGNA, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch.^[64]

These problems and more are discussed in a detailed assessment by the Public Accountability Initiative (PAI), a nonprofit research and educational organization focused on corporate and government accountability. It highlights the worsening problem ofuniversities getting into bed with industries and compromising research in the process.

The University of Buffalo report leaves out other key information — like the fact that when Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) took office in 2011, his new top environmental regulator sent around a memo telling inspectors that they had to get approval from political appointees before issuing violations to Marcellus drillers. That order was retracted after it leaked to the press, but by that time the message to state workers was pretty clear.

The Buffalo report also sidelines entire categories of violations as “administrative” rather than “environmental” — often without clear information about the nature of the offense.

Some media outlets failed to do their homework and too quickly ran with the report. Forbes, for example, went with: “Fracking Safety Improves Dramatically Says Independent Study.”

Press people at the University of Buffalo pitched the report extensively as a rare good-news opportunity for the controversy-riddled fracking issue. The lack of regulation of fracking in places — quite especially in Pennsylvania — has been extensively documented.

The University of Buffalo’s study offered an alternate reality.

“This study presents a compelling case that state oversight of oil and gas regulation has been effective,” lead author Timothy Considine said in the press release.

It’s worth giving some context on Considine. As the folks at PAI point out, both Considine and fellow report author Robert Watson also wrote a controversial 2009 report [PDF] issued under the auspices of Penn State but funded by the natural gas industry group known as the Marcellus Shale Committee.

Penn State retracted the initial version of the report because it did not disclose its funding source and “may well have crossed the line from policy analysis to policy advocacy,” according to the school’s dean of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

Other authors and reviewers of the report from Buffalo have undisclosed ties to industry, which are detailed in the review by PAI.

The University of Buffalo is partly to blame for not vetting its own study a bit better. In fact, the university may have been a bit too eager to publicize the report. The press release originally described the study as “peer-reviewed,” a term usually reserved for research meticulously reviewed by experts before publication in an academic journal. But it turned out that the report was only circulated for comment to five people, most of whom have industry ties — and the lone environmentalist among the bunch has distanced himself from its findings, according to PAI.

“This description may have given readers an incorrect impression,” the website now notes in a retraction.

Unfortunately, when academia allows the media to run with “incorrect impressions,” including ones created by seriously flawed data, the damage may already be done.

Sharon Kelly is an attorney and freelance writer who lives in Philadelphia. She has reported for The New York Times, National Wildlife, and the Legal Intelligencer, and a variety of other publications.

The ultra-conservative Heartland Institute admitted it was in financial crisis on Wednesday, with the flight of corporate donors making it difficult to pay staff or cover the costs of its annual conference aimed at debunking climate science.

In a speech at the close of this year’s climate conference, Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast, acknowledged that a provocative ad campaign comparing believers in human-made climate change to psychopaths had exacted a heavy cost.

However, Bast also attributed Heartland’s current problems to his weakness in financial management.

“These conferences are expensive, and I’m not a good fundraiser so as a result I don’t raise enough money to cover them. We really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses,” Bast said.

“If you can afford to make a contribution please do. If you know someone, if you’ve got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the Heartland Institute.”

The organisation has lost at least $825,000 in funds from corporate donors although Heartland also claims to have attracted 800 new small donors. Heartland also came in for bruising criticism from its own allies – a number of whom faulted Bast for failing to consult Heartland’s colleagues or board members about the ads in advance.

Among ultra-conservative activists, the billboard controversy has shaken confidence in Heartland’s ability to serve as the hub of the climate contrarian network. It has also raised doubts about Bast’s leadership. Bast is listed on Heartland’s website as its earliest employee. His wife is also employed at Heartland.

But Heartland was facing a cash crunch even before the Gleick expose.

Nine employees were due to be laid or take pay cuts in 2011, according to the budget documents obtained by Gleick.

This year’s conference was a drastically shrunken version of earlier Heartland gatherings, which attracted up to 800 attendees and ran several concurrent sessions. Those events were also lucrative for Heartland, accounting for half of its non-fundraising events revenue, according to documents obtained through deception by the scientist Peter Gleick.

At this year’s gathering in Chicago, fewer than 170 turned up for the gala opening banquet, and the conference only managed to eke out one session at a time, and brought in relatively few outside speakers.

And the only member of Congress to attend this year, conservative Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, used his speech to criticise Heartland for the billboard.

“We can continue to win these debates out of the strength of our arguments without recourse to unsavoury tactics that only serve to distract from our message,” he said. “Let’s not get off message.”

Heartland initially had not even planned to hold a conference. But after the organisation was shaken last February by the internet sting exposing its donor list and fundraising strategy, Heartland changed its mind.

However, Bast said Heartland may stop putting on the conferences. “I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/24/heartland-institute-billboard-controversy?newsfeed=true

Download PDF : dioxinv1sup

HK Standard

Phila Siu and Eddie Luk

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

The government gives with one hand and takes away with the other in its new order of pay.

Principal officials will see their monthly salaries rise to HK$322,260 from the current HK$282,080.

But political assistants will be hit hard under the mechanism revealed yesterday as they will get a pay cut or, at best, no increase.

Currently, each bureau can hire one political assistant for between HK$100,000 and HK$160,000 a month. Under the new system, their salaries are capped at HK$100,000 a month.

And while a bureau can hire more than one assistant ,the combined salaries cannot exceed HK$100,000.

Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi- yuen said the new pay scale for principal officials represents a rise of 8.1 percent based on the original salaries of the three key secretaries and 12 bureau chiefs.

They took a voluntary cut of 5.38 percent in 2009 during the economic crisis, and that pay level will be restored, making for an overall rise of 14.2 percent.

Tam argued that this rise is certainly overdue as officials at this level have not had an increase for 10 years despite inflation eroding their purchasing power.

The raise is also similar to that of senior executives in many local companies, Tam added.

“The Independent Commission on Remuneration suggests that we adjust the salary according to inflation over the years, that the increase should be 15.3 percent,” he said. “But the government has not adopted this figure.

“On one hand, we need some balance on this matter because the pay has not been increased for the last decade. But on the other hand, we need to practice self-control, and so the raise will be 8.1 percent.”

If adjustments are passed in the Legislative Council next month, the chief secretary will get a monthly salary of HK$357,300, the financial secretary HK$345,215 and the justice secretary HK$333,540.

All bureau chiefs will get HK$322,260 a month. At present, undersecretaries get either 65percent (HK$197,455) or 75 percent (HK$211,560) of the salary of bureau chiefs. Under the new proposals they will get 70 percent (HK$225,582) of the bureau chiefs’ salary.

The monthly pay for the newly created deputy chief secretary and deputy financial secretary will be 1.75 percent higher than the bureau chiefs.

Tam also said that pay-cut proposals for political assistants is in response to public criticism. “We understand that the public thinks the political assistants are getting high salaries,” he said.

And he hoped that assistants will change their working mode from working “behind the scenes” to meeting the public more.

The government will save HK$5 million a year under this adjustment, he added.

Lawmaker Leung Yiu-chung of the Neighbourhood and Workers’ Service Centre said the percentage of increase is too much.

“The public thinks it is unacceptable. They feel that the principal officials have the special power to give themselves a greater pay rise than the public.”

Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk- yan thinks the pay rise is too high. Additionally, he fears there will be too many political assistants, which will make it hard for lawmakers to monitor the administration’s performance.