Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

EPD

Waste plans limited to incineration

Saturday, 30 August, 2014

Waste plans limited to incineration

I refer to the letter by Elvis W. K. Au, assistant director of environmental protection (“Government serious about tackling waste”, August 18) replying to my letter (“Sustainable disposal solution needed to tackle mounting waste”, July 26).

He used well-worn bureaucratese talking about “blueprints” and “initiatives” to manage Hong Kong’s waste “in the coming decade”.

He says nothing about what is being done now to encourage territory-wide waste separation and recycling. Where is the public education campaign on sorting waste at source? Why is only 0.02 per cent per year of Hong Kong’s rubbish collected in the so-called recycling bins? Why are most of the recyclables collected in the 26,000 bins still dumped in landfills? Why does Au have no accurate figures on the amount of waste recycled? Where is the cooperation among the Environmental Protection, Food and Environmental Hygiene and Housing departments to collect and sort domestic waste? To refute my “unsubstantiated assertions”, he fails to substantiate his own with statistics.

Instead, Au proclaims “strategies, targets and plans” for comprehensive waste management in the future. Similar “strategies, targets and plans”, declared by a previous environment secretary, have yet to be implemented.

Au trumpets the “Blueprint on sustainable use of resources 2013-2022”. It’s largely a rehash of a blueprint issued in 2005, “A policy framework for the management of municipal solid waste 2005-2014”, with strategies and targets for community-wide reuse, recovery and recycling of waste. Nine years later, we’re still waiting.

The Environment Bureau’s only major plan is the mega-incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau, from which toxic ash residue must be shipped across the busy harbour to be dumped in expanded landfills. The bureau has pro-incinerator roadshows and TV ads, instead of a media campaign to educate people on how to properly sort their refuse.

Since 2010, Au has championed this incinerator, paying lip service to waste separation and recycling. The “green community stations” are more window dressing.

After nearly a decade of failure to push anything other than incineration, how can we believe Au’s current “strategies, targets and plans” will lead to comprehensive waste management, especially if the incinerator gets funding? All our waste will then go into this plant, and there will be no incentive to reduce or recycle.

Throw refuse in black plastic bags, dump it in the incinerator and landfills; build more incinerators and expand landfills as needed. That is the bureau’s real waste-management plan, past, present and future.

Kim Chai, Lantau

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1581937/letters-editor-august-30-2014

Recycling figures: plain rubbish

ENVIRONMENT PANEL Chairman CHAN HAK KAN

2012 – reasons for Panel EA rejection of ENB landfill / incinerator package

www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0527cb1-1079-2-e.pdf
“13. Details of the funding proposals for the three landfill extension projects are set out in LC Paper No. CB(1)1369/11-12(01) which is hyperlinked in the Appendix. According to the Government, IWMF would require some seven years for reclamation, construction and commission, while landfill extension would need a few years for site preparation works
15. The Panel held another special meeting on 20 April 2012 to continue discussion on the funding proposals. Noting that many measures pertaining to the Policy Framework had yet to be implemented , members were opposed to the reliance on landfills for waste disposal in view of the associated environmental nuisances, as well as the long lead time and cost incurred from restoration of landfills. They stressed the need for an holistic package of waste management measures (including waste reduction, separation and recycling) with waste incineration as a last resort and better communication between the two terms of Government on environmental policies, in particular on the need for incineration. They also urged the Administration to identify other suitable outlying islands for IWMF and promote the local recycling industry. In view of the foregoing, members did not support the submission of the funding proposals to the Public Works Subcommittee for consideration.”
Q: WHAT POLICY AND DIRECTION HAS CHANGED AT ENB SINCE THE LAST LEGCO PANEL ENV AFFAIRS REJECTION ?   A: NOTHING !

actually gone backwards as the ‘new’ figures show– the China ‘Operation Green Fence’ blocking of transhipped dirty plastic from overseas to China via HKG exposed this sham of using the plastic trash transhipment figures as ‘local recycling’. ENB/EPD were caught out cheating by ‘Operation Green Fence’. The ENB denied the container loads of blocked plastics were locally landfilled – so what happened to it ?

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/china-green-fence-global-recycling-innovation

SCMP Recycling figures: plain rubbish

CTA says: this only came to light due to China’s ‘Operation Green Fence’
ENB has been using data of containers of trash transhipped through here to China in their local recycling figures
When China blocked the transhipment of unwashed plastic imports the shxt hit the fan + the divisive ‘local recycling’ practice came to light
Still waiting to find out which local landfill they buried the dirty plastic waste in

Recycling figures: plain rubbish?

Wednesday, 29 January, 2014

Cheung Chi-fai

Overhaul of system is promised as officials admit estimates of the amount of waste the city recycles have been drastically overstated

Officials have admitted that estimates of the amount of Hong Kong waste being recycled – once put at over 50 per cent – have been drastically overstated. They said yesterday that the figures were distorted by “external factors” beyond their control and the system for calculating them would be overhauled. The admission came as the Environmental Protection Department reported a slashed recycling rate of 39 per cent in 2012, down from 48 the previous year and a peak of 52 in 2010.

The department blamed fluctuations in the waste trade and irregularities in export declarations for the distortions. In an effort to improve its data collection, it will introduce extra measures, as recommended by a consultant commissioned to look into the problem. But the officials said they did not believe the distortion would affect policy-making or the achievement of targets set out in the waste-management blueprint released last year.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping said he was concerned about the “inflation of the recycling rate” and urged the department to set up an expert group to review the system. Friends of the Earth said the public would be confused by the figures. According to the 2012 solid waste monitoring report released by the department yesterday, Hong Kong recycled just 2.16 million tonnes of waste, 860,000 tonnes less than 2011. About 60 per cent of the shortfall was due to a sharp drop in the trade in plastic waste. Last year, a reported 320,000 tonnes of plastic waste was recycled, down from 840,000 tonnes in 2011 and 1.58 million tonnes in 2010. But the amount dumped in landfills largely remained steady at 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes during the same period. Since then, officials have used the disposal rate per person, rather than the recycling rate, as the key indicator to measure policy effectiveness.

In 2012, the former rate rose 3 per cent to 1.27kg. The department said the recycling rate had been calculated from waste export figures compiled by census and customs officers, and the booming trade in recent years might have inflated the figure. It also admitted that the formula could not accurately reflect local recycling efforts since it also included waste imported and then exported after processing. “We believe the 2012 figure is closer to the reality of how the city fared in recycling after a slump in the trade,” said an official, speaking anonymously.

Officials refused to be drawn on whether the admission showed that the recycling rate, used by former environment chiefs to highlight the city’s progress in dealing with its waste problem, had little value. “The public still have expectations for this figure and we will try to give the best estimate,” said an official, adding that the formula was widely adopted elsewhere in the world. Greeners’ Action executive director Angus Ho Hon-wai said the government should set up a registration system for recyclers in order to get first-hand recycling data. Lau Yiu-shing, a local waste recycler, admitted some operators might have wrongly reported export figures to suit their needs. But the scope of doing so had shrunk as mainland customs stepped up checks in recent years.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1415979/recycling-figures-plain-rubbish

What’s the point of yet another report on biodiesel?

Tuesday, 22 July, 2014

LAI SEE

Howard Winn

Interesting to see that the Hong Kong government is to commission a study into the costs and benefits of using biodiesel fuel with a view to blending it with fossil diesel.

Why the government is embarking on this study is not wholly clear since the Environmental Protection Department commissioned the University of Hong Kong to carry out a feasibility study for using biodiesel in vehicles in 2003.

Then ultra-low-sulphur diesel was sold at petrol stations in Hong Kong. The sulphur content of the fuel was lowered from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 350 ppm on January 1, 2001. The report found a blend of 20 per cent biodiesel fuel caused a slight decrease (less than 1 per cent) in engine power, a 16 per cent reduction in smoke opacity and 14 per cent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions.

However, as the EPD’s website reports, on December 1, 2007, the government introduced Euro V diesel, which has a sulphur content of 0.001 per cent. Since then, all filling stations in Hong Kong are exclusively offering this fuel. The EPD’s website also points out that fuelling existing diesel vehicles with Euro V diesel can reduce their sulphur dioxide and particulates emissions by 80 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.

In other words Euro V is a vastly superior product to ultra-low-sulphur diesel. Adding biodiesel to Euro V diesel will have a negligible effect on emissions. There is plenty of information on this available so we are curious as to why there needs to be another report.

Hopefully this is not going to end up as a sop to the biodiesel industry which would be keen on having its products used in this way. Maybe it’s a way of fending it off. Either way, we suppose that it shows the EPD is doing something.

The university report also noted concerns that biodiesel could damage the fuel lines of vehicles older than 10 years, and void the vehicle warranty and insurance. We look forward to seeing what new information the government will come up with.

http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1557108/whats-point-yet-another-report-biodiesel

Endangered dolphins deserve better than flawed airport report

Sunday, 17 August, 2014

“Dolphins v Development” has become the overarching focus of the controversial struggle raging over Chek Lap Kok airport’s proposed third runway: just how much of a threat the development poses to the habitat of Chinese white dolphins and other marine life and land-based organisms in the area.

As a group of University of Hong Kong ecology alumni, we applied our professional knowledge of environmental conservation to review the Airport Authority Hong Kong’s Third Runway Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – in particular, the quality of the judgments about the ecological impacts on marine life and plants and animals on land.

Overall, we believe this report has several major technical deficiencies and failed to meet the standard required by the Technical Memorandum issued, under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, which aims to avoid, minimise and control the project’s adverse impacts on the environment.

It played down the need to conserve potentially important fish spawning and nursery water areas, and sensitive species, such as a soft coral found only in the western waters of Hong Kong, rare yellow seahorses and longtooth groupers.

Many assessment methods were inappropriate, based on limited scientific support. A minimal loss of the carrying capacity of dolphins’ habitats was predicted, but this was not supported by careful modelling. The estimated low impact on egrets was made without assessing the combined effects of multiple disturbances on birds. There were also questionable results, and mistakes in surveying the impact on fisheries.

The effectiveness of some proposed measures to mitigate the effect of the new runway was often exaggerated. It was expected dolphins will move away from the construction area but “return” once finished. Even assuming they will reappear, suggested rules for vessel speeds and volume will still be unsafe for them.

Also the new marine park, proposed as a major mitigation measure, will be designated only seven years after construction of the runway has begun. Yet the project proponent will have no jurisdiction over exactly where it will be located, or how it will be carried out. Similarly, there were misleading claims about new runway structures providing foraging grounds for birds because bird control will be enforced at the airport.

Owing to a lack of scientific support for the EIA report, and unreliable claims of the effectiveness of mitigation measures, it would be best for the Environmental Protection Department’s decision to err on the side of caution – and reject this report.

Alex Yeung, ecology alumni representative, University of Hong Kong

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1575027/endangered-dolphins-deserve-better-flawed-airport-report

dynamco Aug 17th 2014 9:20am

MS Anissa WONG Sean Yee
Director of Environmental Protection
Permanent Secretary for the Environment
List of Government EIA reports rejected by her as follows:
0
End
www.scmp.com/business/article/1556562/hong-kong-will-get-its-third-runway-hook-or-crook

www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/register/aeiara/all.html

All EIAs approved
EIA-077/2002 Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport -Airport Authority Hong Kong The Court of Final Appeal ordered on 17 Jul 2006 that the decision of the Director made on 2 Aug 2002 approving the EIA report be quashed
During the tenure of Robert Law ,the EIA report which was rejected under the Ordinance in October 2000 was on the proposed Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line project
Needless to say the spur line now exists

Consultant ‘has taken sides’ on waste charging

Thursday, 31 July, 2014

News›Hong Kong

ENVIRONMENT

Cheung Chi-fai chifai.cheung@scmp.com

The Council for Sustainable Development and its consultant have been accused by green activists of jumping to a conclusion on the best means of charging for household waste disposal.

Activists said the council and a consultant appointed to gauge public views were favouring the easy option of charging per building instead of a fairer method of charging each household for what they actually dumped. But council chairman Bernard Chan rejected the claim, saying no decision could be made before interim results of a pilot scheme were released in September.

The row follows a meeting of council members and a group of advisers late last month.

A digest of the meeting released by the council secretariat said participants felt household and weight-based charging could not be achieved “in a single step” and building-based charging should be used.

Conservancy Association deputy chief executive Rico Wong Tze-kang, one of the advisers, said he was surprised by the summary as it ran contrary to the consultation findings. “It seems the consultant has taken sides already,” he said.

The council must find the most suitable charging method to be introduced by 2016 at the earliest. It is due to report later this year.

The household approach is supported by a majority of respondents to questionnaires in the consultation that ended earlier this year, according to the consultant’s analysis.

Green activists are strongly in favour of that approach as it offers direct incentives for each household to cut waste.

They also acknowledge it would be harder to enforce. But they say the building-based method – with charges shared equally – would not offer the same incentives.

Chan said his view was that residents and property management firms should decide what methods to adopt in each building. “There is no single plan that fits all,” he said, adding that there was a need to secure political support as lawmakers must approve the plan.

The council would meet on Monday to determine the level of the charge, Chan added. He believed it should not be too high, due to the risk of fly-tipping.

The Environmental Protection Department said the meeting digest summarised members’ views and did not reflect any conclusion.


http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1562946/consultant-has-taken-sides-waste-charging

SCMP: Follow best practice on waste incineration, and think local

Friday, 15 August, 2014

Comment›Letters

As project designer of a conservation group on Lantau, I wish to respond to the letter by Elvis W. K. Au, assistant director of environmental protection, regarding the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5).

I visited the plasma arc gasification plant in Teesside, in northeast England, on June 18, joining its annual open day. Many delegates and big name companies from around the world attended. I was the plant’s first “Hong Kong delegate”.

The day included presentations and a visit to the plant, which was impressive. It is the largest plant in the world and will come into commission by next year.

The most striking part of the visit was the large number of delegates from China, gathering information on plasma. Two out of the three presentations given were by Chinese companies, which have set up plasma gasification plants; it felt as if China was teaching the rest of the world.

I also talked with the British team that met seven Hong Kong government representatives when they visited Britain. They had met in a hotel room in London for an hour: the Hong Kong representatives had said they did not have enough time to visit the Teesside plant. They then visited a small-scale plasma gasification site, in Avonmouth, in southern England, Afval, a company generating electricity from waste in the Netherlands, and then went on to Denmark.

The reaction of the British officials had been the same as mine: surely, if you go on a fact-finding mission, you should go to the best example of whatever that subject is.

Someone senior in the government told me we needed the proposed super incinerator, because, firstly, Hong Kong people were never going to be able to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste in time; and, secondly, plasma would not work.

After my visit to the Teesside plant, my response is to ask: why will plasma arc facilities not work? If the rest of the world is doing it, and it needs to be done, then Hong Kong can do it.

Let’s catch up. Hong Kong always wants everything super-sized, but is that the way of the future?

The workable future is smaller scale and localised. A plasma plant can be constructed quickly, and does not pollute or need landfills, as there is no residue ash waste.

We can set up cluster recycling centres for composting, recycling, plasma arc facilities and education centres where they are needed all over Hong Kong.

The government has already signed contracts so it is reluctant to change tack. But what is really best for Hong Kong?

Jenny Quinton, Ark Eden Foundation, Lantau

More on this:

Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]


Source URL (retrieved on Aug 15th 2014, 5:55am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1573735/follow-best-practice-waste-incineration-and-think-local

Links:
[1] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1566561/incinerator-will-adopt-proven-cost-effective-technology-island

Standard: Team to liaise with public on landfill issues

from Hillary Wong of the Standard:

A public liaison team has been set up to help ease concerns over landfill expansion, Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing said.

“The issue has been dragging for a long time and needs to be dealt with, or it will affect the hygiene of the community,” Wong said. “We also understand the people are affected in this issue. So we’ve set up a public liaison team, with the government officers to negotiate with citizens so as to relieve their anxiety over the issue,” he told TVB talk show On the Record.

Wong also said his visit to Europe to observe relevant infrastructure will help enhance “everyone’s understanding of the issue.”

Wong and nine legislators visited Europe earlier this month to learn about waste management strategies in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Wong said giving subsidies to people living near landfills was rarely done overseas.

“For example, having an established incinerator, there might be some community education center nearby. For infrastructure that produces heat, some relevant facilities will be built like a heated pool,” he said.

Subsidies need further discussion with the public liaison team, he added.

Residents living within 300 meters of landfills in South Korea were given a subsidy, however.

“This mechanism was also controversial in South Korea because there were no subsidies for residents outside 300 meters,” Wong said.

But he added that in Hong Kong, the nearest residents are about three kilometers away.

He said that while the government is open-minded, the question should be studied carefully.

“For our case in Shek Kwu Chau [incinerator], its distance to Cheung Chau reaches three to five kilometers – 10 times more than in South Korea. Also, ships will mainly be used to transport refuse from Island East and West, and Kowloon West to Shek Kwu Chau, which does not make a great impact on the environment,” he said.

Wong also said he remained open-minded about suggestions by the Council for Sustainable Development’s Bernard Charnwut Chan on plans to give some assistance to nearby residents.

Wong said expanding the landfill in phases is not feasible as it involves tender and technical issues. He added public money would not be put to good use.

24 Mar 2014

Estimates of the amount of Hong Kong rubbish being recycled are plain rubbish

Overhaul of system is promised as officials admit estimates of the amount of waste the city recycles have been drastically overstated

Officials have admitted that estimates of the amount of Hong Kong waste being recycled – once put at over 50 per cent – have been drastically overstated.

They said yesterday that the figures were distorted by “external factors” beyond their control and the system for calculating them would be overhauled. The admission came as the Environmental Protection Department reported a slashed recycling rate of 39 per cent in 2012, down from 48 the previous year and a peak of 52 in 2010.

The department blamed fluctuations in the waste trade and irregularities in export declarations for the distortions. In an effort to improve its data collection, it will introduce extra measures, as recommended by a consultant commissioned to look into the problem. But the officials said they did not believe the distortion would affect policy-making or the achievement of targets set out in the waste-management blueprint released last year. World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping said he was concerned about the “inflation of the recycling rate” and urged the department to set up an expert group to review the system.

Friends of the Earth said the public would be confused by the figures. According to the 2012 solid waste monitoring report released by the department yesterday, Hong Kong recycled just 2.16 million tonnes of waste, 860,000 tonnes less than 2011. About 60 per cent of the shortfall was due to a sharp drop in the trade in plastic waste.

Last year, a reported 320,000 tonnes of plastic waste was recycled, down from 840,000 tonnes in 2011 and 1.58 million tonnes in 2010. But the amount dumped in landfills largely remained steady at 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes during the same period. Since then, officials have used the disposal rate per person, rather than the recycling rate, as the key indicator to measure policy effectiveness.

In 2012, the former rate rose 3 per cent to 1.27kg. (CTA comment – what about the 50 million Mainlanders’ annual waste here – no doubt excluded?)

The department said the recycling rate had been calculated from waste export figures compiled by census and customs officers, and the booming trade in recent years might have inflated the figure. It also admitted that the formula could not accurately reflect local recycling efforts since it also included waste imported and then exported after processing.

“We believe the 2012 figure is closer to the reality of how the city fared in recycling after a slump in the trade,” said an official, speaking anonymously.

Officials refused to be drawn on whether the admission showed that the recycling rate, used by former environment chiefs to highlight the city’s progress in dealing with its waste problem, had little value.

“The public still have expectations for this figure and we will try to give the best estimate,” said an official, adding that the formula was widely adopted elsewhere in the world.

Greeners’ Action executive director Angus Ho Hon-wai said the government should set up a registration system for recyclers in order to get first-hand recycling data. Lau Yiu-shing, a local waste recycler, admitted some operators might have wrongly reported export figures to suit their needs. But the scope of doing so had shrunk as mainland customs stepped up checks in recent years.

________________________________________
Source URL (modified on Jan 29th 2014, 10:15am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1415979/recycling-figures-plain-rubbish

Bloomberg: Hong Kong’s Pollution Near 6-Month High (Nov 2013)

from David Ingles, reporting for Bloomberg on the high levels of air pollutants in Hong Kong’s air last month.

Jason Lerwill, an air specialist at Renaud Lifestyle Products (retailers for air purifier systems), mentions three major contributors to air pollutants in the city: shipping in the Pearl River Delta, roadside pollution, and factory emissions across the border. Christine Loh, undersecretary for the environment, speaks enthusiastically about policies to reduce vehicle emissions, but mentions nothing about shipping and factory emissions.

4 Nov 2013

Mingpao: Electric vehicles in HK numbers 552; 147 owned by Government

Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing says that as of October 2013, there are 552 electric vehicles on the roads of Hong Kong, more than twice the number in 2011. 147 of the vehicles are part of the vehicle fleet of the SAR government, who has slated for an addition of another 74 vehicles by early 2014.

Mr. Wong was responding in writing to queries from Legco member Chan Hak-kan Gary. The government, in an effort to promote the development of the electric vehicle market, introduced electric vehicles into its fleet across various departments, but electric vehicles have yet to become popular in Hong Kong.

Mr. Wong also said that feedback from government departments regarding electric vehicles have been positive. There is, however, a lack of available models on the market for special purposes vehicles such as waste collection vehicles, street cleaning vehicles, ambulances etc., which limits the number of electric vehicles in the fleet of government vehicles.

Electric vehicle, part of the HK government's fleet of vehicles; pictured with a charging station. (EPD)

(more…)