Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Recycling

Hong Kong’s first e-waste plant to be built by German recycling firm under multimillion-dollar deal

Shirley Zhao

May 9th 2015

A German recycling company has won a multimillion-dollar contract to build and operate Hong Kong’s first electronic waste recycling facility in Tuen Mun.

Alba Integrated Waste Solutions Hong Kong, a joint-venture subsidiary of the Alba Group, signed a 12-year contract with the government yesterday. It will spend two years building the plant and then operate the collection and recycling system in the city for the next 10 years.

In February, the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee approved the government’s request for HK$548.6 million to construct the system. The government will also fund the operation costs, which are based on the volume of e-waste collected and treated at the plant. Officials expect the bill will run to HK$200 million a year.

Axel Schweitzer, chief executive of Alba, said if the price of the recyclables did not fall during the 10-year period, the company would expect a turnover of about HK$2.5 billion over the decade. The recyclables would be mainly sold to mainland buyers.

“As a world-beating international metropolis, Hong Kong is responding proactively to the challenges of waste management and recycling,” said Schweitzer.

“We are confident that the project will make a substantial contribution to the city’s environmental management system and open a new chapter on its sustainable economic development.”

Schweitzer said the plant would be capable of processing 30,000 tonnes of waste a year but the capability could be extended to a maximum of 56,000 tonnes by arranging additional shifts as needed.

The company will also set up eight collection points and three recycling centres across the city. Schweitzer said residents could go to the centres and the plant to learn more about e-waste recycling.

The city produces about 70,000 tonnes of electronic waste a year.

The system will be in line with the government’s proposed “polluter pays” scheme, where importers or distributors of five categories of appliances – televisions, fridges, washing machines, computer products and air-conditioners – will have to pay a “recycling fee” to help fund disposal of the city’s electrical goods.

Customers who buy a new television, for example, will be able to request the retailer to arrange free removal of the old set.

The government says the level of the fees will be submitted to Legco for approval “in due course”.

Alba Integrated Waste Solutions comprises Alba Asia, Germany-based Erdwich Vertriebs and Hong Kong-based IWS Environmental Technologies.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/1790188/german-firm-will-run-first-e-waste-plant

New case study: The story of Ljubljana, first Zero Waste capital in Europe!

http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2015/05/new-case-study-the-story-of-ljubljana-first-zero-waste-capital-in-europe/

This case study proves that high recycling targets are not only feasible, they also save money and create jobs

Zero Waste Europe publishes today a new case study showing the impressive transition of Ljubljana towards zero waste. The Slovenian capital is the first capital in Europe to declare the Zero Waste goal and today separately collects 61% of its municipal waste. It should be recalled that Slovenia joined the European Union in 2004 and before then it didn’t have proper waste separate collection in place.

Executive Director of ZWE, Joan-Marc Simon said “The case study of Ljubljana proves that it is possible for newest member states to reach most ambitius recycling targets in only a decade whilst keeping record low waste generation and costs. There is no reason for other Eu capitals or for the EU policy-makers to aim at less than what this experience proves as being possible and desirable.”

Snaga is the public company managing waste in Ljubljana and in 9 suburban municipalities serving around 380.000 residents. In average they have reached levels of source separation of 61% whilst generating only 121kg of non-recyclable waste per inhabitant and year. In contrast, the EU average level of source separation is 42% and a 285kg per inhabitant and year of residual waste.

In less than ten years, Ljubljana has become a frontrunner and is now 20% above the EU’s recycling rate and 10 points above EU’s 2020 targets. Furthermore, Ljubljana is committed to halving the amount of residuals and increasing separate collection to 78% by 2025.

Ljubljana has avoided incineration, while proving that going towards zero waste is completely feasible in a very short time. At the same time, it has made once again evident that effective door-to-door separate collection don’t only fall in the realm of small villages, but also work in large cities. Ljubljana has, therefore, managed to become the best performing EU capital, keeping one of the lowest waste management cost in Europe.

Today, these case studies show that, in contrast with the outdated idea of burning or burying our waste, preventing, reusing and recycling it create jobs and resilience, save money, and protect the environment and public health.

You can download the case study here.

Fund designed to help HK’s recycling trade upgrade its practices

I write to refute Tom Yam’s letter (“Three-colour recycle bins are window dressing and a sham”, April 3).

Mr Yam opines since the territory’s roadside three-colour recycle bins only collect 700 tonnes of recyclables a year – a minute quantity of Hong Kong’s total municipal solid waste – our recycling efforts are window dressing.

He is wrong. While roadside bins are highly visible, they are not where the bulk of Hong Kong’s recyclables are collected. Recyclables are mainly collected from residential estates and commercial properties – 80 per cent of our population can access non-roadside recycle bins close to where they live and work. Moreover, many recyclables are sold to the recyclers directly without going through the recycle bins system.

He also says we admitted our previous recycling data was wrong. In fact, we commissioned a study when we noticed a substantial change in the estimated recovery rate of wastes in 2012 due to unusual fluctuation in “domestic export” figures on waste plastics. The study concluded that the estimation method remained the most appropriate for Hong Kong, and since then we have also strengthened the verification work when compiling the relevant export figures.

Surprisingly, he attacks our district community green stations and public education plans as “handouts to pro-government groups”. The facts do not support his allegation since open tenders are held.

Perhaps the crux of his complaint is the lack of an “indigenous recycling industry” and no law to require waste separation.

Hong Kong has a recycling industry mainly focused on collection. A locally based re-manufacturing industry is difficult as land is scarce and pricey, which is why the bulk of our recyclables is sent to the mainland.

Mr Yam also alleges our HK$1 billion Recycling Fund is more window dressing. The fund, awaiting Legislative Council approval, is designed to help the recycling trade to upgrade its practices so greater quantities can be collected or even processed in Hong Kong.

As for Hong Kong not yet legislating to mandate waste separation, similar to the steps of various advanced cities, we need to strengthen our waste infrastructure, including putting waste charging in place before considering a waste separation law.

Our determination to implement our 10-year waste-to-resource blueprint published in 2013 can be seen from the large number of initiatives on the table. Among others, we will soon launch the new clean recycling campaign with a view to increasing the value and recovery rate of recyclables.

Wong Hon-meng, assistant director of environmental protection

Source URL (modified on May 6th 2015, 5:16pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1787651/fund-designed-help-hks-recycling-trade-upgrade-its-practices

A BURNING ISSUE

To most, Denmark brings to mind popular TV dramas, sweet pastries and Lego. But there is one part of the nation’s identity that those in Borgen (the real-life seat of government, that is) are keen to eradicate. For some decades now, Danish waste management has been dominated by municipal incinerators. Plants were common in the small dormitory towns that popped up in the 1960s, but it was the energy crises of the 1970s that persuaded the Danish government to promote district heating, reducing dependency on oil and increasing supply reliability. This district heating, created by waste- burning plants, now provides around 20 per cent of energy to Danish homes, and up to 98 per cent of households in Copenhagen.

It is perhaps this reliance on incineration that is behind the staggering amount of household waste produced: it’s currently hovering around the 2.5 million tonnes per year mark (as of 2011), after exceeding 3.5 million in 2008. In a nation of 5.7 million inhabitants, that’s around 450 kilogrammes (kg) per person. Indeed, according to Eurostat, Denmark’s municipal waste generation per capita is the highest in Europe, 747kg per person in 2013 (compared to a Europe-wide average of 481kg). Around 80 per cent of this household waste, including high-calorific organic waste, is sent straight to the nearest incinerator (only three per cent is sent to landfill nationwide), with seemingly little appetite or need to develop more efficient processes.

Although the Danish brand of incinerator might not be the ozone clogger that you envision – high filtration and cleaning standards see to that – it was this vicious circle of generating waste for energy that former Environment Minister Ida Auken aimed to cut off when her department introduced the ‘Denmark Without Waste’ plan in November 2013. The plan signals a move away from incineration and towards a more recycling-oriented system.

With the plan comes a relatively bold target: to double household recycling – from a paltry 22 per cent in 2011 to 50 per cent by 2022 (although, strangely, the European Commission’s revised Waste Framework Directive requires this target to be met two years earlier).

Auken admits that in trying to solve a problem by building the country’s network of 26 incinerators in the second half of the 20th century, Denmark created a new one for its future: “I think the true story of Denmark is that we were on the wrong track, basically. We’ve been on the right track in so many other areas, but in this one we were solving a previous problem and trying to find renewable energy – but we could see the plastic streams coming up and up. Calling waste a renewable fuel source is wrong, and it’s becoming more and more wrong.”

The plan’s focus is on getting more out of waste. Measures include separate collection of organic waste for biogas and other biomass uses, higher quality recycling of construction waste, and an increased focus on developing recycling technology. It aims to reduce the amount of waste sent to incinerators from over 2.5 million tonnes in 2011 to just 820,000 tonnes by 2022.

With household waste making up such a large proportion of incineration feedstock, however, the change must start at home. “There’s been a paradigm shift and it’s been important for us to really explain the story”, says Auken. “That’s why we changed from saying we make waste plans to saying we make resource plans. We’ve really tried explaining to the people why we ask them to separate their waste now.

“We’ve focused a lot on resource scarcity and how the prices have come up in the last 15 years more than they went down in the previous hundred. We’re trying to show that there are jobs and new technologies combined with this change.

Denmark without waste
The front cover of Denmark’s new resource plan makes clear the government’s intention to move away from incineration in favour of more recycling

“[Residents are] used to getting paper, glass, batteries and electronics out, but besides that, they would [previously] put everything in the trash, basically. So it has been a big paradigm shift.”

Changing the mindset of the people is just the first step in initiating change, and Auken is confident that Denmark is ready for a new way of operating centred around creating a circular economy. New business models are popping up all over Denmark and are, she says, “very appealing to people”.

But creating a collection system and the infrastructure to put these materials to best use is another issue altogether. Auken’s ministry suggested a focus on more waste streams – for example, better collection and separation of WEEE and higher quality recycling of construction waste – but for the time being municipalities have the freedom to develop their own methods, as long as they’re working towards the government’s targets. “Setting a recycling goal that’s twice as high [as current levels], it was important municipalities didn’t just point to the government and say: ‘They said it.’ They really have to take responsibility, so we gave them the freedom to implement the way they start”, Auken explains.

What happens to the waste once it’s been collected, though? Auken acknowledges that creating waste streams that are valuable enough to create a market is a challenge that requires everyone to chip in. “You need government’s priorities, you need private companies with the technologies, you need private buyers of the recycled materials, you need to bring all these interests together.” But Denmark is ready, and the response from businesses has been positive, according to Auken; already, some municipalities have created biogas plants to treat organic waste, and the government hopes that their success will encourage more to follow suit.

So now that Denmark is seemingly on its way to kicking its incineration habit, how does government ensure that it doesn’t make a similar error and commit to new practices that seem wonderful now but are obsolete or burdensome in a few years? Flexibility, Auken insists, is key: “You can never ensure that you don’t create a new problem when you solve an old one. You need to solve several at a time – that is normally the best way to go around. That, and being a politician in a leadership that is not afraid of changing tools on the way. If we have a goal that is Denmark without waste in 2050, we should not predict the extent of available technologies” – a lesson learned from the past few decades.

Denmark’s waste management landscape is changing enormously, now that government has decided to drastically cut back on incineration. As Auken says: “Until you change the rules, you cannot ask somebody to play by other rules.”

This evolution is already evident. The Ministry of the Environment, now headed by Kirsten Brosbøl after a change of cabinet last February, plans to follow up 2013’s waste plan with ‘Denmark Without Waste II’ this year. The sequel takes a step up the waste hierarchy, addressing the prevention of waste.

Auken is looking forward to a proactive future: “We should try to say this is the goal and make sure that tools at all times are as good as possible and that political regulation is as good as possible to get there, changing things whenever we see problems. That’s my philosophy.”

Three-colour recycle bins are window dressing and a sham

02 April 2015

I refer to the letter by Wong Hon-meng, assistant director, Environmental Protection Department (“Promoting recycling and waste reduction are top priorities”, March 23).

He claims that by 2022, Hong Kong will reduce its per capita waste generated by 40 per cent.

How has the department come up with this percentage? Most likely it has simply copied statistics from Taipei and Seoul where a 40 per cent reduction was achieved after waste charging took effect. But those cities developed comprehensive measures to sort and separate waste before they implemented waste charging, as pointed out in my letter (“Waste charge futile without separation of rubbish at source”, February 24).

The three-colour recycling bins are window dressing and a sham: only 700 tonnes of recyclables are collected every year, less than 0.02 per cent of the waste produced in Hong Kong. Operated by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, a clear accounting is yet to be published on how the collected waste is being disposed.

The department still does not have correct data as to how much waste is being recycled, having admitted previous figures were wrong, double counting recycled waste shipped to the mainland with that in transit through Hong Kong from overseas.

The HK$1 billion Recycling Fund Wong mentions is more window dressing. It is 3.5 per cent of the HK$29 billion budget for the incinerator and landfills expansion.

The proposed community education and recycling centres to be built in the 18 districts are handouts to pro-government environmental groups and subsidies to companies that collect recycled waste and ship it to the mainland, where 90 per cent of Hong Kong’s recycled waste ends up.

Despite talking about “policy” and “campaign”, the department has no intention of truly pursuing a recycling policy as many countries have.

There is no policy to develop a sustainable indigenous recycling industry, no statutory requirement nor public education on how to separate waste at source. Despite the many so-called inspection trips overseas by senior officials, paid for by taxpayers’ money, no insight and plan were presented on how other countries promote and implement effective recycling.

Given the above, it is ironic that Hong Kong will be hosting an international conference on solid waste management in May. Environment Secretary Wong Kam-sing will be the keynote speaker. What is he going to say?

Tom Yam, Lantau

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1754247/three-colour-recycle-bins-are-window-dressing-and-sham

Three-colour recycle bins are window dressing and a sham

I refer to the letter by Wong Hon-meng, assistant director, Environmental Protection Department (“Promoting recycling and waste reduction are top priorities”, March 23).

He claims that by 2022, Hong Kong will reduce its per capita waste generated by 40 per cent.

How has the department come up with this percentage? Most likely it has simply copied statistics from Taipei and Seoul where a 40 per cent reduction was achieved after waste charging took effect. But those cities developed comprehensive measures to sort and separate waste before they implemented waste charging, as pointed out in my letter (“Waste charge futile without separation of rubbish at source”, February 24).

The three-colour recycling bins are window dressing and a sham: only 700 tonnes of recyclables are collected every year, less than 0.02 per cent of the waste produced in Hong Kong. Operated by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, a clear accounting is yet to be published on how the collected waste is being disposed.

The department still does not have correct data as to how much waste is being recycled, having admitted previous figures were wrong, double counting recycled waste shipped to the mainland with that in transit through Hong Kong from overseas.

The HK$1 billion Recycling Fund Wong mentions is more window dressing. It is 3.5 per cent of the HK$29 billion budget for the incinerator and landfills expansion.

The proposed community education and recycling centres to be built in the 18 districts are handouts to pro-government environmental groups and subsidies to companies that collect recycled waste and ship it to the mainland, where 90 per cent of Hong Kong’s recycled waste ends up.

Despite talking about “policy” and “campaign”, the department has no intention of truly pursuing a recycling policy as many countries have.

There is no policy to develop a sustainable indigenous recycling industry, no statutory requirement nor public education on how to separate waste at source. Despite the many so-called inspection trips overseas by senior officials, paid for by taxpayers’ money, no insight and plan were presented on how other countries promote and implement effective recycling.

Given the above, it is ironic that Hong Kong will be hosting an international conference on solid waste management in May. Environment Secretary Wong Kam-sing will be the keynote speaker. What is he going to say?

Tom Yam, Lantau

Source URL (modified on Apr 2nd 2015, 5:02pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1754247/three-colour-recycle-bins-are-window-dressing-and-sham

As Hong Kong’s plastic bag ban expands, critics say inspection team isn’t big enough

Government will add only 58 staff to enforce expanded regulations on plastic bags that now cover 100,000 retailers, up from 3,300

More than 100,000 retailers will fall under the scope of an expanded plastic bag levy scheme from tomorrow, but the government is only adding 58 officers to check whether shops are complying with the rule.

Since 2009, shoppers have been required to pay at least 50 cents for each plastic bag at some 3,300 retailers citywide, mostly chain stores and supermarkets. A team of 10 officers from the Environmental Protection Department specialises in enforcing the law.

The department had previously revealed that eight more officers would be added to that team. Yesterday, department director Anissa Wong Sean-yee said at a Legislative Council meeting that the department would recruit another 50 people to help inspect different shops. They would refer cases to the specialised law enforcement team, she said.

Wong was responding to a question from Federation of Trade Unions lawmaker Wong Kwok-hing, who asked about the manpower to enforce the new bag rules.

“Law enforcement officers in district offices will also pay attention to cases that need follow-up,” Wong said, referring to the department’s seven branch and regional offices.

But Civic Party lawmaker Dr Kenneth Chan Ka-lok, said the enforcement would be insufficient. “The 18 officers will have to inspect more than 100,000 shops,” he said. “I think this will be a toiling task for them, and when the timing is appropriate, we should add more people so the entire educational and law enforcement work can be done better.”

Edwin Lau Che-feng, head of community engagement and partnership at Friends of the Earth, agreed that a team of 58 supervisors would not be sufficient to monitor implementation of the bag-levy scheme, which includes myriad exemptions such as for items that require a bag for hygiene purposes.

He predicted retailers selling both exempt and non-exempt items – such as supermarkets and food stores in which frozen food and other goods are sold – could see chaos at first.

Adding to the confusion would be different charges imposed by different retailers.

Ocean Park said it would charge between HK$1 and HK$5 for each plastic bag, depending on its size.

Maxim’s Group said its Chinese restaurants would charge HK$1 per bag and HK$1 per plastic lunchbox. But its fast-food outlets and cake shops would charge 50 cents for each bag.

Supermarket chains Wellcome and ParknShop will continue to charge customers 50 cents for each plastic bag. Both will still offer “flat-top” plastic bags free for exempted items, such as foods without packaging or in non-airtight packaging, and frozen or chilled foods.

Aeon said it would provide plastic bags in six sizes in its department store and supermarkets. All would cost 50 cents.

ParknShop said staff members at its stores had been trained and given clear guidelines on the new measure. Stores would also have in-store broadcasts and posters to remind customers and advise them to bring their own bags.

Some retailers, such as fashion chain H&M, will switch entirely to paper bags in April. An H&M spokeswoman said the paper would be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.

Retailers who break the rules could be fined HK$2,000 or even prosecuted. The fine does not target customers.

· Ocean Park: HK$1 to HK$5 for each bag, depending on its size.

· Maxim Group: HK$1 per bag at Chinese restaurants and 50 cents per bag in fastfood outlets.

· Wellcome: 50 cents per bag, free bag for exempted items

· Parknshop: 50 cents per bag, free bag for exempted items

· Aeon: 50 cents per bag, free bag for exempted items

· H&M: to switch to paper bags

Source URL (modified on Mar 31st 2015, 1:51am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1751992/hong-kongs-plastic-bag-ban-expands-critics-say-inspection-team-it

Recycling bin contents not separated (since 2011)

March 21 2015

I was appalled last Sunday, when I saw the bins being collected at King’s Park at 8am.

All bins, regardless of content (and including designated recycling bins), were emptied into the same truck. There was no separation of refuse.

Are we just “pretending” to recycle to appease those environmentalists among us, while saving the extra dollars it costs to process, and all waste ends into the same landfill?

Annemiek Ballesty, Sai Kung

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1742877/letters-editor-march-21-2015

In fact, since 2011…

Zero Waste practices from San Francisco (USA) and Contarina (Italy) show transition is possible

http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2015/03/zero-waste-practices-from-san-francisco-usa-and-contarina-italy-show-transition-is-possible/

The front-runners in the US and the EU when it comes to waste management presented their experiences in Brussels in March 4. A selected audience composed of members of the European Parliament, European Commission officials and stakeholders learned about the good practices from San Francisco and the province of Treviso in northern Italy.

In the event Joan-Marc Simon, executive director of Zero Waste Europe presented the zero waste philosophy and how it is necessary to design products without toxics and keeping in mind how they will be reintroduced into the technical or natural cycle, the necessity to optimise separate collection and finally reduce resource use. It was also made clear the difference between Zero Waste to Landfill and real Zero Waste by comparing both approaches with concrete examples of performance.

comparison

The event continued with the presentation of Kurt Vandenberghe, Director for Climate Action and Resource Efficiency in the European Commission. Mr Vandenberghe welcomed the initiative to organise a workshop about best practices and noted that ecoefficiency fixes are important but they will not be enough to reverse the current unsustainability trend and changes in the way we produce and consume will be needed. Moreover confirmed the commitment of the EC to present a more ambitious proposal for the Circular Economy which takes into account waste and products.

Jack Macy from the Zero Waste program in the city of San Francisco started his presentation building the link between waste and climate policy, with the experience of carbon capture by using compost on rangeland. He went on to present the exerience of San Francisco, based on the “fantastic three”; separate collection door-to-door in three waste streams, organic waste, recyclables and residuals. The system is optimised with pay-as-you-throw which makes waste generators pay according to how much waste they take out. Prevention measures such as banning single-use plastic carrier bags, single-use plastic water-bottles or extended polistyrene complete a model which represents the state of the art in the US.

Marco Mattiello presented the most succesful practice in Europe so far, in which the district of 550,000 people covered by Contarina has achieved recycling rates of 85% and residual waste rates -what is sent for disposal after recycling- of only 53kg. But faithful to the zero waste spirit Contarina wants to continue improving and has set itself recycling targets of 96,7% and prevention targets of reducing 80% which will mean producing only 10kg per person per year –average residual wste in EU is 250kg-. Mattiello showed how in Contarina this has helped reduce costs and create jobs.

JM Simon concluded the event by highlighting the fact that these transitions have taken place in less than a decade and hence prove that it is possible to achieve high separate collections rates in less time than what is needed to build an incinerator plant. Simon noted that three factors have made possible these initiatives; political leadeship, source separation of organics and not having invested into incineration capacity, and warned that the European Commission has been stopping separate collection of organic waste since 15 years and has been facilitating growth of incineration since 10 years. These are two things that need to change in order to make possible a circular economy.

Put recycling bins at more locations

SCMP Letters to the Editor

The letter by Yannis Mak (“Recycling policy put on back burner”, March 3) reminded me of some concerns regarding recycling bins.

When you see recycling bins outside a building, you have to ask if it makes sense to have only three of them outside a 39-storey public housing block with roughly 16 apartments on each level.

So there are three little bins to hold all the recyclable material from around 600 households. It gives the impression that these bins are placed outside housing blocks by the government for decoration.

Recycling bins have been situated outside these buildings for years and yet little has changed.

Why doesn’t the relevant government department place these bins on each floor of a housing block? It is not easy to change old habits and get people to adopt new, environmentally-friendly ones, but having facilities like bins within easy reach is a big step forward.

I am also concerned about plastic recycling. I understand plastic bottles that are placed in the recycling bin are ending up in our landfills, because plastic recycling is not profitable. There are citizens who still care but they are put off by government indifference.

Officials must make recycling in Hong Kong more effective.

Debbie Cheng, Tseung Kwan O