Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

August, 2012:

China Daily story today

From: Doug Meigs [mailto:dougmeigs@gmail.com]
Sent: 31 August, 2012 12:03
To: Martin Williams
Cc: Rosa Ma; James Middleton; David Wu; Basil Hui; Tom Hope
Subject: Re: China Daily story today – thanks for your help!

Hello,

The China Daily video supplement was a bit delayed, but is now uploaded to the site and youtube now. Here’s a link: http://bit.ly/O08B2U – with Martin and Patrick from SARDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvcYfBkT-k&feature=player_embedded

Thanks again!

-Doug

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Martin Williams <martin@drmartinwilliams.com> wrote:

Hi Doug:

Many thanks for this info; much appreciated.

I’ve always figured Cheung Chau as being pretty much out of the loop as far as the Heung Yee Kuk goes; thinking of northwest and north New Territories as prime HKY areas [more associated with rice farming, I’d thought – maybe wrongly]

Still, very interesting to learn of this.

Bit like the Masons in Britain [especially], or something!?

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

– likewise, with some secrecy and involvement of business folk, all too easy to come up with conspiracy theories…

And yes, seems things had been going along as if the EPD incinerator itinerary would be followed nicely: trips to see incinerators, happy island “leaders” and so forth, along with professors [whose views may be influenced by their grants… ….]

Indeed true that EPD seems to have aimed for another incinerator; first get one at SKC with little opposition, say “Hey, this is fabulous”, and then try n railroad next one through at Tuen Mun, before then wondering where to put the next one [given so little effort into recycling etc]

Whether can get a genuine reconsideration, who knows; but as you’ve seen, I’ve circulated your article to a few people, hope it can help slow momentum {now behind the scenes] towards the SKC monster!’

All the best,

Martin

Dr Martin Williams. Writing. Photography. Multimedia.
Recognised as an Outstanding Earth Champion by the Earth Champions Foundation
Cheung Chau, Hong Kong; tel 96201824

DocMartin – Passion for the Wild, PR for the Planet
Hong Kong Outdoors – Wild About Hong Kong
Cheung Chau HK – South China Sea Island in Hong Kong

On 24 Aug 2012, at 3:38 PM, Doug Meigs wrote:

Hello, here’s my story from today, about how and why Shek Kwu Chau’s resident rehab facility opposes the incinerator plan: http://bit.ly/PLa5fw

Thanks for all your help with this story. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to weave the trip-funding debacle into this feature because of deadline concerns and word-count. I will pay close attention to the issue.

Here’s some more info on the HKIDA – it was established in 1996 to ensure a stable handover to China, take an involvement in Islands District political, cultural and national issues… the HKIDA chairman Mr. Leung told me that rural committee chairmen of the islands district – i.e. Heung Yee Kuk folks – pay a “donation” in order to receive honorary board positions. That’s why there are so many Heung Yee Kuk folks in charge (Daniel Lam was the chairman off-and-on over the years). Last year they took a “study trip” to Zhuhai in relation to the Zhuhai-HK-Macau bridge. And last week they co-organized the Silvermine Beach festival. Mr. Leung said that Randy Yu just had to help out at the meeting Rosa observed as part of his duties with the organization. The goals/board of the HKIDA sound like a Heung Yee Kuk committee, but Leung said they are not affiliated despite the large number of members. They sound like an uber-nationalistic group, and I expect they are reluctant to take advise from a bunch of green foreign barbarians

It seems that either the HKIDA is part of a huge conspiracy for infrastructure jobs and/or to avoid putting the incinerator near the domain of Lau Wong Fat, Randy’s father-in-law… OR…  these HKIDA folks are simply uninformed about the alternatives. After all, Prof. Johnathan Wong has no faith in plasma arch technology, and he’s a key govt. advisor based on all his funding received.

My guess is that it’s a bit of both, along with a suspicion that it was Edward Yau and the EPD’s plan all along was to build in Shek Kwu Chau AND the Tsang Tsui spot.

If you find any more info to help substantiate the HKIDA and incinerator collusion, please share it with me.

Thanks again!

-Doug

6195 2777

Cementing a strong business in China

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-08/23/content_15700550.htm

Description: Cementing a strong business in China

The Harbin-Dalian High-speed Railway under construction in Shenyang, capital of Liaoning province. China’s generous investment in infrastructure and housing nurtured the nation’s cement industry, which now has 3,800 producers and more than 2.9 billion tons of production capacity annually. Provided to China Daily

100-year-old company sees greener future for building materials industry in the nation

Nearly all the companies that our grandparents admired have disappeared because of the fast pace of change in today’s world.

“For a company that lives 100 years, it has to evolve through time,” said Ian Riley, China country head of Switzerland-based Holcim Group, one of the world’s largest cement producers and the archrival of France’s Lafarge SA.

Riley shared the simple secret at Holcim’s centennial celebration in Beijing recently. He is ready to develop the company’s China business into something more environmentally friendly. His plan is to turn garbage into an alternative fuel, replacing coal to produce cement.

“The vision we have in the future is that we can clean up the environment while at the same time produce reliable building materials,” said the 54-year-old British senior executive.

More than 100 years ago, Holcim opened its first plant in a small village in Switzerland called Holderbank, producing 90,000 tons of cement in its first year of operation.

Today, the company’s annual cement production capacity has reached 216 million tons with 149 plants plus 492 aggregates factories and 1,435 ready-mix concrete production centers in 80 countries.

“The longevity and the success of the company is not necessarily a secret. It is 100 years of very hard work and commitment and evolution to understand what the needs of today’s society may be,” said Riley.

For Riley, who has been involved with the China business since 1994 and moved to the country in 1998, China’s needs for the sustainable development of its cement industry are pretty clear.

The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency, has already demanded a better environmental performance by the heavy industry that uses not only a massive amount of energy and resources for production but also emits a huge volume of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

Most importantly, the Chinese government sees the cement industry as a potentially large contributor to solving problems in municipal waste, which can be turned into alternative fuels. The technology can also help reduce CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from China’s cement industry account for about one-eighth of the country’s industrial output of carbon dioxide, according to a recent paper by Chris Nielsen, executive director of the China Project with Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science.

According to the 12th Five-Year Development Plan of China’s Cement Industry (2011-15), the country, which currently has hardly any co-processing production lines that burn waste in the making of cement, will see around 10 percent of its cement production lines equipped with this technology by 2015.

“If you think about all those things that the Chinese government wants companies to do that require good technology and good management, there are a lot of excellent opportunities indeed for companies such as ours,” Riley said.

As early as the late 1990s, the company and nine other big cement makers co-founded the world’s first ever green initiative for the cement industry.

The Geneva-based Cement Sustainability Initiative, which develops guidelines for implementing greater efficiency measures through cooperation and sharing expertise among members, has since been regarded as the global pioneer for the sustainable development of the cement industry.

Apart from Holcim’s well-established advantages in green cement production, the company’s belief in the cement market potential in China is another driving force for Holcim’sevolution in the country.

China’s robust economic growth over the past several years has nurtured the world’s largest cement industry because of its generous investment in infrastructure and housing, the biggest users of the product.

Concrete, which is made from cement, aggregates and water, is the second-most consumed material in the world after water, according to the Cement Sustainability Initiative.

Cement demand in China has grown by double digits each year over the past decade, in line with the economy’s annual average growth rate of 10.7 percent, according to the China Cement Association.

China has the world’s largest cement industry with 3,800 cement producers and more than 2.9 billion tons of cement production capacity, which accounts for more than half of the world’s total.

However, a slowdown in China’s economy, which is predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent between 2011 and 2015, is likely to result in shrinking investment in housing and infrastructure, thus oversupply of cement is getting more and more serious.

“With the rebalancing of the economy, it is crystal clear that the golden era for the cement industry is gone. But the tough times will reshape it into a more sustainable and quality-focused industry in China,” said Lei Qianzhi, president of China Cement Association.

The number of cement producers in China has decreased to 3,800 over the past two to three years due to mergers and acquisitions. The top 10 cement makers in China have a 25 percent lock on production capacity in the nation, up from 15 percent in 2005. The top makers are expected to have a 35 percent market share by 2015, the 12th Five-Year Plan said.

Thanks to mergers and acquisitions, China National Building Materials Group Corp, with businesses in cement and other construction materials, was ranked 485th in the Fortune 500 list in 2011. It became the first Chinese building materials company to appear on the list. The company consolidated 154 small and medium-sized companies in eastern China over the past three years into its South Cement Co Ltd based in Shanghai. The conglomerate produced 138 million tons of cement last year.

CNBM Vice-President Cui Xingtai said in March that the group aims to increase its cement production capacity from 300 million tons a year to 500 million by 2015.

In the newly released list of the Global Fortune 500 in 2012, CNBM climbed to 365th place with $30.02 billion in revenue in 2011. Holcim was placed 474th with $23.38 billion and Lafarge was 480th with $22.97 billion.

“Through M&As, major players are able to control larger markets. By getting rid of outdated capacity and smartly reducing the actual production volume, cement can be sold at a better price. Price wars will not be as frequent,” said Sun Tieshi, vice-president of China Building Material Federation.

But not every company in this capital-intensive industry is able to purchase hundreds of cement factories to increase their competitiveness. Western players in the nation’s cement industry are focusing on sustainable development in the construction industry to get ahead.

Sang Kang, CEO of Lafarge Shui On Cement, a joint venture between Lafarge and Hong Kong-based Socam Development Ltd, told China Daily that the company will look to accelerate its development in sustainable construction in China. Faced with overcapacity, he said, companies that can upgrade their production models can better survive a downturn.

He views China as one of its key markets. The nation contributed 6 percent of Lafarge’s global revenue in 2011, up from 2.4 percent in 2006.

Lafarge opened its first overseas sustainable construction development laboratory in Chongqing last September to develop new and advanced construction materials, products and solutions for its customers in China.

The company is currently producing dust-free cement, and a product line of concretes that it claims provides more strength and durability.

China is one of Holcim’s top markets in the world, contributing more than 20 billion Swiss francs ($21.69 billion) in 2011. Senior executives from the company reckon cement demand in China has already reached its peak.

“The current market is flat. As the market continues to flatten, the nature of competition will change. The values of sustainability and environmental performance will play a much bigger role for a company’s further development,” said Ian Thackwray, Holcim’s president for Asia-Pacific and South Africa.

The company entered China in 1995 and formed a strategic partnership with Hubei-based Huaxin Cement Co Ltd, which is one of China’s oldest cement companies with a history of more than 100 years.

By investing in Huaxin, Holcim became the Chinese company’s largest shareholder with 39 percent of its total shares in 2008.

The partnership has helped Huaxin Cement to achieve a steady annual growth of 30 percent in revenue over the past eight years. It had a capacity of 60 million tons last year, ranking the company in the top 10 among Chinese cement enterprises.

Holcim is clearly confident in its Chinese partner and its strategy in China. Despite a rather sluggish market with an acute oversupply in cement production capacity, Holcimreinvested in Huaxin in December to raise its shares to 42 percent of the total.

“We’ve already seen the slowing down of the Chinese economy is affecting the construction business. So maintaining 30 percent growth in sales this year is difficult but may be achievable,” said Riley, who joined Holcim in 2006 and works as the vice-president of Huaxin Cement in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province.

“The top priority is to continue to support Huaxin’s growth, particularly to support the direction Huaxin is taking to become an environmentally friendly business,” he said, adding there are a lot of opportunities in co-processing. It can pre-treat waste to use it as fuel to replace coal, gas or oil for the production of cement.

Riley said the cost of adding a co-processing facility to cement production and building a garbage pretreatment platform is about one third of the cost of constructing a waste incinerator.

He believes that using co-processing in the cement industry is a better solution than building incinerators to tackle China’s garbage problems, especially for the treatment of municipal waste.

China overtook the United States in garbage output in 2004. The amount of waste has been rising at a rate of 8 to 10 percent a year. The slow process in sorting and recycling garbage and the scarcity of available space for landfill sites have made incineration a more preferable option in China.

Environmentalists in China, however, are opposed to incineration. They argue that hazardous emissions, such as the toxic dioxin, are unavoidable if the burning temperature is less than 950 C. Dioxins have been known to damage people’s health. People who live near incinerators are especially vulnerable.

“The temperature used to produce cement can be as high as 1,700 C, which is much higher than the regulated temperature within an incinerator. Co-processing is a much safer way to treat waste,” Riley said.

Out of the nearly 40 cement plants Huaxin has, six have already become co-processing plants. “There will be around 10 to 12 co-processing plants by this time next year,” said Riley.

mengjing@chinadaily.com.cn

The Harbin-Dalian High-speed Railway under construction in Shenyang, capital of Liaoning province. China’s generous investment in infrastructure and housing nurtured the nation’s cement industry, which now has 3,800 producers and more than 2.9 billion tons of production capacity annually. Provided to China Daily

100-year-old company sees greener future for building materials industry in the nation

Nearly all the companies that our grandparents admired have disappeared because of the fast pace of change in today’s world.

“For a company that lives 100 years, it has to evolve through time,” said Ian Riley, China country head of Switzerland-based Holcim Group, one of the world’s largest cement producers and the archrival of France’s Lafarge SA.

Riley shared the simple secret at Holcim’s centennial celebration in Beijing recently. He is ready to develop the company’s China business into something more environmentally friendly. His plan is to turn garbage into an alternative fuel, replacing coal to produce cement.

“The vision we have in the future is that we can clean up the environment while at the same time produce reliable building materials,” said the 54-year-old British senior executive.

More than 100 years ago, Holcim opened its first plant in a small village in Switzerland called Holderbank, producing 90,000 tons of cement in its first year of operation.

Today, the company’s annual cement production capacity has reached 216 million tons with 149 plants plus 492 aggregates factories and 1,435 ready-mix concrete production centers in 80 countries.

“The longevity and the success of the company is not necessarily a secret. It is 100 years of very hard work and commitment and evolution to understand what the needs of today’s society may be,” said Riley.

For Riley, who has been involved with the China business since 1994 and moved to the country in 1998, China’s needs for the sustainable development of its cement industry are pretty clear.

The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency, has already demanded a better environmental performance by the heavy industry that uses not only a massive amount of energy and resources for production but also emits a huge volume of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

Most importantly, the Chinese government sees the cement industry as a potentially large contributor to solving problems in municipal waste, which can be turned into alternative fuels. The technology can also help reduce CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from China’s cement industry account for about one-eighth of the country’s industrial output of carbon dioxide, according to a recent paper by Chris Nielsen, executive director of the China Project with Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science.

According to the 12th Five-Year Development Plan of China’s Cement Industry (2011-15), the country, which currently has hardly any co-processing production lines that burn waste in the making of cement, will see around 10 percent of its cement production lines equipped with this technology by 2015.

“If you think about all those things that the Chinese government wants companies to do that require good technology and good management, there are a lot of excellent opportunities indeed for companies such as ours,” Riley said.

As early as the late 1990s, the company and nine other big cement makers co-founded the world’s first ever green initiative for the cement industry.

The Geneva-based Cement Sustainability Initiative, which develops guidelines for implementing greater efficiency measures through cooperation and sharing expertise among members, has since been regarded as the global pioneer for the sustainable development of the cement industry.

Apart from Holcim’s well-established advantages in green cement production, the company’s belief in the cement market potential in China is another driving force for Holcim’sevolution in the country.

China’s robust economic growth over the past several years has nurtured the world’s largest cement industry because of its generous investment in infrastructure and housing, the biggest users of the product.

Concrete, which is made from cement, aggregates and water, is the second-most consumed material in the world after water, according to the Cement Sustainability Initiative.

Cement demand in China has grown by double digits each year over the past decade, in line with the economy’s annual average growth rate of 10.7 percent, according to the China Cement Association.

China has the world’s largest cement industry with 3,800 cement producers and more than 2.9 billion tons of cement production capacity, which accounts for more than half of the world’s total.

However, a slowdown in China’s economy, which is predicted to grow at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent between 2011 and 2015, is likely to result in shrinking investment in housing and infrastructure, thus oversupply of cement is getting more and more serious.

“With the rebalancing of the economy, it is crystal clear that the golden era for the cement industry is gone. But the tough times will reshape it into a more sustainable and quality-focused industry in China,” said Lei Qianzhi, president of China Cement Association.

The number of cement producers in China has decreased to 3,800 over the past two to three years due to mergers and acquisitions. The top 10 cement makers in China have a 25 percent lock on production capacity in the nation, up from 15 percent in 2005. The top makers are expected to have a 35 percent market share by 2015, the 12th Five-Year Plan said.

Thanks to mergers and acquisitions, China National Building Materials Group Corp, with businesses in cement and other construction materials, was ranked 485th in the Fortune 500 list in 2011. It became the first Chinese building materials company to appear on the list. The company consolidated 154 small and medium-sized companies in eastern China over the past three years into its South Cement Co Ltd based in Shanghai. The conglomerate produced 138 million tons of cement last year.

CNBM Vice-President Cui Xingtai said in March that the group aims to increase its cement production capacity from 300 million tons a year to 500 million by 2015.

In the newly released list of the Global Fortune 500 in 2012, CNBM climbed to 365th place with $30.02 billion in revenue in 2011. Holcim was placed 474th with $23.38 billion and Lafarge was 480th with $22.97 billion.

“Through M&As, major players are able to control larger markets. By getting rid of outdated capacity and smartly reducing the actual production volume, cement can be sold at a better price. Price wars will not be as frequent,” said Sun Tieshi, vice-president of China Building Material Federation.

But not every company in this capital-intensive industry is able to purchase hundreds of cement factories to increase their competitiveness. Western players in the nation’s cement industry are focusing on sustainable development in the construction industry to get ahead.

Sang Kang, CEO of Lafarge Shui On Cement, a joint venture between Lafarge and Hong Kong-based Socam Development Ltd, told China Daily that the company will look to accelerate its development in sustainable construction in China. Faced with overcapacity, he said, companies that can upgrade their production models can better survive a downturn.

He views China as one of its key markets. The nation contributed 6 percent of Lafarge’s global revenue in 2011, up from 2.4 percent in 2006.

Lafarge opened its first overseas sustainable construction development laboratory in Chongqing last September to develop new and advanced construction materials, products and solutions for its customers in China.

The company is currently producing dust-free cement, and a product line of concretes that it claims provides more strength and durability.

China is one of Holcim’s top markets in the world, contributing more than 20 billion Swiss francs ($21.69 billion) in 2011. Senior executives from the company reckon cement demand in China has already reached its peak.

“The current market is flat. As the market continues to flatten, the nature of competition will change. The values of sustainability and environmental performance will play a much bigger role for a company’s further development,” said Ian Thackwray, Holcim’s president for Asia-Pacific and South Africa.

The company entered China in 1995 and formed a strategic partnership with Hubei-based Huaxin Cement Co Ltd, which is one of China’s oldest cement companies with a history of more than 100 years.

By investing in Huaxin, Holcim became the Chinese company’s largest shareholder with 39 percent of its total shares in 2008.

The partnership has helped Huaxin Cement to achieve a steady annual growth of 30 percent in revenue over the past eight years. It had a capacity of 60 million tons last year, ranking the company in the top 10 among Chinese cement enterprises.

Holcim is clearly confident in its Chinese partner and its strategy in China. Despite a rather sluggish market with an acute oversupply in cement production capacity, Holcimreinvested in Huaxin in December to raise its shares to 42 percent of the total.

“We’ve already seen the slowing down of the Chinese economy is affecting the construction business. So maintaining 30 percent growth in sales this year is difficult but may be achievable,” said Riley, who joined Holcim in 2006 and works as the vice-president of Huaxin Cement in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province.

“The top priority is to continue to support Huaxin’s growth, particularly to support the direction Huaxin is taking to become an environmentally friendly business,” he said, adding there are a lot of opportunities in co-processing. It can pre-treat waste to use it as fuel to replace coal, gas or oil for the production of cement.

Riley said the cost of adding a co-processing facility to cement production and building a garbage pretreatment platform is about one third of the cost of constructing a waste incinerator.

He believes that using co-processing in the cement industry is a better solution than building incinerators to tackle China’s garbage problems, especially for the treatment of municipal waste.

China overtook the United States in garbage output in 2004. The amount of waste has been rising at a rate of 8 to 10 percent a year. The slow process in sorting and recycling garbage and the scarcity of available space for landfill sites have made incineration a more preferable option in China.

Environmentalists in China, however, are opposed to incineration. They argue that hazardous emissions, such as the toxic dioxin, are unavoidable if the burning temperature is less than 950 C. Dioxins have been known to damage people’s health. People who live near incinerators are especially vulnerable.

“The temperature used to produce cement can be as high as 1,700 C, which is much higher than the regulated temperature within an incinerator. Co-processing is a much safer way to treat waste,” Riley said.

Out of the nearly 40 cement plants Huaxin has, six have already become co-processing plants. “There will be around 10 to 12 co-processing plants by this time next year,” said Riley.

mengjing@chinadaily.com.cn

Villagers to Battle Waste Plant

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/battle-08212012163821.html

Description: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/protest-04052011153707.html/china-incinerator-305.gif

Imaginechina

A Chinese worker looks into a garbage incinerator plant in Qionghai, south China’s Hainan province, Dec. 1, 2009.

Residents of an industrial town in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong are banding together in protest over plans to build a waste incinerator on their doorstep, local sources said on Tuesday.

More than 1,000 local people turned out for a town meeting late on Monday, amid rising anger and concerns over the health effects of pollution from the planned Humen plant, according to a local village committee member surnamed Zhou.

“There were about 1,000 people there, including bosses from nearby factories and local people,” Zhou said in an interview on Tuesday. “All of them were against the planned incinerator, which would have a huge impact on Xinwei [village],” he said.

Zhou said the township government had tried to keep the news under wraps following a campaign on the part of local residents, who wrote more than 10,000 complaint letters about the plans in recent months.

“Now it has come out that they are planning to start work at the location they originally planned for, following an environmental impact assessment,” he said.

The government wants to build the Humen Waste Disposal Plant at Dalingshan, just 650 meters from Xinwei and Dapaizhai villages, just 3.8 kilometers from the Henggang reservoir, which supplies Houjietownship with drinking water.

The hillside and lakeside location is already home to a number of smart apartment complexes, whose 50,000 residents thought they were buying into one of the last green oases in the Dongguan area, local sources said.

Threat to water?

A Henggang village resident surnamed Lai said she was concerned that pollution from the plant might poison the local supply of drinking water, on which around 100,000 people depend.

She said the high-level location of the plant and the prevailing wind direction would mean that the countryside downwind would be covered in toxic smoke from the incineration process.

“People here don’t believe that this won’t cause a problem,” Lai said. “They are afraid that all these toxic gases will be expelled and that they will start to get sick within the next five years.”

“That would be genuinely scary,” she said.

A resident of the Haiyi Haoting apartment complex surnamed Huo said the way the government had tried to railroad local people into accepting the project was unacceptable.

“I am definitely against this,” she said. “Our home is very near there, probably about five kilometers away.”

“There are residential districts in all four directions around the planned incineration plant, and residential areas right next to it, too.”

“A lot of people have already voiced their opposition to the incinerator and protested when it was first announced,” Huo said. “At the very least they should solicit opinions from local people.”

Growing activism

An official who answered the phone at the Dongguan municipal environmental protection department, which oversees Henggang township, said she hadn’t heard that the government was planning to proceed with the plant.

“I don’t know about that,” she said, but declined to comment further.

The preparatory committee for the plant announced plans for the 4.1 billion yuan (U.S.$645 million) incinerator last year, which is projected to burn 1,000 tons of rubbish daily.

Three decades of breakneck economic growth have left Guangdong with a seriously degraded environment, sparking a nascent environmental movement from the city’s new middle class.

Previous attempts to build similar plants elsewhere in the province have drawn widespread criticism over local government access to the huge potential profits linked to waste disposal projects.

In 2009, during a similar protest in Panyu, local residents said that incinerators could earn 140 yuan (U.S. $20) per ton in government subsidies for every ton of trash burned, which could amount to 480,000 yuan(U.S. $70,000) per day, or 173 million yuan (U.S. $25 million) each year.

Local residents fear the plants will endanger their health and the environment, while officials say Guangdong has to find some way to dispose of mountains of garbage.

Ordinary Chinese people are becoming increasingly active in support of environmental issues in recent years, putting pressure on governments to implement the country’s comprehensive environmental protection laws.

Activists say, however, that environmental officials lack the power to impose the legislation on powerful vested interests at the local level.

Last month, authorities in the southwestern province of Sichuan promised to permanently scrap a high-profile copper-processing plant after two days of violent protests from local residents.

Reported by Lin Jing for RFA’s Cantonese service. Translated and written in English by Luisetta Mudie.

Copyright © 1998-2011 Radio Free Asia. All rights reserved.

Call for comments on KfW’s reply to Chinese NGOs on Nangong Incinerator, Beijing

From: GAIA
Sent: 30 August, 2012 11:10
To: GAIA Members; GAIA European Network
Subject: [GAIA] Call for comments on KfW’s reply to Chinese NGOs on Nangong Incinerator, Beijing

Dear GAIAns,

The German KfW banking group sent Chinese NGOs a reply letter on Monday (27 August) as below, which we think is very burearatic and lack of substantial response to the problems that we raised. And bearing in mind, this is their first reply since we firstly sent them open letter on August 8.

But they said they are willing to talk with us, and we have already set up a meeting with their Beijing representatives on Tuesday morning.

Please give us your comments on KfW’s reply, and help to give pressure to KfW to directly respond to our 7 recommendations in our open letter (in English and with photos of previous KfW invested projects in troublehttp://www.lingfeiqi.cn/plus/view.php?aid=871).

KfW’s reply:

Financial Cooperation with the PR China
Nangong Waste Incineration Plant
Reply to your Open Letter dated August 8th, 2012

Dear Sirs,

We thank you for the above mentioned letter expressing your concerns regarding the Nangong Waste Incineration Project in Beijing. We appreciate the seriousness of concerns and the competent content of the letter. We would like to invite you to have a meeting with our office in Beijing for a further discussion. However, please find some comments to the letter in the following.

Currently the planning for the Nangong Waste Incineration Plant is ongoing. The project has not yet been tendered. It is our intention and in line with the mission of our institution as a financing partner to ensure the construction of a plant that conforms with the best Chinese and European standards. As you are aware in Germany the huge majority of waste is incinerated, also in densely populated areas. Close to our headquarters in the city of Frankfurt such a plant is located. There is a proven technology available to reduce to environmental impacts to an acceptable minimum. We share the view with the Chinese project partners to realize such a solution in order to demonstrate in China how such plants can be designed and operated properly and without inacceptable environmental consequences.

With our bank we have significant technical and managerial expertise available to make sure that only a solution will be realized that is in line with this approach.

As a financing partner we request the right to confirm all significant steps before and during implementing of such a project. Numerous safeguards will be imposed. We also follow up the operation of any project financed for approximately three years.

Secondly you refer to the existing composting plant also in Nangong and describe some operational problems. The compost plant is one component of a large waste disposal project which you describe in your letter as overall successful. The facilities are already in operation for more than ten years. We thank you for the information and will follow up.

As mentioned in your letter KfW is guided by high social and ecological principles. We seriously apply such principals in Germany, Europe and also with projects financed in Developing Countries. These principals in Germany, Europe and also guide all our decisions regarding our participation as a financing partner for the Waste Incineration Plant in Nangong.

With kind regards,

KfW

Dr. Christine Heimburger
Director

Michael Sumser
Senior Project Manager

Download PDF : Reply open letter 27 Aug 2012

Greens dig in over third runway

SCMP 30 Aug 2012

Hong Kong’s green groups are playing hardball with the Airport Authority Hong Kong over efforts to get them to attend a Green NGO roundtable meeting with the AAHK to discuss environmental aspects of the proposed third runway. The airport authority, which is endeavouring to become the world’s greenest airport, is desperate to get the green groups onside.

However, a meeting scheduled for Tuesday has had to be postponed until next month following concerns expressed by eight green groups in a letter to the AAHK.

Their letter points to a “divergence of opinion” with deputy director Kevin Poole and others over what components should be included in a proposed social return on investment (SROI) study. The signatories have included the elements they want to see included and say: “We feel that it is essential to have your agreement on these fundamentals ahead of the roundtable meeting to ensure that we are all on the same page regarding the fundamental scope of such a study…”

The AAHK was initially opposed to such a study and even when the Legco environmental affairs panel called for it to be conducted together with a carbon audit, it maintained a deafening silence. However, since the green groups have dug their heels in on this, and the AAHK wants them onside to sustain its green credentials, it is reluctantly getting dragged into agreeing to do one.

An SROI conducted for the third runway at London’s Heathrow airport concluded that Britain would be £5 billion (HK$62.6 billion) worse off if it was built, and contributed to the decision not to proceed with it.

Contact Us Have you got any stories that Lai See should know about? E-mail them to howard.winn@scmp.com

INCINERATOR LATEST – Campaigners’ delight as ministers call in Saddlebow incinerator proposal

Whereas in Hong Kong the official charged with protecting the Environment is also the EIA rubber stamp for destroying it !

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/latest-news/incinerator-latest-campaigners-delight-as-ministers-call-in-saddlebow-incinerator-proposal-1-4213456

Published on Thursday 30 August 2012 16:15

THE Lynn incinerator project is set to go to a full public inquiry after ministers decided to call-in the scheme, it has emerged this afternoon.

News of the decision emerged within the last hour, as tomorrow’s edition of the Lynn News went to press, and has been hailed by residents and politicians in West Norfolk who have fought against the scheme, with the support of thousands of people who have voiced their opposition to the government.

Leading campaigner Mike Knights said: “I am absolutely delighted at this news. It means it’s going to be the first time that this planning application will be heard by an independent, decision-making body.”

As previously reported, members of Norfolk County Council’s planning committee voted to grant permission for the plant at their meeting in June, subject to the scheme not being called-in by ministers.

A holding directive was issued by communities’ secretary Eric Pickles on the eve of that meeting to prevent final permission from being granted until the government gave ultimate approval. The plant has already received an environmental permit to operate, but needs planning consent.

But it is understood that the issue will now be referred to an inquiry led by a planning inspectorbecause of the regional and national implications of the development.

It is also believed that around 6,000 letters were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government by people opposed to the proposal, a record number for the department.

And North West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham has paid tribute to the public’s contribution to the campaign.

He said: “This is really fantastic news. It’s a very important development.

“It’s the result of thousands of people who have written in and joined the campaign and I am deeply indebted to them, because without them, we wouldn’t have got this call-in.”

South West Norfolk MP Elizabeth Truss said the government had done the right thing in listening to the public.

She said she also plans to continue lobbying the Treasury to review the basis of the government’s contribution to the financing of the plant.

A multi-million pound grant towards the cost of the scheme was approved by environment secretary Caroline Spelman earlier this year.

But, following the latest ruling, there is likely to be many more months of uncertainty over whether the plant will be built at all.

Norfolk County Council say they have not received any official notification of the decision, while Cory Wheelabrator, the consortium hoping to build the plant, have not yet commented.

Further updates when available

An Open Letter to the German KfW Banking Group on Beijing N

http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/plus/view.php?aid=871

时间:2012-08-30 07:45来源:自然之友 作者: 点击: 27次

We are a group of non-governmental organisations and individuals who care about China’s environmental protection and social wellbeing. In this letter we would like to express our heartfelt concern regarding the investment and construction arrangemen

FROM:

21 Chinese NGOs and 16 Citizens

August 8, 2012

TO:

KfW Bankengruppe
Palmengartenstraße 5-9
60325 Frankfurt am Main

Germany

E-Mail: info@kfw.de
Telefon: 0049-069 74 31-0

CC:

KfW Office Beijing
1170, Sunflower Tower
No. 37 Maizidian Street
Chaoyang District, Beijing 100025
PR of China

Tel: +86 10 85 27 51-71 / 72 / 73 / 74

EMail: kfw.beijing@kfw.de

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are a group of non-governmental organisations and individuals who care about China’s environmental protection and social wellbeing. In this letter we would like to express our heartfelt concern regarding the investment and construction arrangements of the Beijing Nangong Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, and would like to seek an opportunity to develop a frank dialogue with your bank.

In early May 2010 the Beijing General Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute website revealed that the Chinese and German governments “will include Beijing NangongMunicipal Solid Waste Incinerator as a financial cooperation project under the Sino-German Financial Cooperation Framework. According to a 2006 feasibility research report the total investment allocated to this project is 775,530,000 Renminbi (about 99,000,000 Euros). 55,000,000 Euros will come from the Sino-German Financial Cooperation Fund, and will be implemented by the KfW Bank.” [1]

It was through the above information that we realised that your bank is a direct investor and important interested party in the Nangong Waste Incinerator. We believe that your bank can exert influence over this project, and that whether or not it is successfully operated will affect the reputation of German government and enterprises’ economic and environmental protection cooperation with China.

We noticed that your bank’s official website states: “The sustainability of our own actions and the projects we promote are at the top of KfW’s corporate agenda, and are even part of our global promotional mission. Our aim is to help stimulate sustainable investment that benefits the natural environment and economic development equally. Conversely, KfW therefore does not fund projects that are likely to generate unacceptable ecological or social impacts.”[2]

We have also noticed that the KfW Bank adopted the Equator Principles quite early, and such principles require banks look out for possible social and environmental risks and dangers to clients and other major stakeholders during the construction, production and operation of projects.

We deeply appreciate and acknowledge your bank’s above statement on environmental protection and sustainable development, and hotly anticipate that such principals will be applied to the investment and construction activities for the Beijing Nangong Waste Incinerator. However, according to our information, there are widespread problems associated with the use of waste incineration technology in China. Some aspects of environmental hygiene facilities in Beijing, which Germany has helped construct, are also worthy of re-examination. If these already existing problems are not addressed, resolved, or taken seriously by the responsible parties, the implementation of the Nangong Waste Incinerator project could harm the public interest of Beijing residents. It would also contradict your bank’s investment principles and harm the international reputation of the German government and companies.

In China municipal solid waste incineration is already an environmental pollution source that cannot be ignored. First, it is commonly known that the burning of waste will produce and emit dioxin-type pollutants. The Chinese government’s “People’s Republic of China National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” lists municipal solid waste incineration as an emissions source whose control must be prioritised.[3] In 2009 academics from the China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute published an article stating that in 2007 the estimated airborne dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incineration (there were less than 70 incinerators in operation in that year) in China was 157.93g TEQ (toxicity equivalent), which was a big increase on the 2004 figure of 125.8g TEQ. For comparison, in 1994 airborne dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incineration in Germany were only 30g TEQ. It is estimated that this figure has been below 0.5g TEQ since the beginning of the 21st Century (around 70 municipal solid waste incinerators are running in Germany now). [4]In the same year, scholars from the Chinese Academy of Sciences published the results of their research into the airborne dioxin emissions from 19 municipal solid waste incinerators in China. According to their results, 13 incinerators did not meet the EU standard of 0.1ng TEQ/m3. Three incinerators even exceeded the Chinese national standard of 1ng TEQ/m3.[5] In addition, whilst investigating the environmental quality of soil around a waste incinerator in Shanghai’s Jiading District, researchers from the Shanghai Academy of Public Measurement discovered that dioxin levels were markedly higher than the surrounding area. Based on this, they made the following conclusion: waste incinerators are a source of dioxins in the Shanghai area’s land.[6]

Apart from dioxins, China’s waste incinerators also emit a large amount of the heavy metal mercury. According to a 2011 article by academics from the South China University of Technology, mercury emissions from municipal solid waste incineration account for 21% of total man-made mercury emissions in the Pearl River Delta, second only to emissions from coal-burning (28%).[7] In other case studies, Chinese academics have discovered that airborne emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators have resulted in sharp increases in the mercury content of surrounding land and flora.[8]

Why do waste incineration facilities that can be operated relatively safely in some European countries and Japan “fail to acclimatise” when they reach China? Apart from the complicated mix of Chinese waste (high moisture content, low burning value, large quantity of hazardous waste products), the low standard of engineering technology and a lack of investment in pollution control, we believe that the main reason is that government departments are seriously lacking supervision and control over waste incinerators.

According to a 2011 article by scholars from the China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute, apart from a minority of cities including Shanghai and Guangzhou, the majority of fly ash from Chinese municipal solid waste incinerators is not handled safely.[9] Faced with this situation, it cannot be denied that there has been negligence from supervisory departments. The media has also reported cases of waste incinerators operating in breach of standards. For example: fly ash from the Macau Waste Incinerator was improperly dumped, ash residue from the Shenzhen Nanshan Waste Incinerator flowed into a black brick yard, and leachate from the Shenzhen Nanshan and Laohukeng waste incinerators was dumped directly into the sea without treatment. A programme televised by Shenzhen TV revealed that in May 2011 an incinerator operated by the Herrel Group in Sichuan was fined 50,000 Renminbi by the Chengdu City Environmental Protection Bureau for failing to adhere to regulations concerning the reporting of fly ash production, transportation and handling. However, in July the HerrelGroup and the Environmental Protection Bureau “agreed to mediate” and the fine would not be enforced. We can say that these incidents have resulted from a lack of government supervision and control.

In addition, some important supervision and control information concerning the operation of incinerators is frequently not publicly disclosed in a timely manner, and monitoring data are not completely trustworthy. From February to April of this year the environmental non-governmental organisation Wuhu Ecology Centre applied to China’s 31 provinces, cities, and autonomous regions’ environmental protection bureaus and the Ministry of Environmental Protection for the release of a list naming companies that emit large quantities of dioxins (waste incinerators count as major emission source companies). However, only six provinces and cities’ environmental protection bureaus responded meaningfully.[10] As to the monitoring data concerning waste incinerator emissions of harmful pollutants (dioxins, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, PM2.5), it is extremely rare for environmental protection departments to voluntarily release this information or to do so in response to an information disclosure request application. Some scholars have emphasised that most data in scientific research articles concerning legal dioxin emissions from waste incinerators is based on measurements taken under the most favourable conditions.[11] As a result, it is questionable whether or not these data can represent the normal operating situation of waste incinerators in China.

Because waste incineration in China has already resulted in significant amounts of pollution, and due to insufficient supervision and control and a lack of transparency, waste incineration projects in many urban and rural locations face increasingly strong opposition from local residents. Some opposition activities have even evolved into serious street protests, involving urban residents in cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan and Nanjing, and residents from towns or villages in locations including Likeng Village in Guangzhou’s Taihe Township, PingwangTownship in Jiangsu’s Wujiang, and Huangtutang Village in Wuxi’s Donggang Township. It can be said that waste incinerators cannot avoid causing anxiety to local residents wherever they are planned.

In reality, apart from problems associated with the supervision and control of harmful pollutant emissions, “low level” mistakes are often made in planning, investment and operation of waste incineration projects in China. This exacerbates the public’s serious lack of trust. First, due to irregular operation, bad smell from waste discharge pits or storage pools often covers the surrounding areas. Loud noise bothers residents living nearby. Second, the site selection for incinerators in some places does not accord with planning procedures. This might be one reason for the abandonment of the Beijing Liulitun waste incinerator plan. Third, the overall quality of public opinion solicitation for waste incinerator environmental impact assessments is very low. Some units in charge of carrying out environmental impact assessments have been found to have fabricated public opinion statements. In light of this, residents of planned incinerator sites in numerous locations have expressed anger. For instance, because of these problems, farmers from Panguanying Village in Liushouying Township in Hebei Province’sFuning County managed to force the Qinhuangdao West Waste Incinerator being brought to a standstill.[12]

Apart from the fact that the overall development of waste incineration technology in China is a cause of concern, the operation of Beijing’s environmental hygiene facilities funded by the German government in the past ten years also needs re-examining. We believe that if problems exist with these facilities and that if they are not effectively resolved, the future construction and operation of the Nangong Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator – as the extension of a long-term cooperation between China and Germany in the field of environmental hygiene projects – is an even larger cause for serious concern.

At present, there are five environmental hygiene facility sites funded by Germany in Beijing, including Majialou Transfer Station, Xiaowuji Transfer Station, Anding Landfill, BeishenshuLandfill and Nangong Composting Plant. On the whole, this system has played an active role in reducing waste transportation cost as well as controlling waste treatment pollution. However, the actual effectiveness of the “transfer station mechanical sorting + composting plant composting” sub-system has not met expectations, and has possibly resulted in secondary pollution that cannot be ignored. According to our on-site investigations, although waste entering the Nangong composting plant has been mechanically and manually sorted, it still contains a large amount of plastic bags, plastic and metal packaging and disposable chopsticks. In the composter, it is even possible to find harmful waste such as used batteries and expired medical products that should not be allowed to enter the composting production line. They will also once again be transported to landfills for final treatment, increasing transportation costs and energy input. In addition the quality of the compost is low. According to a report by Beijing Municipal Government department technicians, the content level of arsenic and mercury in some composting products from this factory exceeds the Control Standards for Urban Wastes for Agricultural Use (GB8172-87) and these composting products are difficult to sell.[13] Furthermore, our on-site investigation revealed that the working environment in the composting facility is filled with foul and irritating air, workers hardly wore necessary protective equipment such as masks, and their health might be seriously damaged in the long term.

Another surprising phenomenon is that the temporary medical incinerator inside the Nangong composter, which was set up due to the outbreak of SARS in 2003, was going to be developed by Beijing as a “permanent” medical incinerator after being renovated in 2004.[1 However, when we carried out on-site investigation in 2007, the operation of this incinerator had been stopped and to this date once dilapidated workshops and equipment have been demolished. As we all know, if the administration of medical incinerators is insufficient, not only will it produce pollution containing infecting bacteria, but also the emission level of dioxins and heavy metal is very high. This might directly affect the composting plant workers’ health as well as the compost quality. As far as we know, the planned site of Nangong incinerator is also next to the composting plant. Its influence on the composting work naturally deserves attention.

We also visited residents living within a one-kilometre radius of the Nangong composting plant. They told us that at the beginning of the composting plant’s construction, government departments did not inform them of the content and risk of the project. After the completion of the composting plant, it frequently emits unbearable bad smell which affects villagers’ daily life so severely that they call the composting plant the “human excrement plant”. They already blocked the plant entrance many times to protest. These protesting activities only temporarilyquietened down after the villagers received some compensation. Presently, although the residents have been informed of the construction of the incinerator next to the composting plant, they complain that the local government did not solicit their opinions to the full and failed to truly present the pollution risk of the incinerator. Considering that the level of public participation has always been too weak in the construction of environmental hygiene facility projects, we have all reasons to be concerned that big problems might exist in public opinion solicitation in the Nangong incineration project.

Based on all the existing practical problems we have identified about waste incineration technology development in China as well as those in environmental hygiene projects funded by Germany in Beijing, especially in Beijing’s Nangong district, we respectfully ask your bank to pay a high level of attention to these issues. Meanwhile, we will also put forward the few suggestions below for your bank to consider so that we can ensure the Nangong incineration will not repeat history or experience the same problems that are happening to other incinerations in China.

First, designate one department or certain officers to have dialogues and work closely with interested parties connected to the Nangong incineration project and environmental public interest groups in China. Carry out serious examination to ensure that your bank’s investment activities will not harm the local environment and health rights, and interests of the Chinese public and citizens of Nangong.

Second, promoters of the project including German government departments, the Beijing Municipal Commission of City Administration and Environment, project designers, consultants, and units in charge of the environmental impact assessment, should release information from the entire environmental impact assessment process related to the project’s planning, design, finance and equipment procurement. This will make the decision making process of this public project open and transparent.

Third, establish an independent investigation group that will assess the operation and effects of all environmental hygiene facilities in Beijing funded by the German government, including these projects’ economic, technical, social, and environmental impacts.

Fourth, in cooperation with the Beijing Municipal Government and social organisations, directly solicit the opinions of residents living in the Nangong district and identify potential social and environmental risk of the project.

Fifth, organise independent German technology experts to investigate the use of waste incineration technology in China and its overall situation. In particular, find the reasons for the pollution emitted by those problematic incinerators mentioned above.

Sixth, carry out activities that will inform Chinese government departments, waste treatment enterprises, social organisations and the media about Germany’s experience and safe operation conditions of waste incinerators.

Seventh, carry out activities that will inform Chinese government departments, waste treatment enterprises, social organisations and the media about Germany’s experience with reducing waste production, establishing extended producer responsibility, promoting waste sorting and recycling that have been prioritised in Germany’s waste management system.

Finally, for the sake of public interest and environmental health and happiness of Beijing residents, and for the sake of good cooperation between Germany and China across all different areas, we would like to establish a direct and frank dialogue with your bank and/or other relevant German organisations or enterprises based on the content of this letter and the suggestions that we have put forward. We believe that such a dialogue would be extremely valuable. It would not only benefit the careful investment, construction and operation of the Beijing NangongMunicipal Solid Waste Incinerator, but would also set a new model for German government and enterprises’ consideration of sustainable development and social welfare in overseas investment projects.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Sincerely,

Signatories

Organisations:

Friends of Nature

Nature University

Yunnan Green Watershed

Green Anhui

Green Stone Environmental Action Network

Environmental Protection Service Association of Green Zhuhai

Green Beagle

EnviroFriends

Beijing Waste Management Technology Co. Ltd.

Wuhu Ecology Centre

Fujian Green Home

Green Henan

Eco Canton

Xiamen Greencross Association

Green Camel Bell

Friends Of Green China Tianjin

Rock Energy and Environment Institute

Greenovation:Hub

Blue Dalian
Qinhuangdao Entrepreneur Association
Qinghuan Volunteer Service Center

Individual Citizens:

MAO Da (Researcher, Nature University)
CHEN Fu (P. S.: No double standard for the health of German and Chinese)
FENG Yongfeng (Co-Founder and Researcher, Nature University)
MO Jingteng
ZHANG Boju
YUE Caixuan
ZHAO Zhangyuan (Researcher (retired) , Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences; P. S.: There has been a fact regarding municipal solid waste incineration in China: almostevery new incinerator project will cause fierce opposition from surrounding residents, and pose heavy burdens to governments and enterprises!)
CAO Ke
XUAN Zhi
LI Bo (Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, IUCN; Board Member of Friends of Nature)
YANG Xiaojing
LI Jiamin
Basuo Fengyun
MA Tiannan
RAN Liping
CHEN Zhiqiang

Contact persons:

CHEN Liwen (School of Waste, Nature University, Mobile: +86-15210347427, E-mail: liwenchen9230@gmail)

MAO Da (School of Waste, Nature University, Mobile: +86-15210033727, E-mail: elephantmao@gmail.com)

[1]Beijing General Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute,”Our Institute Signed Consulting Service Contract with Pöyry Energy (Germany) on the Beijing Nangong Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Project”, http://www.bmedi.cn/qydt/qyyw/6973.shtml.

[2]KfW, “Demonstrating our activities for sustainability through specific projects”, http://nachhaltigkeit.kfw.de/EN_Home/Corporate_social_responsibility/Environment_and_sustainability/index.jsp.

[3]The Coordinating Office for National Implementation of the Stockholm Convention, “People’s Republic of China National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2008, p. 49.

[4]Zhao Shuqing, Huang Wenxiong, and Xie Li, “The Current Situation and Trend of Dioxin Emission from Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in Our Country”, Urban Managerial Technology, 2009 (2), pp. 58, 59; The Coordinating Office for National Implementation of the Stockholm Convention, “People’s Republic of China National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, p. 42; Steffi Richter and Bernt Johnke, “Status of PCDD/F-Emission Control in Germany on the Basis of the Current Legislation and Strategies for Further Action”, Chemosphere, 54 (2004), pp. 1299-1302.

[5]Yuwen Ni, Haijun Zhang, Su Fan, Xueping Zhang, Qing Zhang, and Jiping Chen, “Emissions of PCDD/Fs from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in China”, Chemosphere, 75 (2009), 1153-1158.

[6]Deng Yunyun, Jia Lijua, and Yin Haowen, “Preliminary Study on the Level of Dioxin-like Compounds in Soil of Shanghai”, Journal of Environment and Occupational Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2008, pp. 353-359.

[7]Junyu Zheng, Jiamin Ou, Ziwei Mo, Shasha Yin, “Mercury emission inventory and its spatial characteristics in the Pearl River Delta region, China”, Science of the Total Environment, Volumes 412-413, 15 December 2011, 214-222.

[8]Tang Qinghe, Ding Zhenhua, Jiang Jiaye, Yang Wenhua, Cheng Jinping, and Wang Wenhua, “Environmental Effects of Mercury around a Large Scale MSW Incineration Plant”, Environmental Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005, pp. 2786-2791.

[9]Zhao Shuqing, Song Wei, Liu Jinghao, and Pu Zhihong, “Pollution Status and Suggestions for Emission Reduction of Dioxin from Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste in China”, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2011, pp. 86-88.

[10]Wuhu Ecology Centre, “The First Report of ‘Tracing the Information Disclosure of the Key Dioxin Emission Source of the Whole Country'”, http://www.waste-cwin.org/node/654.

[11]Zhao Shuqing, Song Wei, Liu Jinghao, and Pu Zhihong, “Pollution Status and Suggestions for Emission Reduction of Dioxin from Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste in China”.

[12]Liang Jialin, and Wang Lu, “Farmers Complained to MEP, Intending to Postpone Zhejiang Weiming’s IPO, Economic Information, May 8, 2012, http://www.jjckb.cn/2012-05/28/content_377793.htm

[13]Li Yuchun, Li Yanfu, and Wang Yan, “A Report on Promoting the Sale of the Composting Product of Nangong Composting Plant”, http://wenku.baidu.com/view/27c6e31efc4ffe473368abab.html

[14]Ma Nina, “SARS Warning, Beijing’s First Medical Waste Treatment Plant Starts Operation”, The Beijing News, December 29, 2004, http://www.people.com.cn/GB/huanbao/1073/3086663.html.

Appendix: Photos of Beijing Nangong Composting Plant

Photo 1: Mixed waste entering the plant (1)

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081004_1.jpg

Photo 2: Mixed waste entering the plant (2)

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081147_1.JPG

Photo 3: Mixed waste entering the plant (3)

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081325_1.JPG

Photo 4: Workers dealing with the waste

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081600_1.JPG

Photo 5: Waste battery in the compost

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081709_1.jpg

Photo 6: Waste battery and plastic in the compost

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081834_1.JPG

Photo 7: Waste medicine in the compost

Description: http://www.lingfeiqi.cn/uploads/120830/6_081938_1.jpg

Photo 8: Waste plastic containers and medicine in the compost


Photo 9: Abandoned medical waste incinerator next to the plant


Photo 10: Dilapidated equipments in the abandoned medical waste incinerator


Scientists to launch own air quality index

Pollution alert system sidelined by government takes specific health risks into account, giving the public advice on levels of physical exertion
Kristie Wong
Aug 29, 2012

Pollution scientists who developed a new air quality alert system for the government that was never adopted plan to launch it themselves.

The experts say their air quality health index (AQHI), to be provided on a website as early as next month, will offer the public better, clearer and more timely advice on health risks than the present government system.

Modelled on a Canadian approach, the new index will be calculated on the risks of hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases from the sum of four air pollutants – sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and particulate matter.

The current air pollution index (API), introduced in 1995 and never revised, does not take health risks into account and is based on the highest level of concentration on a given day of just one of the four pollutants.

Friends of the Earth welcomed the new index but said the government should replace its own system.

“The public is numb to the severity of the air pollution levels as the numbers are always high,” senior environmental affairs officer Melonie Chau Yuet-cheungsaid. “They do not know how to interpret API figures.”

The scientists, who work for local universities, were commissioned to develop the system for the Environmental Protection Department in 2009 but it was never adopted.

They plan to launch their unofficial system as soon as they can secure a supply of raw data from the department’s roadside and general monitoring stations.

A spokesman said the department was still studying the proposal but pledged to revamp the alert system in parallel with an upgrade of the government’s air quality objectives – the targets it sets itself for the levels of various pollutants – which is expected to be complete by 2014.

He said it had taken time to assess the scientists’ proposals.

A member of the scientific team, Professor Wong Tze-wai, from Chinese University’s School of Public Health, said the new index would have seven bands, ranging from low to serious health risk categories.

The website will give specific advice to groups most at risk, including outdoor workers and people with illnesses, on what to do and when to restrict or reduce outdoor activities.

“The daily index will bring short-term effects, such as changing an individual’s day-to-day activities, but the year-long average will serve as a guideline for the government to take necessary measures in the long run,” he said.

Another developer of the system, Professor Alexis Lau Kai-hon, an atmospheric scientist from University of Science and Technology, said a direct and comprehensive supply of raw data was crucial for the launch.

“As long as the EPD publishes the necessary data for all four pollutants, the website is good to go. But we are still trying to figure out what to do if one or two figures are missing,” Lau said.

Friends of the Earth’s Chau said the new index would offer an alternative online from which to take reference, “but the sooner the government can replace the API system, the better”.

kristie.wong@scmp.com

Description:

Still a lot of hot air in HK

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c3ae079b13969310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Business

Still a lot of hot air in HK

Lai See   28/8/2012

Interesting to see that Singapore has raised the bar on air quality. Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said last week that the country had adopted World Health Organisation guidelines as a target that it aimed to hit by this year, The Straits Times reported. He said Singapore would be looking at not just annual figures but also 24-hour targets for some pollutants.

This puts Singapore light years ahead of Hong Kong, which still uses air quality objectives that were established in 1987 and are now hopelessly outdated. The Environment Bureau nevertheless continues with its daily farce of producing an air pollution index based on these AQOs, which are way higher than what WHO guidelines consider safe for human health.

Donald Tsang Yam-kuen vowed to introduce new AQOs by the end of last year. Unsurprisingly this didn’t happen. But the government was jolted into action in January when mainland China announced tighter AQOs than Hong Kong’s. Hong Kong then announced there would be new AQOs but not before 2014. They don’t amount to much of an improvement.

“Fumes from motor vehicles and industries affect every single Singaporean,” Balakrishnan said in response to a question about whether the cleaner air policy would lead to higher car prices. “I think this is a price worth paying.”

We know politicians like to make the right sounds but Hong Kong has not even reached this point. Let’s hope that changes soon under the new government.

HK team finds rich use for food waste

‘Biorefinery’ uses fungi to turn waste into an ingredient for making everyday products
Adrian Wan
Aug 26, 2012

A team of Hong Kong scientists say they have found a way to transform food waste into laundry detergent, plastic ingredients, and a host of everyday products, in a discovery that may ease pressure on the city’s bulging landfills.

Products from the “biorefinery” could even generate income, according to team leader Dr Carol Lin, a visiting assistant professor at City University. She unveiled details of the project in the United States last week at the 244th National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia.

“We are developing a new kind of biorefinery, a food biorefinery, and this concept could become very important in the future, as the world strives for greater sustainability,” she said. “Our new process addresses the food waste problem by turning trash into treasure, such as detergent ingredients and bio-plastics, which can be incorporated into other useful products.”

The biorefinery process involves blending food waste with a mixture of fungi that excrete enzymes to break down carbohydrates into simple sugars. The blend is fermented in a vat where bacteria convert the sugars into succinic acid. Succinic acid can be used to make a range of products – from laundry detergent to plastics and medicine.

The team received a HK$518,000 grant from Hong Kong’s Innovation and Technology Commission last year, and the work is due to be completed next August.

Food waste from Starbucks in Hong Kong and drink-maker Vitasoy International is being used in the testing.

In addition to providing a sustainable source of succinic acid, the technology could yield numerous environmental benefits, Lin said. Starbucks Hong Kong alone produces nearly 5,000 tonnes of food waste every year.

At present, this waste is incinerated, composted or disposed of in landfills. Lin’s process could convert the waste into useful products. She has transformed food waste from CityU’s cafeteria and other mixed food wastes into useful substances using the technology. The process could become commercially viable on a much larger scale with additional money from investors. “In the meantime, our next step is to … scale up the process,” she said.

adrian.wan@scmp.com