SCMP letter
I refer to the letter by Elvis W.K. Au, of the Environmental Protection Department (“Incinerator will meet the world’s most stringent green operating standards”, April 10).
It is tiresome to have to read the department yet again trying to justify its irrational decision to build a giant incinerator in the heart of Islands district.
First comes the bizarre statement that “a more balanced spatial distribution” is achieved by locating this project at Shek Kwu Chau, instead of at the obvious brownfield site. The idea is that since places in the west, north and east of the SAR have now been trashed, it is only “fair” to trash the south as well. Apart from the violation of common-sense planning practices this implies, readers should be aware that the department is planning a second giant incinerator at Tsang Tsui ash lagoons anyway. It is marked on a map presented to Legco’s environmental panel.
Mr Au says the Shek Kwu Chau site is nearer to Victoria Harbour’s waste transfer stations. This is not true if you take into account the shipment of the 30 per cent of highly toxic residue of incineration back to the landfill at Tsang Tsui.
He also claims Shek Kwu Chau is more acceptable because it is “downwind” of the Cheung Chau population of 30,000. The statement is equally true for the Tsang Tsui location. When the wind is blowing in the opposite direction (at least 25 per cent of the time) Cheung Chau will be affected whereas there are shielding mountains at Tsang Tsui. Also, if the incinerator is as green as officials claim, what does wind direction matter?
The unacceptable aspect of the incinerator controversy is that attention has been distracted from the department’s failure to implement the waste management strategy originally drawn up in 2005, with its emphasis on waste reduction and recycling. The amount of waste generated in Hong Kong is still rising and there are virtually no separation and recycling facilities available to households.
The claim that the SAR recycles 52 per cent of municipal solid waste is misleading. Firms export waste to the mainland for recycling. We believe that the percentage of government-collected waste that is recycled is in reality still very small. Changing this should be the department’s priority, not another expensive vanity project.
John Schofield, Living Islands Movement