A group of academics and professionals has now melded their minds with the stubborn ones of Hong Kong officials, pushing for the building of an incinerator for the treatment of the city’s waste.
Representative statements include “We need to act now, or this will end with rubbish piling up on the streets,” from Professor Poon Chi-sun of Polytechnic University’s civil and environmental engineering department, and “Decision makers need to find the most sensible choice – can we take the risk of having so much uncertainty when we have thousands of tonnes of rubbish to handle?” from Professor Irene Lo Man-chi, of the University of Science and Technology’s department of civil and environmental engineering.
The most sensible thing to do, of course, is to first retain composure, lest such voices of panic pressures Hong Kong into making a disastrous decision just for the sake of having to ‘act now’.
A look at their statements reveal aspects meant to mislead and hoodwink audiences. Poon, for example, says, “We have strong reservations about the proposal to double the size of the Tuen Mun landfill, especially when incineration could effectively reduce the volume of waste by up to 90 per cent.” Retailers also attract customers by offering discounts “up to 90 per cent”, when most of the discounts never come close. In the case of incineration, 30% of incinerated waste ends up as toxic fly ash – requiring more landfills and leaving even deadlier pollution than conventional landfilling of waste.
In discussing plasma technology, Lo is reported to have said that problems with plasma technology had led to the closure of a 10-year-old plant in Japan, which had been down for two-thirds of that time. These problems are, in fact, not technical, but a matter of business dealings – in a country with thousands of incinerators, the plasma plant had to close “due to lack of feedstock (loss of long term feed contracts).” Incinerators are both waste treatment and business, and they require feedstock and fuels to remain operational; it is not surprising that the plasma plant couldn’t compete with an established industry over feedstock supplies. Lo’s statement, however, makes it easy to mislead readers over the exact nature of the cited case.
Lo also said the technology had been proved to be a reliable option that was safe in terms of emissions, syncing her opinion with the ‘proven technology’ refrain of Hong Kong officials. ‘Reliable’ is a very attractive word for the public, but it is unclear what exactly is meant when incineration is ‘reliable’. Having the ability to reduce the mass and increase the toxicity of the materials going to landfills does not seem to fit the idea of ‘reliable’. Incinerator accidents in Guangzhou and Shanghai shows that incinerators are not necessarily accident-free ‘reliable’; U.S. regulatory agencies have also found that incinerators are prone to various types of malfunctions, system failures and breakdowns, which routinely lead to serious air pollution control problems and increased emissions that are dangerous to public health. What is ‘reliable’ about incineration is its ‘reliable’ business opportunity for the operator and its beneficiaries, and its ‘reliable’ demand for feedstocks and fuel, which actively discourages recycling efforts and increases consumption of fossil fuel.
Likewise, ‘safe’ also makes for attractive reading, but ‘safe emissions’ has no real meaning other than to indicate a high level of control over the emissions of pollutants. Emissions that are captured are actually re-released into the environment as ash or sludge after treatment, in even higher concentration of toxicity. Meanwhile, ultra-fine toxic particles such as dioxins can still escape emissions control and seriously endanger human health.
The stubborn attitude displayed by Hong Kong officials over incineration has always been frustrating, but it is especially worrying that academics and professionals – people walking around with an air of credibility – is choosing to join in and support a move that will endanger the future of Hong Kong’s waste management, environment, and the health of its citizens. It is imperative, therefore, that Hong Kong citizens recognize the panic pressure that they are trying to generate, and the shrewd sales language that they use in trying to cajole the public into accepting incineration.
The issue was reported by Cheung Chi-fai of the SCMP.
An alliance of academics and professionals is calling on the government to scale back its plan to extend the city’s three landfills in favour of incineration, saying they are fed up with the “never-ending argument” about waste.
And they warn that if nothing is done soon to head off the waste crisis, it could turn into a citywide hygiene problem.The group of 60 academics from local tertiary institutions and professionals, including engineers, was formed late last month. Members say they are disappointed with government inaction on waste and recycling.
And they want to send a clear message to the public: landfills are not sustainable and should be kept to a minimum, while incineration is the most sensible – and urgently needed – option.
The group stressed it did not have any vested interests, saying the plan was in the city’s long-term interests.
“We need to act now, or this will end with rubbish piling up on the streets,” said Professor Poon Chi-sun, of Polytechnic University’s civil and environmental engineering department, and spokesman for the new Alliance for Promoting Sustainable Waste Management for Hong Kong.
The call comes as environment officials prepare to file funding requests for proposed landfill extensions and an incinerator to the Legislative Council in the first quarter of next year.
Plans to expand the Tuen Mun and Ta Kwu Ling landfills were deferred in July, a month after the Tseung Kwan O expansion plan was withdrawn by Legco’s public works committee.
A proposal to build a 3,000-tonne incinerator on reclaimed land next to Shek Kwu Chau is being challenged in court.
All of the plans have faced strong public opposition.
“We have strong reservations about the proposal to double the size of the Tuen Mun landfill, especially when incineration could effectively reduce the volume of waste by up to 90 per cent,” Poon said.
He urged the government to review its 200-hectare expansion plan to see if it could be reduced.
And he said the government had made the right decision to use the mainstream moving-grate technology – in which waste goes through a combustion chamber – in its incinerator plan. The technology is used in 2,000 plants around the world.
Professor Irene Lo Man-chi, of the University of Science and Technology’s department of civil and environmental engineering, said the technology had been proved to be a reliable option that was safe in terms of emissions.
Lo said emerging technologies, such as plasma gasification, would not be the rational choice for Hong Kong at this stage, as it would not be possible to treat the thousands of tonnes of waste produced in the city every day. The process uses plasma to convert organic matter into synthetic gas, electricity and slag.
Lo said problems with plasma technology had led to the closure of a 10-year-old plant in Japan, which had been down for two-thirds of that time. And a plan to introduce the technology in the United States was withdrawn last year as it failed to get approval from the regulator.
“Decision makers need to find the most sensible choice – can we take the risk of having so much uncertainty when we have thousands of tonnes of rubbish to handle?” she asked.
Professor Ho Kin-chung, of Open University and an alliance member, said: “We have to give people … some hope that one day the landfills will be gone.”
30 Dec 2013