The Blog

Send a Letter to EA Panel

i Feb 22nd No Comments by

Dear LIM Members and Friends

RE: Urging you to write an email to express your concerns about the Mega Incinerator ASAP (especially before Monday morning).

You may not have heard that the Panel on Environmental Affairs will be meeting on Monday (24 Feb) at 2:30 to consider approving the building of the Mega Incinerator near Shek Kwu Chau.

Details of the meeting can be found at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/panels/ea/agenda/ea20140224.htm and the public can attend by booking a seat in the public gallery via 3919 3399.

The LIM committee has written to all members of the panel asking them to challenge and reject the proposal rather than give it the official endorsement needed to make progress. (View our letter)

Below are listed “Six Key Questions On Waste Management In Hong Kong” taken from the letter.

You might also like to write a letter to the panel members and express your concern.  The main email address is panel_ea@legco.gov.hk though we also have created an email template to all panel members (click on this link to create the email).  Feel free to base your response on the suggestions in our letter though of course feel free to add your own concerns as well.

The list of Panel Members can be found at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/panels/ea/general/ea_mem.htm.  If you know any of them, give them a call and discuss your concerns.

There are 3 members on the “Panel on Environmental Affairs” who represent New Territories West (which covers the Islands District). They are:

  • Hon Albert CHAN Wai-yip (albert.wychan@yahoo.com.hk)
  • Hon LEE Cheuk-yan (yanlee@hkctu.org.hk) 
  • Hon CHAN Han-pan (benchanlegco@gmail.com)

Of course share this email with your friends and ask them to write a letter to the Panel and to the media.

Regards

The Living Islands Committee

SIX KEY QUESTIONS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HONG KONG 

  1. The Bureau has admitted that their statistics for recycling are false and misleading. The previous claims that 48-52% of Hong Kong’s waste is recycled have been shown to be incorrect. Waste being imported and re-exported without processing tonnage was previously added to the recycling figure but excluded from the waste generation figure. How can EPD be trusted on the Blueprint when it is based on such misleading and/or inadequate statistics? 
  2. LIM estimates that the true recycling percentage could be less than 10%. It is also clear from everyday observation that there is very little actual waste recycling in Hong Kong. The few “three-colour” recycling bins in use are mostly in obscure or difficult to get to locations, are too small and are badly designed, while the public is given no guidance on what types of plastic and paper waste can be recycled and what not to put in recycling bins.  The recycling bins are often overflowing and remain so for days on end. Why is the EPD ignoring the strong demand from the public to recycle more waste and why are they not making much greater efforts at all levels to provide this most basic waste management infrastructure?
  3. The EPD’s strategy for the destruction of waste is based on sending unsorted waste to landfill or mass-burn incineration in a remote location. There are no intermediate steps between collection and dumping or burning. If the IWMF proposal is implemented, it will effectively rule out waste separation at source, intermediate stage sorting and the development of an effective recycling industry in Hong Kong. There will be no need for any of this if it can all just be burned. Why does the Blueprint contain no plans for sorting of waste to divert it away from landfill or incineration?
  4. The large-scale incinerator will result in a net daily reduction in waste of 2,000 tonnes, while actually producing around 900 tonnes per day of highly toxic waste in the form of fly ash, which will still be sent to landfill. How can the huge economic and environmental cost of this IWMF be justified for such a small gain, which could be equally achieved through enhanced waste reduction and recycling?
  5. Moving-grate incineration only achieves a 70% reduction in the amount of waste that is burned. This is at the expense of converting some of the waste into gases that contain poisonous dioxins which are pushed into the atmosphere, and by reducing the rest to a highly toxic ash residue. The claim that this is “Modern” incineration is simply not true. Why does the Bureau continue to resist other rapidly emerging technologies in the face of the growing evidence that these technologies are gaining acceptance around the world?
  6. Why is the Bureau leading a delegation of LegCo Members to Europe to study incinerators and alternative technologies only after seeking approval for the out-dated mass-burn incinerator?  

Comments