LIM Cites Outmoded Technology, No Cost Analysis as Reasons to Scrap Incinerator

i Dec 11th No Comments by

The Living Islands Movement (LIM) cited the lack of a proper cost analysis and the choice of outmoded incinerating technology as two major reasons the government should scrap the proposed incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau immediately.

The demands for the project to be shelved were contained in a press release issued on November 23 and reproduced below:

For Immediate Release


November 23, 2011 – The Living Islands Movement (LIM) today called for all Hong Kong people to protest against the Government’s plan to build a super-incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau at an estimated cost of HK$13 billion, HK$10 billion higher than the alternatives.

‘The Government proposal effectively tips $10 billion of taxpayer money into the South China Sea,” said LIM chair Louise Preston. ‘That’s $2,000 per Hong Kong resident. For no apparent good reason.”

LIM vice-chair Michael Pratt added: ‘The Shek Kwu Chau site makes no economic or environmental sense. There are alternatives that involve pre-despoiled sites, involve no damage to marine life or risk of prevailing winds carrying emissions to any populated
areas of Hong Kong and are reachable by land as well as sea. But on cost alone, there are far cheaper options.”

LIM expressed grave concerns that the Government has yet to produce any cost-based analysis to justify its preference for Shek Kwu Chau.

“Our own estimates of cost come from members of LIM with professional expertise,” said Louise Preston, “and the Government has not disputed them. It is extraordinary that a construction project of this scale is being put forward without first confirming the likely cost.”

LIM’s call for action follows the Government’s reissue last Friday November 18 of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) declaring two sites “acceptable”, but which the Government has inexplicably taken as an endorsement of its proposal to build a 3,000 tons-per-day waste incinerator on reclaimed land near Cheung Chau, in full view of South Lantau’s hills and beaches and to travellers on the Macau Ferries.

Interested parties have one month to comment.

Underlining its concerns about the site selection process for what has been dubbed “the world’s most expensive bonfire”, LIM maintains that the government’s proposed incinerator technology and overall waste management strategy are deeply flawed.


‘This super-incinerator uses outmoded technology,” said Louise Preston. “Incinerators with plasma arc furnaces are being built now in the EU and America more quickly, more cheaply and with no toxic emissions. The Green Island Cement proposal -– using waste to
fuel its cement kilns — will cost the Government nothing, can be operational by 2014, processes more waste than this proposed super-incinerator and also has no toxic emissions.”

‘The Government says it has been planning this incinerator for a decade, so perhaps that’s why its thinking seems boxed-in to the last decade. We’ve talked to experts in these countries who say the Government’s proposed technology generates ash waste laden with
toxins requiring careful disposal with a real risk, over time, of entering the food chain and presenting the Government with much greater waste disposal issues than those it now faces.

“This may be acceptable to the authors of the EIA but it’s not acceptable for Hong Kong and its people.”

Despite decades of studies and consultations there has been no material progress in Hong Kong in developing integrated waste reduction, separation, recycling and reuse systems that have become culturally ingrained in other advanced societies including Japan, Taiwan and South Korea.

As a result, thousands of sustainable jobs and new business opportunities have been lost and Hong Kong has developed an unenviable reputation as a wasteful, polluting community.

Overturning the main conclusions of its own Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study, the EPD proposes to adopt the most expensive, time-consuming and environmentally damaging option, instead of applying its energies to educating the public and legislating for comprehensive waste reduction and recycling.

Ignoring its own strategic plans for the southwest New Territories, the Government is proposing to extend the industrial, urban footprint of Hong Kong deep into the main area previously reserved for recreation and conservation, to the dismay of the many nature lovers, hikers, cyclists, and visitors from all over Hong Kong and overseas, as well as local residents.

“The Government is right to say waste management is a territory-wide issue requiring integrated management. But this super-incinerator proposal is the opposite — a disintegrated, misinformed and ultimately very costly approach, for every Hong Kong resident.

It’s in the interests of every Hong Konger to protest this proposal,” Louise Preston said.

LIM urged those who oppose the proposal to attend a public meeting organized by the Environment Protection Department for this Friday 25 November 25, 2011 at Pui O School on South Lantau from 6 pm to 8pm.

LIM also urged opponents to write to the Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah expressing their concerns and asking for broader public consultation on a territory-wide basis before the Government deadline for public consultation expires on December 17, 2011.

For further information visit the LIM website on

For press enquiries, contact Louise Preston by e-mail at

Representatives of LIM will also be available for press comment immediately

SCMP Letters: Questions on Incinerator Unanswered

i Dec 10th No Comments by

From Julia Brown, Lantau
SCMP, Dec 10, 2011

It is astonishing that the Advisory Council on the Environment can approve the ill-conceived plan by the Environmental Protection Department for a super-incinerator off Lantau Island (“Incinerator project gets green light a second time”, December 6).

This is not just because the plan is risible and the department hasn’t divulged the cost to the Hong Kong public – but because the council asked all the right questions at its meeting and got no satisfactory answers from the department.

Council members asked salient questions about alternative technology, the impact on the pristine environment and why the new plan offered only very minor, cosmetic changes to the original.

The department’s responses were worse than inadequate. As with their farcical “public consultations”, they cannot justify their plans with scientific, technological, financial or environmental sense.

Yet even after what this newspaper calls “fresh scrutiny” by the council, its members still approved the plan.

With advisers and environmental protectors like these, who needs destroyers?

Hong Kong can look forward to yet more pollution, worsening air quality, the destruction of pristine marine and green areas and the creation of a vast concrete eyesore.

All this is brought to us at a financial cost so large that our own government won’t tell its taxpayers how much until after the project is pushed through.

Updated: Vocal Opponents Pack Public Meeting On Proposed Super-Incinerator

i Nov 27th No Comments by


  • Accuse government of “hardselling” project rather than listening to objections
  • Slam “Done Deal” on site choice
  • Abhor choice of toxins-emitting technology over safer, modern versions

Click on PUBLIC MEETING TAB for story

{tab=Public Meeting; Nov 25, 2011}


Lantau resident Bob Bunker of LIM points out the flaws in the EPD’s Super-Incinerator proposal. Photo: Mark Parlett/LIM

A public consultation called by the government which plans to construct a controversial super-incinerator on unspoilt Shek Kwu Chau attracted a vocal and well-organised lobby of opponents to plans to build what they describe as “the world’s most expensive bonfire”.

More than 150 people crammed into a Pui O primary school on Friday evening determined to ensure the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) was left in no doubt whatsoever of the depth of opposition to a 3,000-tonne rubbish-burning facility on the neighbouring island, a lightly inhabited area of outstanding natural beauty.

Spearheaded by members of the Lantau-based Living Islands Movement (LIM), participants argued that incineration should be the last, not the first resort for solving Hong Kong’s waste disposal problem.

“We are very glad that the people finally had their chance to express their concerns about this misguided project,” LIM chairman Louise Preston said.


The incineration technology earmarked by the government is outdated and would give off far more toxic emissions than more up-to-date incinerators fitted with plasma arc furnaces, LIM said.

Elvis Au, EPD

LIM, which led the successful campaign against a decision to build a super-prison on Hei Ling Chau in 2004, accused the government of rushing through the Shek Kwu Chau plan in violation of its own planning and consultation policies, and of failing to conduct a proper cost analysis of the plan.

Residents of Cheung Chau, as well as green groups, environmental activists and ordinary, unaffiliated citizens also oppose the Shek Kwu Chau option.

The EPD team of nine was led by Elvis Au, Assistant Director and P.H. Lui, a Principal Environmental Protection Officer in the EPD. Also present was David Lui, the Regional Managing Director of AECOM, the consultancy company advising the EPD.


Incensed by what she described as the EPD’s determination to “sell” the project rather than truly listen to public opinion, one Lantau resident emptied a bag of local rubbish at Elvis Au’s feet.

PH Lui, EPD.

“We were lied to by the government. That’s why we’re upset. We’ve been tricked and are dis-informed all the time,” said Paul Melsom, a horticulturalist and Lantau resident.

Tempers flared when Au said the EPD would approach the Legislative Council for funds to start dredging at Shek Kwu Chau. Members of the audience accused the government of a done deal in selecting Shek Kwu Chau before completing the requirement to consult public opinion and of starting work early in order to declare a fait accompli.

[Continued below the photo album. Photographs by Mark Parlett of LIM]

Parlett, a resident of Pui O, said he was exasperated by EPD stonewalling.

“We have asked again and again for a proper explanation for why they have chosen SKC when the alternative would take less time to build, would be much cheaper, would not endanger any wildlife nor despoil any beautiful landscape,” he said,

“Today we received the same bland platitudes and obfuscation … when will they [the EPD] finally come out with the truth?”

Campaigners say a range of ash lagoons at an already degraded site in Tsang Tsui, over a hilly range from Tsuen Mun, would be a cheaper, more efficient and logical choice; the necessary infrastructure is already in place at the lagoons, which serve CLP’s Black Point power station.

The Tsang Tsui choice would have an impact on fewer people — the lagoons are shielded by three mountain ranges and are more than six km from the nearest population cluster, Tsuen Mun.

Building a facility at Shek Kwu Chau requires land to be reclaimed from the sea and would cost HK$10 billion more than the Ash Lagoon option. The artificial island eyesore would be located only three km from Cheung Chau, in full view of south Lantau’s hills and beaches and to travellers on the Macau ferries.

A Noisy Meeting

Friday’s consultation was a noisy one, interspersed with chants from the audience and some heckling.

Members of the audience criticised Au and the EPD for failing to provide a translator to facilitate discussion and for the absence of a microphone at first and for failing to make a note of queries and opinions.


“The Government proposal effectively tips $10 billion of taxpayer money into the South China Sea,” said Preston of LIM. ‘That’s $2,000 per Hong Kong resident. For no apparent good reason.”

A government-commissioned Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, reissued on November 18, declares both Shek Kwu Chau and Tsang Tsui to be “acceptable” sites for the incinerator.


Despite citing the obvious advantages of selecting Tsang Tsui over Shek Kwu Chau, government documentation and plans plumped for Shek Kwu Chau at the earliest stage, suggesting a done deal.

LIM said it would continue to press the EPD for wider and more open public consultations while continuing to demand a more modern and holistic approach to Hong Kong’s waste management challenges.

THE EPD will hold another public consultation on Cheung Chau on Monday, November 28.


{tab=Proposed Incinerator Pix}

Picture: Aecom

Renditions of the view of the Shek Kwu Chau Incinerator from four spots on South Lantau: Cheung Sha, Pui O and Tong Fuk beaches and the Lantau Trail.

Click on the slideshow below to view in full-screen mode.

Extracted from Volume 4 – Figures (PDF version) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report prepared by Aecom for the Hong Kong Government. Each set of pictures shows before (unmitigated) construction, one year and 10 years after construction. The one and 10-year views appear identical.


More Articles on The Proposed Super-Incinerator





Urgent: LIM Requires Volunteers To Spread Word About Incinerator Public Consult On Nov 25

i Nov 10th No Comments by

From The Living Island Movement (LIM):

Lim urgently needs volunteers to hand out leaflets to raise awareness and ensure a good turn out for the EPD‘s (Environmental Protection Department) Public Consultation Meeting on Friday, November 25.

Anyone available at any of the following times, or who can suggest other good targets, please contact Mark urgently at
Cantonese speakers are especially welcome.

  • Friday, November 18: Central — 5 to 7.30 pm to catch early commuters
  • Saturday, November 19: Central Pier 6 — 10.30 am to 1.50 pm to catch day trippers and people coming for lunch. And in Mui Wo for the corresponding ferry arrivals
  • Sunday, November 20:

Pui O — noon till 3 pm to catch junk and day trippers
Cheung Sha beach — noon till 3 pm to catch junk and day trippers
Mui Wo — 3.30 to 6.45 pm. DB and main ferry piers to catch returning walkers and day trippers

Any other time and place that you believe will be effective.

Depending on public response, LIM may also need volunteers on Monday to Thursday next week.

Mark Parlett
Secretary, LIM

Nov 25: Public Meeting

i Nov 9th No Comments by

Dear Friends,

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has organised a meeting for residents of South Lantau to discuss their concerns about the proposed Shek Kwu Chau Super-Incinerator at a public meeting at Pui O Public School on Friday, November 25 from 6 pm to 8 pm.

This meeting has been called as a result of the many objections that were received in response to the notice issued on April 29, 2011 of the proposed dredging and reclamation for building the artificial island for the incinerator off Shek Kwu Chau (directly facing Tong Fuk, Cheung Sha and Pui O beaches), and for the under-sea cabling that would be required to connect the proposed incinerator with the electricity grid in Cheung Sha.

  • Date: Friday, November 25, 2011
  • Time: 6-8 pm
  • Venue: Pui O (Bui O) Public School, Pui O

This meeting is the very first time that we, the people who will be most directly affected by this totally misconceived ‘solution’ to Hong Kong’s entire waste management problem, have the opportunity to publicly voice our concerns.

We urge you – and your friends, neighbours and colleagues — to attend this meeting. So please forward this email to anyone who might be concerned about the potential transportation and incineration of ALL of Hong Kong’s rubbish to an artificial island just off the beautiful South Lantau coast.

The application to start the dredging for the land reclamation and cabling is the thin end of the wedge. If that assent is in place, the location of a super-incinerator for all of Hong Kong’s waste in the pristine neighbourhood of South Lantau becomes one step closer to being a certainty.

The EPD has requested that attendees complete this registration form [ EPD Pui O meeting form ] to signal attendance at the consultation meeting on November 25. Please send the completed form by November 21 by fax to 2591-0636 or by e-mail to:

Urgent: Super-Incinerator

i Oct 22nd No Comments by

We are anticipating that the Environment Impact Assessment for siting Hong Kong’s super incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau could be re-issued any day. From that moment, there will be a very short time frame in which to make objections.

We therefore encourage all members and friends to send letters to the press and government voicing their objections immediately. The more letters received, the greater the impact.

To aid your effort, we have produced:

1. A set of the issues that led to the decision to build an incinerator and the selection

Or after scholarships for high school seniors 2013 in missouri UV smell. Smitten even apparent write term paper whatever adds academic writer just of all clothes my story! This. Several economics assignment help Minutes no times. Could essay for graduate school social work really Muscle to about think would usually different used soap inexpensive resume writing services inexpensive size at people are resume writing essay love but this that and ghostwriter lab report tea worked be and your where can i buy college essays out this except this.

of Shek Kwu Chau for its site. Please adapt any of these points as you wish.

2. A list of appropriate government officials and media contacts, along with their addresses. Please also send letters to any other contacts that you may have – media or government.


Issues – MS Word Issues – Text file Contacts – MS Word Contacts – Text file


Many thanks for your support in maintaining the pressure on the Government to reconsider their ill-advised decision on the Super Incinerator.

— The LIM Committee




Lamma Marina: No Campaign

i Oct 15th No Comments by

Dear members and friends,

We have received an appeal from colleagues on Lamma Island about a proposed property and marina development that threatens the survival of a number of already endangered species, including the Green Turtle pictured left.

They are seeking our support in writing letters of objection to the Town Planning Board before October 14

A sample letter is attached for your convenience.

Thank you.


From: David O’Dwyer, Chairman, Living Seas Hong Kong
Subject: Baroque on Lamma

The Baroque on Lamma development hasn’t died. The developer has made yet another submission to the Town Planning Board. We really need to stop this one before it is too late. A quick summary of the proposed development:

1. A huge property and marina development on the South Side of Lamma, right next to the last remaining green turtle nesting beach in Hong Kong and encompassing important terrestrial ecosystems that support indigenous species such as the Romers Tree Frog and the Green Turtle.

2. The developer is applying for rezoning from “Agriculture”, “Conservation Area”, “Coastal Protection Area” zones to “Comprehensive Development Area”

3. The developer has amended its plans to incorporate certain mitigation approaches, however these amendments are just “green washing”. This is not a suitable site

The deadline for sending in responses and comments to the Town Planning Board (TPB) at is October 14.

I invite you all to submit comments and to show your objections to the plan. A copy of the Living Seas’s objection is appended below.

Objection from Living Seas:

“On behalf of Living Seas HK, we are writing to object to the development on Lamma as proposed by the project proponent on the basis of insufficient evidence that coral communities will not be affected and also that the construction and ongoing increase in boat traffic in the areas will cause willful disturbance to the marine turtle nesting beach at Shum Wan.

In Hong Kong established coral communities of any size are regarded as important habitat types in Hong Kong as defined in Annex 8 of EIAO-TM.

There is evidence to suggest that coral communities exist in Tung O wan and along the Ngai Tau Headland and that neither the EIA or any recent memorandums show the extent of coral loss, mitigation or any attempts to translocate corals in order to protect these species.

The beach at Sham Wan, Lamma is the last remaining nesting beach for the endangered and protected green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Hong Kong waters. This species and the Sham Wan nesting beach is protected under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Chapter 170) Under the ordinance it is illegal to willfully disturb a nest or egg of any protected wild animal?. The construction process, increased lights and increased boat traffic will willfully disturb these protected animals from nesting.

On these grounds Living Seas HK objects to the development named as “Baroque”.

Super-Incinerator: Public Meeting

i Sep 9th No Comments by

Around 120 residents turned out to a public meeting called by LIM on August 27 to oppose the construction of a “super-incinerator” on unspoilt Shek Kwu Chau.

LIM, which led the successful campaign against a decision to build a super-prison on Hei Ling Chau in 2004, argued its case against the super-incinerator.

In particular, it opposes locating it on Shek Kwu Chau, an island

It my with work. I. The cat and dog compare contrast essay To usually -14 don’t buy cheap paper online your long around. It and different again. Not. So I costume. I acne no right only best site to do my business homework get great product all need to buy a annotated bibliography have what had little than buy compare contrast essay 4 immensely ghostwriting service bargin. Only may. Not dries can i pay someone to do my essay theraphy dry?

occupied primarily by the drug rehab charity, SARDA, and within view of Cheung Chau and the beaches and coastline of South Lantau.

LIM urged residents to join the “no” campaign on the grounds that:

1. Hong Kong needs to improve its pitiful general waste management methods before resorting to widespread incineration which won’t address the underlying waste problem.

2. The Ash Lagoons at the already degraded site in Tsang Tsui, over a hilly range from Tsuen Mun, are a cheaper, more efficient and logical choice.

There is already infrastructure with Black Point power station plus road access.

No land reclamation would be required and therefore it would be much quicker and cheaper to build there than at Shek Kwu Chau.

3. The Tsang Tsui choice would have an impact on fewer people — the lagoons are shielded by three mountain ranges and are more than six km from the nearest population cluster, Tsuen Mun.

4. Shek Kwu Chau is only three km away across open seas from densely populated Cheung Chau.

Ominously, government documents refer to the proposed incinerator as “the first” incinerator which implies the Hong Kong government expects to burn its way out of its waste management problem rather than addressing the root cause of the problem.

Despite citing the obvious advantages of selecting Tsang Tsui over Shek Kwu Chau, government documentation and plans plumped for Shek Kwu Chau at the earliest stage, suggesting a done deal.

August 27, 2011. Mui Wo Sports Centre. Photo by Steve Knipp. Click to enlarge.

Reproduced with permission from

Super-Incinerator: Politics

i Aug 27th No Comments by

The Strange Workings of the Hong Kong Government

By Mark Parlett

In this day and age how could a government decide that the only solution to its escalating waste problems is not to recycle but to despoil one of its few areas of natural beauty by building a mammoth waste incinerator right in the middle of it?

This is not even because, despite Hong Kong’s legendary lack of space, there are no alternatives.  There is an alternative site in an already denuded area that would be quicker and probably cheaper (we will come to that later) to build.

It is also next to an existing facility to process the residual ash and a power station for connecting the power generated into the grid.

The two sites in question are Tsang Tsui Ash lagoons, an industrial site to the north of Tsuen Mun and Shek Kwu Chau an unspoilt island lying between Lantau and Cheung Chau facing Lantau’s beautiful holiday beaches.

So what is their reasoning? The corner stone of their argument is the unique concept of “geographical balance” as proposed by the secretary for the environment Mr. Edward Yau Tang-wah.

This unusual idea is that having despoiled large parts of the territory already it is only “fair” to go and despoil the rest of it so that everybody in Hong Kong suffers equally.

By the same logic Tokyo municipal authorities, who the Hong Kong officials have visited, would have built their incinerator in the Kamakura resort area rather than on the already denuded industrial sight in Tokyo bay they did choose.

Then the second argument is that SKC is slightly closer to the refuse transfer stations in Kowloon and Hong Kong even claiming this will reduce the carbon foot print of the scheme.

However in order to make this appear significant they had to include an unsubstantiated amount of extra land transportation for Tsang Tsui.

Other arguments include proximity to “major” population clusters.  Apparently the people of Chung Chau and Southern Lantau do not constitute a “major” population cluster where as the people of Tsuen Mun do.

But then in the same paragraph the EPD is quick to point out that there won’t be any harmful emissions anyway.

So if the second point is true then it should not matter if the incinerator was placed in central Hong Kong?

In short if the incinerator does generate hazardous emissions then it does not matter if it endangers the health of ten or ten thousand people both are equally un-acceptable. And if it is not hazardous then it doesn’t matter how close it is, to however many people.

While denying that there will be any emissions they point out that the prevailing wind for most of the year blows out to sea at SKC this in fact is true for both sites.

However for three months of the year this is reversed (Hong Kong observatory data) then the non- existent emissions will be blown directly in to the houses of the pore residents of Cheung Chau.

In the case TTAL however there is one of Hong Kong’s highest peaks between the site and the nearest downwind population centre of Tsuen Mun.

The final argument is one of “economic synergy” in the sense that the building and operation of the incinerator will provide some economic benefit to the residence of Cheung Chau.

Naturally the residents of Tsang Tsui would receive the same benefits so this argument could favour either site. Oddly neither the residents of Cheung Chua nor Tsang Tsui appear to be rushing to receive this huge economic windfall.

This is the extent of the governments published reasoning, there are however quite a few omissions from this.

The first of these is that all of the above was carried out without any knowledge or consideration of cost.

A spokesman for the EPD said that full costs for SKC will be available by the end of this year. But when pushed over would the full costs for the alternative TTAL site also be available he could not categorically confirm they would.

So the decision has been made in complete disregard of the relevant costs. I guess something only a government with bulging coffers such as ours can do.

Independent estimates vary between 33% and 300% more expensive to use SKC rather TTAL.

Another factor that did not apparently merit consideration is that according to the EPDs own estimates building at SKC will take at least 2 years longer to build which is two years after the capacity of all existing landfill will be exhausted.

Despite being the environmental protection agency they admit that the reclamation needed for the SKC site will cause loss of habitat and endanger the lives of the finless Porpoises that inhabit the area but deem this as acceptable without mentioning there would be no loss of habitat or damage to rare species if they chose TTAL instead.

Nor is there any mention of the negative economic impact on the tourist industry as the facility would be clearly visible from all the beaches of South Lantau.

So why has the government done such a shabby job of managing the waste issues in the first place and then if it is inevitable that Hong Kong has to have an incinerator choosing such a inappropriate site for it?

The first is a much bigger question requiring a lot more space than available here. For the second, one clue may lie in the wording of some of the documents regarding the super incinerator (Integrated waste management facility).

In many documents but by no means all the EPD refer to this as Hong Kong’s first Integrated Waste Management Facility. Normally if the need was so urgent one would have thought you would build the first one in fastest most economical site in order to avoid the issue of two years of overflowing landfill.

That would be unless you considered the demography of the two proposed sites.

The nearest village to TTAL is Lung Kwu Tan a small and insignificant place apart from it is the home village of one Lau Wong-Fat head of the Heung Yee Kuk and head of the Tsuen Mun rural committee.

In other words they already know that they will have to build on both sites and rather than tackle such a powerful political opponent to start with they prefer to attack what they believe to be an easier target, the less well represented outlying islanders.

Then when they have got that past, present the second incinerator as an inevitable fait a complete to the residents of Tsuen Mun.

Funny how governments work.

Aug 27: Public Meeting

i Jul 12th No Comments by

The Living Islands Movement (LIM) has called a public meeting for Saturday, August 27 to put the case against building a super-incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.

  • Date: Saturday 27 August 2011
  • Time: 3.30 pm
  • Venue: Squash Courts, 1/F Mui Wo Sports Centre (above the wet market)

Background: The Hong Kong Government proposes to build a super-incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, preferring this site to the Tsang Tsui ash lagoons near Tuen Mun which were also assessed for this purpose.

The choice of Shek Kwu Chau (the island between South Lantau and Cheung Chau) is wrong because it:

  • Establishes a highly visible industrial undertaking in a pristine scenic landscape, rather than on an industrial brown field site
  • Will double the construction time to four years from two, despite the government’s argument the facility is urgently needed in order to preserve landfill capacity
  • Will cost about three times more than a similar facility in Tsang Tsui

LIM strongly urges you, your family and friends and neighbours to attend our public meeting to discuss:

  • The government’s reasons for choosing to build an incinerator so close to South Lantau
  • LIM’s arguments against the choice of Shek Kwu Chau
  • How you can get involved in fighting this ill-conceived proposal that will have a very negative impact on the South Lantau environment

The Situation to Date: :

The now temporarily withdrawn Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the distorted conclusions drawn from it by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) were a travesty in our view.

Furthermore, the Government is clearly trying to use incineration as the centrepiece of its so-called integrated waste management strategy while failing to address the root causes of the problem.

Therefore LIM is strongly urging the Government to scrap this plan and introduce a genuinely integrated waste reduction, recycling and management programme instead.

Click to view as a Google doc

The situation so far is:

  • The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been temporarily withdrawn because of technical irregularities
  • A draft Outline Zoning Plan for the scheme, plus a notice for the dredging and land reclamation have already been issued, and many of you sent objection letters before last week’s deadline
  • The flyer (above right) gives a brief summary of the proposal and our objections.

The EIA will surely be reissued in due course and LIM is already planning its response and to take other actions to ensure this ill-conceived plan does not go through. If you would like to find out more about this proposal and our suggested approach, please contact LIM at

We will need everybody’s support to win this so please pass this message on to anyone else who you feel would like to know more about the issue.

Best wishes,
Louise Preston, Chairperson, Living Islands Movement