煤炭是加劇 #氣候變化 的主兇，是最骯髒的化石燃料。全球超過 7 成的溫室氣體排放來自燃煤發電，同時，煤炭引發缺水危機、污染環境、威脅人類健康。
相反，可再生能源清潔、可靠又便宜，效能亦更高；例如丹麥去年單是用風力發電，就能應付超過8成的電力需求了。
我們還有甚麼藉口繼續讓煤炭留下？
請即簽署，表示支持 #全民氣候行動，讓各大領袖聽到我們的聲音、正視問題：http://grnpc.org/IgHJg
了解更多有關「氣候科學」：http://grnpc.org/IgHBv
2014年11月25日 星期二
【煤炭 VS 可再生能源？】
煤炭是加劇 #氣候變化 的主兇，是最骯髒的化石燃料。全球超過 7 成的溫室氣體排放來自燃煤發電，同時，煤炭引發缺水危機、污染環境、威脅人類健康。
相反，可再生能源清潔、可靠又便宜，效能亦更高；例如丹麥去年單是用風力發電，就能應付超過8成的電力需求了。
我們還有甚麼藉口繼續讓煤炭留下？
了解更多有關「氣候科學」：http://grnpc.org/IgHBv
2014年11月23日 星期日
2014年10月28日 星期二
常識 - 垃圾徵費(固體廢物收費)
「廢物徵費」是廢物管理的一種方法，通過向廢物產生者徵收其所產生之廢物的收集、輸送及處理費用，促進「污染者自付」原則。廢物徵費寓禁於徵，以經濟誘因促使社會改變過度消耗的生活習慣，從而減少廢物棄置量及推動廢物回收；但徵費可能導致公眾地方的廢物丟棄量增加，並加重市民經濟負擔。固體廢物收費諮詢文件 提4種收費模式
政府就固體廢物收費，發表諮詢文件，提出多種收費方式，包括按量、參考用水量、定額以及只向特定廢物產生者收費的四種模式。
在按量收費方面，提出可以根據廢物的體積、重量、個別場所以及預繳垃圾袋的方式。
在參考用水量方面的原則，是按近似量的原則收費，而不按實質廢物的產生量。
至於向特定廢物產生者收費，例如向工商業在運送廢物時收取入閘費處理廢物，不過政府認為這個模式運作上可能有困難。
在參考用水量方面的原則，是按近似量的原則收費，而不按實質廢物的產生量。
至於向特定廢物產生者收費，例如向工商業在運送廢物時收取入閘費處理廢物，不過政府認為這個模式運作上可能有困難。
諮詢期三個月，至2012年4月10日。
文件表示，參考外國經驗，實行收費後，廢物可減少一半。
參考短片- 鏗鏘集-垃圾圍城
參考短片: 時事追擊-香港垃圾
問題
簡述擴建堆填區、興建新式焚化爐及廢物徵費方案
2011年1月，時任環境局局長邱騰華強調要多管齊下處理逼在眉睫的垃圾處理問題，共提出3個政策方向︰
1. 擴建堆填區方案
2010年10月，邱騰華表示，將軍澳堆填區將於3年後爆滿，有需要擴充，政府擬將清水灣郊野公園5公頃用地改為堆填區。但立法會擴建堆填區小組委員會投票，一致反對政府擴建將軍澳堆填區。
2. 興建新式焚化爐方案
2008年1月，政府完成焚化爐選址研究工作，揀選了屯門曾嘴及大嶼山以南的石鼓洲旁一幅需填海的土地，作為兩個可供考慮興建以焚化為核心技術的綜合廢物管理設施的地點。第一階段的綜合廢物管理設施每日將處理3000公噸廢物，佔地約10公頃，足以為香港10萬個家庭提供電力。政府在2011年12月通過環評報告，報告指石鼓洲是最合適選址。
廢物徵費方案
2012年1月初，政府就家居廢物徵費諮詢巿民，為期三個月。諮詢結果顯示，有過半數意見支持徵費，當中一半人贊成按垃圾量收費。
現任環境局局長黃錦星認為，現在是好時機推出垃圾徵費政策，但指政策的細節複雜，「會影響付錢、收垃圾設施、配套，未來一步步部署」。當局不會輕視政策推出後的阻力，需要給予公眾適應期，就如在台北巿推行徵費時一樣。
其它城巿就垃圾按量收費經驗︰
台北
環保組織綠領行動稱，台北家居和工商戶廢物處理相當完善，巿民每天包好廢物，使用政府專用盛載垃圾，並自攜已分類垃圾到指定地點，近年棄置的家居垃圾大減。台北政府亦取消或關閉街道上大部分垃圾桶及垃圾站，減少非法傾倒。台北巿環保局主任秘書盧世昌承認，徵費初期遭地方團體反對，推行半年前舉行過千場諮詢會，並嚴厲打擊違法，包括亂丟垃圾罰1200元新台幣(約港幣312元)。盧世昌建議，收費模式可加入創意，如以廢物交換紀念品、禮卷等，不一定要全部收費。
首爾
2011年，地球之友到落實廢物徵費的韓國首爾考察，發現社區須另建中小型廚餘處理，巿民和商戶末可實行源頭分類，最後將「減無可減」的廢物丟進垃圾桶。當地環境局廢物資源管理分部副署長KIM JIN-MOUNG 向地球之友副環境事務經理區詠芷表示，「韓國人與香港人都是經濟動物，一定要有經濟誘因，才有減廢動力」。
廣州
廣州現時每日以堆填及焚化處理的生活垃圾有近1.4萬公噸。該巿由2011年4月起實施新例，將城巿垃圾分為可回收物、餐廳垃圾、有害垃圾及其它垃圾4類，若不按規定分類投放、收集、運輸和處置，責令改正後仍不改正，個人每次罰款50元人民幣；單位每立方米垃圾罰款500元人民幣，不足1立方米亦當1立方米計算。規例又列明，若住宅區設物業管理，須由物業服務公司負責設置城巿生活垃圾分類收集容器，違規會被罰款1萬至3萬元人民幣。
港府訂10年人均減廢四成最快2016徵垃圾費倘「成本價」每人每月20元
【明報專訊】環境局昨公布10年減廢計劃，透過包括廢物徵費政策、投資310億元擴建堆填區和焚化爐等設施，以及推動減廢運動等3招，期望10年內將人均棄置廢物量大減四成，其中最快2016年向市民徵收廢物費，若政府收回成本，每名家庭成員每月需付20元。但有環團認為政府應加速推行家居廚餘回收，在源頭增設回收設施，才推行徵費。
政府2004年推出《都市固體廢物管理政策大綱（2005-2014）》，事隔9年，再公布《香港資源循環藍圖2013-2022》（下稱《藍圖》），提出整全的廢物管理策略，訂下未來10年人均減廢目標。《藍圖》顯示2011年本港人均棄置堆填區的廢物量為每日1.27公斤，較台北市1公斤、首爾0.95公斤及東京都0.77公斤高，有需要透過各項措施減廢，於2017年減20％至1公斤，到2022年減40％至0.8公斤。
增建設施推減廢運動
環境局認為10年減廢四成是進取的目標；事實上，大量減廢背後，亦牽涉多項措施，若當中有變數，例如未能推行徵費，即無法達標（見另稿）。《藍圖》指出，到2017年底，預料首兩期廚餘回收設施已啟用，每日吸納50萬公斤（500公噸）廚餘；惜食香港運動達到減廚餘一成效果，加上其他徵費措施，例如膠袋、電器、玻璃樽等，預期可將廢物棄置量減20％。
徵費擬年中諮詢
至於餘下20％減廢「配額」，則靠廢物徵費政策去達成。《藍圖》對徵費着墨不多，但展示了政府每年管理廢物開支高達14億元，每1000公斤（1公噸）廢物處理費用為520元。本報以現時人均每日1.27公斤的垃圾棄置量推算，政府若要收回成本，每人每月須繳付約20元，如10年後成功減廢四成，費用則下調至12元。但環境局長黃錦星強調，是否收回成本非考慮因素，最重要是徵費水平可鼓勵減廢及培養回收文化，可持續發展委員會正籌備今年中就徵費諮詢公眾。
硬件方面，主要包括兩期廚餘回收中心、廢電器電子產品處理設施、擴建堆填區及興建焚化爐等。黃錦星形容焚化爐「不可或缺」，可大幅壓縮廢物，轉廢為能，「香港地小人多，不可以永遠靠堆填」。
今年或申撥款擴建堆填區
雖然石鼓洲及屯門選址均通過環評可興建焚化爐，但環境局指假如達到10年減廢四成目標，餘下需要處理的廢物有6000公噸，1個焚化爐已足以處理3000公噸，毋須增建，餘下廢物則運往堆填區。
對於將軍澳居民反對擴建堆填區，黃錦星表示理解居民訴求，但認為3個堆填區位處本港3個「角落」，具策略上優點，亦是「不可或缺」的設施，因此計劃今年內向立法會申請撥款，進行擴建工程。
目前本港每日產生的都市固體廢物約1.7萬公噸，當中48％回收，餘下52％堆填。《藍圖》提出，10年內將回收率再推高至55％，餘下廢物，焚化及堆填約各佔一半，每日約3000公噸，堆填區每日接收廢物量，僅為現時的三分之一。
(2013年5月21日)
參考資料 : 東方日報–垃圾徵費四方案
建議思考方向:
1. 按量收費或定額收費的可行性及成效
2. 試析政府立法強制廢物收費時可能面對的社會阻力，並建議解決方法。
3.「提高經濟透因就能加強社會整體的減廢意識」，你是否同意此觀點?參考資料及按個人觀察，解釋你的立場。
1. 按量收費或定額收費的可行性及成效
2. 試析政府立法強制廢物收費時可能面對的社會阻力，並建議解決方法。
3.「提高經濟透因就能加強社會整體的減廢意識」，你是否同意此觀點?參考資料及按個人觀察，解釋你的立場。
(每人發表意見不少於100字，最少回應別人一次不少於50字。)
港府訂10年人均減廢四成 最快2016徵垃圾費 倘「成本價」每人每月20元
常識 - 膠袋垃圾問題
根據財政司司長唐英先生發表的2005 至06 年度財政預算案顯示，本港每日棄置於堆填區的膠袋廢料達 1,064 公噸，相等於3,300多萬個膠袋。即每名市民平均每天丟棄近5個膠袋，情況令人震驚。相比世界其他地方，香港的人均膠袋使用量是澳洲的四倍，愛爾蘭的三倍！每年單是用於膠袋處理的費用便需要4,000萬元巨額。
膠袋不但不能天然分解，更令堆填區壽命縮減。在堆填區飽和後，香港很大機會將膠袋焚化處理。燃燒膠袋會產生有毒氣體，令香港的空氣質素更加惡化，嚴重影響我們的健康。另外，部份膠袋會進入河道或郊野，纏繞著野生動物或被牠們誤食，嚴重危及牠們的生命，破壞生態環境。
而那些所謂可降解的膠袋，能否完全降解仍然有待研究和試驗證明，經分解後所釋出的物質對環境有甚麼影響等的問題亦備受關注；再者，可降解膠袋亦需要堆填處理。
由此證明，可降解膠袋根本不是一條可行的出路。
資料來源 :
相關網址 : http://www.gsc.org.hk/gsc/public/plasticbags/20051008_PB_Levy_Proposal.pdf
膠袋不但不能天然分解，更令堆填區壽命縮減。在堆填區飽和後，香港很大機會將膠袋焚化處理。燃燒膠袋會產生有毒氣體，令香港的空氣質素更加惡化，嚴重影響我們的健康。另外，部份膠袋會進入河道或郊野，纏繞著野生動物或被牠們誤食，嚴重危及牠們的生命，破壞生態環境。
而那些所謂可降解的膠袋，能否完全降解仍然有待研究和試驗證明，經分解後所釋出的物質對環境有甚麼影響等的問題亦備受關注；再者，可降解膠袋亦需要堆填處理。
由此證明，可降解膠袋根本不是一條可行的出路。
資料來源 :
相關網址 : http://www.gsc.org.hk/gsc/public/plasticbags/20051008_PB_Levy_Proposal.pdf
常識 - 電動車普及 政府力推 市民嫌貴
http://paper.wenweipo.com [2011-11-23] 我要評論(0)  |
 放大圖片
■香港政府近年積極推動電動車的使用和發展，但因本地充電站偏少，至今仍未普及。 資料圖片
——能源科技與環境＋今日香港＋全球化＋現代中國
全球暖化危機不斷加劇。有環保專家曾預言，若我們不及早對抗，將會有部分近岸地區被淹沒。三面環海的香港被視為高危一族。為免預言成真，港府早已積極推出多項環保措施，致力減少本地以至珠三角地區的碳排放。而近年於歐美國家興起、標榜「零廢氣」的電動車，亦被引入，並計劃逐漸取代傳統使用汽油或柴油驅動的公共交通工具。究竟電動車的效益是否如此巨大？電動車能否達到普及全港的目標？當中可能遇到哪些技術和環境的限制？這些問題都值得社會深思。 ■香港文匯報記者 吳欣欣
議題探索：能源科技與環境（按教育局課程指引）
主題1：能源科技的影響
能源科技如何與環境問題相關？
． 能源科技的發展怎樣影響能源的開發和使用？
． 能源科技的發展在甚麼程度上引起或解決環境的問題？
． 環境的轉變對能源科技的發展有何啟示？
主題2：環境與可持續發展
可持續發展為何成為當代的重要議題？其出現與科學及科技的發展又有何關係？
． 科學與科技可以如何配合可持續發展？有何限制？
． 人們的生活方式及社會發展怎樣影響環境和能源的使用？
． 社會大眾、不同的團體和政府，可以為可持續發展的未來作甚麼回應？ ■香港文匯報記者 吳欣欣
概念鏈接：何謂電動車？
電動車(Electric Vehicle)是指以電動馬達代替傳統汽油或柴油內燃引擎推動的車輛，車內設可循環充電式電池，只需接駁外置電源即可充電。電動車可視乎產生電力的方法分為4大類，包括電池電動車、油電混合電動車、充電式油電混合電動車及燃料電池電動車。 ■資料來源：香港電燈有限公司、中華電力有限公司 ■香港文匯報記者 吳欣欣
新聞背景：港產MyCar登陸歐美
香港的電動車發展始於2003年，由香港理工大學與汽車生產商EuAuto Technology Limited合作研發MyCar，並獲得香港創新科技署撥款200萬元資助部分研發經費。2007年9月，MyCar的原型車面世，在2008年獲得歐洲認證。2009年，MyCar的生產線正式啟動，並在歐洲銷售，如英國、法國、丹麥、意大利、奧地利及愛爾蘭等。同年，MyCar通過香港運輸署的類型審核，獲准在港銷售，售價為97,000港元起。2010年，EuAuto Technology Limited獲美國汽車製造商GreenTech Automotive入股，MyCar會在美國設生產線，並在當地銷售。
財爺豁免首次登記費
鑒於汽車廢氣是本港空氣污染的主要源頭，政府近年積極引入電動車，以改善空氣素質。財政司司長曾俊華在《2009-2010財政預算案》中宣布，電動車輛首次登記稅豁免將延長5年，至2014年3月31日，鼓勵市民使用；其後又在《2010-2011財政預算案》明確指出，政府會發揮帶頭的作用，包括為警隊購入10輛電動車等。
特首倡全面用電動巴
另外，特首曾蔭權在《2010-2011施政報告》中宣布，當現有巴士專營權在未來數年陸續屆滿時，政府會在新的專營權中加入條款，要求巴士公司在更換巴士時，積極使用零排放或最環保巴士。為令此措施獲切實推行，曾蔭權在《2011-2012施政報告》進一步建議，撥款1億8,000萬元，供專營巴士公司購置36輛電動巴士在多條路線試驗行駛，以便全面測試電動巴士在不同環境、不同路線下的運作表現。若測試成功，政府會在顧及專營巴士公司及乘客的負擔能力下，以最合適的方法推動巴士公司更全面地使用電動巴士。
有人認為，以上措施為全港普及電動車的最終目標，鋪設重要的道路根基。 ■香港文匯報記者 吳欣欣
正反對對碰：減排節能 VS 充電麻煩
有人認為，電動車雖然比傳統汽車較環保，但仍有很多技術性問題有待解決。
好處
．毋需燃燒汽油，不會產生路邊廢氣，紓緩空氣污染。
．碳排放(包括電廠發電)比汽油車減少6成。
．以香港私家車每日行駛40至60公里為例，駕駛電動車每日的電費低過$10，比使用汽油作為燃料節省超過85%。
．可把逾8成能源轉化為電力，相比汽車只得15-20%的效率，大幅減少燃料費用。
．馬達毋需經過化學燃料推動，其產生的噪音及震盪比傳統汽車小。
．可省卻汽油或柴油車輛的一般定期維修工序如更換火嘴及空氣過濾元件等。
壞處
．電池壽命短，只能反覆使用300-500次，大約3年左右便會用完。
． 電池成本高，售價貴，估計約為電動車價格的3至5成。
． 因循環再造的成本高過重新製造，舊電池大多被棄置於堆填區，最終污染土地環境；而且香港目前主要依靠煤、天然氣、核電等模式發電，對減少總碳排放量並無太大幫助。
． 使用最先進的快速充電系統為電動車充入80%電量需至少15分鐘；入油只需約1分鐘。
． 充電站數目偏少，充電不方便。
． 現時大多數電動車在一次完全充電後只可行駛約100公里。
． 速度僅為每小時65至80公里。 ■香港文匯報記者 吳欣欣
多角度觀點：促進產業鏈發展 VS 環保效益被誇大
以下綜合和歸納社會不同持份者對香港廣泛使用電動車和發展電動車產業的意見：
1. 香港環境局副局長潘潔：《施政報告》提出政府會資助36輛電動巴士在香港試行，由於本地天氣潮濕及夏季炎熱，當局要研究巴士在不同環境及路面的表現，以制訂方案……本港目前有300個電動車充電站，目標是在明年中旬，市面有1,000個充電站，但相對歐美等國家在比例上每1部電動車就有7個充電站，本港仍有發展空間。
2. 香港中華廠商聯合會會長尹德勝：從技術、資金、巿場及產業配套等角度來看，香港建立電動車製造業的可行性不容低估……在香港建立電動車裝配製造基地，可吸引周邊產品和零部件廠商匯集，形成產業群聚效應；另亦可創造大量工作機會，包括增加勞動密集型的職位，紓緩日趨嚴重的結構性失業。電動車產業更可「一石多鳥」，衍生對科研、檢定測試、外形設計、環保技術等服務的需求，直接帶動檢測、創新科技、創意文化、環保四大「優勢產業」的發展。
3. My Car研發者之一、香港理工大學電機工程學系教授鄭家偉：業界可考慮發展電池出租業務，車主到達充電站，可直接更換電池，幾分鐘後即可重新上路，毋需等待充電完成，既降低成本又節省時間。
4. 香港進出口汽車商會會長羅少雄：內地正發展電動車，如奧運已動用500輛國產電動車，當局應放寬政策讓較便宜的內地電動車進口。
5. 綠色和平項目經理陳宇輝：本地50%電力來自燒煤，90%有害的二氧化硫及20%懸浮粒子均排放自發電廠，故若電力公司未有作出改善，廣泛使用電動車同樣會破壞環境。 ■資料來源：綜合各大報章 ■香港文匯報記者 吳欣欣
|
常識 - 空氣質素與健康
城市和工業發展、及現今人類的生活方式，難免產生空氣污染物。如果情況嚴重，更會威脅到人類健康。面對空氣污染的問題，香港及世界各地均需採取有效的空氣質素管理策略，以改善空氣質素。
在此情況下，香港應推行怎樣的空氣質素管理策略？本章就此課題為教師提供相關資料，藉以讓學生認識和了解以下內容：
- 空氣污染的定義和成因；
- 國際空氣質素標準及各國處理空氣污染的方法；
- 香港空氣污染的狀況；
- 香港現行的空氣質素管理策略。
| 內容 | 配件 |
| 教案基本規劃 | 空氣質素、學與教安排、建議教學程序  |
| 第一站：預習活動﹣生活小調查「你曾不適嗎？」 | 生活小調查工作紙 |
| 第二站：何謂空氣污染？ | 基礎資料(一)、課堂工作紙(一)、簡報(一)* |
| 第三站：空氣質素指標 空氣質素健康指數及空氣質素指標的相關內容更新後會在最新消息公布。敬請留意。 | 基礎資料(二)、簡報(二)* |
| 第四站：學習活動「調查市民對香港空氣質素之意見」 | 學習活動工作紙(一)、工作紙(二) |
| 第五站：香港空氣污染的概況、影響與應對策略 | 基礎資料(三)、課堂工作紙(二)、資料題工作紙(一)、簡報(三)* |
| 第六站：處理空氣污染的國際經驗 | 基礎資料(四)、簡報(四)* |
| 第七站：課堂討論「無廢，可以嗎？」 | 工作紙(一)、工作紙(二)、工作紙(三)、簡報(五)* |
| 第八站：複習工作紙、價值反思工作紙 | 複習工作紙、價值反思工作紙 |
常識 - 通識攻略：空氣污染，誰來負責？
在香港這塊彈丸之地，環保團體批評政府失職，令空氣質素不斷惡化，政府卻反指大企業才是污染源頭；在國際舞台，先進國家則與發展中國家互相推卸責任。將環保掛在口邊，實際行動欠奉，最後受害的又是誰？
Q:空氣質素惡化，對港人生活質素有何影響？
A:空氣污染會令市民健康惡化，間接導致生產力降低，增加政府公營醫療系統的負擔，同時增加政府在處理環保問題方面的成本開支，對經濟有負面影響。此外，部分海外專才亦可能因空氣質素問題拒絕來港發展。
Q:環保團體指環保政策停滯不前，責在政府，你是否同意？
A:其實每人都要負責任。香港的環保標準沒有與時並進，仍停留在西歐國家七、八十年代的水平，部分標準甚至不及內地水平，這是港府責任。四、五十歲以上的香港人，由於當年欠缺環保教育，其環保觀念並不清晰，亦凸顯政府宣傳不足的問題。亞洲人相對重視物質，收入增加後常追求生活享受，與環保觀念背道而馳。
Q:相比歐美地區，香港社會的環保意識相對薄弱，原因何在？
A:香港由工業城市發展成以金融、服務業為主的社會，只是最近二、三十年的事，西方早於五、六十年前，甚至一個世紀前已完成這個轉變，兩者存在時間差。本港經濟在近代才進入高度發展階段，其中一個特色是高度消費；直至八十年代後，人均收入顯著改善，政府才開始重視環保問題，是社會發展的速度有差異所致。
延伸思考
1.環境污染問題可說是經濟過度發展的副產品，兩者應如何取得平衡？
A．西方先進國家正提倡「可持續發展」概念，涵蓋三個範疇：在經濟發展方面倡議「綠色GDP結算」，在計算人均生產總值(GDP)增長的過程中，要減去因經濟增長而破壞環境所增加的成本；在追求社會進步的同時，應一併改善居住環境，例如增加人均綠化空間等；同時要減少污染，保護環境，這已成為先進國家的共識。
2.面對全球氣候變化，國際間的合作可否解決問題？
A．京都議定書、哥本哈根宣言，都是國際間嘗試解決氣候問題的例子。目前世界大致分成兩極，其中一方是已發展國家，他們是污染環境的元兇，在過去一百年都沒有重視環保，種下惡果，現時卻將污染責任推給發展中國家，他們自己亦因財困而無力應對問題。另一方則是發展中國家，若他們的人均生產總值並未達到每年一萬一千美元的「臨界點」，亦沒有能力推行環保，最後變成雙方互相推卸責任的困局。
常識 - 香港空氣污染問題
香港和中國近年經濟不斷發展，但隨之而來的是越來越嚴重的空氣污染。根據環保署2011年的資料，一般與路邊空氣監測站，指數超過100的日子分別是22日及172日；如使用環保署新的空氣污染指數指標，空氣污染達到偏高至嚴重的日數將分別增至129及227日。有組織指出香港是「一流經濟發展，九流空氣素質」。那麼空氣污染問題將會為香港帶來甚麼問題，及能如何有效解決呢﹖
空氣污染帶來的問題：
‧損害港人健康，增加醫療開支：空氣污染物例如二氧化硫、二氧化氮、臭氧的濃度增加，將會使呼吸道患者的入院機會增加，香港中文大學早年曾進行研究，顯示空氣污染嚴重的觀塘區，學生呼吸道問題的發病率是空氣較好沙田區的三倍；空氣污染會引致急性呼吸系統和心血管疾病，將會令香港每年在醫療開支及生產力方面損失38億元
‧增加醫療系統壓力：香港雖然屬已發展地區，2011年人均GDP達34,000美元，但是仍面對醫療資源不足問題，公立醫院的專科輪候時間過長，有些病人甚至要輪候超過一年。空氣污染將會令更多患呼吸系統毛病及心臟病患者的病情惡化及住院，不但拖長整體輪候時間，也增加前線醫務人員工作量及壓力，降低整體醫療素質
‧損香港旅遊業，打擊香港經濟：旅遊業是香港其中一個支柱行業，佔香港GDP超過5%，旅遊業從業員超過20萬人。而空氣污染一直成為旅遊業的最大隱憂，地球之友曾訪問130名導遊，指出空氣污染將會嚴重降低外地遊客來港意欲。可見持續的空氣污染將會損害香港旅遊業，甚至整體經濟發展
‧降移民及投資吸引力，削經濟增長動力：一個地區的營商環境是國際企業是否進駐的最關鍵原因，而近年，空氣素質的重要性也逐漸增加。香港美國商會曾警告，香港的空氣污染不但降低投資吸引力，還會使一些高層管理人士離開香港，39%國際企業指出空氣污染問題使他們很難招聘專才來香港工作。可見空氣污染降低高素質人才及資金來港的吸引力，削弱香港經濟增長動力
‧損中港兩地和諧，降國民身份認同：鳥類並無國籍，但是空氣污染明顯是有國籍的。雖然香港本地車輛、發電廠也排出空氣污染物，但是香港主要的空氣污染物由廣東省境內所產生，例如中山、深圳、東莞等地區的工廠及發電廠，在吹北風時香港空氣污染尤其嚴重。持續增加的外來空氣污染，令香港對中國大陸的不滿持續增加，損害兩地和諧並降低港人的國民身份認同
‧增加醫療系統壓力：香港雖然屬已發展地區，2011年人均GDP達34,000美元，但是仍面對醫療資源不足問題，公立醫院的專科輪候時間過長，有些病人甚至要輪候超過一年。空氣污染將會令更多患呼吸系統毛病及心臟病患者的病情惡化及住院，不但拖長整體輪候時間，也增加前線醫務人員工作量及壓力，降低整體醫療素質
‧損香港旅遊業，打擊香港經濟：旅遊業是香港其中一個支柱行業，佔香港GDP超過5%，旅遊業從業員超過20萬人。而空氣污染一直成為旅遊業的最大隱憂，地球之友曾訪問130名導遊，指出空氣污染將會嚴重降低外地遊客來港意欲。可見持續的空氣污染將會損害香港旅遊業，甚至整體經濟發展
‧降移民及投資吸引力，削經濟增長動力：一個地區的營商環境是國際企業是否進駐的最關鍵原因，而近年，空氣素質的重要性也逐漸增加。香港美國商會曾警告，香港的空氣污染不但降低投資吸引力，還會使一些高層管理人士離開香港，39%國際企業指出空氣污染問題使他們很難招聘專才來香港工作。可見空氣污染降低高素質人才及資金來港的吸引力，削弱香港經濟增長動力
‧損中港兩地和諧，降國民身份認同：鳥類並無國籍，但是空氣污染明顯是有國籍的。雖然香港本地車輛、發電廠也排出空氣污染物，但是香港主要的空氣污染物由廣東省境內所產生，例如中山、深圳、東莞等地區的工廠及發電廠，在吹北風時香港空氣污染尤其嚴重。持續增加的外來空氣污染，令香港對中國大陸的不滿持續增加，損害兩地和諧並降低港人的國民身份認同
解決空氣污染問題的七大方法：
‧淘汰舊柴油車輛：香港現時有12萬架柴油商業車輛，是香港本地空氣污染物的主要排放者。政府在《香港清新空氣藍圖》提出用100億港元資助更換舊有柴油商業車輛，特別是歐盟三期或之前的柴油車輛，以減少其所排放的污染物。但資助額低減低車主更換意欲，政府必須增加資助額以鼓勵購買最新歐盟五型商業車輛，改善空氣素質
‧加快巴士路線重組：巴士是空氣污染物的另一重要來源，在2008年繁忙時段巴士的數目佔德輔道中車輛總流量約30%，彌敦道約32%，同時部份路線在非繁忙時間的載客量不足30%。過多巴士造成空氣污染，道路擁擠及資源浪費問題。政府應盡快安撫不同持份者，刪減使用量低的路線或進行路線合併
‧減跨境車輛及輪船污染：香港車用燃油的含硫量有非常嚴格的規定，須少於0.005%。但是中國內地及其他國家未必有這樣嚴厲的限制，跨境車輛及輪船如在外地入油行駛到香港，將會帶來嚴重污染。所以香港政府應該制定更嚴重法例，要求來港貨船、郵輪及車輛在香港區域必須使用符合香港要求的燃油或使用電力，以減少外來污染
‧減化石能源使用：香港現時54%電力依靠燒煤產生，由於煤炭屬化石能源，燃燒化石能源將會釋放污染氣體，例如二氧化硫，氮氧化物及懸浮粒子等污染物，是造成香港污染的重要原因。因此香港政府長遠而言應該更大力發展可再生能源，例如風力發電及太陽能發電，減少污染物排放
‧實行道路收費計劃：香港現時除了隧道和主要橋樑需要徵收費用外，其他道路都無徵收過路費。長遠而言，政府可研究徵收道路使用費，以財政壓力減少市民使用私家車，鼓勵使用公共交通工具，以減少私家車的空氣污染物排放，更能紓緩因車輛過多而導致堵塞及排放污染物的情況
‧增加環保教育：政府可通過學校教育及媒體宣傳向市民傳遞環保信息，減少污染物的排放，例如節省用電、使用公共交通工具等。同時也應該對政府高層官員進行教育，讓官員在政策制定層面上更關注某政策是否對污染環境或污染空氣。藉教育長遠解決污染問題
‧改善內地跨境污染問題：由於香港大多數空氣污染物由內地所產生，因此香港單方面的措施不能有效解決問題。香港政府和市民可通過不同的場合及社會運動，促使中央政府對香港及廣東省跨境污染問題的關注。促請中央政府加緊內地工廠及車輛的污染物排放要求，增加內地官員法治意識，防止不法官員貪污，包庇污染性工業的存在。雖然這並非短期能做到，但是長遠而言這無疑是改善香港空氣污染問題的正確方向
‧加快巴士路線重組：巴士是空氣污染物的另一重要來源，在2008年繁忙時段巴士的數目佔德輔道中車輛總流量約30%，彌敦道約32%，同時部份路線在非繁忙時間的載客量不足30%。過多巴士造成空氣污染，道路擁擠及資源浪費問題。政府應盡快安撫不同持份者，刪減使用量低的路線或進行路線合併
‧減跨境車輛及輪船污染：香港車用燃油的含硫量有非常嚴格的規定，須少於0.005%。但是中國內地及其他國家未必有這樣嚴厲的限制，跨境車輛及輪船如在外地入油行駛到香港，將會帶來嚴重污染。所以香港政府應該制定更嚴重法例，要求來港貨船、郵輪及車輛在香港區域必須使用符合香港要求的燃油或使用電力，以減少外來污染
‧減化石能源使用：香港現時54%電力依靠燒煤產生，由於煤炭屬化石能源，燃燒化石能源將會釋放污染氣體，例如二氧化硫，氮氧化物及懸浮粒子等污染物，是造成香港污染的重要原因。因此香港政府長遠而言應該更大力發展可再生能源，例如風力發電及太陽能發電，減少污染物排放
‧實行道路收費計劃：香港現時除了隧道和主要橋樑需要徵收費用外，其他道路都無徵收過路費。長遠而言，政府可研究徵收道路使用費，以財政壓力減少市民使用私家車，鼓勵使用公共交通工具，以減少私家車的空氣污染物排放，更能紓緩因車輛過多而導致堵塞及排放污染物的情況
‧增加環保教育：政府可通過學校教育及媒體宣傳向市民傳遞環保信息，減少污染物的排放，例如節省用電、使用公共交通工具等。同時也應該對政府高層官員進行教育，讓官員在政策制定層面上更關注某政策是否對污染環境或污染空氣。藉教育長遠解決污染問題
‧改善內地跨境污染問題：由於香港大多數空氣污染物由內地所產生，因此香港單方面的措施不能有效解決問題。香港政府和市民可通過不同的場合及社會運動，促使中央政府對香港及廣東省跨境污染問題的關注。促請中央政府加緊內地工廠及車輛的污染物排放要求，增加內地官員法治意識，防止不法官員貪污，包庇污染性工業的存在。雖然這並非短期能做到，但是長遠而言這無疑是改善香港空氣污染問題的正確方向
Hong Sir
遵理學校通識科補習名師
遵理學校通識科補習名師
常識 - Food Chain (廢物污染）
The Food Chain
| Apr 19, 2012
Share this article
3
1409
Think about all those times you’ve let your food go bad in the fridge and then thrown it away. Then think of your uncleared plates at the last restaurant you ate in. The uneaten bread basket. The barely-touched buffet. Then multiply that by 7 million. Scary, isn’t it? Each day, Hongkongers collectively generate some 3,200 tons of food waste. Not only does it put a strain on our landfills, it’s also wasteful. With so many of Hong Kong’s poor struggling to feed their families, disposing of our unwanted meals feels almost criminal. Fortunately, there are some enterprising folks out there who are doing their bit to make sure all those leftovers don’t go to waste. But despite their excellent efforts, it’s up to the government to lead the charge to make sure we don’t clog up our landfills with surplus food. Read on to learn all about Hong Kong’s food waste heroes, and what the government is doing (or not doing enough) to help them.
Market Value
At day’s end, enterprising workers from Green Hong Kong gather up unsold wet market vegetables to make cheap, nourishing meals.
Fried vegetables. Homemade pickles. Carrot and corn soup. Looking at these colorful, delicious vegetarian dishes, you would never guess that they were made from discarded wet market vegetables. These dishes are churned out in the kitchen of Tai Po-based NGO Green Hong Kong, which is linked to a training center of the Confederation of Trade Unions. Students from the training center can pay just $20 to enjoy a six-course vegetarian lunch with soup. Thanks to the work of Green Hong Kong, tons of fresh, edible vegetables from the neighboring Fu Shin wet market escape being transported to landfills.
Many may not realize that wet markets are big contributors to food waste. Under the current practice, wholesalers offer stall holders a fixed amount of vegetables at a very low price—a good way for them to guarantee that a high volume of vegetables will be sold. Even though vendors usually cannot sell all vegetables, they are not incentivized to order less from wholesalers, and a smaller order may even cost them more. Seeing the severity of the situation, Green Hong Kong was set up in 2009, back when few Hongkongers were aware of the mounting problem of food waste.
However, the concept of food recycling in Hong Kong was very new, and many vendors viewed them with suspicion. Cheng Jie, a full-timer who helps Green Hong Kong collect vegetables and cook meals, reminisces about the earlier days. “The vendors didn’t understand why we collected the vegetables, and they were afraid that we would resell them. So, some of them would ask us to go away,” Cheng says. “We didn’t have experience. We once went to the back alleys and saw a bucket of vegetables. We thought that we had finally found something, and used our bare hands to pick them up. But beneath the layer of vegetables, it was all garbage. It was so dirty!” Slowly, the vendors softened up when they saw Cheng Jie and her fellow workers at the market every day—even during typhoons and heavy rain—to try and collect discarded vegetables. A friendship has since flourished between the workers from Green Hong Kong and vendors. “We took 11 days’ leave during the Easter holiday. When we came back, the vendors said that they missed us and even kept some less perishable vegetables for us to take back!” says another worker, Pik Kiu.
Green Hong Kong has been running for three years, and all the hard work has paid off. The NGO now has six staff; they visit Fu Shin Market twice a week, bringing back 200 kilos of vegetables after every visit. “I think we have accomplished more than we originally planned. When we first started, we couldn’t refer to what other NGOs were doing because no other organization was doing the same thing,” says program officer Zoey Wong. “We have built a strong network in the neighborhood, and we have also raised Hongkongers’ awareness of the food waste problem.” Last year, its funding stopped, but fortunately, the organization has succeeded in finding more donors through various means such as guided tours and talks. Looking into the future, Green Hong Kong’s staff will increase their visits and they will pick up vegetables every night. Perhaps every district needs one organization like Green Hong Kong to stop perfect, edible vegetables rotting in our rapidly filling landfills.
Legal Fears
Food charities run a risk of getting sued if a beneficiary falls sick from donated goods. If they are to continue to do good work, they need to be protected by the law.
While there is no doubt that Green Hong Kong and the Foodlink Foundation are doing admirable work, these charities run a risk of being legally liable if cases of food poisoning arise as a result of the donated food.
“The charities might have to bear legal responsibility [in such a case],” says Eric Cheung Tat-ming, associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong. He also adds that a disclaimer from beneficiaries would not be effective in cases of injury and death.
However, food donors in the United States are free from such fears. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. With this law, donors who give away food in good faith are protected from bearing civil and criminal liabilities. In Canada and Australia, similar laws have also been introduced.
Dr. Chung Shan-shan of Hong Kong Baptist University urges the government to introduce a similar law. “Hong Kong is a very cold society. The whole legal system discourages people from helping others. It’s better to dump food than get sued; such mentality is absolutely unethical,” Chung exclaims.
Forgotten Feasts
Foodlink Foundation works with the city’s leading hotels to provide hot, healthy meals from buffet leftovers.
While the ladies from Green Hong Kong are striving to salvage food from wet markets, Foodlink Foundation, a like-minded NGO, is working to salvage food thrown away by hotels and restaurants to people whose stomachs are rumbling in hunger.
Back in 2001, Vanessa Hwang dined at a hotel and found that there were huge piles of food left over. Finding it unbearably wasteful, she asked the staff whether she could take the food away and give it to the needy. As her resourcefulness became a regular habit, she decided to found the Foodlink Foundation. The operation was suspended in 2003, when the SARS epidemic hit Hong Kong, and then in 2009, Mrs. Hwang passed the project to her daughters.
Foodlink focuses on recycling leftover food—hot dishes in particular—from hotels citywide. And among all the fare offered by hotels, it’s the buffets that create most waste. “That’s why we work more closely with hotels than restaurants. Because with restaurants, you can order a la carte and they don’t have to make the food until someone orders. Whereas with buffets, the food is cooked and it sits there,” says Robin Hwang, the fundraising director. “Unfortunately, it’s just part for the hospitality industry that they have to create the waste, particularly in Hong Kong where there are so many hotels and so many buffets. At a five-star hotel, it has to be as plentiful at 3pm as it does at 12pm.” Also, any food that doesn’t look perfect—for instance, fruit with tiny black spots—will not be used. Foodlink often receives lamb chops, grilled beef, and even lobsters.
When Foodlink was relaunched in 2009, they had only three hotels working with them. But today, 41 donors, including international hotel groups such as the Grand Hyatt, are giving their leftovers to Foodlink, and 27 NGOs are benefitting from the scheme. “The chefs do feel bad throwing food away. A chef from the Langham came to visit us. He was so moved that he started crying. He came from a very difficult background and growing up, he didn’t have that much food either. I guess he was touched by the Foodlink movement,” says Hwang. In order to gain trust and confidence from hotel groups, Foodlink has worked incessantly on hygiene. Their routine is simple. Foodlink sends refrigerated vans to hotels to collect leftover food, pack them in sealed boxes, and within an hour, the vehicle will reach the beneficiary’s doorstep. The organization has also come up with a set of strict guidelines for recipients on food-handling to ensure that no one will get sick. It gives detailed instructions on the temperature, storage and waste disposal.
In Hong Kong, many are struggling to fill their stomachs. For the one million people who are living in poverty, hot dishes are something that they can’t eat on a daily basis. Even if people seek help from government-sponsored food banks, they will mostly get prepackaged or canned food, which is no good for their health. By comparison, the food thrown away by hotels and restaurants is good quality and rich in nutrients. “The beneficiaries are eating well, and they should be eating well. If they are not eating the food [donated to Foodlink], the food would be thrown away anyway! It makes no sense to me when a hotel turns me down [to participate in the food donation scheme], and I can get very personal,” Hwang says jokingly.
Currently, Foodlink—which has two vans and full-time drivers—collects and transfers two tons of food, serving 2,200 meals per week. “It is a simple model that can be replicated as long as you have dedicated people,” Hwang says. The organization is now thinking of expanding into poverty-stricken districts such as Tin Shui Wai and Sham Shui Po. With the work of Foodlink, Hwang believes it’s a win-win situation for the hotels too. “For the hotels we are working with, we are picking up less and less food from them. They see how much food waste is generated, so the chefs have learned to cut back. So in fact, we are helping the hotels in the long run, figure out appropriate quantities of food. But that also means that we have to look to more hotels [for food donations],” she says.
Fishy Business
Local entrepreneur Kowloon Wong has discovered a practical—and profitable—way of converting food waste into fish feed.
In a rural, deserted corner of Lower Pak Lai, a small factory with a sign that reads “Kowloon Biotechnology” stands alone. The plant, which is a little run-down and emanates an odd smell, hardly looks like a modern industrial firm, but it is the site where a local industrialist is realizing his dream of developing a lucrative business from food waste. His plan is to produce high-quality fish feed from the food we throw away every day.
As Hongkongers move towards financial investments and real estate speculation as means of making money, industries have long been declared dead. But for Kowloon Wong, the entrepreneur behind this biotechnological firm, he has come on a long journey in his search for business opportunities that also help Hong Kong to tackle its growing food waste problem. Wong’s story started seven years ago, when he was running a company that produced lunch boxes for primary schoolchildren. “After I started the business, I saw that a lot of food was thrown away... on average, schoolchildren will leave 50 percent of their food untouched,” Wong remarks.
Seeing huge piles of food waste, Wong sensed some business potential. A former pig farmer himself, he ventured into collecting food waste to sell as pig feed. However, with declining numbers of pig farmers—there are just 43 currently operating in Hong Kong after the government offered them compensation for surrendering their licenses—this age-old way of dealing with waste was no longer profitable.
Inspired by overseas experiences, Wong decided to try creating fish feed from discarded food to sell to fish farms. “The quality of food in Hong Kong is actually quite good, as there is a wide variety of nutrients. I thought of making fish food because in the food chain, fish will eat other fish. Therefore, even if food waste contains fish, it is still natural,” Wong says. Also, fish food is a high-value-added product: top quality fish feed can cost as much as $25,000 per ton, while manufacturers can only hope for $1,000 to $2,000 per ton of pig feed.
Creating fish feed from waste is no easy task, and Wong—who left school at 14—faced a steep learning curve. Nutritional needs vary between fish species, and the factory had to gain knowledge and develop different formulas—even down to the shape of the pellets. “For example, garoupa are very picky. If the fish food is not in a round shape, they refuse to swallow it. They’d rather die,” says Wong.
Right now, Wong’s 30,000-square-foot factory collects and processes 15 tons of food waste every day. It is a tough business: he ran at a loss for the first five years and doesn’t take a single day off throughout the year. So far, the government hasn’t provided any support—even though his business actually helps alleviate the problem of food waste. Wong hopes that his business can stand on its own, and only wants the government to help him with two things. “We hope to gain the endorsement of the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department, so that local fishermen will purchase our products,” Wong says. “Also, we want the government to help us with land. The government has a lot of unused land, especially in the New Territories, but its purpose is not known. We can keep going if the government rents some vacant land to us. In the New Territories, the landlords will not rent land to us on a long-term contract. Seeing that we’ve got so many machines, we are always worried that the landlord will keep increasing the rent.”
After seven years of struggling, Wong seems to be on the right track. He is now close to finishing developing fish feed for four types of fish; he is running at a small profit this year; and best of all, he has teamed up with a local biotech firm which has decided to expand the business. By September, the factory will move to a new site that is ten times larger than his current location. In the coming four years, they are talking about investing $100 million and increasing output to at least 100 tons per day. Speaking about the future, Wong’s eyes shine with excitement, strongly believing that there is a huge market for quality, Hong Kong-made fish feed. “Hong Kongers now want a healthier diet, and fish is the food to [eat],” Wong says. “Most fish farms feed fish with smaller fish. But in three years, trawling is going to be banned. They have to seek alternatives. There are around 1,000 fish farms in Hong Kong... and we haven’t even looked at the mainland market yet!”
What About the Government?
Green groups, charities and the industrial sector are all working hard to alleviate food waste in Hong Kong. But what is the government doing to tackle the problem?
Currently, the government is planning to build modern organic waste treatment facilities at two sites: Siu Ho Wan in North Lantau and Sha Ling in the New Territories. After collection, the food waste will first undergo an anaerobic process. Methane, a gas that can generate electricity, will be released. The residue will be composted and will then be fit to use as a fertilizer. The government estimates that around 28 million kilowatt hours of electricity will be generated by the two facilities, which is enough to power 6,000 households.
On the surface, the government’s plan paints a hopeful picture, but the two facilities will be able to handle at most 500 tons of food waste per day—that’s just one-sixth of food waste generated by Hong Kongers on a daily basis. Also, the construction of the facilities will be completed by 2015 and 2016 to 2017 respectively. If we don’t scale back, the volume of food waste will continue to surge, and the plant’s capacity of 500 tons will start to look pathetically small.
However, there are still unanswered questions in the government’s plan. Even after treatment and electricity generation, a huge amount of compost will still be left over. What is the government planning to do with it all? According to calculations made by biology professor Jonathan Wong Woon-chung from Hong Kong Baptist University, 25 percent of the weight of food waste will remain as compost after the [methane release] process. This translates to 45,625 tons of compost per year. “In Hong Kong, we can only use about 50,000 tons of compost, including farms and landscaping,” says Wong. Also, if the government has no other plan than using such organic waste treatment technologies to treat all the food waste generated in Hong Kong, which is 3,000 tons per day, it will mean that we will have about 300,000 tons of compost every year.
Wong is not optimistic about the possibility of selling Hong Kong-made compost overseas. “Compost is a very basic material. Without any added value or improvements, sales won’t be very high,” he says. The competition will be rife because other countries, especially developed places, have also considered selling compost as a solution to the food waste problem. “In terms of one’s carbon footprint, this is not an ideal solution either because you need to transport [the compost] overseas,” adds Wong.
If selling compost to other countries isn’t a viable solution, it will be necessary for Hong Kong to develop a local market that is able to consume more compost—and the government ought to take the lead. “In Hong Kong, the party that uses the largest amount of fertilizers is the government in various departments, including the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department,” says Dr. Chung Shan-shan of the Hong Kong Baptist University. If the government requires their contractors to use compost as fertilizers, at least some proportion of the compost can be used locally.
Handling food waste is a complex problem, and it should also be addressed on a level that factors in land use and development. “The government should open up more spaces for people to grow plants. I think that Hong Kong has the potential to develop urban farming,” says Angus Ho, executive director of environmental group Greeners Action. “Also, agriculture has been marginalized by the government. This is also a problem in the development of Hong Kong.”
But while building organic waste facilities is a step in the right direction, there is clearly a need to simply decrease the amount of food waste generated in Hong Kong. A consultation on charging citizens for waste-handling ended recently on April 10. Green groups welcome such a move. “After implementation of waste charging, the volume of waste reduced by 44 percent and 60 percent in Taiwan and Korea respectively,” says Celia Fung of Friends of the Earth. “If the government decides to start charging for waste, I think the business sector will think of ways to tap into the opportunities,” says Ho of Greeners Action.
However, before they start charging citizens for handling waste, the government needs to implement a proper system for collecting food waste. In the end, determination and a political impetus will be the key to the success of a food waste scheme in Hong Kong—something the government has yet to demonstrate.
The Way Forward
A new technology has the potential to effectively eliminate food waste and improve the quality of our soil.
One option that has yet to be explored in Hong Kong is a new technology called biochar. Biochar is a form of charcoal that’s made by burning organic waste. According to research, biochar is an effective fertilizer that can trap nutrients and beneficial micro-organisms in the soil for a long time. It also has the potential to mitigate the effects of global warming, as carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and locked in the ground instead. “We could convert food waste into biochar, apply it to our farms and sell it to other countries. Of course, the price and investment would be higher because you need to build facilities to burn the waste in a process called pyrolysis [a thermochemical process which burns organic materials without oxygen],” says professor Jonathan Wong Woon-chung, who teaches biology at Hong Kong Baptist University.
Wong thinks that Hong Kong is a suitable place to implement the new biochar technology. “It takes a short time to handle the waste because it is burnt at a high temperature,” Wong says. “It is very similar to incineration and it doesn’t require that much of space either,” he adds. However, biochar is still a very new technology and its effectiveness is yet to be proved. In Australia, a pilot plant is already running. Perhaps this new technology could be a solution to our food waste woes, but much more research still needs to be done.
Food Waste By Numbers
How much we throw away, according to the goverment.
Bad Math?
The government says that the business sector is responsible for less than one-third of the city’s food waste. But the numbers just don’t add up.
According to government data, 70 percent of food waste is generated by domestic units while the commercial and industrial sector only account for 30 percent of discarded food. With this unbelievably low waste figure from the business and industrial sector, the accuracy of such data has long been questioned by green groups.
“We don’t know the exact discrepancy between the government and actual data. In Hong Kong, there are about two million families, so I believe the actual volume of domestic waste would not be that great… We don’t actually know how the government has come up with the figure. But from what we observe in hotels, the catering industry and retailers, we just don’t believe the business sector creates only around 800 tons of food waste [per day],” says Celia Fung, environmental affairs officer at Friends of the Earth.
The government has done woefully little research into the area of food waste. No detailed study has been conducted to look into the volume of food waste created by businesses, making it difficult to set up targets for waste reduction. Also, it is extremely difficult to trace discarded food. For instance, if a supermarket gets rid of milk by pouring the liquid away, it would be impossible to include this in the official data.
Dr. Chung Shan-shan, who teaches biology at Hong Kong Baptist University, sheds some light into the unconvincing ratio. “In Hong Kong, the definition of domestic waste does not only refer to waste generated by households. It also includes rubbish from garbage bins and institutional waste—for example the trash collected from wet markets arranged by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department,” Chung explains. “Rubbish collected from refuse collection points is also considered domestic waste, even though the commercial and industrial sectors also dump waste there.”
Label Us Confused
Hard-to-interpret food labels often mean that perfectly good food is thrown away by uninformed consumers.
In February, Friends of the Earth recruited 122 families and conducted a month-long study about household behavior in terms of food waste. “Very preliminary results show that about 20 to 30 percent of food is discarded because the food is expired,” says Celia Fung of Friends of the Earth.
However, just because something is past its expiry date, doesn’t mean that it’s inedible. In Hong Kong’s food dating system, there are two kinds of dates: “use by” and “best before.” “If the food in question poses a great health risk past a certain date, the ‘use by’ date will be printed on the labels. An obvious sample is fresh milk,” says Dr. Leung Ka-shing, who teaches food safety at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. “But for ‘best before’, the date is set because of quality.” So, the conclusion goes: perishable food which is labeled “use by,” should be eaten quickly; but food that is labeled as “best before,” can still be consumed safely within a certain period of time.
Leung says that we should use our best judgment when it comes to determining the edibility of prepackaged food. “Human intuition is very sensitive, and we can tell when food has gone bad better than machines. Of course, the elderly and people with health problems should not take the risk,” Leung says. If the food has a funny smell or the packaging has puffed up, it’s better to throw it away. But if the “best before” date has only passed by a day or two, it would be a waste to discard the still-edible food.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)