While it’s not enough to simply tax carbon and hope that the climate crisis will go away, carbon taxes appear to be a way to not only cut emissions, but also create jobs, a major sticking point for many for cutting down on fossil fuels. Done right, carbon taxes work. Here’s why.
—
Besides cutting down on carbon emissions, carbon taxes could even boost the economy at the same time. To illustrate this, look at the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, the largest carbon market in the world. While the ETS has cut emissions significantly, it is part of a much more comprehensive climate policy package, including direct energy-sector policies and significant national legislation.
Carbon taxes form part of these national climate policies. They typically focus on sectors not covered by the EU ETS. The taxes also vary widely by country, ranging from under USD$0.25 per ton of CO2 covering 4% of Poland’s CO2 emissions, to over $125 per ton covering around 40% of Sweden’s. Norway taxes carbon at $50 per ton which covers 62% of its emissions.
This wide range in levels and coverage could point to the inadequacy of overall climate policy, however it allows economists to estimate the impact of carbon taxes. Gib Metcalf, an economics professor at Tufts University, and Jim Stock, an economics professor at Harvard, have done this, estimating the climate and economic impact of Europe’s carbon taxes. They suggest that taxes should be raised to $40 per ton CO₂ covering 30% of emissions, so that cumulative emissions go down by between 4% and 6%.
While carbon taxes lower emissions, either significantly or not depending on the level of tax, even ambitious taxes are not enough to significantly tackle emissions, pointing either to the need for significantly higher carbon prices or to complementary policies that go well beyond carbon pricing itself, according to Bloomberg.
A recent analysis conducted by economists Ryan Rafaty, Geoffroy Dolphin, and Felix Pretis from Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Victoria, respectively, have analysed the emissions impact of all carbon pricing policies, including carbon taxes and emissions trading systems like the EU’s over several decades. The analysis found that all existing carbon pricing policies, from Poland to Sweden and in 37 other countries, have reduced CO2 emissions by between 1 to 2.5%. The authors call this “disappointingly small,” prompting them to recommend that more comprehensive climate policies that go well beyond carbon taxes and emissions trading alone are implemented.
Another crucial conclusion of the analysis is that carbon taxes, even without any complementary measures like refunding tax revenues by lowering other taxes, do not lower either jobs numbers or GDP growth. In fact, they have a “modest” positive impact on both. They not only come with no overall economic costs, but potentially with positive effects on both employment and GDP growth.
This doesn’t mean that carbon taxes or emissions trading could stand on their own. According to Bloomberg, “they don’t, can’t, and shouldn’t.” However, it is equally clear that supposed economic costs are no excuse not to include carbon taxes as part of comprehensive climate policy.
Environmental justice has gained momentum in recent months across the globe. In January 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration announced that its climate plan would focus on environmental justice, committing to develop policies to address the disproportionate health, economic, and environmental impacts of climate change on disadvantaged communities. More recently at the end of March, the UN Environmental Programme released a report on the ‘Environmental Justice Impacts of Plastic Pollution’, demonstrating how vulnerable communities are disproportionately affected by plastic pollution, from the displacement of indigenous peoples to conducting oil drilling to make plastics, to the occupation risks faced by plastic waste pickers in India. COVID-19 has highlighted that low-income and minority communities are more vulnerable to environmental hazards; an analysis by the New Policy Institute in the UK found that the five most crowded areas, primarily occupied by poor homeowners living in small houses, had a 70% higher rate of coronavirus cases than the five least crowded areas. All this buzz around environmental justice prompts us to ask: What exactly is environmental justice and where did the movement originate? And perhaps most pertinently, what does environmental justice mean for Hong Kong?
—
Defining Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is a response to environmental racism, which refers to the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on low-income and minority communities. The environmental justice movement demands the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and policies, regardless of race, colour, national origin or income. It aspires for everyone to enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards.
The reality is that lower-wealth, minority, communities of colour often face environmental racism and injustice, which is linked to a long and oppressive history of racial discrimination, colonialism, and slavery. In the US, Jim Crow laws and redlining – the systematic denial of mortgages and loans to people of colour – have prevented Black communities from purchasing property in specific neighbourhoods, leading to housing segregation and economic disinvestment in certain areas. These communities continue to lack the political and economic power to prevent environmental degradation – for instance, the placement of a new hazardous waste facility or dumpsite – in their backyards, becoming what Sacoby Wilson, an environmental health scientist at the University of Maryland calls ‘sacrifice zones’ and ‘dumping grounds’ for polluting facilities.
Origins of the Environmental Justice Movement
The racist distribution of environmental hazards led to the birth of the environmental justice movement in 1982, when protests erupted in Warren County – a predominantly Black community in North Carolina – over a plan to place a hazardous waste landfill for contaminated soil in their community. Despite a massive protest staged by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, where more than 500 protesters were arrested, toxic waste was eventually deposited in the Warren County landfill. The Warren County protests ignited a spark in poor, minority communities across the US to create community groups to fight for environmental justice. It also served as an impetus for a number of studies on environmental racism, including the Toxic Waste and Race study, conducted in 1987 by the United Church of Christ, which found that race was the most significant factor in siting hazardous waste facilities.
The Federal Government eventually responded in 1992, when President Bush Sr. established the Environmental Equity Working Group and initiated meetings on environmental justice with community leaders. In 1994, President Clinton issued an executive order calling all government agencies to include environmental justice in their decision-making. More recently in the Biden-Harris administration, environmental justice has been revived, with a recent proposal of a $1.4 billion environmental justice investment in President Biden’s 2022 budget plan, which includes the creation of an Accelerating Environmental and Economic Justice initiative within the Environmental Protection Agency and a community air quality monitoring program. This is in addition to Biden’s $2 Trillion ‘American Jobs’ Infrastructure Plan, which also contains significant environmental justice provisions, including upgrading indoor air quality and ventilation in public schools and creating jobs to conserve public lands and waters in historically underserved communities.
Despite environmental justice’s compelling history and rhetoric, Paul Mohai, environmental justice expert at the University of Michigan, questions whether environmental justice policies can be anything more than ‘window dressing’, seeing as – at least in the US – no policies have produced measurable changes on the ground. However, environmental justice continues to be important, not least because it acknowledges the racist origins and impacts of climate change that are so often forgotten, but also because it recognises that the right to a safe environment is a fundamental human right that should be guaranteed for all people.
What Does Environmental Justice Mean for Hong Kong?
Hong Kong is no different from the US or UK when it comes to environmental injustice; low-income communities – including ethnic minority communities – are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. A study conducted in 2018 by a team of University of Hong Kong (HKU) researchers found that social deprivation is positively correlated with poor air quality and higher-than-average air pollution levels, leading to higher death rates from pollution. Since 2015, excessive lead has been found in water in 11 public housing estates around Hong Kong, in Sham Shui Po, Ngau Tau Kok, and Shep Kip Mei among others. Certain poorer districts like Tuen Mun are also more susceptible to offensive facilities like landfills, with the Environmental Bureau proposing to extend the landfill in Tuen Mun in 2013, because residents were perceived to be less enraged than their Tseung Kwan O counterparts.
Coal mine railway in Sandoaling, China (Image by: Flickr)
The Government has taken action to address these problems. To ensure water safety, the Government implemented the Action Plan for Enhancing Drinking Water Safety in Hong Kong, which randomly samples drinking taps to monitor for metals. However, Hong Kong’s waste problem remains largely unsolved: The Government has added 13 new hectares of land to one of three landfills in Tseung Kwan O and is actively pushing forward proposals to expand the Tuen Mun landfill as well.
As such, environmental justice is ever as important for Hong Kong – a city already well-known for its vast and gaping inequality. One potential solution proposed in the 2018 HKU study is to engage socially deprived communities in environmental efforts, like air pollution monitoring or tree-planting. This grassroots mobilisation could empower communities to equip themselves with knowledge about environmental degradation and build their capacity to solve environmental problems. A good example of a successful community-based project is the Clean Air Neighborhood Project, initiated by the Clean Air Network (CAN) in partnership with the Institute for the Environment of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. CAN worked with students from the Church of Christ in China Tam Lee Lai Fun Memorial Secondary School in Tuen Mun to identify air pollution problems within a 1.5km radius of the school, building the students’ environmental and scientific skills, while identifying air pollution hot-spots. At the same time, the Hong Kong government could place a greater focus on environmental justice in its policy-making – ensuring that poor communities do not become ‘sacrifice zones’ for environmental waste in the future.
What Now?
Environmental justice is something that we can all participate in – from educating ourselves about the links between structural racism and the environmental burdens faced by underprivileged communities, to asking whether new proposed environmental policies are equitable and uphold everyone’s right to a safe environment. As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and consider what a ‘green recovery’ looks like, we have an opportunity to recenter environmental justice in our daily conversations and our advocacy to ensure that environmental policies benefit low-income communities and repair any disproportionate harms that they face.
Few people have been as actively engaged on all fronts of British climate activism and action over the past four decades as Sir Jonathon Porritt. As the former chair of the Green Party of England and Wales in the 1980s, and co-founder of the influential environmental and sustainable development charity Forum for the Future, Sir Porritt has made a name for himself as one of Britain’s most experienced environmentalists. In his newest book Hope in Hell, Sir Porritt brings his experience from working with both the public and private sector to the fore, and outlines what we should expect from the near future. In this ultimately hopeful book, Sir Porritt deciphers the environmental challenges we still face, what needs to be done to meet them and why we might allow ourselves to be hopeful that we can actually do so.
—
The next decade will be crucial for us to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This view is one shared by Sir Jonathon Porritt and many other experts in the field, and it is a timeline that is employed as a guiding principle throughout Hope in Hell. In the first part of his book, Sir Porritt summarises the science behind how we got to where we are, who is responsible for emissions and what the eventual consequences of our unchecked actions will be. In the second part of his book, Sir Porritt delves into the means, knowledge and technology we can employ to mitigate these consequences, stating that all these solutions are already available and ready to use- we just need to find the will to enact them.
Critical to achieving Sir Porritt’s vision of the future is technology, specifically pertaining to renewable energy capacity. The author is tellingly enthusiastic about the recent leaps and bounds of the solar and wind industries, and the promising room for future growth and falling costs both sources boast. The technical fixes exist and they are becoming increasingly easy to scale cheaply. The problem, Sir Porritt says, is that there are several ‘incumbents’ in our current system of governance, in the shape of powerful and entrenched ‘inactivists’ such as the fossil fuel industry. These powerful actors are the most egregious perpetrators of global emissions and environmental degradation, and their incumbency means that they have the ability to stymie any potential political and social will to implement the solutions we need.
But all hope is not lost, Sir Porritt insists. The window of opportunity to overcome these incumbencies and create meaningful change is certainly closing, but it is still open. He draws hope not only from technology but from youth; from their movements for climate action, from the critical mass they have acquired and the uncompromising stances taken by young leaders such as Greta Thunberg.
Porrit unabashedly denounces and rejects ‘disaster speak,’ opting instead to employ hopeful rhetoric. This choice makes the book refreshingly readable, helped by the fact that Sir Porritt largely avoids the use of scientific jargon, and satisfyingly explains the technical terms he deems necessary. Hope in Hell serves as an excellent primer for those relatively new to the environmental movement and the intricacies of climate change, although may offer little in the way of new information or arguments to the reader who is already well versed in the area.
The most interesting views Sir Jonathon Porritt espouses in his novel relate to his changing beliefs of how climate activism itself needs to change. As a figure who has famously gone to great lengths to cooperate with politicians and businesses alike to reach constructive outcomes, Sir Porritt has come to accept that more radical action is needed in the fight to counter the climate emergency.
What this more radical action should look like depends on the individual, but the primary message Sir Porritt appears to be mediating is that we cannot afford for anyone to be a passive bystander anymore. Extreme climate pessimism, a defeatist attitude that says that we are doomed and no behavioural change could ever save us, and extreme climate optimism, the belief that we don’t need to change our behaviour because there are higher forces at work that will ultimately save us, are equally damning to our prospects of tackling climate change. Everyone has a role to play in countering the climate crisis, and everyone has the moral responsibility to understand what that role is. Just don’t do nothing, essentially.
Nobody has the luxury to be a bystander anymore, this much is certainly true, and Sir Porritt articulates this notion well. But if radical action is truly what is needed, then Hope in Hell can be at times too elusive in accurately defining what steps have to be taken to make the change needed possible. The roadblocks to achieving a sustainable future are laid out clearly, but the book can be reticent in offering details on how to remove them, a sometimes frustrating choice given the urgency of the crisis and how fast our window of opportunity is closing.
Perhaps it is the youth movements that Sir Jonathon Porritt is so fond of that will prompt the biggest change. Younger generations are the most willing to unceremoniously abandon the incumbent powers, and are the most open to embodying the necessary adjustments to how humans live their lives. Innovation is fantastic and necessary, but technology alone will not save us without institutional reform and the social and political will to upheave current systems and replace them with what is better. If youth can be what enacts this transformation, then maybe there really is reason to hope.
Aviation is an important part of the global economy; until COVID-19, it was responsible for 2.8% of global CO2 emissions and about 65% of this came from international aviation. In Hong Kong, international aviation is responsible for an even higher percentage of CO2 emissions. The current inventory of Hong Kong’s GHG emissions does not yet include international aviation, but based on figures from the Census and Statistics Department, the sale of petrol for aircrafts in Hong Kong in 2017 amounted to 8.2 billion litres and caused emissions of 20 MtCO2. Adding these emissions from international aviation to Hong Kong’s total emissions, international aviation accounts for 29% of Hong Kong’s total emissions. What can be done about this? Everyone dreams of travelling again, but how can people do it sustainably once borders open?
—
Pre-COVID, Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) was one of the busiest airports in the world, with over 120 airlines flying to 220 destinations worldwide. In 2019, HKIA handled 71.5 million passengers and 4.8 million tonnes of cargo and mail. With the completion of the planned third runway, HKIA’s passenger and cargo traffic is expected to reach 100 million passenger trips and 6 million tonnes in 2025, and CO2 emissions are expected to reach 22 million tonnes. HKIA fulfils and is set to continue to fulfil an important economic function for Hong Kong as an international financial and business centre, therefore it is all the more important to be prepared for a sustainable future.
However, the overall importance of the aviation sector to Hong Kong’s economy will make reducing emissions a challenge. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, an alternative world emerged: scenes of wildlife reclaiming their habitat and hazy skies clearing over major cities. It showed what could become possible if we put sustainability at the heart of economies. This is also true for the aviation industry. The goals of the Paris Agreement and the carbon neutrality target for Hong Kong by 2050 are not compatible with fossil-fuelled commercial aviation.
Although not all governments have taken measures to strengthen the sustainability of airlines in their rescue packages, COVID-19 offers airlines and airports the opportunity to rethink their strategies to create a greener and more resilient future. What does this mean for Hong Kong?
According to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a key recommendation to reduce aviation’s CO2 emissions is to promote the development of low-carbon fuels – so-called Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs). SAFs, which are derived from biological or synthetic feedstocks offer a potential solution to significantly decarbonise the aviation industry. Although SAFs still produce emissions during the combustion process, studies show that they emit up to 80% less carbon emissions than conventional jet fuel over their entire life cycle.
What Could Hong Kong Do?
The cost of producing alternative fuels varies significantly, ranging from about €0.88 per litre to €3.44 per litre. These prices are two to eight times higher than the price of conventional jet fuel from petroleum. To reduce this price difference and accelerate the expansion of SAF production, some regulators have set or are considering blending obligations. In Norway, all jet fuel suppliers have been required to sell blends containing 0.5% biofuel since 2020; the country hopes to increase this to 30% by 2030.
The Hong Kong government could follow Norway’s example and also introduce a blending mandate of 30% SAF by 2030 for Hong Kong International Airport and at the same time introduce a significant tax credit for airlines using SAF. By doing so, airlines that want to actively rely on SAF, such as Cathay Pacific- which has been at the forefront of investing in sustainable aviation fuels– could source more SAF without being at an economic disadvantage compared to airlines that fill up with the currently still cheaper conventional fuel.
Another recommendation takes up the issue more directly, focusing on the carbon emissions of aviation. Several countries or institutions such as the EU are advocating for a carbon tax on aviation – putting a price on the emissions caused by flying. Pricing the carbon emissions of aviation could ensure that the passenger pays a fairer price for flying. The price of an air ticket would be increased accordingly, which in turn would also manage the demand for flights – a study from Switzerland indicates that an airline ticket tax pricing the carbon emissions at 30 CHF (247.5HK$) for short-haul flights and 120 CHF (990HK$) for long-haul flights is likely to noticeably curb demand by up to 20% in the short term. Some countries such as the UK (who currently imposes an 82£ (882 HK$) levy for a non-European flight) have already introduced such a carbon tax for aviation. To keep the system as simple as possible, the airline ticket tax is usually divided into a tax on short-haul flights and a tax on long-haul flights. The revenue could be used for the further development of low-carbon fuels and to finance local climate protection measures.
Similar to existing air ticket taxes, Hong Kong could introduce a tax that differentiates between short-haul flights (e.g., HK$200) and long-haul flights (e.g., HK$900). To make this measure socially acceptable, half of the money would go into a climate fund and the other half would be refunded to the population. Reimbursing half of the funds generated from the tax would mean that a large part of the population would benefit financially from the introduction of such an air ticket tax – they would effectively receive a climate bonus. This is because, as in most countries, few people in Hong Kong fly a lot and many people fly very rarely. People with low incomes would benefit particularly because they fly relatively less. The other half of the funds which would flow into a climate fund, could be invested in the development and establishment of a research cluster for sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) or in the expansion and promotion of low-carbon mobility services.
These two measures would be a first important step. However, they would unfortunately not be sufficient to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. While a strong increase in the use of sustainable aviation fuels and the introduction of a carbon tax for aviation would lead to a reduction in emissions, overall demand for international aviation is likely to increase in the future, based on International Civil Aviation Organisation projections.
There is no way around it: growth in air travel must also decline.
Cargo air transport is closely linked to economic development. Because of its ability to deliver products quickly, it is difficult to be replaced by other modes of transport over very long distances. On the other hand, the growth of civil aviation for business or leisure purposes is also a lifestyle choice. If other similarly attractive low-carbon transport options were available, people might choose the more climate-friendly option. One example of such a low-carbon mode of transport are high-speed trains.
Hong Kong was connected to mainland China’s high-speed rail system in October 2018 through the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. The high-speed line connects Hong Kong to 58 stations on the mainland without changing trains. The high-speed network is already more attractively priced than air travel for many cities in mainland China and produces significantly fewer carbon emissions. Moreover, when travel time to and from the airport and possible delays are taken into account, the train is absolutely on a par with air travel for a journey time of less than five hours. In addition, Hong Kong will be included in the central government’s plans for an intercity maglev rail network. New maglev trains will reach a top speed of 600 km/h in the foreseeable future and will run between major Chinese cities, making even longer distances time-competitive with air travel.
Hong Kong could encourage more people to switch from air to train travel – for business as well as for leisure. One way to make train travel more attractive would be to introduce an “Interrail Asia” ticket. A train ticket that can be used without bureaucracy on all trains in the Greater Bay Area and neighbouring regions and that can gradually be extended to other countries in the region. The highly successful European counterpart gives access to more than 40 rail and ferry companies in 33 countries. Most trains can be boarded by simply showing staff an Interrail pass on a mobile phone and booking a separate reservation, often at no additional cost. In addition to launching such a ticket, the government could also financially support it through the revenue generated through the introduction of the airline ticket tax – as well as accompany it with a broad information and marketing campaign for low-carbon travel modes. The development of attractive low-carbon modes of transport with the lowest possible entry barriers is central to reducing growth in the airline industry.
Work on alternative low-carbon travel modes must start immediately, because one thing is clear: banning travel is not the answer. Travelling allows us to connect with nature, experience different cultures and be with loved ones. Therefore, it is important that the government reacts decisively and puts more focus on sustainability when it comes to travel.
An energy company in Hong Kong is looking to add offshore wind energy to its mix to help meet a growing demand for renewable energy, as limited land in the city poses a challenge to building renewable energy capacity.
—
What is Happening?
CLP Holdings Ltd., one of the two main electricity generation companies in Hong Kong, revealed that it may submit proposals for an offshore wind farm to the local government for their next five-year development plan starting 2023.
Hong Kong has set a goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It will need to eliminate fossil fuels to do this, which currently account for 75% of its power generation, with nuclear and renewables mostly imported from China making up the rest.
CEO of CLP, Richard Lancaster, said in a media briefing last week, “When you look at land being quite a valuable and a scarce resource. That leads you to think, well, what about the water? “It is much more economic now to build offshore wind than it was 10 years ago.”
Lancaster said that in 2010, the company proposed to build an offshore wind energy farm in southeastern Hong Kong waters, but the costs were too high at the time. The average offshore wind project cost about $134 per megawatt-hour that year, according to BloombergNEF data, which has fallen to about $89 this year.
It’s also easier to develop such a project near Hong Kong now, as an offshore building boom in South Korea, Taiwan and China means there are more ships in the region that specialise in erecting the turbines.
In a statement, CLP said, “We are continuing to consider the project’s feasibility with new turbines which are more effective at the relatively modest wind speeds seen in Hong Kong waters.”
Meanwhile, solar power will be a relatively smaller part of the energy mix in Hong Kong, while nuclear, hydrogen and battery storage will all play a role. CLP hasn’t ruled out making investments in China, and has been exploring renewable energy projects in Vietnam, according to Lancaster.
Numerous countries around the world have introduced far-reaching policy measures to switch their electricity supply to 100% renewable energy, most of them by mid-century. Countries such as Iceland, Paraguay and Costa Rica are already on target, while many others have made enormous progress and have been able to greatly increase the share of renewables in the electricity mix. This is important because the switch from fossil to renewable energy plays a crucial role in achieving international as well as national climate targets. In Hong Kong, this is especially important considering how wasteful the city is, but how can it take full advantage of renewable energy sources?
—
Hong Kong has set a target of carbon neutrality by 2050, but is only at the very beginning of its transition to renewable energies. In Hong Kong today, renewable energies account for only 0.2 % of the total electricity supply. Although topographical reasons make it unlikely that Hong Kong will be able to become completely self-sufficient in clean energy in the near future, a strong expansion of locally produced renewable energy is an important element in decarbonising the power sector, which is responsible for 70% of Hong Kong’s greenhouse gas emissions and today consists of 50% gas, 25% coal and 25% nuclear. With the growing number of new buildings, the electrification of appliances in buildings and the increase in electric mobility, total electricity consumption and its share of total energy consumption will continue to grow. Decarbonising the power sector is therefore of highest priority.
This article takes a closer look at the renewable energy landscape in Hong Kong: How is the expansion of renewables being supported today? What barriers exist and what possible solutions could accelerate the expansion?
The electricity landscape in Hong Kong is primarily made up of three players: the state and the two utilities (Hong Kong Electric Company responsible for Hong Kong Island and Lamma Island, and CLP Power Hong Kong Limited responsible for Kowloon, New Territories and all outlying islands except for Lamma Island). The three players signed a ground-breaking Scheme of Control Agreements (SCAs) in April 2017, which among other things contained measures to support the expansion of renewable energies in Hong Kong. The two most important elements of the Scheme of Control Agreement in relation to the promotion of renewable energies are the feed-in-tariff and the renewable energy certificates.
The FiT helps encourage the private sector to consider investing in renewable energy by allowing electricity generated under the FiT scheme to be sold to the utility at a higher rate than the normal electricity tariff. This helps to cover the cost of investment in the renewable energy project and thus improves the profitability of such projects.
The RECs, which are sold by the two utilities, help raise public awareness of renewable energy and enable individuals as well as businesses to support renewable energy in Hong Kong by turning their personal electricity consumption completely renewable by purchasing certificates in the amount of their personal electricity needs. The revenue from the renewable energy certificates (one unit of renewable energy certificate, which is equivalent to 1 kWh of electricity, currently costs HKD 0.5) helps to finance the additional costs caused by the FiT system.
Let’s take a more detailed look at the FiT system in Hong Kong:
Projects of up to 1 megawatt (MW) that are connected to the grid of one of the two utilities are eligible to apply for the FiT. The FiT then pays a certain amount for each kilowatt hour produced, depending on the size of the project. This “contract” is fixed until 2033. The FiT rates in Hong Kong are as follows:
5 HKD per kWh for projects of less than 10 kW,
4 HKD per kWh for projects between 10 kW and 200 kW,
3 HKD per kWh for larger projects (up to 1 MW).
From 2033 onwards, the project owner will be able to manage the generated electricity themselves, use it themself and, if necessary, store it. For this intelligent use of electricity, Hong Kong is planning a mass introduction of smart meters from 2020 to 2025.
Back to FiT amounts: converted into USD, FiT amounts in Hong Kong range from 0.39 USD/kWh to 0.64 USD/kWh. This is much higher than, for example, FiT amounts in other Asian countries (e.g. 0.06 to 0.014 USD/kWh in Indonesia to 0.2 USD/kWh in Thailand or 0.15 USD/kWh in Vietnam). This suggests that the authorities in Hong Kong generously support locally produced renewable energy. A first evaluation also shows that more than 8 500 applicants have been granted FiT support, which corresponds to an approval rate of approximately 85%. Although wind as well as solar photovoltaic (PV) projects are eligible for support under the FiT, almost exclusively solar projects have been realised so far. However, as mentioned above, these 8 500 projects only account for a marginal share of the total electricity supply in Hong Kong- the potential for solar installations in Hong Kong is many times greater.
Calculations show that if all building roofs were covered with solar panels, solar systems could produce between 2.66TWh – 5.98TWh of electricity, equivalent to 5.9% – 13.4% of Hong Kong’s electricity consumption. Other calculations, which also include the potential of solar projects on facades, even assume a potential of 11.64TWh, about 25% of annual electricity consumption. In other words, Hong Kong could completely replace the coal share of the current electricity mix with locally generated renewable energy.
Given the potential, what are the reasons that progress in the renewable energy sphere remains slow? There are three important barriers that slow down the expansion and present possible solutions:
1. Bureaucratic Hurdles Abound:
At the launch of the FiT system, individuals who wanted to build a solar project and benefit from the FiT first had to register as a company and also pay taxes on the income generated from the FiT – fortunately, this bureaucratic hurdle has been abolished. Nevertheless, there are still numerous bureaucratic hurdles in the process of building solar projects in Hong Kong. A recent population survey shows that besides the lack of information on the technology, the different and complicated safety regulations as well as the non-transparent provider structure are barriers to the further expansion of solar projects in Hong Kong.
Solution approach:
The development of a one-stop-shop solution for the installation of solar projects in Hong Kong by the two utilities could help to reduce the bureaucratic hurdles. This should include all relevant steps for the construction and approval of the system – be it the safety certificate, building insurance or acceptance of commissioning. The aim should be for an electronic dossier to pass from office to office and not for the applicant to have to submit a new form each time, which would simplify the current procedure considerably. In addition, the two utilities could consider making public “trusted solar providers” in order to improve the vague information situation among the population and to ensure transparency and trust. Awareness campaigns for the expansion of renewable energies in Hong Kong, where, for example, reference is made to the solar map, which allows to easily and efficiently assess the technological requirements for a solar installation on a roof or façade, could be rolled out.
2. The Feed-in-Tariff is Designed for Rooftop Installations:
The FiT is, as explained, generous, but designed for rooftop installations. With today’s tariffs, the cost of purchasing and installing a solar rooftop system can be recovered in as little as 5 to 6 years – this is economically very attractive. However, the typical flat in Hong Kong tends to be a high rise building – the immense areas on facades are still completely unused. A recent study shows that the FiT for a typical three-bedroom flat on the 10th floor of a 20-storey building is not sufficient to amortise the solar system (in this case installed on the façade) within an economically viable period (less than 10 years). Thus, despite the generous FiT, the economic incentive for a large part of the population is not given today and inhibits the further expansion of solar energy in Hong Kong.
Solution approach:
In addition to the classic rooftop systems, which are often built on low-rise buildings, the FiT system should be adapted to specifically tailor façade PV in order to exploit the potential on the high rise buildings and its façades. As the current study on the FiT in Hong Kong points out, the costs for façade PV are currently still higher compared to rooftop systems, and the actual electricity production of façade systems is lower compared to rooftop installations due to shading and non-optimal orientation of the panels. A specific FiT for solar panels on façades on an average flat would need to be around HKD 8.5 – 10 per kWh for those projects to become economically attractive – increasing the amount for these types of projects could help exploit the large potential for façade PV and thus help to drive the expansion of renewables quickly.
3. Need for Additional Financial Resources to Compensate for the Additional Costs of the FiT:
In order to realise the full potential of solar in Hong Kong, additional financial resources are needed for the expansion of the FiT system. These funds need to be generated – until now, the understanding has always been not to increase the electricity price as such in order to specifically support renewable energy. Although the FiT amounts are evaluated annually and adjusted to the corresponding price reductions due to technological progress in the field of photovoltaics, a rapid expansion of solar PV in Hong Kong leads to the fact that the financial resources, which are currently generated through the sale of renewable energy certificates, are not sufficiently high to support a rapid expansion.
Solution approach:
The FiT system must grow in scale and ambition to make a significant contribution to decarbonising the power sector. This requires additional financial resources. One way to generate those would be through the introduction of an opt-out system (also known as green default) for all businesses, homeowners and tenants in Hong Kong to offset their own electricity consumption through the purchase of renewable energy certificates (REC). Individuals or businesses who cannot or do not wish to offset their electricity use can exercise their opt-out right – however, experience in other cities shows that such a reversal of the system (today Hong Kong has an opt-in system for offsetting electricity use) is highly effective. This would result in significantly more financial resources being available to adapt and expand the FiT and thus make an important contribution to decarbonising Hong Kong.
If the government were to succeed in addressing these three barriers by implementing the proposed solutions, Hong Kong could take a big step forward in decarbonising its power sector and, accordingly, take a big step towards achieving the goal of climate neutrality in 2050.
Competition can be singled out by economists as a fundamental virtue of the free market. As the story goes, competition is what drives firms to innovate and keeps the minds of corporations on consumer demand and, ostensibly, the public interest. In her recently released book, Competition is Killing Us, Michelle Meagher seeks to debunk the myths of competition, what has occurred to make modern markets so unfair and what can be done to remedy these deficiencies. As an Oxford and Georgetown-trained competition lawyer, Meagher describes her own personal journey of realisation regarding the true nature of competition and free markets; Earth.Org spoke to Meagher about what she believes needs to be done to rectify the failures in our systems of economic and social governance.
—
Following a succinct but interesting description of her own career path and what events ultimately led her to write Competition is Killing Us, Meagher outlined what she calls the six main myths of competition- internalised misconceptions of what competition and free markets declare themselves to be. Meagher argues that competition is not what we think it is, and that the current legal restrictions we place on competitive industries, such as antitrust laws, are inadequate or poorly applied.
Meagher points out that industries worldwide have become ever so increasingly localised and concentrated, and that the main capitalist tenet that new actors will always emerge to challenge established firms in a freely competitive market is simply untrue. The concern over competition within a neoliberal economic framework is that our markets and lax regulations have allowed for a lucky few to hegemonise their individual sector through aggressive acquisitions, unfair mergers and opaque business practices.
The constant-growth mindset espoused by free market advocates is designed to improve our GDP numbers, but does little to protect our institutions and environmental stability. Not only does Meagher illustrate how these transgressions have come to pass, but also why we, the public, are bearing the highest costs of these practices. The tangential social and environmental impact of business activities can manifest itself through pollution, emissions or poor public health. As individuals who benefit from ecological services, and are affected directly by the anthropogenic processes of climate change and pollution, we all hold a stake in the activities of the business and corporate worlds, which sometimes appear to have forgotten about the rest of us.
The problem, Meagher argues, is that free markets focus on maximising shareholder value while failing to keep the public interest in mind. The gains of the free market are often privatised, enjoyed primarily by the corporation and its shareholders, while the losses are socialised, incurring costs from consumers and other stakeholders deemed inconsequential. The concept of shareholder versus stakeholder interest is one that is not addressed nearly enough as it should be, and Meagher is able to articulate this distinction particularly well.
Meagher concludes her book by proposing a new form of competition law, one that would be able to hold companies accountable for their indiscretions by limiting hegemonistic mergers, punishing rule-breaking and redistributing power through stakeholder governance. Her proposal is rational and straightforward, to the point that reading only the last section of the book would make the audience question why nothing of the sort has never been passed into official law. After reading Competition is Killing Us however, it becomes strikingly clear what stands in the way of this happening, and what exactly needs to change.
In 1993, Hong Kong recorded an urbanisation rate of 100%, meaning that all of the territory’s residents were considered to be residing in urban environments. The growth of Hong Kong’s urban areas and its city-dwelling population has largely been predicated on a set of unique policies that have allowed the city to develop despite environmental challenges such as a tropical climate and mountainous terrain. Arguably the most historically popular urban development strategy in Hong Kong has been land reclamation, the process of creating new land by filling in existing water bodies.
—
Between 1877 and 2020, over 70 sq km of land has been reclaimed in Hong Kong. The majority of this area was reclaimed in the New Territories and its islands. Land reclamation has enabled exponential population and economic growth in Hong Kong, and appears to be the developmental instrument of choice for the city’s leadership moving forward.
Originally, Hong Kong’s confining topography was not conducive to extensive urban development, as a craggy coastline, steep mountains and limited flat land restricted early settlement options. However, a growing population size since the late 1800s necessitated the creation of new land space. Since the British Empire’s colonial presence in Hong Kong, the city’s chronic overcrowding and housing allocation challenges have made land reclamation an attractive policy for the city’s legislators.
In 2018, reclaimed land represented 6% of Hong Kong’s total area and 25% of its developed land. Reclaimed land houses around 27% of Hong Kong’s population and 70% of its business activities. It is arguable that, without land reclamation, Hong Kong would never have achieved its current status as a global city with first-rate infrastructure. Reclaimed land supports many of the city’s landmarks, including Hong Kong Island’s iconic skyline. Much of the territory’s infrastructure projects were only achievable through land reclamation, including the Hong Kong Airport, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge and the expansion of the city’s MTR metro system in Victoria Harbour.
Despite being a fixture in the history of Hong Kong’s development, land reclamation as a practice has recently been met with public criticism towards its impact on the city’s natural and cultural heritage. In March, Earth.Org interviewed Dr. Cindy Lam of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s Department of Ocean Science, who discussed land reclamation’s contribution to biodiversity and habitat loss. On the topic of Hong Kong’s developmental policy taking precedence over conservation efforts, Dr. Lam stated: “Hong Kong likes to adopt the ‘development first, conservation later’ approach. People have the false feeling that we can preserve habitats and species after development.”
In 2018, the Hong Kong government announced Lantau Tomorrow Vision, a massive land reclamation project off the coast of Lantau Island that will cover 1,000 hectares of artificial islands and house over one million people. The project has revived environmental concerns over land reclamation and has elicited criticism towards a perceived misuse of the city’s fiscal resources.
South China Morning Post: Visual history of land reclamation in Hong Kong before 2018. Source: SCMP.
A Time-Tested Urban Development Policy
Simply put, land reclamation involves creating new land where there was none before, which can be exploited for new purposes. Land reclamation generally involves filling a selected area with large amounts of rock, earth and potentially cement. The area is then covered and filled with more clay and soil until the targeted height is reached. In Hong Kong, land reclamation projects are normally completed by excavating soil from mountains along the coastline. The debris is then used to either extend the coastline or create artificial islands.
The first modern use of land reclamation as a policy measure in Hong Kong occurred in 1851. In December of that year, a devastating fire consumed 450 homes in the city’s Sheung Wan neighbourhood, leaving behind mounds of rubble and debris alongside Hong Kong Island’s western harbourfront. The territory’s British rulers opted to combine the rubble with soil from nearby hill slopes and deposit it in the harbour to create a new roadway along the coastline. This first land reclamation project extended the shoreline by 15 metres.
Between 1851 and the early 20th century, most land reclamation projects took place off the northern coast of Hong Kong Island where the British colonial offices were located, primarily between what are now the Kennedy Town and Causeway Bay neighbourhoods. Reclamation also took place on the southern end of the Kowloon peninsula. Early reclamation projects were welcomed by the government, as they alleviated health and safety concerns in overcrowded neighbourhoods and homes. Additionally, reclamation works were designed to lower coastal seabeds and allow larger ships to dock in the harbour.
Early reclamation projects elicited public resistance from waterfront landowners and seaside trading firms with docking rights. The government managed to assuage concerns by introducing a payment scheme that invited private sector enterprises to claim ownership of reclaimed land in exchange for paying for the reclamation of the land, thus driving development policy through private capital.
Given the prevailing role of private enterprise in early reclamation projects, the practice was conducted in a regulated but uncoordinated manner until the mid-20th century. Reclamation was an unsystematic urban expansion measure, which meant that the majority of projects were piecemeal private initiatives which rarely amounted to major infrastructural development policy throughout this period.
In the 1950s, Hong Kong’s population began growing at exponential rates, which was largely due to a massive influx of migrants from mainland China. As a response, the Hong Kong government forgoed the private enterprise-driven approach to land reclamation, and intervened directly to create new habitable land to accommodate the city’s rapidly growing population.
The new towns of Kwun Tong (built in the 1950s), Tsuen Wan (built in the 1960s), Sha Tin and Tai Po (both built in the 1970s) were all largely reliant on reclamation, and were the first satellite town development projects aimed at accommodating growing population size and opening up new spaces for economic activity. In 1973, the government consolidated its vision for urban population growth by announcing a new development initiative, termed the New Town Development Programme, focusing on urban development projects across Kowloon, New Territories and Lantau Island. Since 1973, the government has established nine new towns, complete with private and public housing, transportation infrastructure and commercial centres. In 2016, 47% of Hong Kong’s 7.35 million population lived in new towns. Of the nine new towns, six have been built on reclaimed land.
In the 1970s, as mainland China began to open itself to foreign capital investment and become the global epicentre of cheap manufacturing, Hong Kong’s firms moved their manufacturing operations to the mainland. This, combined with the territory’s increasing importance in financial mediation between China and the global market accelerated Hong Kong’s transition to a burgeoning service and trade economy in the late 1980s and 1990s. Land reclamation policy reflected this transition, as projects such as expansion into Victoria Harbour, growth of the city’s port and building a new international airport gained traction.
For most citizens, service economy-oriented infrastructural land reclamation projects did not carry the same benefits as the development of new housing and commercial areas. The large-scale reclamation plan for the expansion of Central and Wan Chai that began in the 1990s elicited a negative public response, which mainly criticised the loss of natural and cultural heritage in exchange for minimal benefits for average citizens.
In 1997, the Hong Kong government passed the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance bill, which categorises Victoria Harbour as a public asset of natural and cultural heritage value to Hong Kong and its citizens, and therefore limits reclamation activities that might damage it.
The bill contained a grandfather clause that allowed previously approved projects to be completed uninhibited by the ordinance. This included the Central and Wan Chai reclamation project which had been endorsed as early as 1989. Additionally, reclamation projects that are able to demonstrate a clear economic, commercial and social value may still be approved pending review.
As reclamation projects pivoted to focus on building Hong Kong’s capacity for a service economy, public reception of the practice turned increasingly negative.
Environmental and Social Impacts
In our interview with Dr. Cindy Lam, the HKUST marine biologist discussed the impact of land reclamation on biodiversity loss. According to Dr. Lam, churned sediment and the deposition of organic and inorganic polluting materials will have a causal effect on marine food webs. More turbulent waters can decrease sunlight and affect marine photosynthesis, and polluting substances can be consumed by smaller fish and increase the food web’s toxicity. Dr. Lam highlighted the unprecedented low numbers of marine species iconic to Hong Kong, including the Chinese white dolphin and the horseshoe crab, species whose habitats have been disrupted by massive land reclamation projects.
Environmental concerns over the protection of Hong Kong’s marine environments are growing due to the increasing interconnectedness of cities along the Pearl River Delta (PRD). While mainland China tends to regulate land reclamation practices more strictly than Hong Kong, reclamation projects connecting infrastructure between cities along the PRD are growing in number, leading to concerns over greater biodiversity and habitat loss for niche species.
Concerns over reclamation projects in Victoria Harbour have also addressed the potential for reduced water flow and water body shrinkage, the harbour is now in fact shrunk to less than half of its original width. Should the harbour’s water flow be slowed substantially, its self-cleansing ability may be severely impacted, a situation only aggravated by reclamation projects increasing water turbidity. A reduction in water volume, combined with urban expansion, would also decrease the harbour’s ability to cool and ventilate surrounding areas, aggravating air pollution and raising urban temperatures.
In addition to the environmental impact, land reclamation harms efforts to conserve Hong Kong’s cultural heritage. The classification of Victoria Harbour as an asset of cultural as well as natural value in 1997 was seen as an important step, although it did little to reverse the modifications to the harbour that had already been carried out, nor did it halt pre-approved massive reclamation projects. Historic Hong Kong landmarks, including the Edinburgh Place Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier in Central were demolished between 2006 and 2008 to make way for reclamation.
Thousands of Hong Kongers turned out to protest the Edinburgh Place Star Ferry Pier’s demolition, vocalising public dissent to further impact on the natural harbourfront. In response, the government pivoted once more to evaluate the potential for mass land reclamation projects outside of Victoria Harbour to satisfy population growth and demands related to the capacity of the city’s service economy.
Lantau Tomorrow Vision
In 2018, the Hong Kong government announced its latest massive land reclamation project – the “Lantau Tomorrow Vision” plan. With a staggering HKD$624 billion price tag attached, the project aims to house 1.1 million people in an economic and residential hub through the creation of artificial islands covering 1 000 hectares beginning in 2026 or 2027. According to the government’s planning concept, the Kau Yi Chau island will create more than 40 million square feet of commercial floor space, the size of Hong Kong’s Central district. It aims to replicate Central’s functions too: the business district will host an extensive transportation network that connects with Central on Hong Kong island, enabling high value-added logistics and business services on par with the development of the Greater Bay Area market.
The government’s push of the “Lantau Tomorrow Vision” can also be attributed to its capability to address Hong Kong’s severe housing shortage. The government envisions an additional260 000 to 400 000 residential units from the “Lantau Tomorrow” from 2032, completed in stages to meet the housing needs of approximately 700 000 to 1.1 million people. Among these units, the government will look to provide affordable public housing units, for which 80-90% of Hong Kong households are eligible to apply. Based on a public and private housing ratio of 7:3, the remaining land lots can provide quality residential areas to offer the middle class a wider choice in buying their first homes or replacing old ones. Therefore, the Lantau land reclamation project is not only an effective solution to addressing land shortage in Hong Kong, it also provides a strong foundation for capitalising on growth opportunities in the Greater Bay Area.
However, this new space and opportunity comes at a significant cost; with its heavy price tag, it will drain the city’s fiscal reserves, which have already been severely depleted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the government were to lean towards the private sector for help (which it has been attempting to tap into), this would most likely be unable to account for all future costs that will be accrued from the enormity of the project.
The financial repercussions are only the tip of the iceberg. It is the predicted environmental damage from the project that has led to strong resistance from the public. In particular, the land reclamation project threatens to destroy the entire marine ecosystem in the Lantau area. A team of researchers (part of Ocean-HK study led by Professor Jianping Gan at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) found two seasonal water zones with low oxygen levels near the reclamation site (south and southeast of Lantau Island). Low oxygen levels can create “dead zones,” which will suffocate marine life and cause others to flee the area. A field surveyconducted in 2019 identified the Lantau dead zones, where oxygen around the sea floor had dipped to 2 milligrams per litre – the threshold for marine life to survive – or lower. This sort of oxygen depletion – known as hypoxia – may cause irreparable damage to the marine ecosystem.
In addition, further work associated with land reclamation could worsen water quality, lead to a higher proportion of red tides and dead fish and bad odours. Water will likely stagnate as the water’s ability to flush out waste water (discharges from the Pearl River Delta and around HK) will weaken, which will lead to stagnant harbours across the artificial islands. What’s more, the HK government is considering building canalson the islands, with renderings suggesting it will create a much larger volume of stagnant water that would become foul-smelling. Additionally, these artificial islands could decelerate currents around Stonecutters Island to the north, where a treatment plant discharges waste water from the city’s central urban areas. With a worsening dead zone and being surrounded by a discharge point, one could easily make the argument that this is neither eco-friendly or particularly attractive to a potential homeowner.
With these concerns in mind, the government should consider some of the following mitigation measures. For one, the government must conduct a comprehensive impact assessment in order to determine the exact effects that the project will cause. While the government has portrayed a HK$550 million feasibility study as an impact study, it is primarily a planning and engineering study – usually associated as the last step before construction of the project commences. And, of the HK$550 million budget, HK$350 million will be used for engineering design.Another could involve a costly scheme to remove nutrients from sewage across the city before this waste is discharged. While a proposed upgrade of a harbour treatment scheme would achieve this desired effect, the plan would not cover large parts of NT or outlying islands like Lantau. Another method would be that the proposed islands be designed in such a way that major marine passages would not be blocked and currents could be sped up. Ultimately, a comprehensive study examining ocean hydrodynamics, nutrient sources, waste water cycle in the environment and affected ecosystem will be necessary if we are to proceed with any form of land reclamation project.
Land reclamation has been an integral component of Hong Kong’s development since the territory’s colonial era, as the practice has permitted the city to accommodate its population and foster economic growth. Land reclamation appears to be a mainstay of policy planning for the city in the near future, although its strengths must be balanced with environmental security and minimisation of biodiversity loss. The Hong Kong government has adapted its land reclamation policies to different economic needs over the decades; moving forward, the city will also have to consider the needs and demands of its citizenry.
While trail running in 2018, Devana Ng and Flavien Chaussegros were shocked at how much waste they found in the otherwise pristine landscape. While collecting the trash they came across, the husband and wife team started talking about how they could disrupt the packaging industry to reduce our reliance on plastic. Thus, Distinctive Action was born. The Hong Kong-based startup has created a bag that dissolves completely in water and is also biodegradable, non-toxic, compostable and leaves no microplastics. Earth.Org spoke to co-founder Devana Ng to talk about how they hope the #INVISIBLEBAG will change the plastic packaging industry and replace conventional plastics.
—
EO: What Inspired You to Start Distinctive Action?
Devana: After seeing the amount of trash in Hong Kong, we decided to get to the source of plastic waste. So we started doing research and in 2019, we travelled to different countries to source materials for water soluble plastic packaging. We are not anti-plastic and we know that we can’t totally avoid plastic packaging but we can be more aware of our consumption of it.
We know that we’re not the first company to release eco-friendly bags, but what sets us apart is that our bags are vibrantly branded. We don’t position ourselves as a supplier- we want to make it easily accessible to the general public, which is why we offer our bags in packs of 200.
EO: What is the #INVISIBLEBAG Made Of, How Easy is it to Source and Can it Be Made Available on a Large Scale?
Devana: #INVISIBLEBAG is made of a biodegradable combination of Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA), as well as plant-based starch, glycerin and water. It is completely water-soluble, compostable, non-toxic, marine and wildlife safe, and leaves no microplastics. The bag behaves like conventional plastic but dissolves in water at 70°C and above, If left unintentionally, it will dissolve in cold temperatures but at a slower rate. In the marine environment, the #INVISIBLEBAG will degrade up to 75% within 72 days and will fully biodegrade in less than a year.
PVA was founded by two German scientists Hermann and Haehnel in 1924 by hydrolyzing polyvinyl acetate in ethanol with potassium hydroxide. It is a water-soluble synthetic resin that was first industrially produced in Japan and is used as an ingredient in vinylon synthetic fibers. It can be used to coat capsules in medicine, as well as in laundry and detergent packets, and agricultural films. A company in Japan is even using it to create garments with.
Not many countries can source PVA, and it is mostly Japan and Taiwan, but also the US. However, it can be made available on a mass scale, which makes the possibilities for water soluble packaging endless. We also hope that once the technology becomes more widely available, it will be cheaper to produce, and therefore cheaper for the consumer.
The bag was tested for Estrogen Equivalent (EEQ) by biotech lab testing corporation Vitartgent and is considered to be completely safe for humans and wildlife, both marine and terrestrial.
The #INVISIBLEBAG is also ASTM D6400 and EN13432-certified compostable and the Japan BioPlastics Association has proved that it is biodegradable, which means in the natural environment, the product will be broken down by the action of microorganisms, ultimately becoming carbon dioxide and water.
The carbon content of PVA is about half that of conventional plastic. While the afterlife impact of these conventional plastics will remain for years, #INVISIBLEBAG takes months to return to nature with no harm.
Devana: Consumer awareness about plastic waste is definitely shifting. More brands are incorporating green elements into their models and it’s becoming something that they can’t avoid in any case, because there’s a demand in the market for more sustainable and eco-friendly products.
What sets Distinctive Action apart from other similar companies is our branding on the bags. It was important to us to do this as we want to make them stand out more and market these products as eco-friendly but with an attitude. We want consumers to engage with the bags and share it on their social media, as they do now, which fosters a collaborative landscape- we hope that we can inspire others to make changes because only together can we change the world.
EO: How Has Distinctive Action Struggled With the Onset of COVID-19?
Devana: It has been difficult to justify the cost of the bags to restaurants during these times. The #INVISIBLEBAG is more expensive than conventional plastics, but we cannot make this comparison, because plastic is so cheap to produce. As more people start using alternative materials like PVA, it will become cheaper to produce.
We have some restaurant partners: YEARS in Sham Shui Po is using #INVISIBLEBAG and we have an upcoming partnership with La Lune, where customers can get mooncakes in either an #INVISIBLEBAG crossover with La Lune or paper bag.
We are very excited for these upcoming projects. While we want to sell bags and make money, of course, we want to create awareness and influence people to shift their behaviour and become more conscious of their plastic consumption.
EO: What is Distinctive Action’s Long-Term Vision?
Devana: Right now, we are working on research and development to develop new materials that can replace plastic food packaging. We are working with engineers to develop plastic-free materials that can still act as a good barrier against oxygen and bacteria for frozen food and food and beverage containers. This is an ongoing process, and won’t be something that we complete in 6 months. We want to be the leader of alternative packaging solutions, so we need to put a lot of time and effort into it.
Looking outward, we want to work with brands and people that have the same mindset as Distinctive Action or influence them to adopt the same mindset and live more sustainably. Similarly, we want to use our position to help the community we operate in. We’ve donated 200 litres of sanitisers to various charities, including Feeding Hong Kong and Dialogue Experience for the Disabled.
—
The pandemic has seen more widespread use of single-use items as people have been forced to get takeaway food instead of dining at restaurants. This comes at a time when plastic waste is skyrocketing globally. A study found that even if we reduced our plastic waste by 80%, we will still be faced with 710 million tons of plastic by 2040.
This dire prediction makes companies working to reduce plastic waste- like Distinctive Action- all the more important.
Hong Kong lawmakers have abandoned a long-delayed bill on a mandatory waste disposal charging scheme, citing a lack of time to complete the legislative process, ending a decade-long campaign. Three bills had been ditched in the past few weeks due to time constraints.
—
The Hong Kong Municipal Solid Waste Charging Scheme
On June 22, members of the bill’s committee on the waste charging scheme in Hong Kong voted seven to four to shelve discussions for the bill, effectively abandoning it. According to government plans, the bill was expected to reduce solid waste by 40% on a per capita basis by 2022.
Opposition lawmaker Ted Hui Chi-fung, a member of the bill’s committee, said, “This means total government failure in terms of environmental failure.” The committee reportedly had difficulties holding meetings during the year due to protests and the coronavirus pandemic that delayed face-to-face sessions.
Secretary for the Environment, Wong Kam-sing says that the government will ‘do its best’ to reduce through other means despite the waste charging scheme bill being dumped.
He says. “The Environment Bureau is proactive in waste reduction in Hong Kong and our efforts will not stop here. We will continue our work in other areas, focusing on clean recycling, including food waste, paper and waste plastics.”
The proposed scheme would have seen residents disposing of waste in designated bags priced at an average of 11 HK cents (1.4 US cents) per litre. The average household would have paid between HKD$33 and $51 per month, depending on the amount of rubbish they produced.
A joint statement by five environmental groups, including Green Peace, The Green Earth and Green Power, called the bill ‘stillborn’ and expressed frustration over the delays to the scheme. Edwin Lau Che-feng, executive director of The Green Earth, said that the government had missed a golden opportunity to pass the bill over the years, saying that it had to set the tone in driving Hong Kong’s environmental protection laws.
The groups also made three recommendations to the government on initiatives to implement before the end of its current term in 2022, namely to improve the recycling system, reduce waste at the source by eliminating disposable tableware and packaging and reducing disposable packing in supermarkets, and resubmit the draft to implement the recycling and waste reduction policy to rebuild public confidence.
The waste problem in Hong Kong is getting worse, with 2018 levels hitting the highest level since records began in 1991 with Hongkongers sending 1.53kgs of trash to landfills every day. In the same year, it was found that 31% of municipal solid waste in Hong Kong was food waste, the largest component of such waste. The abandoned bill aimed to reduce the average waste per capita to 0.8kgs per day.
A recent investigative survey by local news outlet HK01 found that of 14 housing estates surveyed, nine were sending plastic bottles intended to be recycled to landfills. Some attribute this to the low value of plastics in Hong Kong; the price of recycled plastics has been in decline since 2018, reducing incentives for waste collectors to collect plastic.
Boost this article
By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.
