|
Letters to the Editors |
Letter to the Editor of South China Morning Post - Response to reader's letter relating to waste charging
In his letter, Bob Carson (“Charging scheme won’t lead to less household waste”, September 12) has a crucial misunderstanding about waste charging. While it is only one tool for waste management, it is an essential component at different steps along the way, including managing household waste.
It should be stressed that in exploring the option of waste charges, the key purpose is not to generate government revenue, nor to punish people. Rather, it is to provide on-going incentives to encourage each of us to recognize that the waste we generate imposes serious costs on us all.
In fact, we already face costs for the waste we generate, but rather than paying for it based on how much we ourselves create, we pay through government expenditures to deal with impact of waste disposal on the environment. With waste charging, each of us will be directly paying at least part of the cost based on our own decisions and lifestyles. Charges serve as a continuing reminder that disposing of waste is not free, and it incentivises us to make different decisions, and to think carefully about the consequences of our lifestyles.
There will be a need to "police" a new charging policy. Waste charging is no longer so novel in the world, and different places have overcome problems such as fly tipping in different ways. Hong Kong too will find its way.
Tellingly, Carson notes: "Perhaps manufacturers could be encouraged, rather than taxed, to create more environmentally friendly packaging…". This is the heart of the matter. Charging (taxing) is not a substitute to providing incentives – it is potentially one the most effective forms of incentive to be used as part of a larger package of measures. I agree with Carson that such incentives must be strengthened.
Christine Loh
Under Secretary for the Environment