Showing posts with label Pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pollution. Show all posts

Friday, December 9, 2011

The problematic poser: who should pay for e-waste disposal

THE ARTICLE BELOW IS FROM SMART PLANET

Who should pay for e-waste disposal?

By  | December 7, 2011, 2:22 AM PST

HONG KONG — Hong Kong will soon have a facility designated for dismantling and recycling electronic products such as televisions, refrigerators and computers.
A tax will be added to the price tags of electronic products to help pay for e-waste disposal. Based on a similar tax in other cities, the cost of home appliances is expected to go up by $12 to $30.
The question now is whether consumers should pay for all of the recycling costs. Some argue that retailers and manufacturers should pay for part of it to hold accountable all involved parties.
The current proposal places the recycling fee at the retail level, and it is likely that retailers will simply charge the extra cost to consumers. This type of legislation “is not really the spirit of producer responsibility” as intended by the legislation, said Edwin Lau, general affairs director of Friends of the Earth in Hong Kong.
Lau said in over 30 jurisdictions around the world, the e-waste fee is charged to the importer, as electronic products are frequently manufactured overseas.
“Of course producers have the responsibility to contribute a small part of their earning to the annual operation cost of the e-waste recycling plant that will have our e-waste properly dismantled and recycled and reused,” Lau said.
In California, there is a $10 fee added to the price of electronic products with viewable screens, but retailers may choose to pay the fee on behalf of the consumer to make its prices more competitive. Several other U.S. states charge e-waste recycling fees to manufacturers.
Right now, about 80% of Hong Kong’s e-waste is exported to other cities and countries. Many of these areas are poor and use polluting processes that are harmful to the workers’ health. “It’s not environmentally responsible,” Lau said, “and it’s not ethical.”
Photo: Vanessa Ko
Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.
Vanessa Ko

About Vanessa Ko

Vanessa Ko is a Hong Kong correspondent for SmartPlanet.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Contamination: of lives, and of regulatory and tax systems


Case study one, believed to be Leigh Street, was particularly concerning.
''Twenty-two residential properties surrounding the former quarry site are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [by-products of fuel burning], benzo(a)pyrene [a carcinogen found in coal tar and exhaust fumes], lead and other metals due to the quarry infill material,'' the report found.
The report said that the ''Maribyrnong City Council and the EPA have demonstrated poor due diligence and a poor duty of care'' to the residents at the site.
The report outlined a tangled bureaucratic mess for dealing with contaminated sites.
''No one entity is accountable for oversight of the effectiveness of the regulatory framework in operation.
''Further, responsibility for managing the high-risk sites has been neither clearly defined nor accepted by any entity,'' Mr Pearson found.
He called for a ''systematic and co-ordinated review of the entire regulatory framework''.
The Environment Protection Authority said it accepted the report's recommendations in full.
Maribyrnong City Council chief executive Vince Haining said within the 32 square kilometres of the municipality there were 89 former quarry sites that contain residential and industrial waste.
He said council did not ''possess the financial means'' to immediately investigate and remediate potentially contaminated sites across the municipally.
He said the council was working closely with the EPA and environmental consultants to investigate and remediate sites mentioned in the Auditor-General's report.

~~~~~

I want to draw attention to four facts:
  •  that this pollution, contamination, call it what you will is from waste, by-products of a form of resource extraction and production.  
  • that the cost of cleaning up this site and the cost of healthcare for those affected by this contamination will be borne by the ratepayers of the Maribyrnong City Council and the taxpayers of Victoria through the Victorian Government.  
  • that there is unlikely to have been any realistic cost extracted by either the Maribyrnong City Council or the Victorian Government from the business using the site to cover such contingencies
  • that there was insufficient regulation and/or monitoring to prevent this and there is no direct indication that effective regulation and/or monitoring is already in place or will be put in place to prevent such an occurrence again.
People gain prestige when they rise to elected office at whatever level of government.  People who manage government instrumentalities are well-educated and, again, acquire prestige from their appointments.  The people who have lived in these properties either suffer from afflictions obtained through the contamination or live in fear of adverse health states further down the track.  

What I am pointing out is that some people are all glory and frequently abdicate their responsibilities.  Some people are casualties and some are tax fodder.  Our society has to come to the stage where adverse affects and costs are effectively recognised and accounted for in an up-front manner.  The burden is falling adversely on people who should not be paying the price while the damages, wasters, incurrers are getting away, it would appear, scot free.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

From city streets, to waters, oceans and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: let's change our polluting ways


Here is the end result of the problem - polluted water, polluted beaches.
This is a symptom of a much larger disease.
From generation unto generation,
we have had an out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude to waste.

We sink it in the water, tumble it into landfill.
But it comes back, doesn't it, to bite us in the bum.  

and we don't take account of everything. 
Our streets are turned into rubbish receptacles,
resulting in polluted stormwater rushing, gushing into waterways and oceans.

Aren't we clever?

We have proved that a thrown away icecream tub, a cigarette stub, don't disappear
except from our careless minds.
It is possible for it to end thousands of kilometres away from human 'civilisation'.
It doesn't go away.
It accumulates with the relentless speed of a national debt.

We need to change our minds as well as our habits.
We need new, fresh, clean thinking.
We need to recognise old ways and turn to new ones.
Clean water and sanitation introduced through public authorities
- just under two hundred years ago -
changed things for our health and our environment.
This required leadership - thanks Lord Shaftesbury.
We need similar leadership on waste to-day
and we need intelligent people willingly led
to make such an extensive clean-up a reality.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

A new day is coming with Australia's taxing axing carbon pollution

The Greens Leader - Senator Bob Brown (centre)
with Greens Deputy Leader - Senator Christine Milne
and
House of Representatives Member for Melbourne -

Australia's current version of the carbon tax passed the Senate and into law to-day.  There was great cheering in the Senate with The Greens indulging in celebratory hugs and kisses.  Don't blame them.  A lot of work has gone into coming this far.  A few words of caution though - how far will this take us?  That is the unknown ..but the work of the climate change sceptics and deniers and their supporters is not an unknown quantity and the current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, has promised that - if and - when he becomes Prime Minister he will repeal the legislation.  So this is not the end of a story...it is one more chapter in a saga whose end is yet to be finally proven, settled, and law becomes a lifestyle.


1.              Carbon emissions tax for the 500 biggest polluters starts on July 1, 2012
2.              Tax moves to an emissions trading scheme in 2015
3.              Advertisement: Story continues below
4.              Tax begins at a fixed price of $23 a tonne and rise by 2.5 per cent a year until 2015.
5.              Tax will not apply to agricultural emissions or light on-road vehicles
6.              Electricity generation, stationary energy, some business transport, waste, industrial processes and fugitive emissions will be covered by the initial tax
7.              Average households will see a $9.90 weekly cost rise
8.              Average households will receive assistance of $10.10 weekly
9.              Free carbon permits will be the given to the most emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries
10.            The government wants to cut pollution by 80 per cent by 2050.

(Source: Australian government)




Prime Minister Julia Gillard hugs Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Labor had its moment in the sun and of self-congratulation on October 12 last when the legislation passed the House of Representatives with the support of the one Green member in the lower house and two independents, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott.  

Now we wait...
  • for the implementation of the legislation
  • for the surprise of the electorate when the legislation works without hardship or a jobs crisis
  • to see the making and breaking of political leadership: Gillard or Abbott
  • to see more artful dodging and vile slander from the sceptics
  • to cheer for Australia as she makes a major contribution to caring for our planet, other species, and ourselves.
Further reading: