Environmentalists have forced through bill on plastic bags

PUBLISHED : Friday, 25 July, 2008, 12:00am
UPDATED : Friday, 25 July, 2008, 12:00am

I am intrigued by the comments made by our local green groups on the political appointment of Kitty Poon Kit ('Green groups voice reservations about pick for environment post', July 14).

It was said that green groups had raised doubts over her suitability, amid unconfirmed rumours that another name - better known in green circles - had been raised during the selection of undersecretaries. But it is only natural that they would express such doubts, simply due to the fact that one of their own has not got in.

Green groups tend to give the impression that besides their 'expertise' to safeguard the environment, the rest of the community would not have a clue on how we individually can play our part and should be led.

They seem to think that only doing things their way is 'green' and have been putting relentless pressure on the government.

A case in point is the imminent levy on plastic supermarket carrier bags that most ordinary citizens have been reusing as receptacles for domestic waste disposal to keep the environment clean.

Regardless, green groups tell us using plastic supermarket carrier bags as such is a bad habit and an abuse.

They claim people should use their own bags, which are eventually turned into waste, and use levy-free plastic bin-liners which are more harmful to the environment, for waste disposal.

On the suitability of Dr Poon, Green Power chief executive Man Chi-sum was reported as saying, 'Environment Secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah hardly needed a helping hand in local affairs as, despite his initial inexperience, he had demonstrated an ability to listen to opposing views and resolve differences'.

That seems to sum up how green groups have cleverly misguided this effective administrative officer to bulldoze their preferred levy on plastic supermarket carrier bags through Legco on the last day of its session, under the cover of the Eco-Product Responsibility Bill, which is not providing a legal framework for manufacturer responsibility, as is claimed.

Alex Hung, Mong Kok