A year ago, many observers hailed the imposition of a levy on plastic bags as a significant environmental achievement. Many wondered why they ever doubted Hong Kong people could be bothered to take their own bags to go shopping. The sceptics seemed confounded.
The public appeared to have accepted the levy because they understood that the billions of disposable plastic bags being dumped in our landfills each year are toxic to our environment. Many supporters, including this newspaper, cited this early evidence to argue that the government should press ahead with expansion of the scheme beyond the 3,000 stores initially registered and lose no time in embracing a wider waste-reduction strategy including comprehensive recycling. They demanded that environment secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah set a timetable for doing so, and poured scorn on those urging a review of the scheme, studies of systems in use elsewhere, further consultations and exemptions.
However, newly released figures for bag usage provide a reality check. Surveys by the Environmental Protection Department indicate that the levy brought only a marginal reduction in the number of disposable bags being dumped in landfills and is responsible for a sharp increase in the dumping of reusable bags that are even worse for the environment. The department says consumers threw away 4.4 billion disposable bags last year, only 253 million fewer than in the year before the levy was introduced - a drop of less than 6 per cent. This means the average resident threw away 1.7 bags a day, down from 1.8 per day. The results were reflected in the amount of levy collected by participating stores - about HK$25 million compared with the HK$200 million anticipated.
Sceptics should not try to make too much of this. The levy still represents a significant step in tackling Hong Kong's waste disposal and pollution problems. In releasing the figures the government could have made an effort to put them in perspective. The fact remains that the number of plastic bags dumped fell when it would otherwise have been expected to rise, and this in a year of economic recovery from the financial crisis and the resumption of conspicuous consumption. The notional reduction in the use of disposable plastic bags must therefore be much greater. A 50 cent levy was never going to be a deterrent on its own, except to the poor and those who cannot bear to waste a cent. The real achievement has been to raise people's awareness of their responsibility for their environment. People seem to embrace the levy - some more than others, to be sure. This shows it is possible to change their behaviour and that society has the ability to change.
The department is preparing a public consultation on expanding the levy beyond large supermarket chains and personal-care and convenience stores. Environmentalists rightly argue for expanding the scheme in one step to avoid confusing shoppers, and for limiting exemptions to wet markets. An important question is how to harness public acceptance of the levy to reduce harmful levels of roadside air pollution and promote debate about recycling and the incineration of waste that cannot be dumped in landfills for much longer. Sectional interests will raise obstacles to effective action, but the people have shown they do want a clean environment - and are prepared to change their behaviour to achieve it. An administration nearing the end of its term may lack the stomach to seize on this sentiment to face down opposition. Its successor will have no excuse.