To reclaim or to save the harbour, to develop or conserve our countryside, to landfill or to recycle, to demolish or to renovate historic buildings ... the public has been asked to ponder these billion-dollar questions. The deadline for the sustainable development consultation ended two weeks ago, with topics including solid waste, renewable energy and urban living space.
In the recent rounds of consultations, oversimplification of the ideas and options means there is a risk the public will be asked to make important judgments without understanding the real value.
How much is clean air worth? What is the price for our country parks? What is the social, cultural, ecological and sentimental value of Victoria Harbour? What is the price tag for pollution? What is the price tag for short-term economic gain in exchange for irreversible damage done to our ecosystem?
Sustainable development without factoring in real costs and value is development without sustainability.
Without identifying the 'ownership' of the problem of excessive waste generation, it is rather unwise to jump-start the band-aid search for a quick cure.
Polluters should pay. But the questions are: Who are the polluters? How much should they pay? And pay for what? Environmental equity can only be achieved if producer responsibility is enforced. Corresponding legislation and an enforcement regime are necessary to achieve this objective. An end-of-the-pipe solution without tackling the problem at source is unsustainable.
Our urban living space is under threat due to ad hoc planning, neglect, blatant abuse of land leases, selling of heritage sites for land revenue and the confusing housing policy. The sustainable development consultation, by default, did not make reference to the small-house policy, the review of conservation policy, the fate of the environment of Lantau Island and the population pressure as a result of a more relaxed immigration policy.