Hong Kong is now facing a garbage handling crisis. According to estimates, if Hong Kong continues its garbage production rate, the three landfills will be used up in two to six years. The government is now strongly advocating three options as a solution. The first is a levy on garbage. The second is an extension of the current landfills. The third is the construction of a new incineration plant. Nevertheless, similar to other social issues, it is easier said than done. The three initiatives will not be welcomed by people, in particular those who reside nearby. The garbage problem needs a rapid resolution.

Hong Kong is famous for its garbage production rate. Currently the majority of garbage transported to landfills is food leftovers and construction waste. This is no surprise. Because Hong Kong is a modernized city, people have more food than is actually needed. Construction waste is also a by-product of the rapid development of Hong Kong.

The question is how to handle the garbage. In the old days, when land was not an acute problem, the traditional way was to locate a place far from people and use the site for dumping. The concept of landfill is to use technology to control the dumping process and make dumping less undesirable. However, this traditional way of handling garbage is no longer workable. Economic development has made Hong Kong short of land for landfill on a massive scale. Worse still, those landfills used to be far away from people, but now the adjacent land is inhabited. This makes the extension of existing landfills mission impossible. People who live close to the existing landfills suffer from the undesirable environment. There are already voices demanding the closure of landfill sites. Hence, the garbage problem cannot be solved with landfills anymore.

The concept of a garbage levy is an attractive one. By placing up a levy on garbage handling, theoretically people will produce less rubbish. At least, that's the theory. No doubt a garbage levy will inspire people to produce less garbage, but the effectiveness of such a scheme is still uncertain. If the garbage levy is not substantial, there will be little incentive to reduce garbage. And, given the current political situation, a large-scale levy on garbage does not seem feasible. People may not like the idea, and the need to get enough votes from legislators can be a real challenge.

The building of an incineration plant is a long-term solution to the garbage problem. In the past, Hong Kong also had incineration plants. But at that time incineration technology was not environmentally friendly. Incineration plants produced toxic residuals and the government decided to close down its plants. This unpleasant experience of incineration plants still lives in the memory of people. Given that and the fear of pollution, incineration plants are definitely not welcome solutions.

However, technology has made incineration plants less undesirable. Many cities now have incineration plants, some even close to inhabited areas. According to some reports, modern incineration plants can burn garbage whereby the residual will be equal to 1 percent of the volume of the original garbage. The residuals will still need to be dumped at the landfills, but the amount will reduce tremendously. From this perspective, Hong Kong's having incineration plants would markedly extend the lives of its existing landfills. For example, if a landfill can only be used for one year, garbage treatment through incineration plants can extend the lives of landfills one hundred times.

This provides an interesting discussion topic. If we have incineration plants, we need not find new landfill sites and the garbage problem can be solved. But building an incineration plant takes eight to nine years. Therefore, we can see a garbage levy and the extension of landfills as measures to buy time for the construction of an incineration plant. The real solution to the garbage problem resides with incineration plants, and the levy and landfill extensions are just short-term measures to cope with the garbage problem before the incineration plant can be operated. The trick is that the three measures are interlinked. If one link breaks, the whole solution will not be successful. In other words, the three measures represent one whole package to confront the garbage issue.

The challenge lies in persuading people to adopt the three measures. People do not like paying more for garbage handling. People do not welcome landfill extension. And they actively dislike the idea of an incineration plant on their doorstep. The concept of NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) is hard to deal with. One possible way to reduce people's resistance is to provide subsidies for those living near the incineration plant. The government can consider spending some of its garbage levy to subsidize the electricity charges of people living near landfills or the incineration plant. The trick is how to compensate those affected so that they can be more fairly treated.

The author is dean of the School of Business at Hang Seng Management College.

(HK Edition 05/30/2013 page1)