The new plastic bag levy policy was introduced last week.

It is the latest version of the levy policy launched by the previous SAR government and will make all plastic bags subject to the levy. With only a few exceptions allowed, based on valid reasons like hygiene considerations, all plastic bags will be subject to the levy. Since this will affect most Hong Kong people, the policy will generate a lot of media interest. Judging by the efforts made by officials to explain it, the government is determined to make it work. In addition to environmental considerations, there are some important political implications behind the policy.

As we all know, plastic is a by-product of petroleum. It is durable and difficult to decompose and therefore hurts the environment. However, the use of plastic certainly makes people's lives easier. From all kinds of packaging supplies, products and vests, plastic makes our lives more convenient and comfortable. When I was a child I used to go to the wet markets with my mother. At the time we did not have plastic bags. We used newspapers and dried sea grass to wrap up our groceries.

Of course, this was not very hygienic. Groceries got wet and this too had an adverse impact on the environment. But just because we now need to use less plastic bags, we can't return to the old days of wrapping groceries with newspapers or dried sea grass. People have grown used to plastic bags. While they offer consumers convenience, it is impractical to totally abandon their use, no matter how harmful they are to the environment. Because of these considerations, the levy on plastic bags is a rational and sensible response to a difficult problem. But the levy is not being introduced to generate income to deal with environmental problems. Its aim is to change people's behavior.

After the introduction of the levy, most people were willing to bring their own shopping bags. This significantly reduced the use and distribution of plastic bags in supermarkets. Of course, there are still a lot of pre-packaged goods demanded by consumers which necessitate the heavy use of plastic bags. But the intention of the policy is to help the public change their behavior in order to protect the environment. From this perspective, the levy was criticized. Many commentators questioned its overall effectiveness. This was because after it was introduced, the use of plastic bags actually increased. Critics of the policy argued that the levy would not yield the desired results.

However, it is not fair to judge the number of plastic bags used as a way to assess for the long-term effectiveness of the levy. People's consumption will rise when the economy expands. When Hong Kong's economy performs well, people consume more and so the use of plastic bags increases. It can also be argued that if there was not a levy on plastic bags, the use of plastic bags would be even greater.

Based on the experience of the first plastic bag levy, the latest plans to extend the levy will result in a reduced number of plastic bags, initially; then the number of plastic bags being used will rise. However, the reason for this is not because the levy is ineffective. Economic factors clearly have a big impact of the success of the levy. To have an objective evaluation of the effectiveness of the levy, we have to closely examine changes in people's behavior.

The levy has had political consequences. The public is well aware of environmental problems caused by plastic bags. Reducing the use of plastic bags shows society has reached a degree of maturity and consensus on the issue.

There are still dissenters because the introduction of any new government policy will always result in some dissatisfaction. Very often people will claim there was insufficient public consultation on the issue and the government was responsible for this. Under such circumstances, such a policy will inevitably attract some controversy.

The opposition camp will exploit the situation to attack the government. Despite this, the introduction of the new policy last week generally went smoothly. But whether it will ultimately change people's behavior still remains to be seen.

(HK Edition 04/13/2015 page10)