words hillary busis

bc investigates the effect of the government levy on plastic bags

When viewed from the air, Hong Kong is a lush paradise, an idyllic landscape covered with verdant flora as far as the eye can see. From the ground, it’s a different story: When you’re actually walking through Hong Kong’s streets, our fair city appears more grey than green. That’s true not only in a literal sense – as a general rule, neutrals dominate the colour scheme here – but figuratively as well.

Simply put, ours is not a particularly environmentally conscious population. Constant construction and busy roads mean that large vehicles are continually releasing toxic fumes into the air. When marketplace stalls close each night in places like Ma On Shan’s Sunshine Plaza, huge piles of refuse take over the streets. Eco-minded organization Friends of the Earth reports that at a landfill in Tuen Mun, garbage is stacked a full 40 stories high.

Perhaps most surprisingly of all, government figures indicate that, on average, each of Hong Kong’s 7 million citizens collects and discards three plastic bags per day. That may not sound like much, but it adds up to an astonishing 8 billion bags annually.

With those figures in mind, it’s easy to understand why the government recently imposed a new plastic bag levy, decreeing that at certain retail outlets, customers will be charged $.50 for every plastic bag they accept from a cashier. In theory, such a tax is sensible – it should lead to more people taking their own bags to the stores, thereby cutting down on plastic waste.

A similar levy passed in Ireland in 2002 has had incredible results: reportedly, plastic bag usage there has dropped by over 90%. Brian Pemberton, who started a company called reSackel that crafts reusable totes out of old, discarded rice sacks, sees Ireland as a positive model. He’s optimistic about the levy, saying, ‘I think it’s a good thing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if most countries, certainly most industrialized, modern countries, introduce a levy in the next couple of years.’

Hong Kong Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau has already labelled our plastic bag law a success. ‘Things seem to be going very smoothly. From what I heard at the retail outlets, seven to eight out of 10 people walking into supermarkets brought their own shopping bags,’ he said in a press release dated July 7, the day the levy began.

But a visit to any local supermarket reveals that Yau’s optimism is premature. At a Wellcome in Tin Hau, for example, shelves and displays are filled with products – Quaker oatmeal, cleaning supplies, a six-pack of Pocari Sweat – that are pre-bagged, enclosed in transparent plastic casing complete with handles. Clearly, plastic manufacturers have found at least one way around the tax: When products are sealed within bags before arriving at retailers, the bags are exempt from the levy.

Andrew Shuen, co-founder of libertarian think tank The Lion Rock Institute, had a hunch this would happen. He is firmly against the levy – a law he labels ‘Stalin-esque’ – for a variety of reasons, but primarily because he believes it will lead to ‘more plastic bags used by the people of Hong Kong. More plastic used, period.’

The pre-packaging, says Shuen, means that the plastic enclosing products on supermarket shelves is no longer designed ‘for the trip from supermarket to home, but instead from a factory to the home.’ That makes it more durable and less biodegradable: the increased packaging replaces plastic bags with plastic that is stronger and even worse for the environment.

Shuen also predicts that charging for formerly free bags will lead to an ‘arms race‘ among plastic manufacturers ‘to see who can produce the best bags for $.50.’ Bags that were once gratis will necessarily have to be made sturdier because, as Shuen says, ‘Once I start paying for the bags, I demand my money’s worth. I think that’s just natural. And retailers would start to appease that.’

The fact that a law meant to reduce plastic use will, in all probability, actually increase it is upsetting but understandable. More troubling, though, is the truth behind the ‘green’ nonwoven bags major market chains like Wellcome and Park n Shop are selling as replacements for disposable bags. ‘This bag is marketed as eco. It’s not eco,’ says Lizette Smook of InnovAsians, a company that develops and manufactures environmentally friendly products, as she holds up one of the offending totes.

‘This bag is made from polypropylene [the durable plastic also used to construct clear bags, electrical cables and wastebaskets, among other things]. It can be said that it’s sustainable, because you’re eliminating plastic [bags]. You are encouraging people to buy a bag like this. But to make this bag still takes a lot of fossil fuel, still has a high carbon footprint,’ she goes on. There’s a word for claiming a product is good for the environment when it actually isn’t: greenwashing. It’s also known as lying.

Then, of course, there’s the issue that always crops up when a sweeping new law is announced: enforcement. ‘I will say I bet enforcement’s
going to be a big issue, because if it’s anything like the smoking ban – you go to any bar now, you can pretty much smoke in there. I’m sure there are a lot of parallels between that and this,’ says Michael Hung, CEO of eco-manufacturer Green Army.

Comparing the plastic bag levy to the smoking ban is valid in many ways, although the levy is not nearly as wide reaching. The plastic tax only applies to ‘prescribed retailers’ –chains that have five or more qualified retail outlets, as well as individual stores that cover an area of 200 sq metres or more – a mere fraction of all the retailers in Hong Kong. By contrast, the smoking ban forbids lighting up in any indoor area. Still, the laws are similar in that each attempts to prompt dramatic shifts in behavior while causing as many (or more) problems than it solves.

With that in mind, maybe it’s best that the plastic bag levy is a targeted tax rather than a citywide ban. ‘I see nothing wrong with phasing it in,’ says Michael Hung. ‘You can’t change things immediately, and I think on top of that, it’s probably just not practical. How are you going to force everybody to stop at one time, you know?’

Levy supporter Brian Pemberton agrees that a tax on plastic bags at all stores would be unfeasible. ‘You can’t ban them because then they’ll just become like black-market goods under the counter,’ he says. ‘And the police I’m sure have better things to do than wandering in and out of retail stores checking this stuff. So I think you’ve got to have the cooperation of the retailers.’

And retailers are prepared to cooperate – at least, according to their public relations teams. Christy Wong at the AS Watson Group, the corporation that owns Park n Shop, Taste, Great, and Gourmet, says that her company’s markets are ready for the levy and will co-operate fully with implementing it. ‘We are supportive to environmental protection and have been encouraging customers to bring their own bags and use less bags since 2001,’ she says.

But even Wong, who works for a company that peddles reusable bags made of plastic masquerading as eco-friendly totes, is not totally satisfied with the Environmental Protection Department’s (EPD) attempts to make Hong Kong greener. ‘The implementation of a plastic bag levy at this stage only covers less than 4% of the retailers in HK. The government should do more promotion and education so that Hong Kong shoppers will know clearly which plastic bags and retail chains are subject to the levy so as to help reduce disputes,’ she says.

When asked for comment, a spokesman from the EPD reported that $1 billion has been injected into the Environment and Conservation Fund to help support new eco-initiatives. Specific details about those initiatives, though, have not been released.

The preponderance of plastic creates a no-win situation frustrating to green-minded folk and ordinary consumers alike. Not having a levy would mean careless plastic bag usage would go on unchecked, but the levy actually increases the amount of plastic being manufactured. Is there any way to keep the planet from suffering?

Individual decisions do have some effect, however small, on the environment at large. You can choose to take your own bag – perhaps made out of organic bamboo or reused materials rather than polypropylene – to the grocery store. Beyond small-scale acts like that, though, it’s unclear what we – the people, the government, the manufacturers – can do to truly clean up Hong Kong.

Cutting down on plastic is possible, but it will require much more than a poorly legislated $.50 tax. As Smook says, ‘I really think there’s a big missed opportunity. Just putting the levy in and saying, “Okay, we’ve done what we can…” – there’s a next step.’ Precisely what that entails remains to be seen.

Green Glossary

Carbon Footprint
The total amount of greenhouse gases emissions caused directly or indirectly by an individual, product or organization. Interestingly, Lizette Smook points out, ‘Eighty percent of thex and drying.

Carbon Offsetting
The process of balancing one’s carbon emissions indirectly. As Michael Hung explains it, ‘The classic example is for every book that you produce or print, you would plant a tree.’

Greenwashing
A term describing what companies are doing when they overstate the environmental friendliness of their products or operations.

Nonwoven
A fabric made by fusing fibres with chemicals or heat. Despite appearances, nonwoven bags are not actually good for the environment. ‘They’re not particularly strong, they take about six times the amount of energy to make than a regular disposable plastic bag, and they’re being given away by stores thinking that they’re doing a good thing,’ says Brian Pemberton.

Organic
A general term meaning that something was produced without the use of man-made chemicals. ‘All organic means it grew without pesticides,’ Smook says. ‘You could put the worst chemicals on top of that fabric, and really wipe out the whole purpose of going organic.’

PET
Polyethylene terephthalate, the plastic material from which things like disposable plastic waterbottles are made. PET can be recycled and converted into everything from reusable totes to key chains and school supplies.