2006年10月30日 星期一

A leader tied to outdated thinking

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2006-10-30 , p. A13)


In 1972, world leaders from 113 nations were confronted with a serious challenge at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm : how to reconcile the conflicts between environmental protection and economic development. Could the knot be untied?


When Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen delivered his policy address last week, he sounded dangerously close to one of those troubled world leaders 34 years ago. He mused about the public aspiration for a better environment: To attain these progressive goals, however, we must keep up the momentum of economic growth, otherwise this is all empty talk and we shall lack the resources to make things happen.


This may be empty talk for Hong Kong . But for world leaders in 1972, it was different: they established the UN Environment Programme and began to search for an answer. It was not until 15 years later that they found one. It came from the Bruntland Report - the concept and practice of sustainable development, that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


Since then, environmental quality, social well-being and economic prosperity have no longer been seen as inevitable conflicts. With innovation, good science and community efforts, these objectives can become mutually reinforcing. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 vastly expanded the body of knowledge in putting theory into practice.


But there is one catch - sustainable development can happen only where there is vision and good governance.


Mr Tsang's world view was more clearly exposed when he debated with legislators the day after his address. He regarded public calls for a better environment and heritage conservation as the root cause for slowing development, offering the examples of the West Kowloon , Kai Tak and Central-Wan Chai harbourfront developments. That is, delaying development means less revenue for the public coffers; hence the progressive goals for a quality environment must wait until money can be found.


Barely a week before the policy address, Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen delivered the world's first city-wide sustainability report to a global conference of more than 1,100 people in the Dutch city. The report espouses the aim of turning Amsterdam into a liveable city by proclaiming that investments in our existing living environment are contributing significantly to the sustainable development of Amsterdam .


Not only does the Amsterdam government not shy away from investing for the future, it also acknowledges that by accepting our social responsibility in proper environmental care, biodiversity and sustainable poverty alleviation, we also expand our own knowledge.


By aiming towards a clear vision, the city, its boroughs, departments and enterprises share an ambition to do more than is required or expected. The city's power company has just completed a world-first in using the temperature differences in a deep-water lake for a district cooling system, for example. New businesses are attracted by this sort of innovative project, which cuts greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 60 per cent when compared with using air conditioning.


In such cases, environmental concerns become a competitive edge and the quest for a better environment is a growth engine.


Officials looking for easy solutions may find a thousand reasons to brand the many concerned groups and citizens who make similar suggestions as Luddites with an anti-development agenda. But, in the end, who will suffer?


If Hong Kong is embroiled in practical politics under the guidance of an outdated development philosophy, we can hardly lead in innovation and governance.


We must move quickly from a three-decade old ideology to a 21st-century vision. The public has moved forward; what about our leaders?


Albert Lai is chairman of the Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and the Civic Party's vice-chairman.


 


 


2006年10月1日 星期日

曾蔭權的環保理念

(本文原載於200610月「經濟一週」雜誌)


1972年,全球113個國家領袖齊集瑞典首都斯德哥爾摩,召開聯合國「人類環境」會議,討論一個嚴肅的課題:經濟發展與環境保護是否必然對立?如何能解開這個死結?


特首曾蔭權在上週發表施政報告時,他的腔調與34年前的多國領袖出奇地相似。當談及社會大眾對提升環境質素的訴求時,他認為:「要實現這些進步的目標,經濟必須持續增長,否則一切都是空話,沒有本錢去實現。」


背後的理念其實很簡單:「先發展、後保育」;「先污染、後治理」。按照曾蔭權的發展觀,期望把環境關注轉化成發展動力的人,均變成反發展、拖後腿的障礙,影響庫房收入。


實踐可持續發展理論


參與1972年會議的各國領袖可並不滿足於這樣的「空話」,他們經過15年的努力,終於找到答案──聯合國的「白切朗報告」提出了可持續發展的概念,致力實踐一種發展模式,既可滿足現今世代的需要,卻不會削弱子孫後代滿足其需要的能力。


經過1992年里約熱內盧的「地球高峰會」及2002年的「可持續發展及世界首腦會議」後,把可持續發展的理論付諸實踐的經驗已經俯拾皆是。


但是,要有如曾蔭權的要求,同時提升環境質素、社會和諧和經濟繁榮,除了需倚賴創意、科技與社群協作之外,更需要良好管治和清晰的城市發展願景。


把環境制約轉化成優勢


就在施政報告發表前一星期,荷蘭阿姆斯特丹市市長提交了世界上第一份涵蓋全市的「可持續發展報告」。報告明確指出「投資於居住環境是該市可持續展的動力」,「接受環境關顧、生物多樣性及滅貧的社會責任,可以擴闊我們的知識視野」。


舉例說,阿姆斯特丹的電力公司利用一個深水湖頂部和底部的溫差,建造了全球第一項地區空調工程,不但減少了60%的溫室氣體排放,更吸引了大企業在該區落,成功地把環境制約轉化成經濟競爭的優勢。


在香港,我們難道不可以因應中環─灣仔海濱過度發展的現況,促成一套創新的交通方案?或在啟德新規劃區創建零排放的運輸系統?又例如因應昂船洲污水廠缺乏擴建空間,可以採用最新的省地設計和流程,加快排污計劃第二期的建設。


若果曾蔭權擁抱的「務實政治」,仍然受制於超過30年前的發展觀,願景貧乏、因循苟且的代價,最終只會由我們的子孫後代承擔。


 


 


Exposed: A three-decade old ideology

In 1972, world leaders from 113 nations were confronted with a serious challenge at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm : how to reconcile the conflicts between environmental protection and economic development. Could the deadlock be untied?


When the Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, delivered his policy address last week, he sounded dangerously close to one of those troubled world leaders 34 years ago. He mused about the public aspiration for a better environment: “To attain these progressive goals, however, we must keep up the momentum of economic growth, otherwise this is all empty talk and we shall lack the resources to make things happen.”.


Empty talk for Hong Kong it may be. But for world leaders in 1972, they established the United Nations Environment Programme and began to search for an answer. It was not until 15 years later that they found one from the Bruntland Report – the concept and practice of sustainable development, a kind of development that "meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."


From then on, environmental quality, social well-being and economic prosperity are no longer seen as inevitable conflicts. With innovation, good science and community efforts, these objectives can become mutually reinforcing. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 vastly expanded the body of knowledge in putting theory into practice.


But there is one catch – sustainable development can only happen where there is city vision and good governance.


The Chief Executive’s world view was more clearly exposed when he debated with Legislative Councillors on the next day. He regarded public calls for better environment and heritage conservation as the root cause for slowing down development, offering examples in West Kowloon , Kai Tak and Central-Wanchai harbour-front development. Delaying development means less revenue for the public coffer; hence the “progressive goals” for a quality environment must wait until money can be found.


Barely a week before the Policy Address, the Mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, delivered the world’s first city-wide sustainability report to a global conference attended by over 1,100 participants in the Dutch capital. The report espouses the aim of turning Amsterdam into a livable city by proclaiming that “investments in our existing living environment are contributing significantly to the sustainable development of Amsterdam ”.


Not only does the Amsterdam government not shy away from investing for the future, it also acknowledges that “by accepting our social responsibility in proper environmental care, biodiversity and sustainable poverty alleviation, we also expand our own knowledge”.


By aiming high towards a clear vision, the city, its boroughs, departments and enterprises share an ambition to do more than is required or expected. In waste management, its waste-to-energy plant handles 900,000 tons of waste and sewage slurry annually with raw materials reclaimed in the process. It is also constructing a new high-yield waste-fired power plant with an electrical efficiency of 30%.


As a response to the challenge of global warming, the city’s power company has just completed the world’s first district cooling system by utilizing the temperature difference between the bottom and the top of a deep water lake near the city. New businesses are attracted to the district because of this innovative supply of energy which reduces greenhouse gas emission by over 60% compared to conventional air-conditioning.


Quite simply, environmental concerns are being turned into Amsterdam ’s competitive edge. The quest for a better environment is an engine for growth, not an obstacle.


There may not be deep water lakes in Hong Kong . But what about finding an innovative transport solution for the over-built Central-Wanchai harbour-front, or an emission-free people-mover system in the long strip of land in Kai Tak? In our drive to clean up the harbour, should we not turn the space constraint in the Stonecutter’s Sewage Treatment Plant into an opportunity for developing the most land-efficient technology and speed up the stage two development of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme?


Officials looking for easy solutions may find a thousand reasons to brand the many concerned groups and citizens who made similar suggestions as luddites with an anti-development agenda. But in the end who will suffer the consequences?


The Italian film director Federico Fellini once said: “the visionary is the only true realist”. Many in Hong Kong would perhaps agree.


If Hong Kong is embroiled in “practical politics” under the guidance of an outdated development philosophy, we can hardly lead – in innovation and in governance. We must move quickly from a three-decade old ideology to a 21st century vision. The public has moved; what about our leaders?


Albert Lai is the Chairman of Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development and the  Vice-chairman of the Civic Party