Financial problems would be huge concerns of the proposal of the construction of the super-incinerator. The construction requires a large amount of capital. With reference to another news report of South China Morning Post, the construction is proposed to involve HK$15 billion. It is a huge number that gets Hong Kong people’s attention on this issue. After the construction, the maintenance is also another great quantity of expenditures. Known from a letter to Panel on Environmental Affairs of legislative Council sent by Non-incinerator Citizens of Japan, 5% to 20% of construction fee is necessary for annual maintenance, which means 750 million to 11.25 billion is needs every year to do the maintenance of the incinerator. The super-incinerator will be a burden of Hong Kong.

MORE than half of those who took part in a survey support the expansion of three landfills as well as the building of an incinerator

on Shek Kwu Chau (石鼓洲).

Nearly 1,000 people took part in the September poll conducted by

the City University of Hong Kong ( 香港城市大學 ). It was

commissioned by the World Green Organization (世界綠色組織).

Around 53 percent of respondents backed expansion of the landfills. Only 11 percent opposed it. Support for an incinerator in Shek Kwu Chau was even higher at nearly 70 percent. Again, 11 percent opposed it.

The organisation believes there is stronger support for building an incinerator because the facility is far from urban areas. Many believe the impact on people would be lowest.

But it found there is room for more public education. Only 21 percent know the landfills will reach their capacity by 2015. Forty-two percent do not know when they will be full.

Also, only 6 percent know that it takes seven to nine years to build an incinerator.

The group urged lawmakers and district council members to support the landfill expansion and incinerator plans. It said that if the facilities are not approved, Hong Kong will have no waste management facilities by 2019.

Argument 1: Incinerators Are Very Expensive

Incinerators remain formidably expensive, but that expense is

often hidden from public view with giant public subsidies. To pay

for the capital and operating costs, as well as the operators’ profit

margins, the community or region will have to sign put-or-pay

agreements, which trap them for twenty-five years or more. As the

industry has struggled to make incineration safe, it has priced

itself out of the market – or it would have if the market was applied

on a level playing field.

Over half the capital cost of an incinerator built today goes into air

pollution control equipment. Ironically, if the waste were not

burned in the first place this hugely expensive equipment would

not be necessary, nor would the toxic ash collected in these

devices have to be sent to an expensive hazardous waste landfill,

nor would the air emissions be subjected to very costly monitoring.

But the public is being kept ill informed about the poor economics

of incineration. Instead, they are being told that incineration is

going to save their communities money.