Waste Management In Taipei

A piece in the Straits Times print edition today (Monday, 11 Apr 2011): "Trash war: Sweet smell of success". The article details Taipei's waste management system, and caught my as a Taiwanese friend had mentioned it some time back in conversation. - System was started in 2000. - 2,500 collection points at street corners throughout the city, for trash and recyclables. - Collection daily except Wed and Sat. - Most residents or shopkeeps outsource the dumping and sorting of waste to private trash collectors for a monthly fee. - 56 fixed collection centres located across Taipei City, for people who are unable to meet the scheduled pickup and whose residence / office have not outsourced their trash collection activities. - "Pay-as-you-throw" system requires households and businesses to put waste in government issue blue garbage bags sold bfor between NT$1.35 and NT$45 each, depending on size. Residents who use unauthorised bags can be fined up to NT$6,000. - Recyclables are sorted (BY HAND!) into 7 categories: PET bottles, glass bottles, plastics, aluminium and ferrous metals, paper, food scraps, clothing. Recyclables are collected free of charge.

And the results?

- Taipei's 2.7m people produced 1,619 tonnes of trash a day in 2010 vs 3,695 tonnes before 2000

- Recycling rates up from 2.4% to 43%

- Taipei's only landfill is now an ecological park, having been idle since the beginning of 2011- 3 incineration plants operating at below capacity because of less-than-expected trash

- Taipei residents pay on average NT$51 a month in 2010 vs NT$144 a decade ago

- Per capita CO2 emissions were 4.2 tonnes in 2008, lower than the average of 4.6 tonnes among 22 major Asian cities surveyed by the EIU in 2010

- System costs government NT$3.1bn a year to run, vs revenues of NT$400m from the sale of garbage bags

I think the charging for collection bags, even if for only a nominal fee, is nifty as it accomplishes 2 things - (1) the nominal charge will make most people conscious about their volume of general waste, and (2) more importantly though, it will make people conscious about separating recyclables from the general trash pool (so they use less of the chargeable trash bags). It is amazing how many people still do not make an effort to recycle, and recycling has to start from consciousness at the individual level.

A Few Snaps From HK

A few snaps from a trip to HK over the weekend:

1. Recycle Shop (somewhere in mid-levels... Wellington St?) - sells a bunch of supposedly recycled products. We were rushing and I didn't have much time to browse / listen to the storekeeper, though I recall (i) curious round bags made from either old tyres or rubber tubing, (ii) bags that the owner said were made from old rice sacks, and (iii) bags that the owner said were made from old newspaper. While (i) seemed fine and I didnt manage to have a good look at (ii), (iii) used a thin layer of plasticised old newspaper (you could choose from either the Financial Times or another local HK daily) over what appeared to be a thick sheet of new PVC lining... which made me go away wondering whether the shop was selling essentially new / minimally recycled items, masquerading as faux recycled products.

2. Swire Coca-Cola reverse vending machine - I think this is part of the Swire Coca-Cola "Every Bottle Counts" programme where you get HK$0.10 (a token amount) for every plastic bottle you put in the machine (the bottle needs to be barcoded though).

Nuclear power and the role of the government

My heart goes out to everyone in Japan after the earthquake, and the ensuing problems with the Fukushima reactor. Japan has long been my favourite country to visit and it is very sad to have to see the country and its people tested by an event of this magnitude.

Now I'll need to do a bit more research tomorrow to find out who owns TEPCO (I am pretty sure it is privately held with no or minimal government ownership), but the whole event got me thinking - what is the optimal ownership structure for something like a nuclear reactor or other piece of infrastructure whose failure could have a severe impact on the environment? Can and should such assets be privately owned? Or should the government retain some sort of ownership? Does government ownership imply such assets would be better operated and maintained?

Various allegations against TEPCO have emerged, including (i) basic safety and maintenance lapses prior to the earthquake, (ii) that when the earthquake happened, TEPCO delayed using seawater to cool the reactors because this action would have made the reactors unusable and inoperable (TEPCO was basically trying to prevent a write-off of its assets), and (iii) government civil defence and military forces were not called in until a fairly late stage, because they were not requested by TEPCO.

Now, could some of these problems and lapses have been avoided if the plant had been government owned and operated? The Japanese government reportedly helped cover up some of TEPCO's inadequate inspection and maintenance activities prior to the quake, though if the plant had been government owned and operated to begin with, perhaps these lapses wouldn't have occurred in the first place. Likewise, the decision to use seawater to cool the reactors may have been made earlier at a government owned plant, where profitability was not a concern.

Half A Teaspoon + ShowerWatch

A few months ago, I read about a water bottle with a built in filter mechanism, called 321 Water. I had a look at the website, and found the product was developed by a company called Half A Teaspoon. A viewing of the Half A Teaspoon website led to 2 observations.

1. Product Development

Besides 321 Water, Half A Teaspoon also produces a product called ShowerWatch, which the company describes as a "4-minute shower timer which creates awareness of time in the shower and stimulates conscious use of water" (btw is there a way to paste special into Blogger, so that I can paste text into my blog post and have it take on the same format as the text in the post, rather than the format of the text in the site it is from?). This got me thinking of that old joke about the US vs the Russian astronaut, whereby the US astronaut spends years funding research to develop a pen and ink that can write in space, while the Russian astronaut just uses a pencil. In this case, while Half A Teaspoon states that their products are based on Eco Design principles, the device is ultimately electronic, i.e. it has some sort of LED panel, and it will use batteries.

So - why not just use an hourglass?

2. For Profit?

I'm still not sure my thoughts on this point are very coherent, but thought I would pen them down anyway.

When I viewed it a few months ago, the Half A Teaspoon site described the company's philosophy as (I'm paraphrasing here) something along the lines of turning enough profit to continue their activities, i.e. the development of eco friendly products. After viewing the site again today (I wanted to quote the exact language) it appears the philosophy has since been amended and this description is no longer there.

This got me thinking about whether I - and indeed society - have expectations that green businesses should be not-for-profit. Or at least minimal profit. Sure, certain large scale industries like electric cars and wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers are definitely for profit, but I have a hunch (and maybe this isn't true) that when it comes to smaller scale initiatives, people may expect these projects to be driven by desire to help rather than desire to turn a profit.