A systemic bias in ecosystem valuation

After readings a few articles written by Dr Spash (who interviewed me last week) and some others, I get a couple of new thoughts on environmental valuation.

There is a systemic bias in traditional environmental valuation techniques, to whcih Dr Spash named as 'deontological bias'. When applying valuation techniques like Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), economists would usually classify zero bids or 'unrealistic' bids as protest bids and eliminate these from the average and aggreate WTP figures. But some protest-bidders might hold strong rights-based beliefs. They thought that any components of the nature have an inviolable right to exist and need to be protected whatever the costs. They were not irrational but simply did not believe that the monetary estimates could represent their unlimited 'values' attached to particular environmental products or goods. Under the current mechanisms this kind of responses is not counted. Consequently the WTP figures are biased to utilitarians who do have a 'value' in their minds.

The importance of such an utilitarian-deontological distinction lies on the ways 'values' are defined in current value system. Common economics beleifs suggest market prices represent the utility levels obtained by buying that good or service. By utility it does not actually imply whether that good or service exhibit certain actual 'functions' or not; it may refer to non-use preferences. Most economists do not reject this view. While prices represent an array of preferences of an individual, does it include deontological beliefs? Is it really presenting the whole picture?

Can prices, or valuation techniques like CVM, measure a 'price' I may impose on something to which I reject such a measuring practice? Put simply, I think my daughter or son is priceless, does it make sense if you ask me for a price? It is, however, still a problem if you deny the existence of an implicit value for that environmetnal good or services, given that, in philosophical sense, 'value' per se means the whole array of preferences, be it utilitarian or deonological. Exclusion of which is an ignorance of reality.

This draws many problems about how to incorporate these implicit beliefs into policy-making. The first one is, do we still need a value? I think the answer is 'yes', but we need to think seriously whether valuation should be treated as an end itself, or alternatively, a means to an end. Second, how can we precisely measure rights-based beliefs? Maybe by Deliberative Monetary Valuation (DMV) that Dr Spash is working on, probably including me as well if I am luckily accepted for the PhD studentship.

P.S. Now I understand why someone said every academic discipline, at the end, is a branch of philosophy. And that's why research doctoral degree is called 'Doctor of Philosophy' (PhD). It seems to me that sustainability is more like a philosophical quest.

I am coming to Australia!

A month ago I submitted a PhD studentship application to CSIRO, an Australian-based research organization. They had a phone interview with me this morning. It took 25 minutes, asking me why I want to do PhD in Australia, what I think about valuation and attitudes, and what I am going to do for my current MPhil project. They did not ask any tricky questions, except one that I was not well prepared to answer. It's more like they want to know a bit more about my present works and future plan. There were some questions about academic understandg. I think I won't be able to answer if I did not do any preparation. And it's great that I felt little difficulty in listening to native speakers on phone - I am very weak in English listening tests.

Twenty minutes after it was finished, the project leader called me back and talked about two things. The first is my availability - as I will not finish my MPhil until early 2009. The second is that he wanted me to pay a visit to Canberra to have a talks (I forgot to ask if there will be any formal interviews or presentations). That's great! Because they pay me the air tickets. I have been longing to go to Australia and now I get the chance for free! No matter I will finally be accepted or not, it is a valuable chance for me to meet a pretiguous scholar in this field and enjoy a nice journey with minimal costs.

香港環境問題的死結

今早跟我的指導教授談了半個多小時，談到為什麼香港的綠化政策會如此不濟，當中的原因或多或少也可以延伸至整體環境政策上

過去數十年，香港政府財政開支很倚賴賣地收入，亦因為這樣才承受得起低稅率，從而助推動經濟發展，我們的六十至九十年代的風光日子就在這樣局面下渡過。但這樣的其中一個惡果是城市規劃及發展偏袒地產商 – 若果他們沒法賺多點錢，就不能保持政府財政穩健，低稅率亦不能維持(另一個惡果是樓價偏高)，為了補償買地的大筆開支，地產商用盡地面面積起樓，只預留很少空間給行人路或作公共空間，造成城市過份擠迫，亦造成市區內缺乏可種樹的地方，想綠化也變得無地可『綠』，再不是就動輒斬樹。當年政府批出對電力公司相當吸引的利潤管制協議亦出於同樣思維 – 讓電力公司多賺一點，確保供電穩定性，結果犧牲的是空氣質素。

要扳到地產商，政府以及市民都要承擔得起後果，其中之一可能是加稅。在各方都要求政府多撥資源的同時，又要減低對賣地收入的倚賴，無疑是自斷雙臂，不，可能連雙腳也兼顧不了 – 有幾多市民甘願接受透過加稅來改善整體生活質素? 政府深明此道，即使對這個局面非常了解，但個個高官不敢輕舉妄動 – 誰個敢拿自己的前程來開玩笑? 『有!』 我老師說：『董建華敢』，當年他提出八萬五就是減低對市民對私人屋宇的倚賴，但結果如何?

現在看看曾蔭權，他實在不得不官商勾結。在漸趨民主的社會裡，哪個高官膽敢與民心背道而馳都會人頭落地，但環保開支不會從天而降 (社會福利、教育開支也如是)，那麼，只好再向地產商叩頭了。所以，我們現在看到的問題不單單政府肯不肯做，而是經濟發展歷史留下來大包伏，政府如何有決心也沒用，除非市民用實際行動支持，這裡包括 - 但不只於 - 多付一些稅。但現今民粹/民生主義抬頭，似乎事情將變得更複雜。

市民每天罵這罵那，有沒有好好想想自己的公民責任呢? 不單是改變個人習慣，而是改變思維模式。歸根究底，市民現在享有的經濟成果都是建立在環境成本之上，別老是說商人短視，也別老是說政府無心環保，這叫賊喊捉賊。羊毛出在羊身上，好好想清楚環保到底是誰的責任吧。


PS. 少少補充：這只是死結之一，另一個或許是香港的地理面積限制，另外其政治身份也可能有關 - 香港從來都不是一個國家，只是一個不起眼的小城市，沒有任何國際壓力

Frustration

Feeling a bit frustrated about my project.

I approached quite a number of estate management offices to request for doing doorstep interviews in their housing estates. Most of them simply said "No". They don't want to cause any disturbance to the residents. The residents are well 'protected'.

People in HK is generally unwilling to take part in public affairs, probably including participating in questionnaire survey as well. They always walk very fast on the street and few will stay for more than ten minutes to complete a questionnaire even for non-profit making purposes. There is notoriously very weak sense of civil society in HK and they are not active to express their views. I guess people in the Western societies are cautiously open to doorstep interviews. But it seems in HK people are skeptical and feel negative to this, fearing that someone will use the information to do something illegal. A mail survey in NZ similar to mine received 60% response rate, which is impossible in HK. In a local telephone survey with the same topic as mine there is only 17% response rate which is terribly lower than acceptable standards. HK people have strong resistance towards telephone survey because of the overwhelming telemarketing messages (it's terrible, an hour ago the same person called me twice within 30 minutes to promote their products - the fourth time in past three months).

While HK people now ask for more welfares from the government, what do they contribute? Civil society is a slogan when people ask for democracy. The idea rapidly diminishes when they are asked to commit without direct benefits.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy

HK people are not that level yet.

Anyway, I am now trying to figure out an alternative approach, or alternative means to approach potential interviewers. Telephone survey is no good given the above reasons. Maybe go to the public areas near the estates to find someone wandering around to interview~ The worst case would be simplifying my reserach question, that is, being less ambitious

Is greenwash an evil?

This is my reply to an article. Before I talk I quote two paragraphs from it first:

"Supermarkets can provide the “greenwash” by producing buildings which, in isolation, might approach carbon neutrality, and by addressing easily identifiable issues like food sourcing, healthy eating, organic foods, the elimination of packaging or the use of recyclable packaging, but these are the tip of the melting ecological iceberg — products on the shelves still have the greatest ecological footprint.
Because of their size, retail chains can fundamentally change consumer patterns, which could lead to sustainable organic food production and supply. But this will not happen without a paradigm change in the food economy. Either the consumer makes the ethical choice or the politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility. "
http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=5905356&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid120836973

Actualy it is ideality vs reality.
Clearly the 'Yes' camp is not showing any " genuine corporate responsibility". What they did is just a new marketing or operation strategy, it is still a business by nature. Another Bob from the 'No' camp is right in the sense that the increased consumption as a result may boost ecological footprint. So, is 'greenwash' an evil? It's more like there is an assumption that in the absence of greenwash, everything would get improved: carbon emission will drop and resource consumption will diminish. Put it simpler, is greenwash worse than business-as-usual?

As I said elsewhere, sustainable development is an extremely complex idea. There does not have a single solution that can make an enterprise immune from being unsustainable. Not to mention the most complex one - social aspects, it is quite unrealistic to think that you could have zero environmental cost for any good practices. HK people now 'love' recycle bags very much; however, its production takes a lot of energy and fibre materials, overuse of which may probably be more destructive than a wise use of plastic bags. Does it mean that we should keep the status quo?

If we know the net benefits of such 'greenwash' we can make a conclusive statement to the debate. But does it really matter if we can conclude that it does consume more than save? Is it meaningful only because of the measured contributions to ecological footprint? 'Greenwash', or I prefer using green marketing, embodies a paradigm shift. Firstly, the success of its green marketing strategies reminds its competitors and even other sectors the values of green products and services. No one can guarantee these products and services MUST be better than the 'brown' ones, but it is clear that the dominace of 'brown' will never be a sustainable option. We can expect that the true 'greenness' will rise as long as consumers are able and willing to choose according to environmental principles - this is related to the quality of people, information completeness, etc. Anyway, it should be seen as a good start, though imperfect.

Secondly, on the consumer side, it creates opportunities for them to go green. Not everyone is motivated enough to buy a farm to produce organic foods by themselves; nor are they capable of installing a renewable power system at their backyards (particularly in HK). They need a channel to elicit their environmental wishes. And the effects do not end here. First, their environmental behaviours may extend to other aspects of daily life once they adapt to such a good practice. When I become addicted to organic foods I may probably be more willing to support NGOs' anti-GM foods campaigns. Also, people are socially connected, my colleagues and relatives may be influenced by my good practices and become interested in organic foods too. Bear in mind that social pressure is a key to a big change in society at large.

So, green marketing is not an one-off process. One has to look beyond immediate negative impacts, if any, and assess by its long-term, aggregate effects. Perhaps, Bob Hayes has overlooked the fact that 'greenwash' is itself an early form of a paradigm change. To create a sustainable society we don't have to wait until a thorough paradigm shift. Green business is demand-driven. While our environmental 'minds' are still primitive (again, particularly in HK), we see imperfect solutions. We change slowly, but it is a good start anyway.

(Look at the recent no-plastic-bags movement in HK where some people collect too many recycle bags simply for fashion or for fun)

PS: I am curious what Bob Hayes means by "politicians enforce genuine corporate responsibility"? Can it really be 'enforced'? Corporate responsibility should be voluntary by nature.

Trees as a social construct

Doing research is not easy. I realized this during the past three months. Some people simply take as a 'project' that they 'have to' do, but to me it is 'career', something that I 'want to' do.
Back to my theoretical world. As I look around the literature, I do think that the environment-society-economy circle is extremely complex. There are too many views, problems and solutions that no one can give one single answer. The question I need to solve for my project is how people think about trees. Trees are clearly a multi-dimensional construct that gives me a chance to observe how ecological and social / economic needs blend. To quote my early draft:


People’s attitude towards urban trees is dynamic. From an ecological point of view, the single-tree approach suggests more or less generic benefits regardless of cultural and demographic differences. Social complexities, however, make it never a fixed concept but a to-be-defined public good to which different levels of the society may have their own interpretations.
................
Age is commonly considered as the key factor affecting the views towards urban green spaces (e.g. Tarrant and Cordell, 2002; Sanesi and Chiarello, 2006; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Lohr et al, 2004; Zhang et al, 2007). Although green spaces as a place for socialising and leisure were well received by the young Italians in Sanesi and Chiarello (2006)’s study, Wong (2007) held a different view that youths in Hong Kong who have more alternatives available to them (e.g. shopping, computer games) may not. Perhaps, this may be related to childhood community as suggested by Lohr et al (2004) who thought that people who grew up in cities might have relatively little nature experience so that they have weaker affinity for trees. Likewise, income is predictive (Lozenro et al, 2000; Balram and Dragicevic, 2005; Jim and Chen, 2006a), but Kuo and others (Kuo, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2004) noticed that from a social perspective, it is inconclusive to suggest that people from poor communities place little value on green spaces. Given the social functions of trees, urban green spaces may benefit these people more than their wealthier counterparts. A similar observation is drawn from Taylor et al (1998) who confirmed that green spaces are valuable places for children healthy development, particularly those from poor communities. This leads to stronger demand from mid-aged families with children (e.g. Wong, 2007). On the other hand, Grove et al (2006) argued that households who strive for membership in a given lifestyle are motivated to have more vegetation in their homes. It is not only a matter of income, but a synergistic effect between the social position of individuals and neighbourhood dynamic. It is the neighbourhood atmosphere that also influences individuals’ decision.

I did it

Finally, I get a Distinction for my MSc, with a HKD500 cash prize as well. But I will be more excited if I can get the another cash prize of HKD6000 for the best disseration in the class. Seems that it has been awarded to someone else. Anywayz, I already did what I promised to myself at the beginning of the study.

Formation of environmental values

Values. What are values? Can be prices you pay in the market, can be your attitudes towards something. But how can we determine their relationship when there does not exist a market for that product?

Mainstream economists are more than familiar with the estimation of the values of non-marketed environmental goods. We got thousands of articles talking about the determination of values of different environmental goods; we got a long list of valuation techniques for us to make use of, too. Finally we got the numbers. But do we clearly understand how the 'numbers' are formed? Everyone in an introductory economics class can tell me the socioeconomics characteristics of the respondents (for Contingent Valuation Method) would matter.

But I am talking about the 'process'. Dr. CL Spaash, among others, suggested that when a small group of people could have a discussion before they stated the monetary values for certain environmental goods, the values would be different, comparing to individual interviews. This is a process that mimics the real delibrative process in a democratic society.

A large group of elderly and mid-age individuals living in the same public housing estate for more than 30 years may have different values too, because they have developed a strong sense of belongings to the built environment as well as the landscapes inside. An good example is trees, under which they roamed for no reason, they slept for a whole afternoon, they chated with each other. Their 30-year living in that estate is a process, a much longer process.

Contrast to neoclassical economic views, preferences can change along with temporal and spatial variations. Values are not only a reflection of individuals' rational behaviours, but are socially constructed - that means values are not a matter of one single person, but a group of people who are interacting with each other and with the environment as well.

I am preparing to capture the impacts of these variations on environmental values.

What's Ecological Economics?

Forget to do one thing that I should do in the first post - to explain what Ecological Economics means. Quote from Wiki:

Ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field of academic research that addresses the dynamic and spatial interdependence between human economies and natural ecosystems. Ecological economics brings together and connects different disciplines, within the natural and social sciences but especially between these broad areas.
As the name suggests, the field is comprised of researchers with a background in economics and ecology. An important motivation for the emergence of ecological economics has been criticism on the assumptions and approaches of traditional (mainstream) environmental and resource economics. Ecological economics presents a more pluralistic approach to the study of environmental problems and policy solutions, characterized by systems perspectives, adequate physical and biological contexts, and a focus on long-term environmental sustainability. Ecological economics can be regarded as a version of environmental science with much emphasis on social, political, economic and behavioral issues.

Ecological economics' intellectual ancestry may be traced in large part to political economy, a refinement of early economic theory that includes among its earlier researchers Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Mill, in particular, by hypothesizing that the "stationary state" of an economy might be something that could be considered desirable, anticipated later insights of modern ecological economists, without having had their experience of the social and ecological costs of the dramatic post-World War II industrial expansion.

The objective of ecological economics (EE) is to ground economic thinking and practice in physical reality, especially in the laws of physics (particularly the laws of thermodynamics) and in knowledge of biological systems. It accepts as a goal the improvement of human wellbeing through economic development, and seeks to ensure achievement of this through planning for the sustainable development of ecosystems and societies. It distinguishes itself from neoclassical economics (NCE) primarily by its assertion that economics is a subfield of ecology, in that ecology deals with the energy and matter transactions of life and the Earth, and the human economy is by definition contained within this system. In contrast, NCE has historically assumed implicitly (and, more recently, explicitly) that the environment is a subset of the human economy. In this approach, if nature is valuable to our economies, that is because people will pay for its services such as clean air, clean water, encounters with wilderness, etc.

So, it is clear that EE is not a branch of economics but a hybrid of various pentinent disciplines. Urban ecological economics, the field I am working on, is a combination of economics, urban planning and human/physical geography as well. As strange as it is in HK, I sometimes feel lonely when I find no one to share except my supervisor. Well...perhaps, as he said, doing research is a lonely journey.

Values of urban forestry in my study

I have been snowed by tonnes of readings these two weeks. Let me make up my mind here before I meet my supervisor tomorrow.

Value of ecosystem services and products basically is defined as a complex set of ecological, economic and socio-cultural benefits. While policy makers and scientists often speak of ecological and to a lesser extent economic values of certain environmental goods when defending their environmental policies or management practices, hardly there is a complete understanding of the socio-cultural importance in the estimation of their total values. The 'life-support' functions are too narrowly defined as non-human construct.
Urban forestry is an example of this. We know a lots about its contributions to the physical environment, like air purification, but how it interacts with individuals and the human society at large is seldom addressed in a scientific, systematic way. This is particularly the case in Hong Kong. The literature predominantly focused on the influences of individuals' socio-economic characteristics on their attitude and perceived values to green space. The implications of spatial factors seem to be unnoticed. Where the individuals live, what are the physical and social structures of their communities and what they do there should be another set of factors that lead to the variations in their attitude and perceived values. The spatial differences should be able to further explain why some people rate ecological benefits of urban forestry higher while the others more appreciate its contributinos to the people's interaction, society and culture, given that this socio-cultural component of value varies greatly across different spatical scale. We need to go deeper when investigating the ways that such values are formed and change.

Previous studies show that age is a key determinant of people attitude. Middle-age and old people tend to rate urban green space higher, compared to the youngster who have more alternatives like go shopping and karaoke. This links to the memories from the communties where they grew (like city or rural areas) and the fact that green space provides a commonplace for doing exercises in morning and social activities with other members of the community which are, however, not the cup of tea for the new generation. Other observations include greater concerns by married people with children.

One more point to add; Hong Kong is an exceptionally compact city that gives a different context comparing to other Western countries. For example, it is common to have a place where the poorest and richest people live in the same community and within walking distance. That means they have to share some infrastructures including green space. There may be a concern of safety or hygiene for, for example, those middle class who have children and hope to give them a desirable place for mild outdoor activities with their fellow classmates. The new private resident blocks very close to the Temple Street in Mongkok may offer an example to this view. Compact city, of course, is a source of poor air quality and noise problem, especially in the city centers like Mongkok and Wanchai. So the ways the residents there view the benefits of urban trees that can mitigate these problems may probably differ from those living in rural or suburb areas.

One week after my study started

My MPhil project is on valuation of urban green space in Hong Kong. I was suggested by my supervisor that it would be worthwhile to do this using Contingent Valuatino Method (CVM) with an emphasis of spatial differences and unique demographic characteristics of different regions.
I think it is a great idea because few people have done this and it actually aims to identify the magnitude and variation of social values attached to urban green spaces. Now I am snowed by journal articles but it's still an interesting process to keep thinking critically on issues I like. At the beginning I planned to apply another economic model called Hedonic Pricing Method as well. But my supervisor suggested me to focus on CVM instead. While I really want to do both, I am sure tbat I will be quite busy in these two years and perhaps focusing on one of them will make life easier. Given that CVM is intellectually more interesting and significant, I am happer to accept his suggestion.

One thing I feel a bit uncomfortable is that I was told that I will have to give out my own money to fund the survey. I don't know the exact amount but it seems quite strange to me. Is it a common practice? I am probably among the poorest graduates in my 2003 Finance class in CUHK given my salary and expenses in the last four years. I wonder if I could afford such expense if I want to have some savings myself.

『貪念』是環境破壞的真正成因?

環境破壞的真正原因真的是人的貪念嗎?
除人類以外的各種生物無一不『貪』，牠們一樣用盡各方法去增加自己可以使用的資源，某種物種的堀起可能導致另一物種數量下降甚至絕種，前者掠奪了後者的資源無非也是出自一己私利罷，如果從後者的角度看這也可算是『不環保』。事實上從進化論的角度看，如果生物沒有半點『自私』之心，根本無可能延續下去，物競天擇適者生存，所謂『適者』就是能確保自己獲得足夠的資源來生活下去，所以所謂的『貪念』是物種得以延續並進化的基本條件。

人類『貪』，其他生物也『貪』，為什麼我們不指責其他生物也不環保呢?
其他生物跟人類的其中一個很重要的分別是牠們『貪』之餘也能夠確保資源的循環性，牠們處於一個緊密的生物鏈當中，一方面用各種方法獲取資源，另方面製造另一些資源供其他物種使用，消耗之餘亦對其他物種的生存帶來正面影響，但人類則長則將自己isolate係生態循環中，只有消耗，沒有『貢獻』
同埋仲有intensity嘅問題，人類人口可以看似毫無限制地上升，同時人均消耗又不斷上升，資源消耗量比其他生物多出很多，但其他生物卻不得不面對某些資源限制，例如牠們幾乎無法解決因數量上升而導致的資源短缺問題，相反，人類卻可以藉著科技來擺脫這些限制，然而這卻加深了生態系統的負荷。兩者智慧上的差距使到人類的『貪念』比其他生物更具破壞力。

生物的自私行為是其本性，水能覆舟亦能載舟，其本身可以是對環境有害亦可以有利，環保不環保只是取決於其影響而不在於主觀定義本身。

全球農夫種「能源」減種食糧

這剛好說明了較早前我提出的可再生能源的潛在限制。可再生能源的生產受地理因素所限制，以這段報導為例，大幅提升生產可能導致食物產量下降。減輕了與能源有關的環境問題，但卻使糧食價格上升，即是環境成本轉化成社會成本，如果這一個情況持續，恐怕對一些倚靠國際組織提供食物援助的第三世界國家來說會是一個災難。Malthusianism returns!? Sustainable development is a contradiction?

******************************
全球農夫種「能源」減種食糧
日本「Karu」牌脆片縮水10%、德國慕尼黑啤酒節的啤酒大幅加價嚇怕了酒客、馬來西亞公務員15年來首次獲得加薪。這三件看似風馬牛不相及的事情，其實息息相 關，它們都受到一股全球新趨勢影響︰生物燃料熱潮，令農夫們決定增加栽種「綠色石油」，減少種植食用的粟米和大麥，脆片袋 的脆片，悄悄地減料。

脆片「縮水」　啤酒加價
世界各地的農夫都在自問︰「我要種食物還是能源？」農夫陷入要填滿全球8億個汽車油缸，抑或餵飽60億人腸胃的兩難抉擇。美國俄克拉荷馬州農夫柯爾決定把他141公頃的田地，撥1/3種植基因改造粟米，用作生物燃料，因為他相信以糖、粟米研製而成的生物燃料乙醇，價格會上升。
美國政府年初大力提倡使用乙醇，令農夫一窩蜂改變農地用途。過去一年，種植粟米的農地就增加了15%。若明年白宮真的做到乙醇增產一倍的目標，那麼40%的粟米就會變成汽車燃料。
粟米田多了，大豆供應減少，導致價格上升，便宜的棕櫚油乘勢而起，富了來源地馬來西亞和印尼，大馬庫房水浸，政府決定拿出相當於172億港元，讓所有公務員加薪7.5%至42%，令他們分享成果。
英國《泰晤士報》
(AppleDaily 26/8/07)

Environmental politics of electricity in HK (conclusion)

Based on a chapter of my dissertation I have prepared a shorter article. The title (tentative) is "Electricity and environment politics in Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined". Below is the conclusion:

The reasons why sustainable electricity policy in Hong Kong remains underdeveloped go beyond lack of environmental awareness or private commitment to the common goods as often said. Supply-demand relations are ill-constructed in a way that everyone is fairly aware but nobody has the motivation of taking meaningful actions. It stems from the path-dependant institutional setup that restricts a timely transformation, in combination with the Government’s treatment that attributes the problems merely to these structural constraints, more appreciating scientific and economic rationalities than communicative actions.

Everything starts from the historical constraints embedded in the regulatory structures. Hong Kong has never given environmental endeavour the same priority as economic growth. Particularly at the time of economic downturn, no official can afford to undermine growth for the sake of environmental protection. Cross-sectoral sustainability imperatives are at odd with its conventional administrative culture and handled in a piecemeal manner, and apparently the style has been extended to electricity policy. These constraints inevitably nurture critiques from the concerned parties along with the growing public awareness and the (yet successful) democratic movement. These then turns to an emphasis of the role of utilities as the contributors of the causes as well as the solutions and a view that environmental gains are a function of a unidirectional, ‘one-to-one’ relationship between the government and utilities. Local community, however, has never been convinced that environmental protection should be taken as a reason for making more profits if the citizens’ living will be affected. Consequently, the Government as a reactive party deals with the problems mechanistically, while the utilities’ private interests are posited as a conflict to the social objectives. Communicative actions exist only on the consultation documents but not in the policy.

From a broader perspective, the administration’s treatment of electricity is a reflection of the local environmental discourse. With respect to environmental management, it is reluctant to transform itself from a ‘controller’ to a ‘facilitator’ regime and seems to return to the technical dimensions of sustainability (Hills & Welford, 2002; Hills, 2004). Policies addressing the socially constructed consumption rationality that need ‘bottom-up’ demand-side commitment earn little credit. The weakened Government is inclined to play a stronger role in controlling the industrial operations of electricity provision which involve less costs and are more welcomed by taxpayers, rather than prompting substantial behavioural changes in consumption which are normally politically more costly as this often challenges consumption sovereignty (Murphy, 2001b). Extension of the production-focused approach is thus more preferred given the current political climate.

The Hong Kong energy economy is inevitably framed by this situation: electricity provision appears as a conflict between supply and demand sides; while there are certain degree of improvements in the power generation processes, promotion of sustainable energy consumption remains rhetoric and ineffective in the absence of political commitment. As such, it has constituted, at best, only the first half of the notion of sustainable development. What is in need is building a positive, collaborative relationship between the utilities, and the Government and the consumers in particular. Opportunities for negotiation and a more equitable distribution of responsibility between the stakeholders should be given a heavier role in the new agenda (Blake, 1999). However, we do not expect this will happen tomorrow because the minimal progress in democratic development in near future and the extension of the utilities’ monopolist status are going to ruin the ‘trust’ between them and this compounds the guilt of the regulatory constraints.

人口與環境

人口問題其實是環境問題的根源，18世紀末英國經濟學家馬爾薩斯(Thomas Malthus)提出人口的增長率往往高於資源的增長率，結果引致資源不足，繼而帶出疾病、戰爭、餓荒等等社會經濟問題，這些天災人禍使人口又會向下調整。
不過，自踏入廿世紀以來，科技的高速發展令人對這套被稱為馬爾薩斯主義的觀點產生質疑，因為現實告訴我們，人口上升並沒有帶來預的災難性影響。可是，這些反馬爾薩斯主義者忽略了一點，就是資源耗用的時間性。使用某一資源的影響不一定是即時性的，而可以是十年、五十年甚至一百年後才會顯現出來，環境資源就是一個典型的例子：一天之內砍光地球上所有樹木不會立刻導致人類滅亡，即使一天之內用盡了所以非再生能源人類活動也不會立刻終止。廿多年前經濟學家Julian Simon說只要human capital(e.g.人類的智慧)仍在，便可以不斷製造出各樣資源，包括能源，所以就算挖乾了所有油田也無礙，人類可以轉靠可再生能源，可以製造風力發電機、太陽能裝置等等，人類活動依然可以靠增加人口(即增加human capital)來生生不息延續下去...
但是Julian Simon支持人口無限增長的論調是站不住腳的，因為他完全漠視了所以human capital都需要用自然資源來製造、運作這一事實，沒有自然資源根本不可能有human capital，太陽能裝置也得耗用金屬!

人口增長至某一程度，就一定會對環境帶來沉重壓力，除非......

Path dependancy of HK electricity policy

這幾天我在埋首整理篇dissertation，又多了一些想法
First, the failure of the electricity policy with respect to environmental aspects is obviously path dependant. The rationale of the SCAs was virtually necessitated by the local development history. 'Growth first' was so clearly written in the SCA documents. This is what the people (including the general public) want (not only in the past, but, to your surprise, also now). SCAs is doing what the society wants.

Second, the changing socio-political environment produces a basket of conflicts. Democratization speeds up social movement, amplifying the voice against the high (really high?) electricity prices and environmental damage by the power plants. On the other hand, we know that any meaningful changes in the electricity provision privately owned depends on changes in demand sides. Given a strong 'public' and weak government particularly after 1 July 03, the latter tends to avoid challenging the consumption rationality. So we don't have DSM after 2003 when the pilot scheme ended, we don't have energy tax, we don't have electricity price rise. The only things the Government does is 'window dressing' and shouting at the power companies, but they actually don't want any big changes.

The sad news is that I do not expect substantial changes in these situations. While the old 'paths' ('growth first') is likely to go on, the new one has elements contradicting the sustainability discourse. At a first glance, the people have become environmentally more conscious. Yes, they are, but if there is a tradeoff between environmental and economic benefits, they aren't. Their ethical minds are weakly constructed, weaker than we expect. This is more obvious in electricity matters.

This is the results of two government survey

(where is the environmental goals?)

A reply to the last post

I got a reply to the last post in the discussion.com, I post it here (in blue colour) and wrtie a few lines as a reply to it.

Definitely it is too early to expect social learning to occur and make a difference before envir technologies get mature (technology is usually a driver of societal changes in an ecological economy), but I am less pessimistic because I think the trend of urbanization and civil society following better education and income levels will do the job, just like HK. That means, in my opinion, the major barriers lie in the institutional setup (in both regional and national levels) rather than in household level if we move beyond merely environmental protecion and towards sustainable development (obviously they are not identical). 。

Social learning requires both individuals' values changes and provision of an insitutional 'platform'. It is not accurate to describe the problem as a lack of puiblic awareness or willingness, given that people's behaviours are shaped by institutioal setup to a very large extent. Awareness does matter, but as it grows its importance diminises, and it will become nothing hif policy initiatives do not adequately fit in their minds. As in HK, you do not need to worry about awareness issues indeed, it is more likely that the bottleneck appears in what decision makes assume and expect their people want. There will have no future at all if Chinese gov assumes and expect more stringent laws and advanced technologies are the way to the SD, just like what HK decision makers did.Individuals' values or preferences are not necessarily envir-friendly as you pointed out.

But that's the reason we need social learning. It is a way to transform individualistic values to social, collective values that are more consistent to SD. Democratic deliberative forum for environmental purposes, for example, is an emerging approach that may help.

I do believe 'self-interest' is inborn, but human behaviours are socially constructed too.


原帖由 FireStallion 於 2007-8-4 09:18 PM 發表

Well, if we talk about social learning, I am really worry the learning willingness and ability of the people. Behavior change!!!
What makes people change their behavior?
For me, I can tell for myself as I am going to build a new house. The budget is my constraint. I will build my house just to pass the regulation, though I want to get it better than the regulations required.

But for HK ppl, what will make them change?

短評中國環境政策

中國環境政策其實在某些方面有一定成果，尤其是在技術層面上、管制措施上 (但地區政府陽奉陰違仍是一個問題)，而且在國際壓力之下，態度也是想消極也不行。而我想指出的是，中國的情況可能是『有心無力』，有一些根深柢固的內在因素阻礙了其環境政策上質量方面的推進(Qualitative improvement, more than laws and standards) 。

要邁向可持續發展，中國目前的情況是先天不足，主要是人為因素 – 特別是政治架構。沒有民主意識就不會有公民參與政策制訂，可持續發展裡『社會』這一環不單指貧富問題，也是公民社會的建立，讓人民可以影響政策大方向之餘，亦讓他們從討論、對話當中學習及提升個人的可持續發展思維，從而促進 social learning (democratic environmental movement is more than votes and protests, but construction and alteration of values and preference which are the ultimate cause of behaviours) 。所以，我們很難想像中央政府可以在政治對內與對外均封閉的情況下符合到這一環。所以恐怕短期之內中國仍會跟隨技術主義的路線。

*************************************************

全球氣候暖化致極端天氣

(明報)08月 03日星期五 05:10AM 【明報專訊】中國7月份多個地區出現極端天氣，中國氣象局 更指出，全球氣候變暖，是造成嚴重水災及乾旱的原因之一。綠色和平 項目經理陳宇輝表示，中國政府在處理氣候變化問題上，態度積極，原因是嚴重天災會造成人命傷亡及巨大經濟損失，早前召開的8國集團（G8）峰會上，國家發改委主任馬凱表示，中國不承諾量化溫室氣體減排目標，但不等於中國不承擔對氣候變化應負的責任。

陳宇輝說，事實證明全球變暖導致的極端天氣現象愈來愈明顯，全球各國都應採具體措施，減少排放溫室氣體。港府亦應盡快全面研究，了解氣溫上升對海水水位、生態以至疾病的變化及影響，從而制訂應變措施。

天文台 過去曾多番指出，全球暖化 對本港最直接的影響是將來可能不再有冬天，預料至本世紀末，香港平均氣溫將上升攝氏3至4度，而12度或以下的寒冷日子，會由2000年至09年每年平均16、17日，減至平均0.8日。此外，天文台預料，目前至世紀末，會出現3年大旱及6年雨量遠高於平均數的現象，海水水位則會上升28至58厘米，威脅沿岸低窪地區。

Preference construction for sustainability

The economic dominance of Hong Kong development history is necessarily conducive to economic individualism, reductionism which has significantly impeded the merits of its environmental policy. Without downplaying their roles in mitigating pollution, some environmental policies, like sewage charges and emission limits, are deterministic and do not see the construction of preference as a policy goal in search for a sustainable path. Consultation exercises, on the other hand, are meaningful because it is a kind of deliberative activities that were totally absent in the colonial years. However, did they make any difference to the environmental policymaking? I doubt this. What I want to point out is, one of the goals of sustainability policy is to facilitate formation and transformation of preferences. Preferences, or values, are ultimate cause of behaviours; ignorance of the ways they evolve will produce no qualitative change in the ecological economy.


The idea above is drawn from an academic paper I finished reading a few minutes ago. Below is an extract from that article, written by Niemeyer and Spash; the latter is a prestigious ecological economist who recently works in deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) to which I am very interested in.

“The treatment of individuals as ‘economically rational’ (that is, self-interested and aiming to maximise utility), is far removed from the individual as a member of a community who aims to achieve a collectively best outcome. Thus, economy theory tends to assume that preferences about collective environmental goods and services are predetermined and require no further explanation. Once humans are viewed as moral agents, their values, and consequently, preferences, can only be understood in historical, social, and ecological contexts (Siebenbuner, 2000). Preference construction means taking into account the formation of preferences and their change through campaign, media coverage, advertising, or survey processes.”

(Extracted from Niemeyer, S., & Spash, C. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19)

保育主義與政策的盲點 – 元朗牛場及皇后碼頭

上周某周刊刊登了一篇講及生態保育及發展之間的衝突(元朗荔枝山莊牛場)的文章。(詳細見下文)，這作為一個典型的環保議題，與近日鬧得熱哄哄的皇后碼頭保育衝突加起來，構成了一大一小、『相映成趣』的保育爭議點。本文將首先評論前者的絕對環保主義，接著以後者為題，討論決策者在價值處理手法上與可持續發展的不協調性。

毫無保留的環境保育? – 元朗牛場
環境資源之所以要保護，是因為社會普遍相信這樣可以保障日後有充足的資源可供長期使用，而並不是單單因為其本身的存在意義。當然，動物權益捍衛者會反對這論點，這多半是出於道德考慮。但不論出於什麼道德考慮，有一點無可爭議的是資源有限，哪些物種要大力保護、對哪些應該寬鬆一點，是社會不得不作出的一個抉擇，用社會道德護航不能給我們帶來更多資源。已故著名生態學家Garrett Hardin在描述其人口政策的主張時，提出所謂『Lifeboat Ethics』，指在發生沉船災難的時候，待救的人多於救生艇的乘載量，要麼就是『一鑊熟』，要麼就是犧牲少部份人來拯救大部份人，Garrett Hardin說後者可取。

可持續發展的主調是平衡利益，它前設了在某一議題上，無論是社會、經濟及環境三方面都有一些得或失。要平衡就要先要看這些得或失有多大，即使是相對最重要的環境資源，如果在可靠的科學證據支持下，能夠指出它對社會長遠來說帶來的利益有限，那麼我們是應該優先考慮其他更迫切的。生態學有所謂keystone species，確定重要的物種我們須要加倍保護，否則 - 除非不確定性相當高，我們仍要去拼死保護似乎又是另一種浪費。

所以，不是每一物種我們也要毫無保留的保護，如果該批牛隻的商業價值有限，生態價值亦有限，我們是否應該將資源用作保護其他物種? 例如樹木的生態甚至經濟價值要比之高得多，也更有迫切性，要分配資源保育也應該作優先考慮。發展和保育其實不一定永遠對立，但前提是要兩者都要對社會有價值，發展元朗農地會不會比保育牛隻的價值還高?我們的決策者是否有認真思考過這問題值得商榷，但訂立優先次序和作出選擇取捨確是任何社會無法避免的決定，如果有人認為那些牛隻對環境及社會有重大價值，而又能提出證據支持，那麼沒有人應該反對，反之亦然。

誰決定社會價值?– 皇后碼頭
跟環境資源不同，作為一個文化象徵的皇后碼頭其價值完全由社會建構，而不是由用科學單位衡量。要保留，就要指出其社會文化價值有多高，要拆，亦同樣要確保保留的成本高於可接受水平。然而，觀看保育人士及政府，哪一方指出了充份的客觀理據支持皇后碼頭的去或留? 不難看到，在這個議題上一般市民的取向分歧，比起民主或環保，保留皇后碼頭並沒得到一面倒的支持，社會各界莫衷一是，價值走向極端 – 一部份人拼死支持，但有部份人則不為所動甚至反感，前者的小眾主觀道德理據未能佔據整體社會價值取向，故此皇后碼頭擁有很高的社會價值這一假設則尚需要更多的資料來立足。

政府有責任去提供這些資料，為自然或文化資源作估值。但據港大姚思教授所指出，香港的環境政策長久以來都往往是由上而下的方式施行，強調技術主義，傾向以專家、行政機關的專業判斷來代替社會意願，嚴重阻礙了本質是由下而上、強調公眾參與決策的可持續發展。事件中，政府對皇后碼頭有作出充份的、客觀的社會估值嗎? 或許與其環境政策的傳統做法一樣，政府仍以長官意志、專業判斷由上而下地掩蓋了可持續發展的本質。

香港的環境和保育政策缺乏了以下兩點考慮。第一，對該事物作出經濟估值，這方面香港比西方國家落後很多，後者二、三十前已經廣泛採用經濟工具來量化環境資源，把環境資源定下一個以金錢為單位的經濟價值，例如透過物業價格高低或問卷形式評估，從而有助於政策制訂，而更值得參考是，有些西方國家已經開始研究如何在傳統的經濟估值工具裡加入社會商議機制，以平衡其不足之處，也作為公眾參與的另一種方式，香港在這範疇的研究或採用幾乎是零進展的。第二，就是要了解環境或保育政策需要的是一個推演性的過程，而非決定性的結論，政策是否可取取決於其決策過程的合理性而不是結果本身，這過程強調透過包羅社會各界 – 尤其是公眾 - 的商議機制來協調各種不同利益，這種著重協商的政策方向，目的不在於妥協，而在確保不同利益集團有對話機會，脫離單以專業判斷或小眾道德取向來決定的片面價值，避免片面思維忽略了其他的或整體的價值，因此所產生的選擇或許較接近社會可接受水平。

可持續發展是基於共同價值，其產生是由社會共同建構，而不是來自新古典經濟理論所假設的個人觀，或環保/保育運動的英雄主義。可持續發展的理念不會武斷說皇后碼頭該拆與否 – 結果其實並不重要，重要的是顯示問題所在：狹隘的決策思維和民間與政府的互動嚴重不足。


********************************
農地有價 牛場惹風雲
(壹周刊 26/7/07)
元朗大棠荔枝山莊，是無線拍古裝劇的取景勝地，也是假日一家大細郊遊的好地方。不過山莊其中一名創辦人梁新發，就涉嫌襲擊山莊內「流浪牛之家」的工人，案件本週二在屯門裁判法院開審。八十隻流浪牛與山莊弗人和平共處近十年，現變成陌路人，於法庭中相見。本刊走進荔枝山莊考察，發現這片一千萬呎的土地隱藏了一個涉及百億元的地產鴻圖大計，規模媲美賣個滿堂紅的新地葡萄園。九八年進駐大棠荔枝山莊的流浪牛之家，當時的 牛場 沒有街燈及水源。創辦人洋洋向政府申請，才造成這個供八十隻牛居住的安樂窩，但隨鄉村發展，流浪牛要另覓家園。由市區驅車，經青馬大橋、三號幹線進入元朗公路後，不消十分鐘便抵達大棠山路，背靠綠油油的山坡就是大棠荔枝山莊。旅客只須付二十元入場費，便可任摘當造生果吃，當中以荔枝及大樹菠蘿最聞名。山莊內還有一幅有機菜園、士多啤梨園、野戰場和騎術學校，是香港少有的郊遊樂園。不過最蔚為奇觀的景象，卻是一個收留了八十隻牛的「流浪牛之家」。牠們早晚排隊吃草的奇景，令不少城市人大開眼界。創辦人有菩薩心腸，加上山莊風景如畫，實在是一個世外桃源。本週二，山莊的其中一名創辦人梁新發，涉嫌於今年五月，毆打流浪牛之家的一名工人許秋蘭，暴露了荔枝山莊與流浪牛之家原來摩擦不少。原名歐陽翠如的流浪牛之家創辦人洋洋，九八年經朋友介紹，向梁新發的弟弟梁福元，以六千元一年，租了荔枝山莊內的一塊土地，收養從漁護署購買得來的退休老牛。不過，她卻聲稱近兩年來牛之家時常無水用，有些牛隻更不時無故受傷。令牛隻難以繼續在這片樂土生活。洋洋說：「當日係梁福元俾我入養牛，佢仲周圍同人講話牛係佢，叫人入來參觀。而家我牛幫唔到佢賺錢，就唔歡迎我。」梁氏兄弟於九七年共同創立荔枝山莊。據梁福元表示，荔枝山莊經營初期由於不為人識，一直以來都虧蝕。故當有人向他租地養牛時，就一口答應，更即時把流浪牛之家改名為原居牛之家，並做了一個牌匾，吸引旅客遠道而來，為荔枝山莊打響頭炮。發展商插旗梁氏兄弟一直與「牛」相處融洽，關係出現變化，源於這塊地背後隱藏了莫大的利益。一些大棠村原居民向記者表示，近年來不斷有發展商來洽商買地事宜，更有指是新地及新世界。本刊找來身兼大棠村村長的梁福元查證，在他的辦公室內放滿政府規劃草圖，他承認荔枝山莊正規劃發展，並於年頭與新地及新世界傾好發展細則，他說：「大棠無多，係地多，荔枝山莊都用唔晒咁多地啦。而家都無人耕田啦，唔發展等幾時，我都係幫居民爭取最大利益。」一頭曲髮的梁福元，充滿鄉土味。他於九○年開始擔任大棠村村長，最愛打上代表鄉議局，藍紅斜紋的領呔。平日駕其銀灰色平治，在大棠村內出出入入，一時探訪居民，一時在其開設的大棠山莊名廚茶座飲茶，也常往荔枝山莊巡視業務。這位說話略帶鄉音的原居民自稱：「我咪又係鄉下佬一個。」不過這位鄉下佬已漸漸變身為發展商的盲公竹。人脈廣夠圓滑位於大欖郊野公園旁的荔枝山莊，坐擁約一千萬呎的荒廢農地，成為不少發展商覬覦的目標。根據土地註冊處資料，長實於○六年初，已以一百三十多萬向梁福元購入約二萬呎的土地。而新地及新世界於去年亦開始接觸梁福元，在今年年頭也是透過梁福元跟大部分原居民洽商買地事宜。能游走於發展商及村民之間，除了因為他是大地主及村長外，也因其處事手法極度圓滑。荔枝山莊其中一個大地主，住在白沙村的易伯說：「佢好尊重我老人家，過時過節會送飛俾我食盆菜，出入見到面都叫聲我呀。」另一位大地主俞伯並非大棠村民，但對梁福元亦讚不絕口：「我話間屋水浸，佢都會過來睇，佢唔得閒都叫職員幫我。」對大地主唯唯諾諾，但對小地主卻另一副嘴臉，有居民指：「有阿婆阿伯仔女過外國，梁福元就恰人乜都唔識，同人講你唔租俾我都無人同你租啦，耆英怕佢咪乜都聽晒佢講囉。」所以即使荔枝山莊分屬二十多個不同的業主分別擁有，梁福元亦有本事軟硬兼施，一口氣租下數十幅地皮發展為荔枝山莊。梁福元承認四大發展商也曾向他接觸，查詢收購大棠地事宜，他更即席打開大棠規劃地圖說：「紅色圈住的位置已落訂。其餘也傾得七七八八。」夥拍新界王搵銀能夠成為發展商身邊的大紅人，還因為他夠「高瞻遠矚」。十多年前，當荔枝山莊還是一大片草原，村民出入都要踏草攀山，梁福元就在其私人擁有土地上興建一條行車路，即現今的大棠山路，成為通往荔枝山莊的唯一途徑。故即使村民死不願賣地，梁福元亦顯得無有怕，「佢唔賣都得，不過我有權唔俾佢從我條車路入喎，佢唔賣俾我亦唔會有其他人買。」梁福元聰明絕頂，其政界戰友，鄉議局主席劉皇發亦大讚：「佢好叻仔，發展鄉村幫村民改善生活質素係好事。」有「農地王」之稱的發叔，其女婿余漢坤成立的公司去年開始收購元朗大橋村，估計是代發展商長實出手，一方面向城規會申請改建為酒店及大型商場，一方面與村民訂下一份換地協議書，承諾在元朗覓地與居民作交換條件。發叔女婿透過梁福元作中間人，介紹大棠山腳一幅地，並於去年十月以二千二百萬元購入。身為元朗當然區議員及元朗城鄉規劃及發展委員會主席的梁福元理直氣壯地說：「買樓買地梗要有經紀有駁腳啦，我度做村長十幾年，都係多得村民信任我。總之我開會時，有申報利益咪得囉。」 牛場 是一個遺憾智者千慮，必有一失。梁福元對於引牛入村感慨地道：「係我人生最大遺憾。佢入來得十幾隻牛，而家繁殖到有八十幾隻喇。牛女洋洋唔交齊租，我都唔介意，最大問題係村民不滿佢牛出出入入時，破壞風水山墳。」牛之家的地屬梯田，正好佔了數幅地，而洋洋只交了其中兩幅地租金，即六千元一年。其餘沒有納租的包括一幅屬梁福元所有，多年來欠租，梁福元要趕走洋洋屬理所當然。不過，據梁說：「佢最叻搏人同情，成日同記者講我蝦佢，又搵議員幫佢。我都幫佢爭取過元朗大樹下幅地，佢又嫌度無車路，我趕佢走好似係我錯咁。」洋洋反駁說：「佢都無叫我交租。總之牛無晒利用價值就叫我走，好過分！」不過，梁福元早已向城規會入紙申請改變荔枝山莊為康樂用途，地積比率二點五倍，已與新地及新世界分別計劃在那兒發展度假屋及豪宅，以內地富豪為目標。一千萬呎的大棠土地，以約數十元一呎至百多元一呎計算，當中約涉及了數十億元的交易。新界農地受發展商垂青，流浪牛之家難免成為急劇發展下的犧牲品。

My MSc Dissertation

Just received two pieces of comments from the examiners on my dissertation, which was given an 'A-' (only) (this is probably due to some errors in formatting or style).

This one, I guess, comes from my supervisor, Prof. Hills, who is probably the only expert in HK knowing very well the issue:

"The candidate has done an excellent job. The thesis was very well written with good citations of relevant references, in depth synthesis of the problems and prospects of the electricity policy of Hong Kong, nice comparisons made with other countries such as Japan, the US and Singapore (wait, I didn't write on Singapore, but Britain), and interesting idea by incorporating the Ecological Modernization (EM) model in the framework for evaluating energy policy and assisting its management in Hong Kong

I have no hesitation to recommend an "A" grade to this dissertation while the dissertation is of sufficient standard to be lodged in the HKU library after minor corrections are made.

There were some minor format/style errors, especially in the reference list which should be corrected before being lodged in the library."


Another piece of comments come from an unknown examiner:

"Interesting study that covers a wide range of issues with a number of interesting perspectives. Candidate has taken the challenge of integrating a number of conceptual elements and has done quite a good job of producing a convincing argument"

At the end, I have a cumulative GPA of 3.81, which should be much higher if I did pay more attention to such errors.


P.S. I have met with Prof. Hills today. To my surprise, he is not the one who wrote the longer comment (and so not the one who gave me an 'A'). I am confused. Who is the other examiner? And I am a bit unhappy for being given an 'A-' (or lower grade) by my supervisor. (14/8/07)

About resource depletion

"Ecological economics is not necessarily pessimistic on economic growth. It merely points out that growth cannot be predicted by purely economic models from which the flow of energy and materials is excluded" (Martinez-Alier, President of The International Society for Ecological Economics , 1991)

Not all environmentalists believe in a zero-growth ideology. Ecological economists are aiming to redefine the ways that economy works, rather than to remove all economic stuffs.

Human should shift from using the 'flow' of natural capital, like renewables, instead of the 'stock', like non-renewables. Some suggest that the rate of (artifically) generatining the former should be made parallel to that of the latter,
i.e. how much fossil fuel you extract, how much solar energy you should capture. This idea hints at what extent we should be allowed to consume the capital stock.

However, if typical neoclassical economists or broadly, cornucopians, are told the above idea, they will ask why we don't more intensively deplete natural capital stock, regardless of how much is left, and put it into technological development to secure adequate supply of materials and energy, as Julian Simon and others did. They forget the fact that everything on Earth follow laws of thermodymics. Put it in simple terms, built capital generated from technological advances can never fully substitute natural capital. Can you produce any wind power facilities without using any natural capital? So we cannot assume high substitutability and use this invalid assumption as an excuse to extend the current patterns of consumption.

Green GDP in China

Chinese environmental policy is not bad. But this view holds only at national level and not in regional nor local levels. The key barriers lie in a typical bureaucratic failture that perhaps equally applies in social welfare policy.

The top officials are happy to 'clean up' its environmental figures - for various reasons, including a better international image. However, their attempts were upset by the local officials who are normally rated exclusively by quantatitive growth figures. Obviously ecological inputs are missing in these ill-constructed indicators. The idea of qualitative development is not yet a widely accepted agenda in the regional reform lists. While it is not deathly difficult to set up laws or economic incentives to mandate or encourage people to do this and that, how to incorporate ecological ‘thinking’ into the national economic system is indeed a big challenge, given that it will reduce a country’s comparative disadvantage. This is one of the contradictions of sustainability I always refer to.

****************************************

Faith in green GDP idea lost amid the bickering
(South China Morning Post 24/7/2007 )

When Beijing announced its attempt to calculate the huge environmental cost of its economic success three years ago, many hailed it as a breakthrough.

People seemed to have little doubt about the sincerity of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao , who had taken office only a year before, to stop the mainland's pursuit of economic growth and tackle the environmental aftermath. But such faith in the leadership is undoubtedly being questioned following the recent postponement of the green GDP project, which would have seen the release of a "green gross domestic product", calculated after deducting the economic consequences of environmental damage.

Wang Jinnan , from the State Environmental Protection Administration's (Sepa) Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, said at the weekend that the pilot project, once endorsed by Mr Hu, had been put off indefinitely because of "significant disputes between environmental and statistical authorities". It was the first time Sepa, a staunch advocate of the country's first attempt to put a price on pollution, admitted the project was in danger of being scrapped. Arguments between the National Bureau of Statistics and the environmental watchdog - the agencies involved in the project - have been made public since early last year, with two former bureau chiefs, Li Deshui and Qiu Xiaohua , saying the country was not ready for the scheme.

Statistics bureau chief Xie Fuzhan added his weight to the debate recently, questioning the technical feasibility of the project and even rejecting the term "green GDP".
Mr Xie's attitude towards the green index was made clear by his outburst when he was grilled by the press earlier this month about the country's first attempt to put a price on pollution. "Come back to me only if you can find any other countries in the world that accept the green GDP concept," he told reporters.

Outspoken Sepa deputy director Pan Yue's absence from the latest round of bureaucratic infighting was another sign that the project was in serious trouble.
Mr Pan had always put on a brave face, assuring the public that the project was still on the government's agenda. But he has been silent on the matter since March, when the release of the estimated cost of pollution in 2005 was postponed due to opposition from the statistics bureau. While the bureaucrats wasted no time blaming one another for the embarrassing failure, analysts said environmental interests had been sacrificed because of political jockeying between Beijing and local authorities ahead of the 17th Communist Party Congress in the autumn.

An environmental analyst close to Sepa said the much higher than expected pollution costs discovered by the project, which embarrassed the nation's leaders, and fierce resistance to Sepa's suggestion that pollution control be included in cadres' performance assessments, had sounded the death knell for the project.
An incomplete calculation of the environmental costs in 2004 showed that pollution caused more than 510 billion yuan in economic losses, or 3 per cent of the GDP, according to the only report released by the green GDP research team last year.
"It is not surprising that the statistical bureau has changed its attitude because the green GDP findings were set to fall foul of most provincial-level cadres, even those in the affluent coastal areas who openly voiced support for the project," the analyst said.
He said the change of attitude came when Mr Hu was occupied with political reshuffling ahead of the party congress, which needed the support of local authorities.

The analyst also noted that Beijing did not want to upset the authorities in the poverty-stricken western provinces, who were worried that the calculation of environmental damage would restrain their economic growth.
"Apparently the pilot project is no longer important compared with the powerful vested interests at the 17th party congress, which will have a significant impact on mainland politics for the next five or 10 years," the analyst said.
Despite Sepa's optimism about the "green GDP" scheme in public, an environment official admitted in private as early as late last year that the pilot project had lost its appeal after many provinces threatened to withdraw.
Wang Yongchen , a Beijing-based environmentalist, said it would be particularly regrettable if the mainland decided to scrap the project in the wake of a spate of pollution disasters in the country's major rivers and lakes.
"It is because pollution control has not been included in the evaluation of officials' performance that we have seen so many pollution incidents," Ms Wang said.
"If our breakneck economic growth is not subject to any restraints, we will see even more horrible degradation and crises in the future.
"We still hope the government can keep the research on the green GDP calculation going and assess officials on their performance in curbing pollution."
**************************************

探 針 ： 中 國 「 綠 色 GDP 報 告 」 緣 何 擱 淺
(蘋果日報 25/7/2007)

「 綠 色 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 」 即 國 際 上 稱 的 「 綜 合 環 境 與 經 濟 核 算 」 。 透 過 該 核 算 可 以 看 出 有 多 少 經 濟 增 長 是 以 犧 牲 資 源 和 環 境 為 代 價 而 獲 取 的 。 最 近 ， 有 關 中 國 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 的 一 項 重 要 研 究 報 告 ─ ─ 二 ○ ○ 五 年 度 綠 色 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 報 告 ， 被 證 實 「 將 無 限 期 推 遲 發 佈 」 。 據 悉 ， 該 報 告 早 在 幾 個 月 前 已 經 完 成 ， 目 前 專 家 們 正 在 進 行 二 ○ ○ 六 年 度 的 核 算 研 究 工 作 。 為 甚 麼 會 無 限 期 推 遲 發 佈 ？ 「 綠 色 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 」 研 究 專 案 技 術 組 組 長 王 金南 表 示 ， 該 報 告 被 擱 淺 的 很 大 原 因 ， 在 於 環 保 部 門 和 統 計 部 門 在 發 佈 內 容 和 發 佈 方 式 上 存 在 重 大 分 歧 。 據 了 解 ， 國 家 統 計 局 認 為 ， 有 關 環 境 核 算 研 究 取 得 的 階 段 性 成 果 ， 特 別 是 分 地 區 核 算 資 料 只 向 國 務 院 提 供 ， 作 為 決 策 參 考 ， 不 對 外 發 佈 ； 而 環 保 總 局 則 認 為 應 該 向 社 會 公 佈 。 「 綠 色 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 」 報 告 擱 淺 的 另 一 個 原 因 ， 王 金 南表 示 是 一 些 省 、 市 地 方 政 府 向 有 關 部 門 正 式 發 函 要 求 不 要 公 佈 核 算 結 果 ， 施 加 壓 力 。

公 開 與 不 公 開 有 分 歧

可 以 看 出 ， 有 關 部 門 在 「 公 開 還 是 不 公 開 」 這 個 問 題 上 產 生 了 分 歧 。 其 實 ， 只 要 不 屬 於 國 家 機 密 ， 又 為 甚 麼 不 可 以 公 開 發 佈 呢 ？ 換 一 個 角 度 來 看 ， 如 果 這 是 一 份 十 分 正 面 的 「 成 績 單 」 ， 「 公 開 還 是 不 公 開 」 還 會 成 為 一 個 問 題 嗎 ？ 恐 怕 早 就 敲 鑼 打 鼓 了 。 另 外 ， Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 增 長 資 料 可 以 對 外 公 佈 ， Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 增 長 當 中 資 源 和 環 境 成 本 分 析 資 料 又 為 甚 麼 不 可 以 公 佈 呢 ？ 這 是 「 報 喜 不 報 憂 」 的 習 慣 使 然 ， 還 是 有 關 部 門 怕 給 政 府 臉 上 抹 黑 呢 ？ 又 或 者 是 在 宏 觀 經 濟 快 速 增 長 的 大 好 形 勢 下 公 佈 這 種 資 料 有 些 掃 興 ？ 至 於 「 一 些 省 、 市 地 方 政 府 向 兩 部 門 施 加 壓 力 」 這 個 舉 動 就 很 容 易 理 解 了 ， 因 為 長 期 以 來 這 些 地 方 官 只 追 求 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 增 長 速 度 ， 而 不 願 意 提 及 甚 麼 經 濟 發 展 質 量 ， 否 則 他 們 的 所 謂 政 績 就 可 能 大 打 折 扣 了 。 「 在 我 看 來 ， 『 綠 色 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 』 造 成 地 方 這 麼 大 的 震 動 ， 成 為 這 樣 敏 感 的 話 題 ， 這 本 身 就 證 明 它 是 有 用 的 ， 觸 及 到 了 一 些 地 方 官 員 的 痛 處 … … 由 於 扣 除 環 境 損 失 成 本 ， 會 使 一 些 地 區 的 經 濟 增 長 質 量 大 大 下 降 。 目 前 許 多 地 方 仍 然 惟 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 至 上 ， 在 這 種 觀 念 支 配 下 ， 綠 色 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 其 阻 力 之 大 可 想 而 知 。 」 這 是 王 金南先 生 的 話 。
環 境 災 難 逼 近 中 國 人在 經 濟 發 展 過 程 中 ， 重 視 能 源 和 環 境 問 題 就 是 對 子 孫 後 代 負 責 ， 而 當 前 內 地 一 些 地 方 領 導 片 面 追 求 Ｇ Ｄ Ｐ 恰 恰 與 此 背道而 馳 。 種 種 象 表 明 ， 一 場 環 境 和 生 態 災 難 似 乎 正 在 逼 近 中 國 人 。 就 在 十 七 日 ， 國 際 經 合 組 織 （ Ｏ Ｅ Ｃ Ｄ ） 公 佈 了 首 份 中 國 環 境 政 策 報 告 書 。 報 告 稱 ， 雖 然 中 國 是 世 界 第 四 大 經 濟 體 ， 但 中 國 的 環 境 標 準 卻 更 接 近 某 些 最 貧 窮 國 家 。 中 國 一 部 份 大 城 市 的 大 氣 環 境 已 經 進 入 全 球 黑 名 單 。 經 過 十 八 個 月 的 調 研 ， 經 合 組 織 得 出 結 論 說 ， 中 國 每 天 有 三 億 人 飲 用 遭 到 污 染 的 水 ， 每 年 有 一 億 九 千 萬 人 受 到 與 水 有 關 的 疾 病 折 磨 ； 中 國 有 三 分 一 河 段 、 七 成 半 主 要 湖 泊 和 兩 成 半 沿 海 水 域 正 受 「 嚴 重 污 染 」 ， 水 污 染 每 年 導 致 三 萬 名 兒 童 死 於 腹 瀉 。 經 合 組 織 還 預 測 ， 到 二 ○ 二 ○ 年 之 前 ， 污 染 會 導 致 中 國 六 十 萬 人 口 過 早 死 亡 ， 每 年 發 生 二 千 萬 例 呼 吸 系 統 疾 病 、 五 百 五 十 萬 例 慢 性 支 氣 管 炎 和 健 康 受 損 病 例 ， 這 可 能 使 中 國 國 內 生 產 總 值 損 失 百 分 之 十 三 。 看 完 這 段 報 告 內 容 ， 我 不 禁 有 些 毛 骨 悚 然 。
北方 可 可 大 陸 《 博 客 網 》 專 欄 作 家

社會共識 -『共』什麼『識』?

今期SEE雜誌有十篇文章頗有意思，指出了我一個相當認同的觀點 - 香港人『只說不做』的環保主義。

該文刊於SEE第8期p.62頁，由林中鳥所撰，題為『要回復藍天，還欠什麼?』(沒有網上版故無法連結)。作者指出，要解除香港的空氣問題，關鍵不是在於經濟手段或行政手段，而是市民的共識，要付出多少代價的共識。

用來對付環境問題的經濟或規管政策工具，香港其實從來不缺。打從八十年代開始，當局便慣以製訂各種法例來限制污染物排放，及後九十年代中開始從經濟手段入手，先引入排污費，到現在的膠袋稅也是異曲同工。諸如此類的政策工具特點之一是往往由上而下施行，決策者以專家角度預先釐定排放上限、費用多少等等，然後自行公告天下有關施行細節，就此而已，而公眾完全不用操心。關於這種由上而下的做法，有可能引起污染者 - 可能是市民、工廠 - 的不滿早有一番討論，然而，有一點常常被忽略了的是這種預設性手段其實並無法觸及可持續發展的核心思想。

可持續發展理論十分強調公民參與，但什麼叫『參與』? 投票? 激辯討論? 還是乾脆付鈔? 廣義來說這些其實都是，前二者以民主之名左右政策制訂，後者則借市場有形之手影響生產模式，但是這些只能算公民參與的表現形式而不是目的，其目的是在於蘊釀共識。可持續發展從來都不是免費午餐，要達致環境、社會和經濟的三贏局面即使不是過於樂觀，也難免要作出某程度的付出或妥協。例如要發展成本高的可再生能源就不可總是期望電力價格能同時下降，要地產商積極參與自然保育也不能指望他們會不問回報。這些或大或小的付出，到底有多大多小就正正需要社會共識來決定，決定什麼時候、在什麼方面、以什麼形式『承擔』起我們遺忘已久的責任 (說『承擔』是總比『啃下』動聽)。好了，那麼是不是定下了一個明碼實價或時間表諸如此類的就功德完滿了? 抱歉，還沒，可持續發展理論的下半部說：公民參與的過程又比其結果重要。公民參與過程中，人們商議過程(delibration)裡的互動關係其實還會帶來一些正面的、或明或暗的作用，這是說當一組人 (重點是一小組人，例如二十人以下)透過討論來定出對某項環境政策大綱的assessment criteria, priorities, acceptable levels等等的同時，他們在良好氣氛下互相交換資訊、意見及價值觀，從而慢慢脫離一般人by default 的個人、利己主義，及獲取更多重要但自己一直忽略了的資訊。在明，這個互動過程有助於建構社會資本(social capital)，擬出對某一環境政策的『整體社會價值(aggregrate social value)』，有別於傳統經濟模型所假設的、表現了『人性本自私』主張的個人價值論；在暗，有理由相信日後他們的價值觀會因此改變，並表現在其行為之上。故公民參與對推動由下而上的環境管理是決定性的。

不過，提倡『共識』卻不是用來『卸膊』的機會，尊貴的議員或者部份較激進的環保人士愛說：『這些成本應該由企業來負擔，不應轉嫁市民!』，這點我在下文討論過了，要尋根究底的說，消費者才是污染本源，而非企業。但在香港如此的政治生態下，民粹主義恐怕已經蠶食了合理的可持續發展主義了。

洞庭湖鼠患 及 短評林行止『植樹論』

睇完下面兩段有關洞庭湖鼠患嘅新聞，驚訝之餘又想到了林行止那番言論，佢話：

『換句話說，環保分子應鼓勵人們多用紙張以鼓勵林業商人多植樹木（假如電腦化真的令全球「無紙化」，還有誰去種樹呢？屆時只有政府才會植林卻要由納稅人付款），少用紙張的結果是少種樹木，對環保有即時負面效果。』(9/7/2007信報 林行止專欄)

佢嘅言論謬誤甚多，其中一樣就係佢忽略咗生物鏈嘅存在，呢次鼠患很大程度係由於人們過量捕食田鼠嘅天敵(例如蛇)之故，如果照林行止所講，要保護呢d 野生動物，最好係要鼓勵人們多點食用野生動物，將野生動物市場擴大，引導自由市場自己去保護牠們云云.......但須知道任何動物都不是獨立存在，而是身處食物鏈中某一個level，物種同物種之間有相當大嘅interaction，唔係傳統經濟學家對人類社會嘅假設般人與其他物種係分離的。呢d interaction對維繫生態系統的穩定性十分重要，某一物種的數量的大幅增減對上下層的生物都會有可大可小的影響，如果好似林行止咁講，大幅在唔同地方企業化植林，小規模的還可，大規模的則可能擾亂了原本的生態系統，因為很明顯當你要大規模植林的時候，有一些既有的生態系統要『讓路』，某些植物或動物就要被驅逐，有些則可能大幅繁殖，而因為植林而建造的人工生態系統未必可以recover返原本的 (這跟傳統的經濟觀不同，經濟失衡可以在可見的將來(say, 20年30年)recover到，但生態系統要上百年也未必可以recover到 - 更何況生態過程係不可逆轉的，經濟過程一般都設定為可逆轉，但環境則不是，所以別再用傳統的經濟觀來看生態問題了)，這樣會帶來什麼生態問題則難以準確估計，可能係好小事，但更大可能係會有災難性影響，基於自然系統嘅不確定性，呢d ecological risk應該係可免則免。
(originally posted in the discussion.com)

************************************************
鼠霸島為王 食貓兼互殺 洞庭湖水漲 鼠隊再攻大堤 (明報) 07月 16日 星期一 05:05AM
【明報專訊】湖南洞庭湖水患，迫使田鼠「搬家」暴走，爆發一輪「人鼠大戰」。本報記者近日到當地採訪，發現洞庭湖區內多個水洲（小島）已變成「鼠島」，島上除被毒死的田鼠屍體外，亦遍佈鼠洞
，狀甚恐怖。村民說，島上田鼠多以億計，由於食物短缺，田鼠開始互相吞食，有村民嘗試把貓送到鼠島捕鼠，反被田鼠吃掉，令人震驚。記者到洞庭湖區內的大通湖採訪所見，數以億計田鼠躲到尚未被水淹浸的水洲上，在400多萬畝湖區內，多個水洲已被田鼠盤據，儼如一個個巨型鼠島。鼠島生人勿近島上的蛇、貓頭鷹等田鼠天敵已絕，放眼四望，田鼠遍地。由於食物短缺，飢餓良久的田鼠已變得窮兇極惡，開始互相吞食。村民嘗試把數隻大貓送到水洲上吃田鼠，幾天後卻赫然發現貓兒反被田鼠吃掉。現時田鼠已不怕人，更大模斯樣地在人群中穿插，而「鼠島」更是生人勿近。生物鏈難恢復大通湖村民黃先生向本報表示，雖然蛇吃田鼠，但吃一隻卻要消化4至5 天，且因人們大量捕蛇，令蛇的數量大減，已無法靠蛇來控制消滅田鼠了。大通湖區植保站站長吳承和指出，由於人們吃蛇、貓頭鷹及黃鼠狼等田鼠天敵，嚴重破壞當地生物鏈。他強調：「生物鏈一旦被破壞，便很難恢復。」現時即使再放蛇、貓頭鷹等動物來恢復生物鏈，成效已不大。另外，長江上游截流，導致洞庭湖水位下降，令適合田鼠生活的湖灘面積大增，也令田鼠數量暴增。鼠屍如山發臭另據內地媒體報道，由於連日降雨，洞庭湖水位再次上漲，田鼠再次向大堤逼近，部分已在堤內打洞。益陽市植保站站長曹志平說，由於今次遷移的田鼠數量不多，暫時不會影響堤壩安全，當局已經在大堤附近撒下毒餌。而上一次滅鼠時，鼠屍尚未完全清理，仍堆積如山，大堤附近瀰漫鼠屍腐爛後的腥臭味，有爆發鼠疫的危機

中國評論﹕滅鼠治標 反思生態才治本 (明報) 07月 16日 星期一 05:05AM
【明報專訊】6月下旬以來，湖南洞庭湖鼠患成災，棲息在洞庭湖區400多萬畝湖洲中的20億隻東方田鼠，隨水位上漲而內遷堤內，牠們見什吃什，嚴重威脅湖南省沅江市、大通湖區等22個縣市區沿
湖防洪大堤和近800萬畝稻田。此次鼠患究竟怎樣產生，是天災還是人禍，專家說法不一，但歸根究柢大家都承認，當地生態平衡已遭嚴重破壞，大自然正以自己的方式對人類展開報復。從當地專家的結論看來，此次20億隻田鼠之所以內遷，最重要原因是受長江上游泄洪影響，大通湖區等地洞庭湖水位迅速上漲，鼠災全面爆發。而長江上游和洞庭湖流域未來仍可能有較大洪水，洞庭湖區鼠災還將持續。不過，自1985年至2005的20年裏，洞庭湖區曾爆發過5次較大的鼠災。但是，1998年洞庭湖區流域發生了百年難遇的洪災，卻沒有發生今年這樣嚴重的鼠災。這就說明，洪水氾濫並不是造成鼠患的必然原因。其實，洞庭湖區鼠患成災，既是天災，也是人禍：近10年來，洞庭湖區乃至流域的生態平衡被嚴重破壞，既導致上游來水減少，湖灘裸露時間增多而給鼠類提供了急劇繁殖的良機，又讓其天敵貓頭鷹、老鷹等數量急劇減少，而蛇類這一鼠類天敵更因當地人受廣東飲食習慣影響，大肆捕食而銳減；種種因素混合作用，最終導致各種鼠類大量繁殖，以致釀成生態災難。在江蘇[url=]太湖 [/url]藍藻爆發而導致無錫水危機之後，湖南洞庭湖區鼠患成災，這些觸目驚心的生態平衡遭破壞事件一次又一次地告訴國人，繼續堅持現在的經濟發展模式，必將遭遇大自然更加嚴重的報復。當地政府拚命增加公共財政投入，打贏這場「人鼠大戰」後，是否會痛定思痛，反思目前的經濟發展模式、減少人禍對生態平衡的破壞，似乎更值得關注。

Collective action problem

很多人指出若人們明白環境問題的嚴重性，便會改變自己的消費模式來達致環保，但其實這觀點忽視了所謂的"value-action gap"，即是說就算環保意識有多高，也不一定跟他們行為成正比。

任何環保問題都會牽涉到一個問題，就是早在六十年代已被提出的所謂的collective action problem，即free-riding。簡單點說就是由於環境利益是non-excludable (所有人都可以間接享用)，購買了這些產品的人無法直接獨享所有成果，而無論其他人有否作過貢獻也總有間接得到一點好處，即是說我付出$10但可能換來的只有$1，餘下的$9卻被其他沒貢獻的人瓜分了，結果我就沒有多大動機去選用這些產品或採用更環保的生活方式。在人皆自私的前提下，這導致環保產品市場比起傳統市場受到多一層限制。以燈泡為例，其環境利益是highly non-excludable，減少空氣污染或能源使用的正面影響對個人而言是微不足道，然而使用者卻可能要付出比以往略高的價錢來購買，並且要承擔安裝成本，除非其節能(省錢)功能相當明顯，否則在個人利益與整體社會利益的不對稱之下，自願使用環保燈泡的動機不大。
值得關注的問題是，由於環境利益的nonexcludability之故，當我期望部份人會作出環保之舉時，我亦相信他們的行為可以間接惠及我 - 無論我有否付出與否，因此我有很大機會選擇不作付出，乾脆做一個free-rider。即使你喊破喉嚨反覆告訴我環境問題有多麼嚴重，也即使我充份贊同你所說的，只要世上永遠有部份人甘願無私地對環境作出貢獻，我也不用操心，反正我相信不論我幫與不幫我也可以坐享其成。人類利己的心態是inborn的，所以如果針對個人的incentive的影響力不足，單靠以大量群眾為目標、提供a flow of information或者教育式口號式的環境宣教政策的成效將會十分有限，這亦是港大教授Prof. Peter Hills所指出的90年代香港環境教育的問題所在。

另一方面，用科技來減低環保產品的成本可能是解決途徑之一，但需知道生產成本下降對某些環境資源的需求反而可能會上升，而且科技提升所帶來的好處不是無窮無盡的，如果其他因素(如人口)變得更糟，科技也會無補於是，如果環保燈泡價格變得便宜，使用者可能傾向使用更多燈泡，電力方面，我們亦不可能無限地建造風力/太陽能發電站，大量建造這些發電站也總會消耗環境資源，更別說在有些情況下所產生的額外社會成本，如開放電力市場及新興可再生能源市場所牽涉到的social discrimination問題。科技為人所用，科技變了但人(制度)不變或者更糟，問題也一樣無法解決又或者衍生出另一種問題，科技以外的因素有時比科技本身更重要。如果社會/制度層面的問題沒有適當處理，用什麼技術同樣也不可能解決free-riding的問題，這就是為什麼要說human/built capital (技術) 固然重要，但就對環境問題的貢獻而言，它們已經接近bottleneck，所以未來我們更要認真考慮的是social capital (社會資本)對填補上述兩項不足處的重要性，藉此針對環境問題的根源之一 - collective action problem

(originally posted in discussion.com)

My study plan

I have made a study plan on the field I will work on, i.e. ecological economics, for this July and August prior to taking up the new challenge of MPhil in September. The plan is as follow:

- early July to early Aug : theoretical foundations of the EE
- mid to late July: latest development in the applications of EE
- early to late Aug: latest development in the ecological-economics valuation approaches and the status of urban greening in Hong Kong


That means I should be looking at the applications of EE now but it is obviously too ideal because 1) readings on the theoretical foundations are flooeding on my desk as I get too many to go thru, and I am attracted to stay in the old stuffs for the fact that they are intellectually important as well as interesting; 2) it seems that some applied researches involve a lot more technical elements that I expect. I find myself having less knowledge base to fully understand those I am interested in, such as multicriteria analysis and deliberative monetery valuation. The former is mathematical-oriented enough while the latter covers psychology and values as well.
Sometimes I feel a bit painful whenever it has a few seemingly complex mathematical equations in the text. I am not that blind in maths actually but the fact that I received no formal training in econometrics did contribute to my weakness here (I am a Finance graduate though!).

Just a few words more. Unfortunately we have no one in HK ever attempting these two methods, nor try to do the 'lighter' attempts, I mean, single-dimension economic valuation (so that my supervisor and I are hungry to do this). Nothing being done here means we can do a lot, as long as someone needs it.

Why anti-environmentalists exist?

社會每跨越一個進化階段，人們的思想行為便會起某些變化。當由農業社會進入工商業社會，人們變得更著重物質文明的追求當由工商業社會進入後工業社會，人們變得更著重精神文明的追求，包括透過保護環境而達致的精神上滿足所以，當身處好像香港這樣的文明社會的時候，如果你發現有些人對這些所謂的精神文明嗤之以鼻，那麼原因很簡單，他們尚未進化就好像為什麼人類可以在城市生活而與之擁有相近基因本源的黑猩猩卻仍在茹毛飲血，因為牠們尚未進化

As a rule, human behaviours undergo some changes whenever a society passes through a new evolutionary stage. When an agricultural economy moves to an industrial one, people tend to more likely emphasize a materialistic civilization; when an industrial economy moves to a neo-industrial economy, people , however, turn to an emphasis of spiritual civilization, including a pursuit of spiritual satisfaction through environmental protection. In such a civil sociey as Hong Kong, if you find that there are some people sniffed at such spiritual civilization, it means that - the reason is obvious - they do not yet evolve.
Just like why human can live in city wheareas ape, being genetically similar to us, still eat birds and animals raw: it's because they do not yet evolve.

回應：黃牛《「環保」背後的金權關係》

黃牛所講嘅environmental politics嘅黑暗面老早已經有人提出過，商人、政治家戴上環保光環來謀取利益，就一如世上總有人借慈善為名來美化他們的行為一樣，但這些是推翻環保行為的理由嗎?不是，環境問題從來都是由社會制度失調而產生，不向政治、經濟制度借力，環保永不可能有什麼大作為，純個人、民間力量往往只是隔靴搔癢，抓不著問題重點。那麼，叫政治家、商人無條件奉獻行嗎? 也不可能，世上沒有免費的午餐，從現實嘅角度看，環保的真正推動力是其背後的利害關係，多於環保的正當性本身。說白一點，沒有這些『金權關係』的話可能什麼也做不成，但若容許某程度的『陰暗面』我們可以做更多更多，為大局著想妥協是免不了。早前匯豐宣佈將會投放一筆天文數字去搞環保，誰信它是單單為了環保? 曾蔭權早排常常皮笑肉不笑的說要搞什麼藍天行動，誰會信他是真心? 是不是誠心誠意根本不重要，重要是他們做了什麼、做了幾多。將環保商業化、政治化往往是有得有失，沒人保證『得』一定大過『失』，反之亦然，所以這是可以是『危』也可以是『機』，黃牛只說了前者。討論的重點應該是如何平衡其對社會利與害，而不是一見其『害』就把它全盤否定。

(originally posted in the discussion.com on July 2007 as a short reply to 黃牛《「環保」背後的金權關係》 in 11 July 2007)

(唔知邊鬼個將我呢條短短嘅reply repost咗係黃牛個blog度，真係哭笑不得)

企業是問題還是答案?

企業是問題還是答案?
主力打擊大企業是本末倒置，大企業 - 私人擁有的大企業 - 資金、利潤來自己哪裡? 是顧客，只要企業的顧客們沒有半點Environmental awareness 也沒有任何動機去take action，就算你推倒所有大企業的沒有用，這是只能去掉問題的symptoms而不是roots，深層的問題並沒有解決。有怎樣的demand就有怎樣的supply，在任何自由市場裡都是如此，再者，改變了supply sides不等如同時也改變到demand sides，但反之的卻是有可能主力打擊大企業只是一個快捷、看來較容易的方法，因為要改變人們的消費模式其實更不容易，特別係一個民主社會裡更是如此，因為sustainable consumption好多時都與consumer sovereignty and the ideas of freedom and liberty有抵觸 所以我傾向說環保是須要同步性的考慮消費及生產，而非任何單方面

誰在用電?
電力公司還是電力使用者? 自由市場下，沒有後者，前者不可能存在，但就算電力公司全都倒閉，也一樣有人想用電，也總會supply改變消費，可能可以改變生產，因為後者很大程度上依賴前者但改變得到生產，卻不一定可以改變消費，因為後者不一定取決於前者舉個例，如果電力使用者傾向使用綠電，在市場導向之下，你猜電力公司會如何反應? 但是，如果電力公司全線使用綠電或者提供綠電作為其中一種電力供應供市民選擇，那麼電力使用者會因此改變其電力消費模式嗎? 會自願多付一點錢來支持綠電嗎? 會自動變得環保嗎? 不會 - 最少大部份人不會，原因是大部份人都是free-rider，或所謂collective action problem。另一個例子是砍伐樹木，就算你殺光了所有伐木者又如何? 人們不會因為沒有人伐木就不想使用木材 - 甚至因此願意付更高的價錢去購買非法木材，而只要人對木材有需求，利之所至，伐木者總會以另一個形式出現。情況一如各地政府都有立法打擊毒品的經營者，但是不是代表這樣做就真的禁得了，肯定不是，因為需求仍在 。你可能會問，改變了生產模式不就可以了嗎? 為什麼總要打消費者主意? 要留意一點，單靠打壓生產方面的經濟/社會成本往往不低。另一點更重要的是，supply & demand，究竟是誰create 誰? supply同demand 不是獨立存在的。sustainable development說的是改變整個supply-demand cycle，而不是單單supply。我強調，是BOTH - 兩者的Interaction，不是單單指向市民，或任何一方。在歐洲，有很多環境社會學家都開始關注sustainable consumption嘅重要性，有些認為過去的production-focused 模式是不足夠的，我們應該開始想想 consumption在可持續發展中的角色 - 一個很決定性的角色。我剛剛交了一篇master thesis 就有講到呢個題目 ，這是一個一直以來很多人都忽視了的一環，不得不注意。

歐洲電力市場跟香港的有一點很重要的分別，就是她們很多國家已經開放了電力市場，例如英國、荷蘭、瑞典瑞典有一個例子跟你所說的有關，就是環境成本跟社會成本的衝突。有學者發表了數篇文章指出，當當地的電力市場開放後，私營的電力公司變得傾向將其多元化的服務集中在高消費用戶上，一些低消費用戶 - 即低收入人士 - 就享受不到開放市場所帶來的好處，甚至所享用的服務也變得愈來愈少，變相加深貧富矛盾。這裡是有好有壞，好的是電力服務多元化，當中包括多採用可再生能源、多鼓勵節省用電等等，壞的就如上文所說，提高了社會成本所以這引來了一個更困難的情況，如果環境保護與其他社會利益有衝突，應如何處理? 針對demand的措施免不了加速這種衝突，但我會認為，長遠來說，搞不好環境問題，其他什麼問題怎樣做也枉然，因為由環境問題所引申而來的社會問題是更多、影響更深遠、更災難性

(originally posted in the discussion.com on June 2007)

簡論環保主義、企業與政策之關係

我們這一代其實正見證著『後工業化』嘅出現

以前的工業發展絕大多數是高污染，那時候環境資源充足，沒有誰把污染當作一回事，即使到了60-80年代，有些人也喜歡把環境與工業對立，認為工業必然是污染的。

而『後工業化』標誌著社會開始一方面發現工業的帶來的環境成本太高，另一方面又發現衝突性的、對立性的做法導致很高的社會/經濟成本，不論係對發展中同發達國家亦然，因此人們開始要考慮發展另一種模式，即能夠與融合環境因素的經濟政策，達到互利互惠嘅效果。這就是舊有的極端環保主義與新興的、融合性的可持續發展的根本分別。

一些北歐國家及日本很早已經開始走這條新路線，特別強調商界對環保的積極角色，這現象被稱為Ecological modernization 這套理論說，商人的本質固然是唯利是圖，社會憑什麼去鼓勵他們多點環保呢? 那很簡單 - 仍然是那個字，『錢』。有錢賺的地方，無論環保不環保，他們都一定有興趣，雖然破壞環境的金錢利益通常都比較明顯，但誰說綠色利潤微不足道? 那裡來就那裡去，他們破壞環境的原因，也會是他們保護環境的推動力，關鍵在於如何re-shape呢股推動力

對商人來說最大的誘因來自他們的資金來源 ，通常是市場需求，Brown demand, Brown supply. Green demand, Green suppply。一字咁淺，消費者透過消費決定來影響工商生產。這點我在之前的post說過了，所以不贅。

我想說的是政府的角色。在這個生態現代化的過程中，政府的角色不會再是一個controller，而是一個facilitator，促進人民對企業的訴求 (廣義的market demand)和企業的生產活動之間的互動，達到相輔相成的效果。市場永遠存在障礙令企業無法(或因成本太高)從環保中獲利，當企業看不清市場對環保產品的需求時，政府就要站出來掃清障礙，讓企業看到這個市場機會並更容易從中圖利，而不是動輒用法令強迫企業生產某些環保產品，前者的政府的角色是between demand and supply sides，而後者則是政府sepearately 在兩端發功，舉一個例，外國有些地方(eg荷蘭)充許人們付出一個特定的價錢來享用綠電，人們有權選擇用哪一間電力公司的服務，利之所至，有green money 就有green product，於是在競爭下電力公司便會因此而對可再生能源業務更為積極，但香港呢? 即使2008 新利潤管制實施後，就算我們幾環保的好我們也不能直接買可再生電力，我們沒有消費選擇權，沒有途徑去影響生產決定，沒有green money。在香港，長久以來政府只是一個controller，而不是facilitator (但近年情況已有改善了) (關於這點，有興趣可以看看我的MSc論文導師港大教授Prof. Peter Hills的文章，有很深入的論述)。

可持續發展要的不是什麼環保科技，沒有制度上的轉變什麼技術也用不上，沒有demand(沒有利可圖)或沒有政府的促成，哪個企業會採用環保技術或措施? 前者取決於環保意識，可謂決定性因素，但這個不是可以『迫』出嚟嘅，要的是時間，慶幸的是香港人環保意識其實不低 。後者呢? 正是現今香港環境問題的最大絆腳石，這個涉及政治因素，複雜無比。

所以說，環保不是一問科學，是一門政治，一門藝術。

(originally posted in the discussion. com in June 2007)

Birth of my Blog

Day 1, probably the hottest day of this summer. In the middle of July 2007, this blog begins, finally. Although I have the idea for some time, I didn't want to do it until my MPhil offer was confirmed (in case unfortunately I did't have one it would be meaningless to do this). Now everything is alright, perhaps.

This blog is made to share my thoughts on environmental-economic issues; it is a more serious one. Both English and Chinese will be used here, though my English is just IELTS 6.5 standard! While I want to give it a little more academic 'vigour', it is not exclusively full of wordy, dry and boring passages. My ideas are in general drawn upon the Ecological Economics school. It is fundamentally different from the orthodox economics while (paradoxically?) extensively applying and refining different sets of economic analytical tools. Personally I find it both intellectually challenging and signifacnt. I hope - yes, coz no one knows the future - I can make some contributions to the academia some day.

As a member of Hong Kong and currently a student here, I think I should keep my eyes on what I see and think about this place. This city is probably a good place to study environmental policy issues given its development history, political systems and geographical characteristics as well. You may be frustrated when you look at the situations here, but at the same time it offers a piece of interesting 'materials' for one to explore, simply because it unfolded too many problems from an environmental perspective.

It is difficult to have such an opportunity to get the offer given my terribly poor past school grades. I don't know how far I can go; I am not sure if I can successfully do anything meaningful to the academic community. But, I always remind myself, it is better to regret after you did something than regret for doing nothing. So.................Alex, it's time to Go!