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?)
2 comments:
This leads me to think if there is any external force to shape the energy demand in HK.
HK as a region, not a country. What is her stand towards Kyoto Protocol?
Apart from the SCA, can there be any other limitation to "shape" the power industry, especially towards a sustainable "growth".
Maybe the word "growth" is not appropriate. But if China is under the Kyoto Protocol, HK as a SAR of China, should be subject to limiting its GHG emissions!
By external you mean international pressure? I don't think so given that HK is just tiny city that no one really cares about. However, the supply is subject to Mainland China, e.g. fuel mix, competition.
Kyoto protocol...well, I am sure that the HK government officials don't care about this because even China does not need to comply with.
And yes, there do have other limitations. Let's say the grids, owned by the power industry, limiting competition (it is somewhat beyond the scope of SCA, since it is their private assests). And also the demand, most people are actually not very supportive to renewables if you ask them to pay (some think that it is a duty of the 'dirty' power companies). No green demand, no green supply, bear in mind that they are private companies right after inception.
Post a Comment