Exposed pipes on Lamma

This is a very popular trail, thousands of visitors come to Lamma every weekend and walk from Yeung Shue Wan to Sok Kwu Wan.
The island is actively promoted by the Tourism Board and the local economy mainly relies on visitors' spending.

You would expect the government to value the natural beauty of this island. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Take these pipes. In urban areas they would be underground, but on Lamma digging a trench for these pipes was not considered worthwhile. So here they are, in their full glory: alignment was not even attempted, and concrete was liberally used to support them every 2.5 metres.

The infantilization of public space

Picture #1: Hong Kong Park
Do we need to be taught the name of these flowers? It seems that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department has embarked on a mission to educate the public about flowers and trees. Fair enough, but why was the tag designed by a kindergarten teacher? Everywhere i look, i see a liberal use of nursery colours, signs and banners designed for pre-schoolers!

Picture #2: Hong Kong Park
This drinking fountain looks pretty straightforward, and yet the same department has covered it in instructions, and one of the signs was probably designed by the same kindergarten teacher who likes bees and flowers.

Not only Hong Kong Park has become cluttered and tacky, when i go to country parks to escape this visual assault, i am forced to walk on concrete paths surrounded by railings and yet more loud banners warning that i should protect myself from heat stroke.

Can government officials ever accept the idea that the majority of HK residents are over 18 and should be treated like responsible adults despite the fact that they are not allowed to elect the next chief executive?

Manifesto for eco-conscious HK chicks

Living in HK means that we can hardly escape the pressure of a multi-million advertising industry that is hell-bent on making people feel inadequate unless they buy the latest mobile phone or designer bag.
Unless we start to take pride in our alternative 'lifestyle choices', to borrow a marketeers' cliche, and use word of mouth and our influence in the media to spread it, we will never pose a challenge to the multinationals of planet destruction.

So i propose a manifesto for eco-conscious HK chicks and call for more entries to this list.

1. You love your old mobile phone, as it does exactly what a phone is supposed to do. Its no nonsense design can easily be described as "vintage", the simplicity of its menu mean that time can be spent engaging in more pleasant activities than studying functions and applications, its sturdiness means you don't need to worry about accidentally dropping or scratching it. When it finally breaks down, you can easily fix it or replace with a similar model, which you can buy second-hand for HK$200 (My Nokia is 5 years old and i have only changed the battery once)

2. You buy your clothes in second-hand and charity shops, alter them or re-style them yourself, you organize swap parties where friends and acquaintances can exchange loved items without ever opening your purse. Your style is unique and fashion designers will copy it, because they always take inspiration from what stands out in the street, but then put a silly price tag on it.

3. You travel by train and bicycle to reach places that other people will read about in travel magazines some time after you visited them. As you save money by spending less on consumer products, you need to work less, hence your holidays will be longer. You leave the "long-weekend" getaway places to mass tourists who are time-strapped and herded like cows into over-crowded resorts.

4. You make things. As you have more time for yourself, you learn how to make stuff that other people can only buy in expensive designer shops. You can make unique pottery, jewellery, photo-albums, knit jumpers and scarves, build your own furniture, make bags with discarded cloth and beads, there is virtually no limit to what you can make by hand.

5. You are a vegetarian. There is really no need to eat meat: the healthiest populations have always eaten little or no meat. You love animals and cannot bear the idea of eating parts of an animal that has been killed to feed you. You cook your lunch and dinner, put it in a re-usable container and carry it with you. In HK healthy food is expensive, but very affordable if you cook it yourself. Also, a quinoa and vegetables stew cannot be bought from a take-away, and the same applies to the most nutritious grains and pulses.

6. You never buy bottled water. It's terribly polluting for the environment, and also bad for your health: plastic releases carcinogenic particles into the water, especially when bottles are stored in high temperatures, as they are in HK. Instead, you carry a flask and refill it with tap water which is no worse than water you buy in bottles. At home you drink filtered or boiled tap water.

7. You carry your own bag when you go shopping. You only choose groceries without excessive packaging, as this saves space in your bag and creates less waste at home. You can use Marseilles soap to wash your laundry as it comes in a soap bar, instead of a plastic container. To clean kitchen and bathroom use a vinegar and water solution. Most cleaning products are unnecessary and very harmful for the environment.

8. You never buy cosmetics and body & hair care products. You don't need to because you can find everything you need to be beautiful...in your kitchen!
Natural beauty tips can be found on the Internet, and after trying natural ingredients, you will never go back to chemicals-laden creams and hair products. Besides, if you exercise daily, get plenty of sleep, live stress-free and eat healthy, your skin will never need a boost.

9. You often go the library. There you can read and borrow books, instead of buying them, and bring home CDs that you can listen to and even copy.

10. Your apartment feels much bigger than it is because you never clutter it with stuff you bought on impulse and don't really need. The less you own, the lighter you feel. Freedom can never be achieved by owning more. Material things are like a ball and chain that hinder your personal development and inner growth.

11. Your electricity bill is usually below HK$100 a month, you choose to live without a TV, because you'd rather socialize with friends than passively watch the box, you don't need air-conditioning in your flat because you keep your windows open and use a ceiling fan instead. As you avoid meat, your body temperature will naturally be lower. If you live alone, you don't need a washing machine either, as you can soak your clothes and bed linen in the washtub overnight, and rinse them in the morning.
You only need a small, energy-efficient fridge because in HK you are never too far from a grocery store or market.

12. You work to live, rather than live to work as many do in HK.
When you free yourself from the shackles of consumerism, you need to work fewer hours to support yourself. In the developed world we are facing over-capacity, over-production and over-consumption. If we all consumed less, then this unsustainable system would fold like a house of cards, and some sanity would be restored: the real quality of life would improve and the environment would benefit. People who live in developed countries are not happier than those who don't. That's a fact. And we should all ponder the irony of it.

13. You have no car. Nobody really needs one in HK. You can go anywhere you want by public transport, you also take any opportunity to walk, climb stairs and cycle, which keeps you fitter than going to the gym.

14. You are not defined by what you buy, but by what you treasure. Your rubbish bin fills up really slowly, as you recycle most of your waste. The less you buy, the more uses you will find for what you previously thought of as 'just waste'.

Menstrual cups finally available in Hong Kong

This message is addressed to women. Every month you probably spend a lot of money buying menstrual pads or tampons. But money is not the only issue. These pads and tampons end up in landfills where they take decades to decompose.

Finally you have a cheap, reliable and environmentally-friendly alternative. Watson, the Hong Kong retailer, has agreed to stock menstrual cups made of silicon.
Though i won't buy one (I got mine online and have been using it for years) i highly recommend this product to all those women who still haven't tried it.

The menstrual cup is made of soft, non-latex, medical grade silicone. The cup is innovative, economical, comfortable, and environmentally-friendly.
It is designed to catch your menstrual flow rather than absorb it. Its bell shape allows the cup to fit snuggly and comfortably up against your vaginal walls, below but not touching your cervix. The cup should be emptied and rinsed at least every 8 to 12 hours, ideally in the privacy of your bathroom at home.

Menstrual cups can last up to 10 years. The initial cost for a cup is higher than for traditional hygiene device, but the cost is absorbed with each consecutive use.

De-grow or die

Serge Latouche, professor emeritus of economic science at the University of Paris-Sud, is one of the main proponents of "the society of de-growth". I was recently engaged in an animated debate about the merits of his vision, which prompted me to translate some key passages of his books 'Le Pari de la Décroissance' (The Bet of De-Growth) and 'Petit Traité de la Décroissance Sereine" (Small Treaty of Peaceful De-Growth) published in 2006 and 2007. Here i will offer some of his arguments.

De-growth does not mean negative growth. Negative growth is a self-contradictory expression, which just proves the domination of the collective imagination by the idea of growth.

On the other hand, de-growth is not the alternative to growth, but rather, a matrix of alternatives which would open up the space for human creativity again, once the cast of economic totalitarianism is removed. The de-growth society would not be the same in Texas and in the Chiapas, in Senegal and in Portugal. De-growth would open up anew the human adventure to the plurality of its possible destinies.

Growth for growth's sake is an insane objective, with disastrous consequences for the environment. The need for a 'de-growth' society stems from the certainty that the earth's resources and natural cycles cannot sustain the economic growth which is the essence of capitalism.

In place of the current dominant system, a new society is possible, one of assumed sobriety, where we all work less in order to live better lives, we consume less products but of better quality, we produce less waste and recycle more.

The new society would mean recuperating a sense of measure and a sustainable ecological footprint, and finding happiness in living together with others rather than in the frantic accumulation of gadgets.

It is difficult to break out of this addiction to growth especially because it is in the interest of the "dealers" – the multinational corporations and the political powers serving them - to keep us enslaved.

Alternative experiences and dissident groups - such as cooperatives, syndicates, the associations for the preservation of peasant agriculture, certain NGOs, local exchange systems, networks for knowledge exchange - represent pedagogical laboratories for the creation of "the new human being" demanded by the new society. They represent popular universities which can foster resistance and help decolonise the imaginary.

We should start re- conceptualising what we understand by poverty, scarcity and development for instance; restructuring society and the economy; restoring non-industrial practices, especially in agriculture; redistributing; re-localising; reusing; recycling.

As regards poor countries, Latouche proposes the virtuous cycle of the eight “Rs”: RECONCEPTUALIZING (i.e., redefining the concepts of wealth and poverty, scarcity and abundance); RESTRUCTURING (adapting society and economy to degrowth); RESTORING (first and foremost, peasant agriculture); REDISTRIBUTING; RELOCATING; REDUCING (i.e., limiting the impact of human beings on the environment); REUSING; RECYCLING.

In his book "Petit traité de la décroissance sereine" he proposes a political program of sorts, which can be summarized in the following points:
1) working our way back to an ecological footprint that is equal or inferior to a planet;
2) including in transportation costs the damages caused by transportation;
3) relocating industrial and agricultural activities;
4) reviving peasant agriculture;
5) converting productivity increases into reduction of working time and job creation;
6) stimulating the production of “relational commodities” such as friendship and knowledge;
7) reducing energy waste;
8) strongly penalizing advertising expenses;
9) taxing stock transactions, the profits of multinational companies, carbon emissions, and nuclear waste.

Having travelled to places regarded as poor (because of their GDP) i have come to question Western definitions of poverty.
Who is poor? The farmer who produces, sells and eats his fresh products, works 4 hours a day and spends the rest of the time with his family, socializing with his friends, playing music, making handcrafts, breathing clean air, and going for a walk whenever he likes or the white-collar worker, trapped in his office for 8-10 hours a day, then trapped in traffic to go home, where he eats junk food in front of his high-definition TV, surrounded by consumer products that will make him more miserable as soon as they become outdated and need replacing with new, 'state-of-the-art' ones?
And if someone argues that the white-collar worker might actually be happy to be chained to his gadgets, then i would reply that the white-collar worker's lifestyle is threatening the health and well-being of those who are losing their land because of global warming, those who are forced to breath polluted air, drink polluted water, eat contaminated crops, whose children develop cancer or are born with congenital deformities. The disappearance of animal species, local cultures and languages, the trashing and degradation of the environment, the use of war to secure resources, famine wages, etc. this is the price developing countries are paying so that he can happily consume. Someone has to start putting a price tag on the ravages of global consumerism.

In the past capitalist accumulation relied on slavery, but then discovered a much more effective way of enslaving people, consumerism. Now millions of people work long hours to be able to afford goods they don't need, and shop till they drop to achieve 'status' because 'having' has replaced 'being'. A major shift is needed in our consciousness, otherwise we will all go down together, rich and poor.

Horror Vacui in Hong Kong

HORROR VACUI (fear of emptiness in Latin), combined with a penchant for all things cute and pink, glossy surfaces, black leather sofas, neoclassical sculptures, gold paint and huge TV screens are de rigueur in HK. Unfortunately government officials have decided that the "kindergarten meets Las Vegas casino" aesthetics should not be limited to the interior of flats, residential blocks, office desks, shopping malls in the New Territories, etc. They want every corner of the city, including country parks and beaches, to be "beautified" in accordance to the dominant taste.

Thus unobtrusive railings are painted pink and white, the Leisure, Culture and Sports Department logo is repeated ad nauseam, stainless steel notice boards are erected even in the tiniest park, so that people can be reminded to 'wash their hands', huge vinyl banners in primary colours promote even the most obscure event organised by this or that department, or simply scream 'Drugs kill'.

Every public space must be packed with ads and warning signs, every festival becomes an excuse to 'decorate' the city with giant pink figurines, garish lights, flower pots etc. The shopping mall has become the golden standard for public spaces. Whereas in shopping malls brands have to pay to advertise their goods, government departments can freely promote themselves and their ill-conceived campaigns.

Let's just take one of these campaigns as an example. "Get Moving. Clean Hong Kong" reads one huge banner featuring three young people posing with a broom. Is this a contest? Or a new form of exercise involving broom sticks? Are we encouraged to become street sweepers because of the recession? After counting hundreds of these banners, i still don't know what the message is. Certainly taxpayers money would be better spent in increasing cleaners wages rather than producing these banners.

In parks and beaches more activities are banned than permitted. And of course huge signs and banners are there to remind us that we shouldn't skate, play with balls, burn wax, fly kites, lie on benches, walk dogs, listen to music, cycle, smoke, etc. As i look at this garish clutter of signs, my head starts spinning, i feel nauseous. Is throwing up permitted??
I don't see any sign mentioning vomit, but plenty of signs warn me to watch my property, lock doors and windows before leaving home, prevent gum disease by brushing my teeth (!) and even advise me to love my family members. WTF??

One wonders how we managed to safely use these places for decades before government departments started shouting their DO's and DON'Ts.

Officials who suffer from HORROR VACUI syndrome believe that streets and parks are too empty. They must have more banners, signs, public art or distinctive street furniture. Trees are too empty. They must be hung with Christmas lights or signs identifying their species. And let's not forget that trees are 'dangerous', they must be secured to the ground with ropes and cables, or enclosed in metal cages.

The horror...the horror!

This is The Age of Stupid

"Either we seriously tackle climate change or we wipe out most life on Earth. So it's not a tricky decision" (Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid)

Last night i was invited to watch the premiere of 'The Age of Stupid' at UA cinema in Times Square. Due to my late working hours, i missed the presentation, but managed to watch the movie. I really hope that this movie will be released in HK, though i think that those who should watch this movie will never buy a ticket to see it. It should be compulsory viewing for government officials, and should be screened in all schools to sensitize young viewers about the problems that their generation will face, unless something is done, NOW, by our generation.

The story is told in the voice of an ageing archivist - played by Pete Postlethwaite - looking back from the year 2055 on a world devastated by climate catastrophe.

Ensconced in a sea-bound tower harbouring a complete digital record of human history, the sadder and wiser archivist pulls up image files that tell the story of real people profiled by the filmmaker, Franny Armstrong.

"We could have saved ourselves, but we didn't. It's amazing. What state of mind were we in, to face extinction and simply shrug it off?", Postlethwaite's character says with a flash of anger.

Gazing back to our time, he details the lives of people whose stories intersect with global warming in different ways: a poor, aspiring medical student from Nigeria's oil rich Niger Delta; a young business scion starting up India's third "low cost" airline; a pair of child refugees from the war in Iraq; Piers Guy, struggling vainly against the opposition to a windfarm that could power several thousand households; an old French mountain guide who has watched Alpine glaciers retreat dozens of metres over his long career; and a retired oil company scientist in New Orleans, whose life was devastated by hurricane Kathrina, thinking out loud as to how future generations might look back our era if we fail to reign in global warming.

The movie is definitely worth seeing. If you cannot catch it in the theatre, watch it on DVD (you can buy it from www.ageofstupid.net) and then lend it to as many people as possible. If you are a teacher, arrange a public screening in your school.

There have been so many wake-up calls, and yet we keep ignoring them, while we sleepwalk into the abyss.
Unless we all stop abusing natural resources, stop mindless consumerism, stop jetting around the globe, and stop eating meat, this planet will never be able to sustain its ballooning population. The war to secure water, oil, and food has already started, it can only turn much much uglier. The collapse of civilization as we know it looms very close. We can't keep dragging our feet.

Irresponsible use of vinyl banners

Vinyl banners have taken over Hong Kong.
Every building site, storefront and restaurant seems to be sporting a banner. As if this wasn't bad enough for the environment, government departments have jumped on the bandwagon and now use these banners for their public awareness campaigns. "Keep Hong Kong clean", "Don't drink and drive", "Drugs kill", "Prevent Japanese Encephalitis. Remove stagnant water", "Eliminate rodent nuisance", "Wash your hands" and even use them to promote temporary events such as museum exhibitions, concerts and festivals.

The effectiveness of these public campaigns has been questioned by many advertising experts who think that the public has grown tired of being addressed like a pre-schooler and that pedestrians and motorists are already bombarded with so many messages that they are too distracted to pay any notice. Besides, other channels such as radio, tv and the internet can be more effective, reducing the ecological impact of these campaigns.

As to choosing a strong, durable material to promote sport and cultural events that last for less than a month, this is by far the most absurd and irresponsible use.

Almost all banners are made of Vinyl PVC, a material that presents environmental concerns, both in its manufacture and its disposal.

It might be hard to curb their use in the private sector, but when taxpayers money is actually used to generate more waste for our overflowing landfills, one cannot help but doubt the sanity of our civil servants.

Plastic is NOT fantastic

The main problem with plastic - besides there being so much of it - is that it doesn't biodegrade. No natural process can break it down. Experts point out that the durability that makes plastic so useful to humans also makes it quite harmful to nature. Instead, plastic photodegrades. A plastic container cast out to sea will fragment into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic without breaking into simpler compounds, which scientists estimate could take hundreds of years. The small bits of plastic produced by photodegradation can get sucked up by filter feeders and damage their bodies. Other marine animals eat the plastic, which can poison them or lead to deadly blockages. Plastic threatens the entire food chain, especially when eaten by filter feeders that are then consumed by large creatures.

You have probably heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a gyre of marine litter in the central North Pacific Ocean located roughly between 135° to 155°W and 35° to 42°N and estimated to be twice the size of Texas. The patch is characterized by exceptionally high concentrations of suspended plastic and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.

Plastic chokes rivers, lakes, and oceans. It litters even the most remote areas of the planet. When burnt or incinerated it pollutes the air we breath. And let's not forget that the production of plastic is just as polluting and harmful to the environment as it is its disposal.

This is the legacy we are leaving to the next generations.
Despite that fact that plastic is not biodegradable our civilization is using it to produce billions of single-use, disposable items. Our throw-away culture hasn't been able to switch to natural materials simply because it's 'cheaper' to use plastic. An environmental tax on all plastic products is long overdue and would discourage the abuse of this material. It's time the environmental cost of plastic production and disposal is factored in so that other materials can become competitive, and people rethink their addiction to plastic.

What can the consumers do?
First of all, reuse and refill containers instead of throwing them away, drink filtered tap water instead of bottled water, if you have to eat and drink on the go, pack your own lunch box, always carry a flask, so that you can avoid disposable cups, when shopping choose products that leave no unwanted packaging behind, such as soap bars instead of liquid soap, buy fresh produce that is not pre-packaged, bring your own shopping bags, buy wooden toys instead of plastic ones, buy clothes made of natural fibers, and what is most important, reduce consumption. Buy only what you really really need. Buying more will not make you feel good, but it will certainly make you poorer and damage the environment.

Heung Yee Kuk seeks to legalize dumping on farmland

The mask is off. The Heung Yee Kuk’s latest bid to get a permission to operate landfills on land zoned for agriculture comes as no surprise to those who struggle to protect the green lungs of our city.

The Kuk is asking for a license to turn fishponds and farmland into a dump for excavation material, which will inevitably turn into a collection point for all kind of waste, including toxic waste.

Dumping on farmland is something that private landowners have been doing illegally for decades, causing irreversible damage to the ecosystem and defacing the countryside.

Legalizing such activity would only accelerate the ongoing destruction of green areas.

The Kuk represents the interests of thousands of native villagers, many of whom don’t even reside in Hong Kong, at the expense of the interests of millions of Hong Kong residents who seek an escape from the concrete.

We are losing green areas at an alarming pace. Future generations will ask what kind of people allowed this to happen. Today’s gain for a few will turn into tomorrow’s loss for many.

The government has the duty to develop a comprehensive strategy for the conservation of Hong Kong's natural assets which are fast disappearing due to irrational development. The Baptist University’s study commissioned by the Kuk would only produce the results that the Kuk expects. It cannot be regarded as an independent study because environmental and residents’ associations have no say in it.

So far government departments have been unable to take effective action against illegal dumping.
Lamma residents who have been fighting one such case know all too well that neither the EPD nor the DSD could stop a private landowner dumping construction and other waste on land zoned for agricultural use in the Yung Shue Long valley, despite the fact that his actions blocked a stream and caused flooding.
The dumping has now completely buried a lily pond, destroyed a breeding ground for the protected Romer’s tree frog, partially obstructed a stream and blocked drainage from the neighbouring fields, which are farmed to produce vegetables sold locally. This eyesore is endured by those who live nearby and property prices have been affected.

Prior to this dumping activity, the Drainage Services Department carried out significant drainage works, a multi-million project that was designed to alleviate flooding in the valley and is now just a concrete monument to the squandering of public finances.

Mongkok makeover will kill street life as we know it

I am horrified by the URA’s project to turn five streets in Mongkok into a 'theme park' for tourists (ref.SCMP. 1-09-09)

Does the Urban Renewal Authority truly know what tourists want to see? I can only speak for my visitors from Europe, and I would say that what draws them to Mongkok is the chance to see local people's way of life under conditions of extreme density: the crowds, sounds, smells and sights that are fast disappearing from other parts of Hong Kong.
What they are not interested in is a sterile and over-regulated environment, paved with blue tiles and dotted with giant goldfish and seashells.
They certainly welcome the idea of walking in a pedestrian friendly zone and get some respite from traffic fumes, but feel that repaving the streets with glossy tiles would make them less authentic.

Giant themed sculptures would only accelerate the lamentable disneyfication of public space. Those who like Disney aesthetics are already catered for, the rest of us have the right to enjoy streets that are not over-themed, over-designed and banalised.

Childish and tacky sculptures may be fit for shopping malls but shouldn’t blight our public space.

Liquid soap bottles. What a waste!

Why do so many households have these squirty soap bottles? Whatever happened to old good soap bars?

All these plastic bottles of liquid soap do is contribute to landfill. So not only is their waste something we have to think about, but what about the production of these bottles? All you have to do is take apart the pump dispenser and you will see how complex it is. What a waste to the environment.

I only buy soap bars and it is increasingly difficult to find them in local supermarkets. When i do, they are usually stacked on the bottom shelves, because of course, they are cheaper and last longer ... something that retailers don't like.

Too lazy to shake your umbrella? Disposable plastic sheaths are the ultimate folly

First the dispensers of disposable plastic sheaths appeared in shopping malls and office towers, now even facilities directly managed by government departments, such as museums and libraries proudly display them.

Before the appearance of these condoms for dripping umbrellas, people used to shake their brollies, or put them in the nylon sheath that comes with any umbrella you buy. Not anymore. If you are too lazy to shake it, you can slip it into a disposable plastic cover every time you enter a building. Multiply this action several time, and imagine millions of people doing the same, and you have a mountain of plastic waste to dispose of in a landfill. Not to mention the environmental impact of producing all those plastic sheaths.

Environmentally-irresponsible decisions are made everyday by people who don't think about the consequences of their actions.
It's even more annoying to see that taxpayers' money is used to pay the salaries of people who should know better.

Do trees kill people?

According to the latest statistics available, on average, there were 41 road traffic accidents each day in Hong Kong in 2006, involving 52 casualties and 61 vehicles. (http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_report/feature_articles/transport/index_cd_B70707FB_dt_detail.jsp)

In 2009 one person was killed by the falling branch of a tree, a regrettable death that could have been avoided if said tree had been properly cared for.

And yet despite the fact that it was a freak accident, and far from common, the Hong Kong government has decided that mature trees are dangerous and should be surrounded by cages, their branches secured by unsightly cables attached to concrete poles.

These statistics beg one question. Given the deadly toll of traffic accidents in Hong Kong, why is the government so worried about the danger posed by trees? Instead of extending pedestrian areas and planning the city around pedestrians (the majority of residents don't drive!) more roads have been planned, and in the meantime our officials are busy chopping down trees or building unsightly cages around them.

The most bizarre decision was to build a high fence on a concrete support around a majestic banyan tree at the end of Battery Walk, near St. John's Cathedral. Not only they built an enclosure fit for a wild animal, but they covered part of the fence with plastic foliage (!) Inside the enclosure one can see a tall concrete pole on an over-scaled concrete box. The tree is now attached to this unsightly pole by several metal ropes. I have no idea how much taxpayers' money was wasted on this project, but certainly a tree expert would have pruned the dangerous branches, and left the tree alone!

Now instead of a beautiful tree that everybody can admire we have a concrete and metal monster, from the top of which a few branches jut out.

Above is a picture taken on Lamma, in Yung Shue Wan Main street. According to the Island District Office, they just wanted to "protect" the tree from people and dogs urinating (!?). As a result, this banyan tree is now enclosed in a stainless steel cage, adding more clutter to the already cluttered street. I guess it makes little difference to those who allegedly used the tree as a urinal. Now they simply have a stainless steel structure to urinate on. Progress, isn't it?

Gasping for air

At 11am, 1 June 2009, the air quality in Hong Kong is threatening all citizens, according to Greenpeace's Real Air Pollution Index.
All air quality monitoring stations recorded at least 2 kinds of air pollutants exceeding the World Health Organisation standards. Roadside station in Central even has 3 air pollutants.

After spending 4 hours in Central, gasping for air and suffering from extreme shortness of breath, i cancelled a couple of appointments and returned to Lamma, where i can finally breathe.

The situation is critical and yet the government is not even considering implementing traffic reduction measures on days of high pollution such as today. If Beijing does it, banning vehicles on alternate days according to their registration plates, why can't HK? It's obviously a patch and not a solution, but at least people would not be forced to cancel their engagements and run for cover!

Dymocks' disregard for the environment

Yesterday i walked into a Wanchai bookstore, one of the many Dymock bookstores that have mushroomed in HK. Though not a big fan of their selection, i went in to browse titles and kill time between classes. To my dismay all books were wrapped in a plastic film, to ensure that nobody would leaf through them. I am one of those people who don't judge a book by its cover, and always read the first page of a novel before buying it, as the writing style to me is just as important as the content. Most readers leaf through the pages before deciding what to buy....the way most people shopping for clothes or shoes try them on.

Wrapping each individual book in plastic certainly achieves the desired result of stopping people like me from browsing, but what are the other, unintended consequences of this ill-conceived decision? Bad news for the environment. A pile of discarded plastic wraps that end up in our full-to-the-brim landfills...not to mention the emissions caused by the production of those wraps.

Dymocks bookstores in Hong Kong are franchised, so it's hard to tell whether the Australian Group that owns the Franchise System is aware of this practise in one of his shops in HK. I have lodged a complaint and will tell you what their reply is.

Off to the library now...where books can be browsed and enjoyed at no cost for the reader and the environment.

the real crisis

For the last two months the media and the government have been obsessively informing us that we are in a 'state of crisis'. The 'crisis' they talk about is created by excessive spending, over- production, and a lot of toxic financial products. They call it a crisis, but it would be better to look at it as the inevitable outcome of an economic system based on greed and exploitation, exploitation of labour and natural resources.

What I think we are seeing is a clear example of the shock doctrine (an expression coined by Naomi Klein) in the way governments are using the economic crisis to push through an agenda without the chance of any real, sober and rational debate.

Worldwide, the taxpayers are footing the bill to save the same system that got us into this mess.

The capitalist system has solved previous crises by expanding and colonizing places and spheres of life that were once external to it. (See Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism).

Lenin observed that capitalist nations had avoided this crisis by expanding the pool of workers they exploited. Capitalism, he argued, "had escaped its three laws of motion through overseas imperialism. The acquisition of colonies had enabled the capitalist economies to dispose of their unconsumed goods, to acquire cheap resources, and to vent their surplus capital."

If you replace 'colonies' with 'global markets', you have a pretty good description of globalisation. Now this model has started to show its cracks. Capitalism has expanded to every corner of the world, and though production can still be moved to places where labour is cheaper, overproduction has become a problem. Not all sacked factory workers in the West can be turned into low-paid workers in the service industry. Low wages mean that these workers' purchasing power has dropped, and easy credit can only patch things up for a short period of time, until the financial markets collapese, as they did, and people become so impoverished they cannot even keep a roof on their head, let alone spend on useless consumer goods.

The only way the failures of this system can be corrected would be through redistribution of wealth, by which i mean higher wages for workers, both in developed and developing countries, and shorter working hours. This is of course anathema to capitalists, as it would erode their profit margins.

Redistribution would also be good for the environment, because production would only meet real demand, instead of boosting it artificially through marketing, advertising, and 'easy credit'.

Shortening working hours could create more jobs, and though less people would be making millions more people would earn a decent wage. Yes, luxury goods would go unsold, but do we really care if yachts, private jets, Hermes bags and Bentleys go unsold? I'd rather see millions of people around the globe be lifted out of poverty and gaining access to clean water, nutritious food, and education than pandering to the whims of the super-rich, the only ones who have benefitted from unfettered capitalism. The 'trickle-down' theory obviously doesn't work, as the widening gap between rich and poor clearly shows. Let's call it 'trick the poor' theory.

So, the geniuses who got us to this point, want to cure the disease by administering more of the same poison, i.e. boosting consumer spending, cutting jobs, lowering wages, while devising even more sophisticated Ponzi schemes.

In Hong Kong developers worry about low birth rates, factory owners worry about the rising cost of labour and falling demand. The government echos their concerns. No wonder. THe government represents their minority interests, rather than our interests. Hong Kong people deserve space to breathe, not more residential and office towers. And if the population shrinks, we can all enjoy a better quality of life, and less competition for jobs, i.e. more bargainingl power for workers. A view which is obviously not shared by developers and retailers. But they have to wake up and realise that the current rate of growth is unsustainable. Their blind greed will become our doom.

The world population has ballooned to an unsustainable level, but putting a cap on births is still regarded as too controversial in most countries (with the laudable exception of China)

If we want to give the human race a chance, we all need to minimize our carbon footprint, and that means acting NOW to curb consumption. All kind of material consumption.

Global warming, the collapse of eco-systems, widespread pollution, the depletion of natural resources, over-consumption and mountains of waste... these are the real emergencies. Not terrorism, not the financial crisis.

hair dye allergic reaction

Above is a picture of my neck...two weeks after colouring my hair with a light brown hair dye manufactured by L'Oreal.

For about 6 months i have suffered from a 'mysterious' allergy. After spending a fortune on tests, allergy specialists and dermatologists who diagnosed "eczema", "contact dermatitis" and prescribed hydro-cortison creams, steroids, anti-histamine pills etc. I finally discovered that the culprit wasn't stress or any food I eat but the hair dye that i had used on and off for many years.

My symptoms started six months ago, a couple of days after colouring my hair. Very mild at first: just a rash on my neck, shoulders and arms. Then, a couple of months later, after another application, red and itchy eyelids, blisters along my hairline, and several eczema patches on my neck, and temples.
It took me six months, and a more severe allergic reaction (my scalp was covered in painful scabs, lymph nodes in my neck became swollen like a ping pong ball, and the neck eczema got much worse) to figure out the real cause.

PPD, para-phenylenediamine, a substance banned in some European countries, but still widely used in hair dye products manufactured and sold in Asia and the US!
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) an American agency, stated that you should "prevent
skin contact" with PPD in order to avoid the "symptoms: Irritation, pharynx, larynx; bronchial asthma; sensitization dermatitis" (NIOSH,www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0495.html ). Recently, PPD received bad press when it was used to darken henna tattoos and caused numerous disfiguring scars. The FDA states "So-called "black henna" may contain p-phenylenediamine, also known as PPD. The only legal use of PPD in cosmetics is as a hair dye. It is not approved for direct application to the skin. However,
when most hair dye is applied it does come in direct contact with the scalp and quite often touches the skin on the forehead and ears. Hair dye is in direct contact with the skin for sometimes up to 30 minutes.

Many phenylenediamines are demonstrated to be mutagenic and carcinogenic. At its most innocent, PPD might inflict a person with a nasty welt-like reaction that itches and burns. At its most malignant, PPD has been associated with death.

Life threatening occurrences are rare. But judging from the stories i read in magazines, and on the Internet, sensitization and allergic reactions are much more common.

Some marketers and “appliers” prefer to tell clients that mild reactions are common and no big deal. They recommend an anti-itch cream, but blow it off as no big deal. They fail to mention the sensitization issues. This is ignoble and serves to prove the point that the use of PPD is purely to market something with no respect for the people who use it nor any care for what might happen to them. Though not an uncommon viewpoint in the capitalist mindset, it isn’t something that people in the know are going to let slide.

This issue is not about cosmetic and technical grades- it is about a substance that does more harm than good and the public should be informed as to the extent of the harm. L'Oreal's defense is that some people are even allergic to food, therefore there is no reason to ban a substance that causes an allergic reaction in some people. Well, they don't mention the fact that food is not toxic, while PPD is neither promoted for use on the skin nor legal to use on the skin in many countries!
Even DuPont, makers of PPD, warn against using it on the skin.
Articles in the British Journal of Dermatology emphasise the inherent dangers of para-Phenylenediamine.

There seems to be a small misconception that you will react immediately to PPD, so if it doesn’t burn/sting or otherwise present an effect immediately, one is safe from any reaction. This is not true and it’s a dangerous myth! PPD is known for its short sensitization period- that means you might not get or see an immediate reaction, but the next time you come in contact with PPD you could have an extremely bad reaction.
The toxins slowly build up in your body, but it's not until you cross an unspecified threshold that you run the risk of a reaction which, as has been reported, can be very severe indeed.

I am concerned that there is no requirement in Hong Kong for manufacturers to declare quantities of chemicals they have in a particular product, and this needs to change. With so many hair dyes being sold over the counter, we need monitoring of types and quantities of chemicals in these products.

I wasn't allergic for years, but the build-up of PPD in my body eventually caused a severe reaction. As a result, my health has been very poor for 6 months, i am constantly tired, my skin is a mess, always itchy and inflamed, scabs don't heal properly, and my lymph nodes are still swollen and painful.

Toxic shoes

1.7 million leather shoes manufactured in Italy by Chinese companies were found to contain toxic levels of chromium hexavalent. It's not clear whether the chromium (Cr +6) was used in the tanning process in China, or in Italy. But investigators suspect that the toxic leather was imported illegally from China and then used by Chinese manufacturers based in Italy.

In order to take advantage of the added value provided by the "Made in Italy" origin of their products, since a few years Chinese producers of leather goods have set up dozens of sweatshops in the Prato area, in Tuscany, exploiting Chinese immigrants. This investigation revealed that not only working conditions in such sweatshops are appalling, but also the quality of their products would never meet the standards set by the leather industry in Italy.

It has been well documented that chromium in the oxidation state six is an established human carcinogen, associated with lung cancers. It causes mutations of the DNA chain, and people who come into direct contact with leather containing chromiun hexavalent can develop severe eczema.

Now, if toxic Chinese leather found its way into Italy, one can only wonder how safe are the leather goods sold in Hong Kong, given that most of them are imported directly from China.

Financial crisis...is it good news for people and the environment?

This is a very, very serious crisis of capitalism: it has been the build-up of private borrowing that has kept the system going, and it's coming unstuck. The whole system is unwinding; the other day we saw the biggest nationalisation in the history of humanity (Freddie and Fanny) today it's AIG, and that still isn't enough.

A great financial economist and historian called Michael Hudson talks about how the US economy is basically fictitious, based on pretend earnings and pretend values. This will only genuinely become a crisis of capitalism if people generally become aware that much of the growth and prosperity produced by capitalism is a fiction, and if the consensus about where the real global value lies shifts radically. In other words, if people stop believing that apparently wealthy countries actually are producing wealth (see also http://michael-hudson.com)

We will see a shift in power away from the US, and towards the developing world - to countries such as Brazil and the Gulf states that have commodities to sell, and to China, where the savings ratio is high. We are going to see a new world order. America as a driver of the global economy is finished.

In the late 19th century and also in the 1930s, the impact of depression made people begin to question whether the free market and a completely unfettered form of capitalism was the best form of organising society. In both periods it encouraged on the left the idea of a complete social transformation through revolution, and also encouraged people to devise various schemes for social reform. The problem now - unlike in the 1880s, when people discovered the ideas of socialism, and in the 1930s, when it seemed that communism was the solution - is that the left doesn't have a coherent alternative vision. But this might change.
Some people, faced with recession, tend to hunker down, but others confront the government and demand a better deal, and that gives the left hope.

Like it or not, Capitalism is not dead: like a phoenix it seems to be able to rise from its ashes, and take new, different forms. To defend itself from the dangers posed by fast spreading Communist ideals in many Western countries, in the 30s it embraced the Keynesian solution: Roosevelt's New Deal could deliver many of the things that the left is calling for - more public spending, more training and education.

Maybe now, after realising that the era of financial gambling, unfettered consumerism, real estate speculation and growth supported by fraudulent credit tools is over, capitalism might resort to jumping on the green bandwagon, and starting a green new deal, which would employ large numbers of people to insulate homes, retrofit power plants, develop greener technologies, and carry out major environmental works.

Or it might become nastier, exploiting people and planet even more...but going down this route will be its death knell!

John Tsang, after subsidising our wasteful habits, what next?

In other countries the increasing price of oil has led many to reduce their energy and fuel consumption. Which is great news for our planet, though some may argue it's too little, too late.

In Hong Kong, the land of paradox, instead we lost a great opportunity to reverse wasteful habits in matters of energy consumption. In the last budget, Finance Minister John Tsang promised to subsidise electricity bills, so that everybody, low-income families included, could keep their air-con/tv/computer/lights on all day and all night without breaking the bank.

I know that bad habits are hard to kick, and Hong Kong is addicted to low-cost energy. It seems that our government really has the best interest of its addicts at heart, so i would like to make a modest proposal.

John, can we also get some subsidised coke/heroin/ice/ectasy/ketamine next year?

Advertising makes you sick

The advertising industry is still one of the most irresponsible, reckless, unethical sectors of our capitalist society.

I am not only referring to its MESSAGE (consume what you don't need) but to the MEDIUM too. Not only the advertised products are often totally unnecessary, the medium used to advertise them is fast becoming even more harmful than the products themselves.

If you think that large billboards are a form of visual pollution, that's nothing compared to the environmental pollution caused by the new generation of plastic billboards and adhesive PVC. These huge adhesive prints stick to vehicles (buses, trams, MTR trains), and can be wrapped around buildings. No size is too big, with adhesive vinyl you can cover a football pitch, if needed. No surface can escape the invasion of these sticky 2-D monsters. As you might have noticed, banks, airlines, and developers are engaged in a billboard size war, the escalation has now resulted in MTR stations being covered from floor to ceiling with huge vinyl prints.

You can ignore them, if you like, but after the advertising campaign is over, somebody will remove these vinyl wraps from the walls, and chuck them into our landfills.

If you ever felt guilty about using too many plastic bags, and have switched to a canvas bag for your grocery shopping, you will probably feel that your little effort is tantamount to rearranging chairs on the sinking Titanic.

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is present in countless household products like shower curtains, bags and toys, not to mention piping and automobile interiors. Sadly, PVC is among the most eco-unfriendly plastics and some varieties can release brain-damaing lead and hormone-disrupting phthalates. Its disposal is particularly problematic given that, if incinerated, it will release carcinogenic dioxin and other contaminants into the environment.

The advertising and marketing industry is raking in millions, and nobody is holding it accountable for the pollution it causes. Where is the much trumpeted "Polluters pay" principle? If it was applied, this industry would be forced to clean up its act and find a different way to reach people.

Those who work in that industry consider themselves "creative", if they really are so creative, they can come up with a better idea than sticking PVC on any available surface.

in the phallus we trust

A few weeks ago Calvin Klein launched its biggest outdoor campaign in the world, a 27-story billboard across the former Ritz Carlton Hotel in Central, ear-marked for demolition just 15 years after opening. This huge billboard will be taken down on April 15, and rest in peace in one of our landfills. The environmental cost of printing such a billboard, and then throwing it away a couple of months later, is mind-blowing, but in a city where new skyscapers are demolished to make room for taller ones, Calvin Klein's marketing executives must have thought "what the heck.... a phallic skyscraper + our well-endowed black model wearing white briefs equals a super-phallic message...and we are in the business of dressing dicks."

After the Hilton, demolished immediately after completion and the Furama hotel, another skycraper will become rubble and be replaced by a taller office tower. Disposing of construction waste is cheap, despite the fact that Hong Kong landfills are nearly full. Somebody must have realised there is money to be made in incineration, and shortening the life of landfills makes "business sense".
Welcome to "premature ejaculation capital of the world"...where concrete erections disappear at the blink of an eye...leaving a big mess behind.

The 2008-09 budget is an invitation to waste more energy

Financial Secretary John Tsang has shown how much the government cares about the environment. With the excuse of improving people's livelihood and supporting disadvantaged groups his budget allocates HK$4.3 billion to subside domestic electricity accounts. The 2008-09 budget grants each residential electricity account a subsidy of $1,800. At present, about 15 per cent of households in Hong Kong pay an average of not more than $150 a month for electricity charges. Incidentally I pay less than that, mainly because i live on Lamma island, and can keep my windows open instead of relying on air-con.
Instead of rewarding households that save energy, the subsidy will enable even low income households to turn up their air-con, boosting the revenue of electricity companies. The real winners are the shareholders of HK Electric and China Light & Power, the loser is obviously the environment. So much for sustainability.

Chinese copycats invent the hybrid super-brand

Chinese counterfeiters are possibly the most creative in the world. They take counterfeiting to new heights. Let's not forget that these are the guys who brought us the fake egg - the egg' s shell is made from calcium carbonate while the fake yolk is made from a mixture of gelatine, starch and other chemicals.
Now they have found a great solution to the problem of copying the ever-increasing number of western brands that have taken their country by storm. When only LV and Gucci bags were in demand, they had it easy, but their customers have become more and more demanding, every month a new brand hits the shelves of Chinese stores and keeping up with them has proved difficult. Moreover, these brands churn out new designs every season. Our resourceful copycats never despair and...voila'...they have just come up with the perfect solution. Let's stitch that old Gucci logo onto the leftover LV fabric, add the Prada logo to the Coach design, assemble Burberry's and Fendi's prints, and you reach the fans of two brands with just one product. Lévi-Strauss defined the operation of a mind moving from primitive to modern, scientific thought as 'bricolage': the 'bricoleur' performs his tasks with materials and tools that are at hand, from 'odds and ends.' He draws from the already existent while the modern scientist, according to Levi-Strauss, seeks to exceed the existing boundaries.
The bricoleur deals in signs, whereas the scientist deals in concepts. Concepts open possibilities while signs recycle previously available meanings.

Fashion brands are not "inventing" anything, they just slap their logos on mass-produced goods of dubious quality and through marketing and advertising create the impression of uniqueness and luxury. In fact these branded products are manufactured cheaply in factories where low-paid workers endure sweatshop conditions and then are sold at extravagant prices in swanky boutiques.

By mixing logos Chinese counterfeiters create a hybrid product that reveals the absurdity of people's appetite for brands rather than quality. If there is nothing behind the brand, the logo becomes an unhinged signifier, a free-floating signifier that means nothing beside itself and therefore can be manipulated at will.
I have also good reasons to suspect that the bits and pieces that the counterfeiters assemble, are coming out of the same factories that manufacture them for the big brand in the usual 'Chinese box' system of contractors and sub-contractors.

As Ackbar Abbas argued, the fake has a unique diagnostic value, largely because the question of the fake never involves just the fake alone; it forces us to re-assess all the objects and processes around it, including the global market and media technology. By definition a suspect object, the fake makes us take a suspicious or critical attitude to objects. Through a kind of maniacal imitation, the fake catches the global icon off-guard and reveals something about it that might otherwise be indiscernible.

The hybrid super-brand created by Chinese counterfeiters reveals the misery of the brand...it possesses no intrinsic value. A rag is a rag is a rag.

beaches and parks will become an office extension. Electromagnetic pollution in Hong Kong

Do you fancy the idea of writing email on the beach? Or receiving email notifications while hiking in a country park or walking your dog on the waterfront? If you do, you probably need to have your head checked. Well, PCCW have just unveiled a plan to turn this idiotic fancy into a scary reality. They intend to install Wi-Fi masts in parks, beaches, and all along the waterfront.

In many countries Wi-Fi has been banned, or dismantled if already installed, from public schools, libraries and hospitals after lab tests found that Wi-Fi radiation affects animals.
In Paris, many library clerks where Wi-Fi access points were installed last summer (in the Paris Ville Numerique - Paris, digital town) - reported different symptoms like headaches, sore eyes or muscles, dizziness or vertigo. Since December, Wi-Fi access has been turned off in French public libraries.
Citing the possibility of health risks associated with the usage of WiFi networks, a Canadian university refused to sign off on their campus-wide installation, noting a California Public Utilities Commission study which mentions the possible risk of tumors and other diseases due to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

So, if even places of study such as libraries, schools and universities prefer wired to wireless access in order to play safe, one wonders why on earth HK residents should be exposed to electro-magnetic fields even when they are out of the office, out of school, taking a stroll in a park.

Could it be that our health is sacrificed yet and again on the altar of profit? Whose profit? PCCW, that will get a generous handout from the government (taxpayers' money!) to ensure that no spot will be left uncovered in this territory-wide Wi-Fi galore. Who is PCCW chairman? Richard Li, the son of tycoon Li Ka-shing (ranks 9 in world's billionaires) whose stooges sit in the unelected government, thanks not only to his economic power, but also to his powerful connections in Beijing.
If you ever wondered why HK tycoons seem to be getting richer and richer, while ordinary HK citizens get poorer and poorer, this cosy deal provides further evidence of business and government collusion. If you get cancer because of electro-magnetic pollution, don't worry, the faculty of medicine, University of Hong Kong is now called Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine. You can bet that no researchers there will receive grants to study the link between EMF and cancer!

Get me out of this gas chamber!

Pollution is a crime against humanity...no, wait, it's worse: it affects all living species...but, you know, they can't complain.

Pollution is a silent killer... toxic substances are administered everyday, and though not strong enough to cause an immediate death, they certainly accelerate it. Of course, our cause of death will be dismissed as cancer, and not murder. Our killers will never be put on trial.

If you are diagnosed with cancer, doctors routinely ask you if you ever smoked, worked or lived with smokers. They certainly don't record pollution levels at your home, or work.
One could argue that if you lived in the Swiss Alps you would still be smoking a pack a day at age 90!
Tobacco companies have become the perfect scapegoat...While polluters get away with murder!
Why isn't anybody bringing a class action lawsuit against car manufacturers, polluting factories, or governments that refuse to control toxic emissions?

In HK we choke on severely polluted air every day and yet 'our' unelected government is doing absolutely nothing to tackle the problem. Its inaction is criminal.

This government banned smoking in offices, bars, restaurants, karaoke clubs, night clubs, parks and beaches, instead of letting patrons choose smoke-free establishments and areas. So, no allowances are made for smokers, and yet idle engines can freely spew toxic fumes, power companies can keep burning coal without any emission caps (filters? what filters?), developers can turn our streets into canyons where car fumes are trapped for us all to breathe, building managers are free to set air-cons on freezing temperatures (are they all China Power & Light shareholders?), and i could go on and on.

There is nowhere to run. No pollution-free areas. The fact that walking and breathing at street level feels just as bad as clubbing all night in a smoke-filled club (but is much less fun!) should make all the rabid anti-smoking campaigners organize sit-ins in our busy road junctions...where are they? Still celebrating the fact that their clothes no longer smell of tobacco??

I don't care much for Christmas, but i have a Christmas wish to make: I wish i could see Donald Tsang and most Exco members kept in a cage in Gloucester Road, right next to the Cross-Harbour tunnel, or maybe Hennessy Road, for at least 12 hours. Let them sit there at street level, where we mortals walk everyday. Maybe once they share our fate they will start to see the light...through what they insist calling "haze".

Fashion...and its victims

Last Saturday i went shopping for a new pair of jeans. I don't particularly enjoy shopping, but when my last pair of jeans fell apart after ten years, i knew i had no choice but to replace them.
I tend to get emotionally attached to my clothes - each item is the equivalent of a Proustian madeleine that triggers rich memories - that's why i am so reluctant to throw them away. The idea that clothes are disposable and should be replaced before the end of their natural life never crossed my mind. I seem to love my clothes more than fashion trends.

Well, replacing my beloved and trusted jeans proved more difficult than I thought. And i am not talking about the grieving process.
Shops that sell casual wear are stocked with overpriced "designer" jeans that look worse than my old ones: worn-out, rotten, thread-bare or dirty.

If this is what we are supposed to be wearing this season, why would anybody pay
HK$ 2,000 to buy a pair of jeans that have been stone-washed, sand-blasted, bleached, stained, ripped and...branded? They are already falling apart, and look as if they won't last more than one season, that is, if they don't go out of fashion before (wait a couple of months and some fashion "guru" will inform us that they are "so last year" and that we are supposed to chuck them in the bin before we are arrested and stoned to death for committing such a crime against fashion)

If wearing dirty jeans with holes makes you feel and look better, that's fine. I am not an arbiter of taste. But i know that the look can be easily reproduced by wearing your jeans for a few seasons, owning only one pair, or shopping in a second-hand store.

Now the question is:

Why can't these fashion designers buy second-hand jeans and restyle them for the fashion victims instead of using chemicals to make new denim look old? Just imagine how much energy and resources would be saved if they re-stitched old denim.

Unfortunately "sustainable clothing" is still an oxymoron in a world where fashions change every few months and consumers spend more than $1 trillion a year on clothing and textiles, an estimated one-third of that in Western Europe, another third in North America, and about a quarter in Asia. In many places, cheap, readily disposable clothes have displaced durable, good quality clothes that used to last for years.

The environmental impact of fast-food is well known, but only a few critics have dared to talk about the impact of fast-clothes: cheap, fashionable, low-quality rags that last only for a few months...they are not meant to last, as fashion trends change every season.

The environmental impact of this madness is huge. The victims of fashion are not only the shopaholics that go into debt to buy the latest fashion "must-have" (i have little sympathy for them) but the rest of us who see landfills encroach on parks, factories discharge chemicals in our rivers, cotton fields destroy eco-systems, etc. The production, packaging and transportation of the clothes adds to the huge carbon footprint of the fast-fashion industry.

Cheap clothes also mean sweatshop conditions for millions of workers in developing countries. Behind all the hype that surrounds fashion, the reality is very grim. Behind the label is an exploited worker, out of sight, out of mind.

Hong Kong Air Pollution Index

Yesterday the highest roadside API [Air Pollution Index] was 151, which is also the highest this year, followed by 147 on October 7. This level translates as 'very high" on the scale provided to the general public by the EPD (Dept. of Environmental Protection) and the HK Weather Observatory

As a general rule of thumb, a "high" API reading rates as a health hazard under the European Union or World Health Organisation standards. Immediate measures would be taken to reduce the number of cars allowed on the road on days where the index is "high" or "very high". Not in HK. Here smog has been renamed "haze". So when the weather forecasts inform us of "hazy days ahead" we should blame the monsoons, leave the camera at home, and keep jogging in Bowen Road.

The Greenpeace API - it takes the figures from the EPD air monitoring stations, and convert them in a calculation based on the World Health Organization Air Quality Objectives (AQO) - is staggeringly higher. For instance, in Causeway Bay, when the official API reads 85, "high", the Greenpeace Index reads 299! Hence, roadside pollution is HK is constantly well above levels regarded as hazardous by the WHO.

The HK government not only refuses to acknowledge the serious health threat posed by such pollution levels, it holds on to outdated air quality objectives, arguing that countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam etc. have set the same objectives.

And yet when it comes to selling us white elephants like the WKCD, 'our' governemt claims that HK is a 'world city', and needs state-of-the-art cultural facilities.

We are either a first world city or a third world one. But we are told to leave logic aside and go with the spin. First world one day, third world the next.

As to the thousands of people who die of lung cancer every year despite the fact they never smoked a cigarette, let's blame "passive smoking", surely one of their co-workers, distant cousin, or neighbour must have been a smoker.

Just another type of plastic bags...Hong Kong retailers' answer to criticism

Hong Kong retailers have long been criticised for handing out too many plastic bags to their customers. And Hong Kong shoppers are notorious for putting their convenience above anything else. Environmental concerns are dismissed with a shrug. So far the government has failed to come up with legislation to reduce the overuse of plastic bags - a plastic tax would easily solve the problem, but goes against the neo-liberist ethos that ensures the interests of a minority overrule those of the majority. In this depressing context local retailers have come up with a solution that is worse than the problem.

Now they hand out non-woven, polypropylene tote bags... for free. These bags are worse than plastic bags as they can't even be recycled as bin liners. They just end up in landfills, as customers have no incentive to re-use them....they are free!

Making the customer pay for biodegradable plastic bags that can be re-used as bin-liners is the only way to reduce their number. Consumers would start bringing their own bags once they had enough bags for their bins. All non-biodegradable shopping bags should be banned. Easy. But apparently this solution doesn't please the lobby of plastic bags manufacturers, nor retailers who treat their customers like children who must be spoilt.