|
These articles below can also be found in the 15 - 31 July 2010 issue of Square Foot magazine:
To view the Interactive Squarefoot eMagazine
 |
|
Paying the Price
Hongkongers seem willing to accept fees for eco-consciousness — but does that extend to homes?
| Text : Elizabeth Kerr | Photo : www.thinkstockphotos.com |
Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau was crowing over the July 2nd weekend, pleased to announce that the government’s year-old plastic bag levy was evidently, doing its job. There’s been a 90 percent drop in use of plastic bags at major shopping spots since the mandatory 50-cent levy was implemented last year, and the fee has generated $20 million dollars for the government. That’s less than the original estimate of $200 million, but it’s better than zero — particularly in light of the fact the 50 cents was supposed to be a behavioural deterrent and not a revenue generator.
The levy scheme on plastic shopping bags is the SAR’s first statutory regulation, put into force under the auspices of the Product Eco-responsibility Ordinance. 3,000 supermarkets, convenience stores and personal health and beauty stores take part in the scheme, which is more effective this time around. Remember the “voluntary” bag exemption from a few years before? Hardly anyone does, a sign of how ineffective “voluntary” environmental measures can be.
But activist group Greeners Action claims there’s a downside to all this responsibility. The group observed smaller bags — the individual bags for fruits and vegetables, meats, and dairy items — were handed out more frequently over the same period; double the little bags were distributed. Ironically, Greeners Action also reported that 80 percent of consumers surveyed said the levy should be expanded to include all retailers.
But everyone claims the figures are a sign that awareness is on the rise, that consumers are ready to pay for environmental protection and will act responsibly given the right incentive. But how does that translate to property? Environmental measures in homes, offices and commercial spaces cost significantly more than 50 cents. Are consumers ready to pay what everyone thinks will be increased prices to save the Earth? Century 21 Hong Kong Ltd. CEO Tony Chan thinks they are. “Generally yes. But it’s not a single factor in the cost you pay for homes. There’s no such thing as carving out a certain fraction of your price that’s allocated to environmentally friendly features. But consumers do take that into account when paying a little bit of a higher price, if the home has environmental features.”
Cost is what it comes down to, but a dollar figure is hard to pin down. “There are so many factors that affect the cost of a new building. The so-called ‘green’ building takes many forms, and it depends on what you’re going to incorporate.” Chan uses the example of increasingly common sky gardens that are dotting rooftops across Hong Kong. On one hand, the greenery could be a boon to investors that raises the value of the property and is therefore worth the added expense. On the other, the required waterproofing and the maintenance needed shouldn’t defeat the purpose with added repair costs.
When announcing the details of the bags levy’s success, The Standard reported Yau as saying, “I think rather than trying to get around loopholes in the laws, companies should put more effort into how to do a better job of environmental protection.” The operative word here is companies. Chan agrees, but puts some of the onus for greening the city on the government too. “Put it this way: We need more promotion. It could start with the government. It could start with the Housing Authority, where you could introduce green elements into new buildings. Introduce that on a massive scale and you can [reduce] costs. Also the Urban Renewal Authority and the MTRC could be out promoting ‘green’,” he theorises. Now it’s a matter of the government and big business catching up with public sentiment. “I agree. We need more green features,” Chan finishes. “Cost should not be an overriding factor.
|
|
