2009年7月8日

re-post: 膠 袋 稅 令 我 O 嘴

日期:2007年5月26日

提提大家

......政 府 為 了 硬 銷 政 策 , 引 用 了 愛 爾 蘭 及 台 灣 徵 收 膠 袋 稅 後 , 購 物 膠 袋 派 出 量 分 別 大 大 降 低 90% 及 80% 的 空 前 成 功 例 子 來 引 環 保 團 體 和 人 士 就 範 。 並 預 計 政 策 實 施 後 , 每 年 膠 袋 總 用 量 會 由 84 億 個 減 至 74 億 個 。 將 來 , 徵 稅 商 店 範 圍 擴 大 , 用 量 會 進 一 步 減 少 。

商 舖 買 定 紙 袋 替 代


所 謂 成 功 例 子 愛 爾 蘭 為 例 , 膠 袋 稅 順 理 成 章 令 超 市 所 派 發 的 膠 袋 數 量 減 少 , 但 另 一 邊 廂 , 用 來 圍 垃 圾 桶 邊 的 垃 圾 袋 銷 量 卻 直 線 上 升 1000% 。 諷 刺 是 根 據 The British Retail Consortium 調 查 指 出 , 愛 爾 蘭 的 總 膠 袋 用 量 經 兩 者 互 相 抵 銷 後 , 根 本 沒 有 減 低 。


由 於 膠 袋 徵 稅 , 愛 爾 蘭 的 商 舖 士 多 , 都 買 定 一 堆 紙 袋 , 希 望 沒 有 帶 購 物 袋 的 顧 客 可 以 逃 過 一 劫 。 大 家 又 是 否 知 道 1 噸 膠 袋 有 105,560 個 , 而 1 噸 紙 袋 只 有 18,000 個 。 差 6 倍 之 多 ! 加 上 製 造 紙 袋 所 須 的 能 量 比 製 造 膠 袋 高 出 40% , 比 較 兩 者 之 間 的 價 格 差 別 已 可 推 斷 出 來 。 貨 車 為 了 運 送 紙 袋 , 令 愛 爾 蘭 的 商 舖 區 交 通 比 以 前 繁 忙 了 4 倍 , 塞 車 和 送 貨 所 耗 用 的 油 和 經 濟 損 失 , 不 知 特 區 政 府 有 否 考 慮 過 呢 ?

那 , 用 布 袋 購 物 不 就 解 決 了 嗎 ? 唔 … … 可 我 問 你 , 你 每 日 平 均 製 造 3 袋 垃 圾 , 這 個 定 律 會 因 你 用 布 袋 去 超 市 而 改 變 嗎 ? 答 案 是 否 定 的 話 , 膠 袋 的 用 量 還 是 不 會 下 跌 , 除 非 有 比 膠 更 適 合 裝 垃 圾 的 發 明 出 現 。

大 家 又 知 不 知 道 , 原 油 只 有 2% 是 用 來 造 膠 , 有 84% 是 用 作 基 本 能 源 。 要 搞 環 保 , 由 膠 袋 做 起 又 是 否 最 明 智 呢 ?

政 策 一 旦 落 實 , 我 應 該 馬 上 轉 行 從 商 , 開 廠 造 膠 袋 。 首 先 要 發 明 一 批 tube-top ( 無 手 挽 ) 膠 袋 , 逃 過 罰 五 毫 的 厄 運 , 袋 上 實 情 有 虛 線 , 可 沿 邊 撕 開 , 成 為 手 挽 。 接 再 造 一 批 特 大 膠 袋 批 給 超 市 , 反 正 不 論 膠 袋 大 小 都 要 罰 五 毫 , 不 如 要 個 大 的 。 最 後 , 我 會 將 三 個 膠 袋 包 為 一 pack 放 在 超 市 上 架 , 賣 平 過 $1.5 的 話 , 應 該 都 有 市 場 。

膠 袋 使 用 者   袁 彌 明



62 則留言:

匿名 說...

Agree! US supermarkets use RECYCLED bags which I can reuse for trash cans at home. Why can't we just force retailers to use RECYCLED plastic bags? Then we are already saving the environment!!!

Big Den 說...

"反 正 不 論 膠 袋 大 小 都 要 罰 五 毫 , 不 如 要 個 大 的 "
- cannot agree more, mainland has been doing the same thing with 0.3/bag. now all the bags given by supermarket are high quality, thick and HUGE (i can fit 8 bottles of 1.5l water in one, and it holds up without breaking, it awesome!)

陳大文部落 說...

以我所知,現在的膠袋技術都好先進,一個承載力佳的膠袋,可以很薄,也用上易分解的膠料加工,甚至是膠回收再造。

但諗下一株大樹可以造幾多個紙袋?

又諗下一株大樹成長要多少時間,少了樹木,地球又少了幾多氧氣來源.....

而且,保存膠袋遠比紙袋容易,紙袋要防潮濕、防蟲、就算放在家,紙袋會吸引小蟲、蟻等。

好囉好囉,開大冷氣、抽濕機去「保存紙袋」啦下 ~~~

皇后 說...

係囉... 自己一個住, 垃圾唔多, 平時屋企用d超市/便利店膠袋就岩岩好... 依家要我用d大大個垃圾袋...次次掉垃圾都覺得自己好唔環保...

匿名 說...

In my view, Japan is a "smart" country.

Can anyone tell why Japan do not implement such "policy"?

In the past, I used to use the used plastic bags as the trash bag and I consider it is goo.

But, now I have to buy "plastic trash bag" to replace the used plastic bag. Funny.

匿名 說...

"In the past, I used to use the used plastic bags as the trash bag and I consider it is goo.

But, now I have to buy "plastic trash bag" to replace the used plastic bag. Funny."

Dude... just continue to buy used plastic bags for $0.5 from supermarkets then...

The point is to motivate people to use less. When things are free, Hong Kong people have a bad habit of just grabbing as much as they can. People will take five bags instead of three. When stuff is free, people tend to take/use more than they need.

You don't HAVE TO switch to garbage bags just because supermarket plastic bags are no longer free. That is a choice you made and you're blaming it on the bag tax. Why?

匿名 說...

Re: 皇后

邊個叫你去買"大大垃圾袋"? 用五豪買超市塑膠袋, 照平時一樣從用咪唔會內疚囉...

ECHO 說...

我想各地推行膠袋稅的用意是希望在使用膠袋時,想一想是不是必需?而不是一面倒禁用膠袋。
當然宣傳環保從教育做起是最好,但適當的用者自付稅令每一個人都了解保護環境可以由自己做起‧
至於你所說的生意大計,證明妳很有生意頭腦,很適合在香港這個只講金錢、不考慮持續性發展的城市生活。

匿名 說...

To me,個主旨係鼓勵人being environmental friendly, start from "providing" fewer "FREE" plastic bags to the public. 政策雖有好多漏洞,有好多地方可以被一些"聰明的"市民&供應商利用這些漏洞繼續用膠袋,紙袋,布袋etc. 不過,作為小市民,if 可以用少d既就用少d啦. 我自問以前在supermarket中買野得來既膠袋真係用極都有. 而家我會用埋boutique的膠袋來做垃圾袋. If你屋企膠袋夠用, even買衫買鞋都可以自備購物袋.

o係呢個制度下,要唔要響應environmental friendly係super自由. 大家繼續可以狂買狂用垃圾袋,甚至像Erica般諗起可以趁機撈番一筆. 自己要做邊種人,自己諗. 不過, 就唔好咁大條道理…

供應商都只不過係睇demand去supply, 市民想推波助瀾,定係想幫手救吓個地球,絕對可以係控制在市民手中.

陳大文部落 說...

關於市民「為何浪費膠袋」,請參閱 http://hkgal-today.blogspot.com/2009/07/blog-post_06.html

超市膠袋令市民不得不要多些膠袋。

匿名 說...

Why why why why? It is a disappointed post for me.

Simply stating faults of the policy but not helping to improve is not such a good idea. Advocate the use of more plastic bags by going around the law is also lack of character.
An insight of caring the environment will be appreciated.

Jenn

匿名 說...

Trash plastic bag is free and I can collect 2 packs each month from the management office if I want to.

But, I used to utilize the plasitc bag which I was given by the supermarket cuz I think the plastic bag itself can be reused in such way.

For those people who intentionally get more plastic bags than they need, then the supermarket can do some control but restrictedly not provide plastic bag is not a friendly way to educate environmental protection.

I think $0.5 is a symbol to those greedy persons who obtain extra plastic bag.

However, does the "Policy" really help envoironmental protection?

Next time, do consider bring your own plastic bottle to buy shampoo, bath gel, shower gel, hair conditioner, liquid detegent, please.

匿名 說...

I just returned from UK, Germany, Czech Republic and Japan.

During my travel in the above countries, I have been provided plastic bags from supermarket free of charge - Do those countries not support "environmental protection"?

I do not think the application of penalty or restriction on plastic bags is a perfect way to enhance envoironmental protection.

Education is much better!

Further, since the supermarkets do not provide plastic bag, I do recommend them to deduct 0.5 on each purchase and donate such sum to the charity.

Just ask the consumer to support the "tax paying game" is not fair indeed.

Miss Wong 加德膩奧娜 說...

批評點解要同時提出改善意見?

市民幾時有責任要教政府點做?

攞埋佢班人份人工好唔好?


宜家批評呢個政策好有問題,**反對實行呢個政策**,所以更加冇必要提出任何inprovements (可唔可以improve都成問題hoho)。

THE TRUTHS BEHIND IRELAND’S PLASTIC BAG TAX
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/blank.asp?CID=1106&DID=8387

匿名 說...

Simply restriction on supplying plastic bag is naive to show enviornmental protection.

So, are we restricted not to use knife if a knife is a weapon? (in fact a knife can be a weapon).

You can use a plastic bag in a proper way or in an improper way - it all depends on your choice.

Shift the responsibility to the consumers is an execuse for the merchants to save costs, unless they donate the sum (on what they saved from providing less plastic bags) to environmental protection organisation.

Miss Wong 加德膩奧娜 說...

仲有大把人會重用膠袋,最後用黎做垃圾袋。

唔通咁都唔環保?

社會上D有人「有意」地將「用膠袋」甚至「重用膠袋」等同「濫用」,混淆視聽更陷大部份膠袋使用者不義,手法極之低劣。

點解我話「大部份」?你自己觀察下,有幾多人攞左個膠袋之後黎手掉左佢,或者係買幾件貨話攞人10幾廿個膠袋,職員都唔會俾啦。This is just common sense.

又話咩用者自付,...超市/商戶一早將膠袋計算入成本之內。

提出呢個論點既人係咪真係咁天真呀?

「膠袋要重用,
但膠的腦袋攞去堆田區都嫌浪費空間。」

匿名 說...

Apart from the argument of enviornmental protection, I do think that the plastic bag is over price.

Can I lodge a complaint to the Consumer Council?

Josekin 說...

Bad post. Every policy will have its faults, that's why it's policy instead of the invisible hand. Left up to the people who "maximize self interest," the world will spiral into pollution and destruction.

Perhaps encourage people to be environmentally friendly? I use as little plastic bags as possible and use a 布袋 when I go to the markets. If I remember, I even stuff some old plastic bags inside and use them to separate meat and vegetable. It's not that difficult to do.

Go watch An Inconvenient Truth. Go watch The Story of Things. Be responsible!

匿名 說...

Viewing the above posts, I find that some people consider using plastic bag is a sin - seems poisoned by the government's ad.

Whether you use a recycle bag or a plastic bag. It is a matter of choice if you know what is "environmental protection" in depth.

Blameing those people who do not support the so-called policy is somewhat "simple and naive".

The policy itself is not a friendly way to educate "enviornmental protection".

THINK TWICE.

匿名 說...

Josekin:

I do support the merchant not to sell product with platic bottle and suggest you bring your own bottle to buy shampoo, hair conditioner, liquid detegent and so on - it is not difficult if you remember to do so.

匿名 說...

"你自己觀察下,有幾多人攞左個膠袋之後黎手掉左佢"

thats why they are levying the tax in the hope of encouraging people to reuse it as it now costs...haha 50 cents.

匿名 說...

"政 策 一 旦 落 實 , 我 應 該 馬 上 轉 行 從 商 , 開 廠 造 膠 袋 。"

仲唔行動?
睇下蝕唔蝕到入肉?!

匿名 說...

"Viewing the above posts, I find that some people consider using plastic bag is a sin - seems poisoned by the government's ad."

Using plastic bags is a sin when you ABUSE them, which is the exact same happening in HK. Imposing a tax might work to motivate people to reuse them. I mean some of the people here say how environmentally friendly they have already been in the sense that they REUSE plastic bags in a very proper way, but hey, millions of people out there in HK dont!

And just a point to note, you can still get plastic bags for free in stores that dont sell medicine, food and health and beauty products CONCURRENTLY. Perhaps a loophole in the legislation; but really if you want a free plastic bag so badly, get it elsewhere say the wet market, its still effective!

匿名 說...

And another point to note for erica, please take into account the locality of different places; what happened in Ireland might not apply in HK as well.

It might be too soon to comment on the effectiveness of this policy, but read the below news with simple statistics:
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a63492.html

Dont trying toooooo hard to be AVANT GARDE or to stand out yourself unnecessarily when thinking and making comments; sometimes you just have to go with the flow when the answer is so clear! you are entitled to your own opinions though...

2005mhk18@gmail.com 說...

this piece is just the most normal commentary.

AVANT GARDE or to stand out myself?
you think too much and too personally.

another thing i found in research was that plastic bags actually help in improving air/land/water quality (depending on where your trashes are dumped), because their non-biodegradable nature help trapping rotten trash in them, to aviod polluting their surroundings.

匿名 說...

So, why the merchants don't offer $0.5 off when customers do have their own bags and donate such sum to charity organisation?

Just don't understand why those persons who re-used the plastic bags shall suffer from those irresponsible persons who failed to re-use the plastic bags or those greedy persons who required plastic bag more than in need.

Be consider one day you are not supplied with container for drink due to "enviornmental protection".

Are you prepared to pay $0.5 per bottle in the future?

Do re-consider the policy itself - as it does not make any sense to do so-called education on "enviornmental protection"!

匿名 說...

Oh, I find most people here missed the point.

It doesn't matter where you can get your free plastic bag.

It does matter whether the policy itself does work out to enhance the "knowledge" of environmental protection.

EC

匿名 說...

Ban plastic bag lor, why not?

Ban plastic bottle/container lar, why not?

I agree to implement a law to restrict the usage of electricity....tax paying is the only option to the knowledge of the government (well, apply the same principle).

Let's use candles from now onwards.

匿名 說...

係咪我的生活方式有問題?!
基本上膠袋對我來說只是用來裝垃圾/骯髒野/街市生冷既食物. 其他野唔駛"一定要用膠袋"才可以"運"番屋企.

為左環保而帶來不便(甚至犠牲一吓)是必然,我自問都未可以忍受少開冷氣,少吃外賣揀堂食etc. 環顧日常生活,有空間去忍受不便的都算係從膠袋著手.

仲有,其實有千千萬萬不同國家/大學/研究所做緊research,個結論都有所不同,只不過係研究階段. 引用一個research做的result來當定律,o係度argue是膠or紙or what material對環境差d --> 知少少扮代表.

Re: 陳大文
睇左你hyperlink的文章. 我想講講,我又唔覺得環保份子對小市民有咩惡意,只係提倡環保意識吧了. 我唔覺得,亦無親身經歷過if我做唔到佢地提倡既野的既話有幾被環保份子歧視or會有佢地高尚我就低下的感覺. 會唔會係你自己諗多左呢?

Johnathan 說...

其實早於咨詢期政府已經唔係唔知
當時AC Nelson有做過一份調查,指香港人的消費當中,即興消費佔7成。
膠袋稅對改變呢個習慣既效果又有幾大呢?

如果無既話,必然結過就係有replacement
Pre-pack 貨品, 紙袋, 甚至將環保袋, 不織布袋 當膠袋用 (不循環再用)亦唔出奇

大家都有眼見環保袋被當成宣傳物品同活動紀念品周圍派派派派派

P.S. "反 正 不 論 膠 袋 大 小 都 要 罰 五 毫 , 不 如 要 個 大 的 "
政府講緊台灣例子咪就係咁囉

匿名 說...

"Oh, I find most people here missed the point. It doesn't matter where you can get your free plastic bag. It does matter whether the policy itself does work out to enhance the "knowledge" of environmental protection."

(<--Yes, you can keep drill down to the incompleteness & weaknesses of the policy, & how inconvenient it causes to our living habits.

Environmental protection knowledge: Easy to to be understood! No intelligence needed at all!

Make people willing to make sacrifices because of environmental protection: Dfficult!! Coz people tend to focus on what their losses are)

陳大文部落 說...

12:37 下午, 七月 10, 2009 匿名:

[ 睇左你hyperlink的文章. 我想講講,我又唔覺得環保份子對小市民有咩惡意,只係提倡環保意識吧了. 我唔覺得,亦無親身經歷過if我做唔到佢地提倡既野的既話有幾被環保份子歧視or會有佢地高尚我就低下的感覺. 會唔會係你自己諗多左呢? ]

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

-- 好多人搞錯左一樣嘢,就係「你質疑膠袋稅 = 不支持環保 = 自私」。


當然,環保中堅份子係唔會見你開冷氣或用膠袋就一把星埋嚟,亦唔會攞枝槍指住你叫你停用,但坊間好多無形或有形壓力,以道德高地咁去話呢樣唔得果樣唔得,好似變成一用個膠袋就罪大惡極,但對於環保熱血份子嚟講,佢地覺得好快感,因為某程度上就好似操縱別人一樣,只要打出「環保」旗幟,就有千百個理由去指證閣下幾咁唔環保喇。


你知唔知而家好多連鎖商舖,明明日光日白,但門口開廿幾枝 300火 大射燈,同陽光「鬥光」,你覺得咁樣製造熱力又浪費電力環唔環保呢? 仲有,大連鎖店中門大開,好多都無玻璃門隔開冷氣,於是呢,店舖冷氣要夠大夠勁,至可抵銷街上熱力,你覺得咁樣「鬥勁」開冷氣,又環唔環保呢???


有幾多環保人士會指證呢啲大連鎖店? 反而無乜,因為人地大財團,得閒整幾十封律師信俾你,你就唔敢出聲,政府亦唔會去干涉。

最聽話係邊個? 一般市民囉,責任全部落在消費者度。

陳大文部落 說...

百佳推出左最新款的環保購物袋。我睇過。


我一直唔明,點解到而家,環保袋點都唔出淨色、或用較有品味嘅圖案,而仲係一定要印肉酸公仔??雖然公仔細左,但點都要印個公仔,好低能,拿出街當堂「師奶化」...


仲要荒死你唔知咁印埋「乜乜 Green、 please use me」呢啲咁嘅字樣,駛唔駛呀........?

匿名 說...

"大連鎖店中門大開,好多都無玻璃門隔開冷氣,於是呢,店舖冷氣要夠大夠勁,至可抵銷街上熱力,你覺得咁樣「鬥勁」開冷氣,又環唔環保呢??"

有個小朋友考試偷望一吓隔離個同學既答案,被老師捉到,小朋友話番個老師: 你有冇搞錯呀,前面阿X同學拿住張貓紙添呀,你捉佢啦,我呢D偷睇一吓比唔上佢用貓紙呀,你應該係捉佢,而唔係來捉我呀.你應該諗吓用咩方法去防止D人用貓紙啦.我偷睇一吓呃唔到幾多分架咋.你應該先捉D嚴重出貓的人,先好來話我偷睇人地係唔好.

陳大文部落 說...

5:37 下午, 七月 10, 2009 匿名:

之所以點解有人話香港人自回歸後變得愈來愈蠢,政府已經夠膠,但唔少市民更膠,仲要有膠上加膠例如你匿名呢類人,用好多九唔搭八、既低 B且白痴又賴係高深嘅比喻嚟解釋事情,呢種翻炒八婆智慧專欄風格嘅表達方式,而家真係唔少人樂於採用,仲以為咁樣係睇高一線....

真係夠晒頂癮....

匿名 說...

Perhaps, you don't know that using plastic trash bag will not harm the enviornment but the plastic bag from supermarket will.

Why?





I

don't

know!



Just be safe to be a follower lor.

匿名 說...

"你 每 日 平 均 製 造 3 袋 垃 圾 , 這 個 定 律 會 因 你 用 布 袋 去 超 市 而 改 變 嗎 ? 答 案 是 否 定 的 話 , 膠 袋 的 用 量 還 是 不 會 下 跌 , 除 非 有 比 膠 更 適 合 裝 垃 圾 的 發 明 出 現 。"

Eric, I get your point.

3:29, Hope you get the point now.

EC

匿名 說...

膠袋稅治標不治本(甚至連「標」都未必治得到),係有心嘅就去管制膠袋嘅質料&設定一套循環再用嘅系統啦!美國啲塑膠用具大部份都印咗一個recyle分類編號,香港嗰啲唔知有冇......

估計立例者想得到啲短期數據或表面result去「交差」。

匿名 說...

o係得呢度寫野既人我覺得都係有教養,一直都有公民責任意識的人,所以一直用膠袋都用得極小心,唔會abuse. 我覺得呢個policy唔係用來對付一直有公民責任意識的人,而係對付"無"既人. 呢個影響對你有多大其實反映你一直對plastic bag的需求有多大. 一直都冇abuse的我們,受影響具體來說是多少?

再過一段時間,可以睇吓身邊的朋友/同事/親友
- 有冇拿少左,用少左膠袋?
- 有冇特登畀$$買膠袋來裝垃圾? if yes, 一個月要用幾多$買?

個答案當然係好視乎你的朋友/同事/親友係邊個階層既人,係阿嬸?阿叔?OL?一家幾口?兩夫婦?獨居?家庭收入係點?

而香港的”家庭單位”既階層分怖又係咩?

我都在經歷呢個policy對自己影響有幾大. 不過,如果呢個policy令到冇abuse的人不能再abuse,作為一個一直都冇abuse的人,好樂意參與其中受少少影響.

至於argue點解要係從consumer入手先,點解唔係搞吓大連鎖店的冷氣先,點解唔係搞吓大射燈先. 甚至再叻d可以舉出千千萬萬的破壞環境問題. 但係同應唔應該用方法去stop abuse plastic bag有咩抵觸?

Education level 既提升令我地更懂立論,更懂review policy,更懂指出別人/機構的錯漏. 卻慢慢令”自省”的意願消失了.

兩者都並存先係文明人.

匿名 說...

I am sorry if i go to wrong place to leave a msg, but i want to share coupon to those US buyers who are interested to buy Phion green, this month coupon 10% coupon code brad10, just type this coupon code in "coupon" column when checking out. Never try this product before...Erica, is it really gd? please let me know thxs^^

匿名 說...

好讚成呢個policy係針對d無意識用少d膠袋既人,可能erica同呢度好多人都係唔濫用膠袋。但事實上好多人拎膠袋既數目係多過用垃圾袋既數目。而且便利店,watsons有d小膠袋係做唔到垃圾袋既。



所以我覺得呢個政策係有幫助。

匿名 說...

I do agree with 4:43's point.

Just wonder why the government/supermarket made a policy to affect the whole general public, not solely focus on the "irresponsible/greedy persons".

For example, for those irresponsible/greedy persons, the government/supermarket can adopt a a policy to refund $0.5, as a discount, on each purchase (if $0.5 is really help to reduce the consumption of plastic bag as planned) to lead/lure those greedy persons not to get more plastic bags than necessary. What is more than necessary? Please consult the government.

Bear in mind, most consumers in HK are impluse buyers, paying $0.5 for a plastic bag in fact is somewhat "an abuse".

I do have a feeling that it is not fair to ask those non-abuser to suffer the wrong-doing from the "irresponsible/greedy persons".

My concern is:

What if one day we are asked to stop using or pay more for the electricity/water/or whatsoever due to some "irresponsible persons" abuse the usage of those facilities/stuff?

Are we prepared to accept such principle just because we aim to show that we support the theory of "environmental protection"?

In my view, the comments made by Erica just show that all of us need an "independant thinking" not just be a "follower" - THINK TWICE.

Ms.PoorPool 說...

如果市民本身環保意識高, 即使不收5毫也會用購物袋呱?
電視都見到D太太們幾狼死~唔比你免費佢地就去街市狂扯人地d膠袋! 道高一尺魔高一丈 XD~
其實最重要係教育...寄望下一代吧

匿名 說...

HK$0.5 is an education fee in the mind of the government.

Followers are happy to waive their rights to get plastic bags even though they are not plastic-bag abusers insofar.

Tonight, I went to the management office to collect the plastic trash bags which I seldom did so cuz I would re-use the plastic bags from the supermarket.

At one time, I did have a thought to pay $0.5 to convenient myself and re-use the plastic bag as trash bag cuz it is really not a large sum.

The reason I refused to do so is the policy itself is stupid enough and I don't want to be the follower.

I will not pay a cent for what I don't support.

11:55

匿名 說...

So, why don't set a policy to focus on those 狼死太太們 (they should pay more!!)?

匿名 說...

The policy itself just trained the 'see 9" to get free plastic bags from elsewhere.

Does it really an valid education?

I doubt!

Moreover, why I paid tax to hire the stupid policy-makers?

Cuz, I am stupid too.

Life is interesting and Hong Kong is more than interesting.

匿名 說...

In the past....when I shopped,

I didn't need a bag from body-shop.
I didn't need a bag from Watsons.
I didn't need a bag from Mannings.

I did need a bag from Park'n, Wellcome or Citysuper.

Why?


Cuz I will re-use the plastic bags as trash bags.



Just want to express my feelings to those followers. Good-nite!

匿名 說...

ERICA, 我有D 好緊急SKIN CARE 問題想問你,請幫忙, THANKS:

我星期4晚用O左OSLEE 隻補濕MASK..

第2 日敏感(我本身對任何野都冇敏感)
塊面紅O左.. 好鞋身.. 有D 拉緊O既FEEL..

宜家星期1, 冇咁紅..但仲好鞋.. 我要點護理佢?
我宜家只敢用清水洗面

2005mhk18@gmail.com 說...

它這個mask所寫的成份很古怪,查也查不出是什麼來。
你唯有用最溫和的護膚品。家裡有沒有botani squalene?

匿名 說...

Life is simple and plastic bag is a symbol.

You don't need mask, eye gel or botani sqaulen unless they are necessity to the general pulic.

Wake up ~ baby ~

C9

Kenny 說...

近期政府推出嘅政策愈嚟愈冇果樣搞果樣,全都是爭議大且效果存疑的,正如十年來母語教學一樣:
1) 停車熄匙 (D車唯有勁兜圈,浪費能源更多廢氣);
2) 反種族歧視法 (處處灰色地帶隨時俾人告);
3) 酒吧禁煙 (樓上吧另闢暗煙房弱抽氣密室互吸二手煙);
4) 膠袋稅 (一膠死一膠鳴);
5) 滛審條例 (大陸登都冇事香港居然禁);
6) 平等機會條例 (日日挖空心思捉案例);
7) 室內空調温度25.5度指引 (搭地鐵隨時中暑,冷氣巴內居然熱過街外);
十份一例子,希望唔好三五年後又嚟政策微調啦。

babybaby120 說...

我唔介意多俾5毫子去買個膠袋用,如果個膠袋係對環境有好處,可分解的話。
但係如果我要俾錢,而仲係買返一個同之前一樣難分解的膠袋(某超市仲要變得細左),我覺得唔ok囉。
其實有好多環保既野應該由政府帶頭做,例如reuse,recycle,但香港冇花時間同錢去推動呢d program,只係淨係識得加大眾既稅。

Laughing Man 說...

Re: Kenny

1) 停車熄匙 (D車唯有勁兜圈,浪費能源更多廢氣); 你有沒有更好解決辦法??

3) 酒吧禁煙 (樓上吧另闢暗煙房弱抽氣密室互吸二手煙); 為何你不去投訴?政府實行有誤,但方向絕對正確.

4) 膠袋稅 (一膠死一膠鳴); 我願意為大眾犧牲$0.5,為改變不負責人人士犧牲.

5) 滛審條例 (大陸登都冇事香港居然禁); 絕對同意.

7) 室內空調温度25.5度指引 (搭地鐵隨時中暑,冷氣巴內居然熱過街外); 我覺得巴士今本不應該有冷氣,應該開窗. 其實25.5度已經足夠. 況且這只是指引,針對馬上調到13度的人,不喜歡就調低吧.

Once again, I'm willing to make some sacrifices for a better world. Even if that means paying more for electricity, for food, or for our everyday items.

So you're already responsible and shouldn't be punished? Well that's tough. You don't live in this world alone. There just so happen to be irresponsible people around too. Unfortunately, us responsible ones have to make sacrifices in order to accommodate everyone. Peace.

匿名 說...

i am 4.43

i absolutely agree with laugh man
i saw some "c9" bring their own bag to shop in supermarket. some ppl are saving plastic bag after the new policy.

of course, there is always room for improvement. We can voice out constructively. Peace!

Good day!

匿名 說...

Totally agreed with Babybaby120 & the 1st post.

匿名 說...

To those who support the current "tax paying for plastic bag" policy:-

Please re-consider the suggestion made by Babybaby120.

Why paying 0.5 for a plastic bag which will also harm the enviornment? Non-sense. Such idea who only give a message to the public that:

"If you are rich, you can do or you are free to do what you want!". The government officers' mindset are sick.

匿名 說...

我幾贊成膠袋稅...
因為係日本某些SUPER買野都需要俾膠袋錢,因此令到好多人都會好自覺地使用環保袋!!
支持..但稅收唔好太過份都OK!!

Kenny 說...

Laughing Man: Everyone should sacrifice for a better world, only if you sacrifice yourself worthily:
1) People use less "A" type plastic bags, but use "B" type for even more; 2) Drivers consume more gas to keep running, in order to avoid prosecutions on idling vehicle; 3) Yes it's wise to stop all air conditioned buses now. More people will then ride on bicycles. Less air pollution is expected.
Yet many environmental policies are at controversies and cannot be blindly accepted without own judgment.
Lastly, I prefer responding to you at a forum but not the blog.

匿名 說...

絕對同意,佢一出膠袋徵費我已經諗到根本係唔work,又係一個斬腳指做法,仲要d環保袋的生產都並唔見得環保,最終都係做唔到效果,佢地究竟以為自己好醒,定係當我地真係咁蠢??

匿名 說...

Laughing Man:

Congratulations! You will be happy to pay more for ..... electricity, water and others whatsoever that recommended by the government by giving a lable "to protect the environment" to show your loyalty in the near future.


I am not happy cuz you are so self-fish! Just one to show how he/she loves the earth without giving a thought.....but you at least have talent to be a government officer.

匿名 說...

我AGREE收膠袋稅

其實收膠袋稅唔會令我要用錢買垃圾膠袋
因為其實好多時可以用一D包裝包住D濕既垃圾,
先再掉入垃圾桶
FOR EXAMPLE: 食公仔麵就會有個袋啦
買一卷卷廁紙時又會有大大個袋
買衫時又會有透明玻璃袋
其實唔一定要用SUPPERMARKET既膠袋先可以當垃圾膠袋家
做膠袋技術幾先進都好
都比唔上唔用無必要的膠袋來得環保
希望袁小姐你會將你個O嘴合返埋!!

paulymh 說...

某民粹組織經常性地扭曲事實,例如說愛爾蘭在有膠袋稅後,垃圾袋的使用增加十倍,"所以"抵消了膠袋稅所減少的膠袋,所以"膠袋稅好心做壞事"。
但地球之友已經把他們的籍口駁得清清楚楚:


地球之友環境事務主任區詠芷認為...愛爾蘭初期實施膠袋稅時,社會曾以垃圾袋增加七成指計劃失敗,但考究其基數後,發現垃圾袋只增加7萬多個(七千萬個,應該是原文錯誤),總膠袋量卻每年減少11億個。