Kapok: Not so fantastic anymore

One of my fellow columnists with the Times has made the fight against the abusive usage of plastic an all-out effort, very often taking a very personal tone. Contrary to the French song [I originally and mistakenly wrote Belgium...], plastic is not that fantastic anymore and we should actually be considering totally banning it from our life. If Plastic Free July is such a great initiative, it is so not only because it strikingly demonstrates that we can “easily” do without the convenience of organic polymers — cheap, malleable and resistant, and yet awfully and irremediably polluting — but that recycling is not enough and what needs to change is our social and economic behavior at large.

In a ground-breaking study published in Sciences Advances in July 2017, a group of researchers was able to estimate that humanity had produced some 6,3 billion metric tons of plastic waste since 1950, and that only 9% of these had effectively been recycled, 12% incinerated, and no less than a staggering 79% accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. By 2025, the cumulative recycling rate should amount to 20%, and projecting the current global waste management trends, even though we will be able to recycle some 44% of our plastic waste by 2050, by then we will have also accumulated some 12 billion metric tons of discarded plastic waste scattered in the midst of mother nature!

The image of a straw stuck in the nose of a turtle might provide a terrific imagination grabber targeted at five-year-olds and their hurried parents — our era oscillates between the empathy for the cute and the indifference to barbarity — but as a more politicized journalist recently remarked: “Coca Cola produces on its own some 128 billion plastic bottles per year! When put one on top of the other, these bottles amount to one hundred times the distance from the Earth to the Moon…” Even though some countries are doing better than others — Norway already recycles 43.4% of its plastic waste — it is indisputable that the ability to recycle everything we manufacture is everything but a chimeric dream. Sorry for all the new evangelists of circular economy, but the future lies in reducing the amount of filth we are dropping on the green planet!

I was thus very proud when on October 2 the French National Assembly approved the law banning single-usage plastic “cutlery, meat picks, box covers, trays, ice-cream pots, salad cups, boxes and stirrers” by January 1 2020. This list complements the cotton sticks and single usage plastic glasses, cups and plates which were already destined to be axed by that date. Fifty micron thick plastic bags had already been removed from cashiers as well as fruits and vegetables stalls respectively in 2016 and 2017. But then, France only recycles 22.2% of its plastic waste and one could argue that being an advanced economy, it had had plenty of time to pollute without really caring.

However, I just came back from India, and guess what? Twenty-five out the country’s twenty-nine states have already put in place various bans on the manufacture, supply, storage and use of plastics! India’s Environment Minister has already announced that by 2022, his country would “eliminate all single use plastics.” In Mumbai, 225 municipal civil servants dressed in purple have been tracking offenders to the law since June 2018, and if this does not sound almighty in a city of 21 million dwellers, those confronted to fines ranging from Rs5,000 (half a median monthly salary) to Rs25,000 for recidivists seem to be taking the scheme seriously, be them manufacturers, distributors or consumers. In Goa, the manufacturing of 50 micron and thinner plastic bags has actually been prohibited by law since 2016, and even political parties have been made responsible for managing the waste generated by their campaign activities! 

In Macao, civic groups are mobilizing and taking stock of the filthy wasteful habits registered in the SAR, but why would the territory be left to the goodwill of a few casinos, even with the best of intentions? Is a gold-plated plastic landfill our only horizon?

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 5 2018

Kapok: Ethics?

Max Weber’s famous 1918 lecture entitled “Politics as a vocation” is usually remembered for the very performative definition it gives of the modern state as being “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Physical force here means the capacity to maintain law and order, thus protecting the citizens who have willingly renounced the use of force to exercise justice on their own. The legitimate bit has to do with the legality as well as acceptance by society, meaning that the use of force is prescribed and henceforth limited by law, so as to make sure that the state has the means to protect its citizens while making sure that it does not abuse its power.

In the recent debate surrounding the possible passing of a Civil Protection Basic Law that would put civil protection regulations on steroids, most of the attention has focused on the extensive powers the authorities would be given to “ensure efficient dissemination of important information by the authorities” and “prevent the spread of false rumors in society” in times of crisis.

The worry is thus that the Macao government could easily become a plain and simple “police state” in which only government-sanctioned information would be allowed and any alternative source could be characterized (preventively) as dangerous for law and order.

Because it conflicts with at least two core values enshrined in the Basic Law — “freedom of speech and of the press” on the one hand and “protection of privacy” on the other — this is seen as opening the gates wide for repetitive and unsanctioned abuse of power. In simple terms, the use of force could easily become illegitimate. And here, I am sparing you the additional concern we could have regarding the “given territory” as Mr Wong Sio Chak, the Secretary for Security, appears to have a few difficulties in fixing the right physical “boundaries”.

Weber’s text is also enlightening when the sociologist starts exploring the source of power from which politicians derived their authority. He identifies three, as legitimizing the citizens’ obedience: “tradition”, “charisma” and “legality” — none existing as pure types in reality.

Traditional domination is exercised by patriarchs, what Weber also calls the “patrimonial” princes. In Macao, if you think Ho, Choi and Ma, you soon realize that we have not really left the burden of tradition.

Charismatic domination, meaning “the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace”, we have had little in our SAR: some for sure under Edmund Ho’s first term, and for certain none in Chui’s two terms put together. Yet, too charismatic a leader can easily turn into a demagogue, so maybe we should not complain after all!

In the end, what we have had mostly has been a domination by virtue of “legality”, legitimized by legal statute and supposedly “functional competence based on rationally created rules”. Twisted legality (elections without choice illustrates the twisted part), we have had plenty, and regarding competence, we have remained forever hopeful, even after December 2014.

Finally, the text suggests that professional politicians should cultivate two sets of ethical virtues: the ethic of conviction on the one hand and the ethic of responsibility on the other. I was recently reminded of that distinction when France’s very charismatic Minister of Ecological Transition and long-time green activist Nicolas Hulot resigned abruptly at the end of August during a radio show, to denounce the lack of paradigm change in the overall perspective presiding over public policy design, the overpowering influence of the lobbies and the fact that small measures taken in the past year would be in vain if the whole mindset did not change. He did not want to be a cosmetic alibi anymore. Did he do it because his policies conflicted with his core beliefs or because he could no longer assume full responsibility for his acts as a sitting-minister?

When I see Cheong U roaming the world as a light- hearted tourist, then I ask myself: do these values even make sense in Macao?

Published in Macau Daily Times on September 7, 2018

Kapok: A few good men

The sacking of two liberal-minded… The non-renewal of contract of two Portuguese legal advisors, Paulo Cardinal 簡天龍 and Paulo Taipa 戴保祿, who had been employed by the Legislative Assembly for 26 years and two decades respectively, is rightly causing quite a stir in Macao. Not in every circle though and clearly not for everyone for the same reason. A disclaimer: I know both personally, and I keep a friendly relationship with one.

The story was initially broken by the bilingual publication Plataforma on Saturday 18, and was immediately picked up by TDM news in both English and Portuguese. Monday, it made the headlines of the three Portuguese dailies and two English-speaking media, including the present one. All interviewed highly capable and relevant people, who conveyed the same message: one of shock and bewilderment. Some remained more “neutral”, especially the lawyers whose firms are led by partners who keep a cosy relationship with the power that be, but they all praised the soon-to-be-dismissed legal advisors for their flawless abilities and eminent contributions to the healthy legal development of Macao, prior and after the handover. Thanks to Plataforma, we knew that the non-renewal was “unexpected”, and that no reason, apart from a vague restructuration plan, had been given by the authority, the Bureau of the Legislative Assembly. Hence the stupefaction giving rise to the suspicion of abusive sacking.

At that point though, not ONE interviewee had been of Chinese origin (leaving aside the three Macanese holding Portuguese passports). This is both sad and damaging: Sad because it shows that the press in Portuguese or English has a very limited reach to the vast majority of the population. Are there no Chinese legal advisors, lawyers, legal scholars or community leaders willing to share their bafflement? What about former lawmakers who have less to lose? Damaging because it gave a particular spin to the situation: one of ethnic discrimination. Nationality took precedence over competence. Pushing discrimination towards the Portuguese to the fore risks awakening the demons of the past: prior to 1999, many jobs were reserved for Portuguese nationals and there still exists a level of resentment towards those once favoured.

True, the Chinese press paid scant attention to the matter. On Monday, Macao Daily News, ironically made its headlines on the five-year Mainland residence permit benefitting Macao people and the opening of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao bridge. Since then, the matter has only been decently and widely covered in Chinese by All About Macau, Cheng Pou and Macau Concealers. 

Cases of abusive dismissal within the legislative branch of power, although not new, are worrisome and raise several questions.

Why does the Legislative Assembly employ these legal advisors on short-term contracts, especially now that we have had a thorough reform of civil servants’ contracts? Their duty is to the law, and leaving them in a precarious situation seems extremely unhealthy, their status being worth less than in the private sector where contracts become permanent upon third renewal. For such positions, employment stability is the safest way to avoid conflicts of interest. These advisors could be blamed, for example, by plutocratic lawmakers for not having spotted, willingly or not, the article of the Land Law that forbids renewal of land concessions after 25 years if plots remained undeveloped.

What also of the legitimacy and motivation of the board that took the decision? None of the four members of the board is truly elected (they all ran unopposed) and three are businesspeople: money presides? Two are at the forefront of Communist united front work, another is a direct relative of the Chief Executive and the last symbolizes the vengeful arm of the establishment against legislator Sulu Sou: politics prevail? It is no accident that Sulu Sou, Pereira Coutinho and Ng Kuok Cheong are the ones asking the board to explain itself.

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 24, 2018

Kapok: Not so cool after all

We have known for some time that air-conditioning is not only bad for the environment but also pretty dreadful for our health.

It consumes a lot of energy — far more than a fan; contributes to the “island warming” phenomenon in cities — pumping hot air from inside the houses to the street; increases air pollution; and ultimately makes a disproportionate contribution to global warming.

When it comes to airborne germs and bacteria, it acts not only as a propagator but also as a source of illnesses, especially when air con units remain dirty or worn out. If Legionnaires’ disease is one of the nastiest such illnesses, it remains luckily quite rare, contrary to colds and sore throats, that can easily become chronic ailments. In a previous job, air-cons were so badly maintained that I would regularly suffer from throat infections and voice loss after teaching only two classes in a row. But then, occupational diseases were the least of my concerns — sadly!

With record-breaking heat waves affecting the world, it seems only natural to question the all-out rush on air conditioning to cool down, even more so in our part of the world, where abusing the AC has become a way of life, so that one has to bring a jumper along to the movies, a shopping mall, hopping on a bus or sitting on a ferry.

In a recently released study by the International Energy Agency (IEA) entitled “The Future of Cooling”, we are reminded that the use of air conditioners and electric fans already accounts for 10% of overall global electricity consumption! Moreover, projections on energy demand for space-cooling indicate that without action to address energy efficiency and promote alternative methods of coping with the heat, the share of final electricity demand for cooling will more than triple by 2050 — space-cooling demand will represent 37% of the world’s overall electricity demand! In Hong Kong, the future is now as ACs already suck up 30% of the SAR’s annual energy. In Macao, as usual, ignorance is bliss, but as energy consumption has more than tripled in the past 18 years — soaring from 1,573 to 5,417 million KWh between 2000 and 2017 — we can legitimately postulate that air conditioning is the big culprit.

One recommendation highlighted in the IEA report — besides walking around naked, working at night, taking refuge in a forest and living in white-painted individual and well-ventilated houses with shades closed most of the time — is that policies to improve the efficiency of ACs could quickly curb demand and that such efficiency would bring major benefits, reducing the need to build new energy generation capacity, thus lowering investment as well as fuel and operating costs. Coupled with decarbonization, that would also translate into a massive reduction in cooling-related CO2 emissions.

In China, the challenge and opportunities are of epic proportion. China and the United States now account for more than half of the 1.6 billion AC units in use in the world, and the two taken together contribute to 55% of global cooling-related CO2 emissions. However, China is taking the lead when it comes to forecasted demand and, as reported, “in some places, such as Beijing on the 13 July 2017, more than 50% of the daily peak load [is] related to cooling.” One of the big issues has to do with coal power generation in China, but the disparity between the best available energy efficient AC units and the market average is also to be blamed — pricing is still an issue.

In Macao, this imperative to improve the overall efficiency of air conditioners was for a while factored into policy-making… but then the Environmental Protection and Energy Conservation Fund was terminated in December 2015. Why? Nobody ever cared to explain.

Published in Macau Daily Times on August 10, 2018

Kapok: Putting a cap

Greece roughly receives the same number of tourists as Macao;  around 32 million per year. Tourism in Greece represents about 20% of GDP and, directly or indirectly, provides a job to one Greek in four: easily imagined is the distress felt when this number fell to 10 million in the wake of the financial crisis in 2010.

Yet, because of the sheer pace of the rebound, people are starting to see (and feel) the negative effects the return of mass tourism is having not only on everyday life but also on tourism itself. Striking a balance between the imperative of “sustainable tourism” and the dangers of “overtourism” has become a necessity, and this despite a whopping 23% national rate of unemployment.

The stress imposed by this massive influx of tourists is even more revealing in the tiny islands of the Cyclades, and especially in the one from which I write: Santorini. When I first visited the iconic caldera exactly 40 years ago, one would necessarily arrive at the small pier of Skala from where one would have to climb 580 steep serpentine steps leading to Thira, the island’s capital, 260m up the cliff under an excruciating sun. Mules were available, but mainly to carry backpacks.

Now there is a cable car, and even though the mules are available for the occasional selfie, only the small connecting vessels from gigantic cruising ships make it to the old pier: island hoppers riding regular ferries arrive at Athinios, the new port, from which a road gives easy assess to the whole island. In short, one does not “deserve” his or her stay in Santorini anymore and during day (and sunset) time it has become nearly impossible to stroll along the dedalum of the tortuous vennels of Oia overlooking the volcano without bumping into packs of fellow visitors.

The marbled ridge path going from Thira to Firostefani feels like a shopping road of Mongkok on a busy Saturday afternoon and every single house has been turned into either a shop, a bar or a hotel — “boutique hotel” carries its true meaning in Santorini! Still small in size — one floor only — all are painted in immaculate white and the occasional marine blue to safeguard the visual coherence of the whole. Yet, Santorini’s mayor Nikolaos Zorzos laments that “11% of the island has been concreted over.”

Two million visitors on a tiny island of 76 square kilometers is proving too much for the 25,000 inhabitants: not only the traffic jams and the overcrowding are proving problematic, but also the fast-rising water and energy bills. Thus Zorzos, among other things, has taken the bold decision to limit the number of cruise visitors per day to just 8,000, down from as much as 18,000 in the past. Zorzos also illustrates the imbalance of the development of the tourism industry by highlighting that there are now 1,000 hotel rooms per sq. kilometer in Santorini, more than any nearby island. I wonder what the Aegean mayor would have to say about Macao where the supposedly “green lung” of Coloane shrinks by the day and the number of hotel rooms stands at 1,250 per sq. kilometer. Are problems different depending on longitude?

In the 2017 report “Coping with Success: Managing Overcrowding in Tourist Destinations” by the World Travel and Tourism Council, challenges posed by overtourism appear to be the same everywhere: alienation of local residents, degradation of tourist experiences, overloading of infrastructure, damage to nature and threats to culture and heritage. Among the measures recommended by the WTTC, of which Macao is part, figures the capping of daily visitors. Macao might not be as bad as Venice, but it does belong to the category of hotspots with the highest risk of over-crowding, similar to Dubrovnik where visitor numbers per day has already been capped even beyond the recommendations by UNESCO, from which Macao derives its World Heritage status.

Published in Macau Daily Times on July 13, 2018