🚩羨慕：澳洲昆士蘭州政府2021年加大限塑🙈

法案很大可能於2021年2月通過：
禁止在昆士蘭州使用塑料吸管、攪拌器、餐具、盤子/碗、發泡膠杯及翻蓋式容器
往後繼續追撃的塑膠物為：
咖啡杯、蓋子，其他塑膠及厚塑料袋
成為澳洲第二個地方實行加大限塑令😎

當中殘障人士可獲豁免
如有需要可使用100％可堆肥的產品❤

根據當地的淨灘團體數據：
海邊有44％為塑膠垃圾
其中最多的是塑膠外賣用具和發泡膠類垃圾

可見限塑令其實也是在針對海邊常見的垃圾呢
希望香港可以加快有更多限塑的政策

香港暫時都是加大限聚囉
政府都會提大家要自備盒子外賣囉

//The Queensland Government has just introduced legislation to ban plastic straws, stirrers, cutlery and plates/bowls in Queensland. Subject to consultation, it will include expanded polystyrene (foam) cups and clamshell containers. We are optimistic the legislation should be passed in February 2021, as all political parties have previously voiced support.

Other plastic items like coffee cups and lids, other plastics and heavyweight plastic bags will be added later to the ban.

The legislation has exemptions for those with a disability who need these items and if the items provided are 100% compostable to the Australian Standard. The ban will be introduced in 2021.

According to Clean Up Australia, 44% of all litter is plastic, with plastic takeaway and polystyrene items amongst the most littered items//

西雅圖成為美國首個禁止使用塑膠吸管及餐具的大城市

美國第15大都會區、位於華盛頓州的西雅圖（Seattle）最近成為美國首個禁止使用塑膠吸管和餐具的大型城市。

該禁令源自2008年的法令，該法令禁止使用任何不可回收或堆肥（compostable）的一次性食物相關用品，不過當時因為缺乏非塑膠的一次性吸管和餐具，令這兩種產品成了例外，不過這項豁免於 2018年6月30日結束，不遵守的企業現在將面臨250美元（約台幣7642元）的罰款......

// （結束一桶專棄）專頁有朋友既朋友問返熊貓會前同事有咩睇法，應當事人要求，將成段回應直接copy and paste：

對於爆出這場關公災難，熊貓會管理層有大迴響嗎？熊貓線人如是說：「管理層根本唔care,全部係肥佬*請返來，個班人求方便覺得無問題。」

*肥佬，即係去年六月履新的行政總裁Peter Cornthwaite。佢係前警隊助理署長，入職至今，約三成同事離職，地震未完。//

拿，唔好成日話我呢個外國勢力淨係幫洋腸，只要你唔靚仔，我都一定會好公平公正去處理。

我一向都話，唔好盲目相信啲慈善團體，但偏偏香港好多智障就係鍾意「不要問，只要信」，總之捐左錢就當自己做左善事，但捐錢往往才是行善的第一步，監察機構如何運用善款，才是重點。

我打從心底欣賞佢地可以如此好傻好天真，總是覺得只要是慈善團體就一定是好人。可惜真相是慈善團體總是對能力低下的員工特別的慈善，當你違反「物競天擇、適者生存」的天道法則，自然會出現劣幣驅逐良幣的情況，惡劣的員工會驅逐良好的員工。畢竟，要是你有一點能力，你也不會想和一群口講愛與和平及包容的豬隊友工作。更糟糕的是，他們的「包容」只是作為機構容忍他們存在的擋箭牌，一旦你干涉到他們的利益、以至要他們為機構付出、思考更多時，他們就一點都不和平了。

到最後，整個機構都會充滿尸位素餐的傢伙，一群最需要救贖的人卻口口聲聲說要幫助別人。當你撕破漂亮的偽裝後，你總會發現內裡比庇護工場更加令人慘不忍睹。

#善良人埋藏著最壞的心眼
#你不能不防的好人
#嗰個話要信慈善機構的小賤人同我死返出黎
#請大家繼續捐輸
#越捐越輸
#WWF都可以唔理環境
#齊齊食熊貓血饅頭
#唔係唔捐
#但捐的同時要自己監察
#結果齊齊助養前警隊高層
#就絕種架啦
#我係話緊你呀
#蠢到咁遲早拎達爾文獎

《真心一問: WWF「Trick Or Treat For Tiger」活動內環保措施是Trick 或Treat 大家?》

(更新: 本專頁隨即收到WWF前員工既內幕消息，睇到我地admin一百萬個嬲嬲上腦，內幕消息在留言內)

繼admin發現環保展製造大量垃圾，本專頁又收到另外知情人士報道，指有環保團體舉行活動時使用大量即棄餐具。這個環保團體，並非什麼新成立、蚊型或只有緊絀資源的環保團體，而是國際上數一數二知名的「世界自然基金會」(即WWF，又稱熊貓會)。

由於事件實在有點難以置信，但報料者又真係有圖有真相，以下為報料者於2017年10月28-29日於活動場地 (元洲仔自然環境保護研究中心, Island House) 的觀察:
1. 場地有食物及啤酒供應，但場地只有紙牒、膠杯及即棄餐具提供 (第二日雖轉用鐵匙，但膠杯及紙碗牒繼續派發)
2. 膠杯上印有「made from plants not plastic」，但就現場所見，所有膠杯及紙牒均放於同一垃圾桶內，未有人進行分類
3. 場內的當眼處只有垃圾桶，及另一個鋁罐回收桶
4. 垃圾桶均被棄置得滿滿的
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
為免冤枉好人或有其他內情，我們亦因應以上情況向WWF查詢，獲得的答覆重點如下:

WWF已引入多種環保措施，包括:
1. 鼓勵參加者自備水樽，提供免費供水站及收集飲料膠樽回收機
2. 準備了不鏽鋼餐具及玻璃杯供參加者使用，人數眾多時才提供可堆肥材料製成的餐具
3. 不同地點有回收站，職員和義工於活動期間及完結後進行回收
4. 設有網上報名節省紙張
5. 鼓勵參加者使用公共交通工具，有單車停泊點，減少碳排放
6. 禮品店有出售回收再造物料產品
7. 購買「碳補償」
其他原因及改善:
1. 提供即棄餐具因食物供應商未能配合
2. 了解可堆肥材料製成的餐具不是最環保的選擇，長遠本中心的活動會全面採用可重用餐具

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

驟眼睇，WWF亦似乎係場地同活動裡面提供左唔少環保措施，但… 以下仍是我百思不得其解既地方，以及我地對於以上回應既諗法 (簡短易睇版):

1.「關於人數眾多」:
- 網上資料顯示需要提早報名，而報料者提供的照片亦顯示活動並非人山人海，可以一早估算參加者人數預備足夠可重用餐具
- 當日場地兩天參與人數為500人，最高峰時間為100人
- 搜尋過坊間租借餐具的機構，最多可以租借一日500人既餐具量，如果唔想用即棄餐具，有心有時間一定可以搵到替代即棄餐具方案。

2. 「關於所有膠杯、紙牒、碗及餐具為可堆肥物料」，WWF只有將部份堆肥，其餘作「回收處理」:
- 可堆肥物料或可降解物料一定要堆肥處理，唔係掉去堆填區就會消失降解左，否則同其他垃圾無異
- 懷疑WWF係咪真係有堆肥，因為相片顯示所有野已同其他垃圾撈埋一堆 (既然WWF話有就信住先)
- 被食物殘渣污染左既紙杯紙牒根本唔應該羅去回收
- Bioplastic係植物纖維，唔係plastic，唔應該羅去塑膠回收 (詳情請見相片另文)
- 既然明白用「即棄環保餐具」唔係最環保既方式，點解一直都要用?

3. 「關於網上報名同使用公共交通工具」:
- 好似係最低要求，列出係其中既環保措施似乎有點兒…

4. 「關於禮品店有出售回收再造禮品」:
- 原來WWF自己都有賣由廢膠再造既可重用餐具。
- 既然WWF係Island House 場主，又成日係個度攪活動，有地方儲存即棄餐具咁即係都可以將佢轉黎放可重用餐具，查實真係無乜唔用自己品牌可重用餐具的理由

5. 「關於碳補償」:
- 「碳補償」理應用黎補償一d唔可以避免既碳排放 (例如運輸)，而其他可避免既當然就係可免則免。
- 擔心好多機構只係用「碳補償」黎做擋箭牌，寧願係造成破壞之後購買「碳補償」補飛，都唔係設計活動之前仔細思量點樣做得更環保
- 將買「碳補償」筆錢放係點樣減少廢物產生上面唔係應該更加理想? 「碳補償」唔係贖罪券，俾大家破壞完俾左錢就令到個人舒服返哂。

6. 「關於WWF將使用即棄餐具既原因歸咎於食物供應者配合唔到」
- 講真，係咁多回應之中呢個我真係不能接受
- 如果對方配合唔到，WWF大可以搵過第二個配合到既餐廳
- 即使食物供應商到活動個日所有餐具突然間裂哂爛哂想搵一隻完整既杯牒都無，又或者傾好左而去到活動當日先羅哂d 即棄餐具黎陷你於不義 (機會微乎其微，以我地明查暗訪，呢間食物供應商已經同WWF合作多次)
- 參加者當時特意有問過工作人員提供餐飲係邊間餐廳，我仲打過去問，對方回覆我佢地到會服務係提供到可重用餐具(!?????????????)，包括匙同牒等等 (究竟係邊個配合唔到邊個，不得而知)
- 睇到呢個解釋，真係一頭霧水，同時極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之極之失望!

7. 「關於長遠本中心的活動會全面採用可重用餐具...」
- 即係之前你既活動都有用即棄餐具? 你俾人揭發左先發呢個誓? 一日唔揭發你都會繼續用!?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
雖然WWF既工作集中於保育，但絕對唔代表可以忽視廢物問題帶來的影響。而且，WWF向來都關注海洋垃圾，絕對更加清楚廢物對海洋所帶黎既影響。(https://www.wwf.org.hk/…)

不知者不罪，但我以上鋪出有關於「即棄環保餐具」既資料係網上隨機都搵到一堆，再加上呢個究竟係咪真係食物供應商「配合唔到」既疑團...　今次WWF「Trick or Treat For Tiger」活動，係「Trick or Treat 左大家」，我留返大家自行思考。

我唔知道用「即棄環保餐具」呢個決定係WWF機構裡面邊個人既決定，但係係環保團體工作既人應該比參加環保展既人多十倍既sense，非牟利團體已經唔係為賺大錢，而係真心為環保出一分力，但係連係活動提供餐具咁簡單既事上面都令到參加者同我地有咁多問號，就正如參加者所講: 「作為多年支持者，見到只識做門面功夫，好失望」，作為一個國際既環保組織，係環保議題的其中一個KOL，連自己係環保上面都唔以身作則，絕對會為機構既形象大打折扣。(亦有報料者提供，之前WWF已因為接受捐款問題而引起爭議: https://goo.gl/eLevAm )

其實我地好感激WWF 咁認真及仔細地回覆我地既提問，要應酬我地呢咁麻煩既人實在唔係好受，但係過去咁多年，我對WWF都有好高期望，亦都係其中一個忠實fans, 所以請原諒我地咁大反應，我地對環保既堅持同認係絕對需要我地就住呢件事上面咁小題大造，用另一篇千字文去表述我地既諗法，我地唔希望可能因為某一/幾個人既草率決定或呢d (唔知係唔係）單一事件而影響整個機構既公信力。但我地真心希望呢次只係個別事件，亦希望WWF真係可以好似信入面所講日後做得更好，亦不論係WWF定係其他環保團體都好，都繼續記得自己機構既使命同理念，再一次「莫忘初衷」。

* 備註: 以上所寫既暫時只能就住報料者同WWF所提供既資料去作出評價，我地好希望由參加者、義工或者任何有關人士可以俾低你地既comment (或私人PM也可)，進行環保公投，用你地雪亮既眼睛去評價究竟WWF係個活動做得好定唔好，好係邊度，唔好係邊度，令到唔單止WWF，其他團體以至到我地每一個都可以好好學習遺留左既環保細節。
** 補充: post 一出，已收到前員工報料 (戴定頭盔，我地係應對方要求所有野直接copy and paste出，我地亦都無能力去核實是否真有其事，以下情報是真是假由大家自行判斷):

Are the environmentally friendly measures in WWF’s Trick Or Treat For Tiger tricks or treats?

Our page has received a report that a green group used a lot of disposable tableware in an activity. The group, unbelievably, is the world renowned WWF, which is not new, small or one operating with limited resources.

We were shocked by the photos we received. These were the reported observations in WWF’s Island House Centre on 28-29 Oct:
1. Food and beer were served in disposable paper plates, plastic cups and cutlery ( although stainless steel spoons were provided on day 2)
2. Prints of “made from plants not plastics” were found on the plastic cups. However, all the plates and cups were collected in one rubbish bin without classification
3. Only a rubbish bin and a recycle bin for cans were found in visible areas
4. All rubbish bins were fully filled
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, we submitted an enquiry to WWF and received their response:
WWF has applied many environmental friendly measures:
1. Encourage participants to bring their bottles and install free water fountains and a machine to collect and recycle plastic bottles
2. Stainless steel cutleries and glasses were provided to participants. Only when there was busy traffic, cutleries made from compostable materials would be used
3. recycling facilities were available at various locations. Staff and volunteers helped to recycle during and after the event
4. Online registration to save paper
5. Encourage participants to come to the event by public transport; bike parking space was provided to minimise carbon emission
6. products made from recycled materials were sold at our store
7. Carbon offset
Other factors:
1.We provided disposable tableware because the food provider could not provide reusable tableware
2. we understand that using compostable cutleries is not the most environmentally friendly choice. In the long run, we will fully use reusable tableware in our events

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it seemed that WWF has tried their best to make the event a green one. However, these are our doubts:

1.busy traffic?
-Advance registration was needed to join the event and the photo provided by the participant also showed that the event was not busy. WWF should be able to estimate the traffic and prepare enough reusable tableware
- total number of participants in the two days was 500; the peak was 100 people
- we have found some reusable cutlery rental companies which can provide the amount enough for 500 people per day to their clients. That means WWF could choose to refrain from using disposable ones
2.The material was compostable. WWF would let part of it compost and recycling the rest?
- compostable or biodegradable materials stay forever when they are sent to landfills
- we doubt if WWF really let part of the trash compost because everything were mixed up in the bin, as shown in the photo
- paper plates contaminated by food waste can not be recycled
- bioplastic is actually plants and should not be recycling
- why WWF kept using disposable tableware when knowing it was not the most environmentally friendly choice?
3.Online registration and public transport?
- these should be the minimum requirements and should not be highlighted

4.Products made from recycled materials were available at their store:
- WWF also sells products made from recycled materials
- Island House is a centre of wwf and has been a popular location for the organisation’ activities. They should be able to use reusable tableware, especially those under the WWF brand

5. Carbon offset- it is to compensate some carbon emissions which can't be avoided. We are worried that this gives an excuse to companies and a way for “green washing”. It is something to let companies claim that they are doing something good for the environment

6. Was it solely the food provider’s fault?
- to be frank, this point was the most unacceptable to us
- WWF could have chosen another vendor if the vendor could not meet their requirements
- according to our source, it is not the first time WWF hired this food provider
- the participant asked the food provider which restaurant they were. We contacted the restaurant assured us that we could provide reusable plates and cutleries
- this is very disappointing

7. “In the long run, we will fully use reusable tableware in our events”
- that means they have been using disposable tableware in previous events? And they made this promise in response to this complaint? If nobody reported this incident, they would continue using disposable products?