解決溫室效應的戰略問題

在今時今日,戰略已經不只應用於商業,或者戰爭,除咗在政治上用來解決膠人,有更多更棘手的問題,係需要用戰略思考,一個係傳染病防治,一個係溫室效應。

解決溫室效應,碳排放過多嘅問題係刻不容緩,但我地可以做到乜?學邱騰華呢挺膠人,提埋晒停車熄匙呢類膠政策就聽收工都得,浪費地球資源但效果係近乎零(邱騰華印膠文件斬咗幾多樹先得?)。

真係要解決碳排放問題,關鍵係點樣不影響大家的生活,甚至令大家的生活更廉宜更方便,但仍然做到減碳排放嘅目的,呢個就係要解決溫室效應應該要做,而有幾樣嘢,小弟未見過政府或私人機構認真做過:

1. 在一些不用太高電壓的應用,採用太陽能,例如街燈,或者在大廈設太陽能板,再提供USB插口,俾人充電之類(用太陽能唔代表唔污染,用多晶硅技術一樣係製造大量有毒物質,呢啲又係班環保膠唔會講,唔係每一種太陽能技術都係對環境污染最少)。
2. 確保公共交通工具最順暢運作,大大減低採用私家車,以至減少塞車(呢件事,政府只識將人好似沙甸魚咁塞落港鐵度,渡輪果啲替代方案,就一路打擊,政府關心港鐵賺錢多過關心環保)。
3. 為電動車提供基建和使用上優惠(你叫政府街燈裝太陽能板都無做,唔好講街燈提供充電插口,稅務優惠?有就唔會膠到港產電動車可以在歐洲駕駛,但唔可以在歐洲駕駛。)
4. 檢討香港的公路網,減少車輛滯留道路嘅時間。
5. 對中國南來車輛加強管制(中國車輛入的油,以至維修幾得人驚?)
6. 對巴士維修作出有效監督(香港的巴士維修之爛,俾你歐盟四型偈,歐盟五型柴油咁又點?)

香港班膠官,只識做show,無一個大戰略。正如依家臭氧層穿洞問題逐步解決,係因為逐漸有發泡膠、Halon系滅火劑(依家用FM200代替BCF, BTM藥劑,而FM200可以用番BCF, BTM用開的系統)有更合符市場原則的替代品,至叫禁止破壞臭氧層化學劑公約可以執行,否則只會一如禁止捕鯨公約,完全得啖笑。

人類係要解決地球暖化同溫室氣體問題,但照依家班膠官的戰略,我們尚離俾條生路地球行好遠。

延伸閱讀:
繆美詩:我們還有100年嗎?

7 thoughts on “解決溫室效應的戰略問題

  1. 「有就唔會膠到港產電動車可以在歐洲駕駛,但唔可以在歐洲駕駛。」恐怕是「唔可以在香港駕駛」之誤。

    我沒有車牌,廿多年來都是巴士、地鐵和火車的忠實支持者。識我的人都知,我坐在時速七十公里以上的車時,定必手握扶手。我認為,操控一輛汽車,比操控一支內窺鏡更具難度。是故我一直不去學車。

    但我想,為了自己的生活方便,就算對地球多自私,我也在積極考慮於短期內學車。我實在忍受不到青衣的地鐵十分鐘才有一兩列車,我更不明白為什麼地鐵非要擠得如罐頭一樣不成,我不明白為什麼日出康城的居民可以直達港島,我卻為了要回醫院要轉數程車,我更懷疑,地鐵是否其實不鼓勵我使用他們的服務。

    我認為,地鐵的擠迫程度與香港人的工作效率成反比例。當你返工前已經要受氣,你又如何令員工有理想的工作效率?

  2. To 肥醫生:

    小弟現正學車,原因便是對香港公共交通系統忍無可忍。

    對一個長期受耳水不平衡問題困擾的人,駕駛並不好玩。但是港鐵的列車,巴士的班次和路線安排,甚至實施打擊八折黨短加長減後,的士急劇惡化的服務質素,根本是迫人當司機。所以小弟才對邱騰華這種假環保人士如此憤怒。

    最慘是香港不如東京,有大手私鐵與公營鐵路公司競爭。

  3. 世澤兄,
    是否寫錯咗?
    …有就唔會膠到港產電動車可以在歐洲駕駛,但唔可以在 “歐洲” 駕駛…, 我估是香港吧?

    我正係想講呢單嘢, 政府真係比佢吹x滾.

  4. Speaking of solar energy, putting solar panels on street lights isn’t effective and that involves high maintenance costs such as battery replacement, and regular cleaning of solar panels to maintain the absorption level of sunlight. Not to mention that in HK, most street lights are buried and surrounded by tall buildings that block away the sunlight most of the time in a day.

    I think HK govt should learn from countries that subsidise the use of sustainable energy. Countries such as Germany and Australia not only subsidise the material and installation of the solar panels. They also let solar panels to be set up such that unused power generated from the panels is fed back to the power grid and the electricity provider must reimburse the owner at a premium rate, usually a few times more than the consumption cost, as an incentive. On the other hand, when the consumption is more than what the panels can generate, the power is drawn from the grid. In HK, solar panels are most effective when they’re installed on top of buildings. They can help power the lighting in the common areas of the building, as well as acting as a good insulation of heat for the people living on the top floor. Imagine how much land area are wasted as the roof of many high-rises are just cement. Even in SZ people are encouraged to convert the roof of buildings into gardens to promote heat insulation and reduce CO2. Why can’t HK promote gardens and solar panels on the roofs? HK govt doesn’t have to pay much on this. They can ask people who live in solar-panel-less buildings to pay a surcharge on electricity usage to help subsidise those who live in buildings that have solar panels. CLP and HKE should also play a part in subsidy in order to fulfill their commitment on reducing their carbon footprint as the investment and maintenance cost of sustainable energy equipments is now shared amongst the community.

  5. “保鐵政策”似乎解決唔到環境問題

    講起港鐵,今晚又出現轉車站3班車乘客掃埋對面1班車的”奇景”,調景嶺又變成金鐘翻版

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *