The growing popularity of Mount Everest has resulted in various forms of pollution spoiling the fragile ecosystem of the region. This article delves into the root causes of pollution on Mount Everest and addresses the need for responsible tourism and sustainable practices to mitigate the issue.

—

Background

Mount Everest, located in the Mahalangur Himal sub-range of the Himalayas in Nepal, is the world’s highest mountain, reaching an elevation of 8,850 metres above sea level. Since the first climbers summit Everest in 1953, New Zealand mountaineer Edmund Hillary and Tibetan guide Tenzing Norgay, climbing the mountain has become a popular expedition for hiking enthusiasts around the world. 

There has been a significant surge in the number of tourists and mountaineers visiting the Sagarmatha National Park, which is home to Mount Everest. According to official data published in 2021, mountain expeditions experienced an upward trend, from 3,600 in 1979 to more than 58,000 tourists in 2019.

Traditionally, conquering Everest’s summit required mountaineering skills and physical endurance levels that require years of practice and experience. After all, climbing Everest is a potentially deadly activity, with life-threatening risks such as hypothermia, frostbite, avalanches, and deadly altitude sickness. 
Today, the situation is different. Unlike in the past, with the commercialization of mountaineering, climbers who pay expedition fees that can range anywhere between US$32,000 and $200,000 can attempt to reach the summit. 2023 saw a record high climbers, with authorities issuing a total of 463 permits.

Increasing Pollution

The exponential rise in tourism has led to significant issues in the region, particularly related to pollution. 

1) Dead Bodies

Between 1990 and 2019, more than 300 people have lost their lives in an attempt to set foot on Everest. On average, six people die every year while ascending and descending the peak. 2023 had the record high death toll, with at least 12 climbers dead and an additional five either missing or assumed dead. 

Oftentimes, bodies are never found or retrieved due to the mountain’s extreme climate and the logistical challenges it poses. Carrying these bodies back to the base camp is not only challenging but also potentially fatal for rescue teams.

For this reason, many bodies are left behind. According to a 2015 investigation by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Everest’s slopes are currently home to more than 200 corpses. 

2) Human Excrement 

A lack of solid waste management system means that streams of human excrement are circulated by the glaciers up in the mountain on a regular basis. Although local climbers are employed to haul the human waste down from Everest base camps in barrels to dispose into landfills near the village of Gorak Shep, the waste often gets washed downstream, especially during the summer monsoon season. 

Mountain geologist Alton Byers estimated that approximately 5,400 kilograms of human waste is collected from the base camps each year. While this number accounts for the collected dumping, one can step out of the base camp tents, and still stand on minefields of human excrement. 

Every year, human excrement has been a rapidly worsening problem in the Sagarmatha National Park through a combination of inaction and ineffective measures. Some climbers defecate in biodegradable bags, which, however, are said to be expensive, while others dig holes, which eventually emerge back to the surface as temperatures in the region keep rising, melting the ice cover. The South Col Glacier, which sits between Mount Everest and Lhotse at around 7,906m (25,938 ft) above sea-level, has lost more than 180ft (54m) of thickness in the last 25 years. 

As human excrement leak to the Base Camp or Sherpa communities, they contaminate the landscape and can spread of airborne, which can result in lower-intestinal and upper-respiratory infections as well as waterborne diseases such as cholera and hepatitis A among climbers and local communities.

3) Solid Waste

High altitude expeditions require investment of pricey life supporting equipment, including tents, ropes, portable gas stoves, ladders, tins, and cans. All this contributes to waste issues, with Earth’s highest point estimated to be covered in around 30 tonnes of garbage.
An assessment on stream water and snow samples from Mount Everest conducted between April and May 2019 found that microplastics are omnipresent in all collected snow samples, with the highest concentration of microplastics found at Everest Base Camp. Microplastics found in 53 out of 56 snow samples were linked to fibres from outdoor clothing. Particularly polyester was the most prevalent polymer detected in both snow and stream samples (56%), followed by acrylic (31%), nylon (9%), and polypropylene (5%). The study concluded that microplastics are likely from clothing and equipment used by the climbers and trekkers.

More on the topic: Microplastics Found Near Summit of Mount Everest

Are Authorities Doing Enough? 

To combat solid waste generated by climbers, the government of Nepal in 2014 implemented a deposit scheme requiring all summiteers to deposit US $4,000 prior to the expedition. In order to get the money back, they are required to return to the Base Camp with at least 8 kilograms of waste each, the average amount estimated to be produced by an individual during the expedition.

The Nepali government also frequently mobilises its army to go on cleanup expeditions to Mount Everest. For example, in 2019, along with non-governmental organisations, the Nepali army collected over 2 tonnes of waste, and in 2023, the army-led Mountain Clean-up Campaign collected 35 tonnes of waste on four mountains including Mt. Everest, Mt. Lhotse, Mt. Annapurna, and Mt. Baruntse. 

Several non-governmental organisations and private companies are also leading and organising campaigns to clean-up and to educate climbers and local communities on the importance of solid waste management.

One such exemplary organisation is the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC), established in 1991 to promote environmental sustainability through the development of sustainable waste management infrastructure and educate the local community on the 3Rs: reducing, reusing, and recycling. Another organisation aiming to tackle the human waste crisis in the region is the Mount Everest Biogas Project, which is building a solar-powered biogas system powered by human waste to supply local communities with sustainable fuel. 

Suggestions

Though governmental, non-governmental and private organisations have worked collaboratively to manage the waste pollution, it is important to note that so have the number of climbers over the decades. Waste management and waste reduction practices alone are not enough, especially in pristine places like Everest, because they fail to address the crux of the problem. 

The regulatory measures for Everest expeditions in Nepal pale in comparison to what other countries are doing in terms of strengthening control over expedition formation, flow of expedition traffic, security arrangements, and environmental protection.

A great example of this is China. Here, expedition organisers who meet standards set by China Tibet Mountaineering Association will get preference over others. What’s more, mountaineering teams qualified to climb the Everest from Nepal route are not allowed to climb from Tibet. In regards to traffic control, China only issues 300 climbing permits to foreigners annually. Security-related provisions in the country include one guide for each summit climber, and foreign tourists are not allowed to go on solo climbs, a rule that Nepal introduced just last year. 

The Nepali government should prioritise accountability and supervision on perpetrators by implementing measures similar to those in place in China. Moreover, sustainable approaches in terms of sustainable climbing clothes and equipment should be promoted. Last but not the least, the local community and visitors should be educated on practical and sustainable lifestyle choices to encourage proper disposal in designated places. 

Final Thoughts

Since Nepal’s economy heavily relies on tourism, the degradation of the region’s environment can exacerbate existing problems, leading to a grim future for the land-locked country. The ecological damage Mount Everest is enduring due to climate change is further exacerbated by tourists’ littering, microplastic pollution, and human waste. As Terry Swearingen, Winner of Goldman Environmental Prize in 1977, once said, “We are living on this planet as if we had another one to go to.” 

It is true that the popularity of mountaineering gave a way of life that shaped locals’ livelihood, from employment opportunities to renown world record holders. Nevertheless, if we want to keep selling the Everest dream, we have to work more proactively to protect it.

Featured image: Peter West Carey Photography

The post Amidst Growing Mountain Tourism in Nepal, Mount Everest Confronts the Perils of Pollution  appeared first on Earth.Org.

According to the European Commission, human-caused global warming is now growing at a pace of 0.2C every decade. Behavioral nudges may be the most effective ways to draw an individual’s attention towards the climate crisis and promote sustainable choices. Besides being low-cost and salient, the use of various types of prompts, ranging from texts to visual stimuli, makes it attractive, too. By leveraging these nudges, policymakers, organisations, and even individuals can promote sustainable behaviours to all walks of life without resorting to mandates or restrictions. This article explores the power of choice architecture in encouraging sustainable choices and their potential to drive positive environmental change.

—

Understanding Behavioral Nudges

Behavioral nudges are subtle changes to the choice architecture that can influence people’s decisions without limiting their freedom of choice. These nudges work by directing individuals towards choices that are in their best interests or align with desired outcomes. 

In their book Nudge, co-authors Richard Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein explain that people typically think in two cognitive systems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is an automatic thought process, whereas system 2 is a reflective thought process. For example, the automatic system is a gut feeling and the reflective system is thinking critically. 

Understanding how to differentiate between these types allows policymakers to propose nudges that can be optimised to achieve their full potential.

How to Nudge Effectively

According to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Little Book of Green Nudges, four aspects are crucial when designing a nudge to achieve the full effectiveness:

1. Easy: Humans tend to opt for easy options, meaning that, in order to encourage desired behaviors, any barriers or hassles have to be removed. Alternatively, we can simply set a default option to achieve the expected outcome. 

2. Attractive: People are more likely to get magnetised by visually attractive cues and try to develop a behavior. These cues can be noticeable, and can be made motivating to draw positive results. 

3. Social: People are greatly influenced by their peers. Hence, a way to encourage them to practise environmentally friendly behaviors is by promoting the fact that other people have adopted green lifestyles and by highlighting benefits of a sustainable lifestyle. 

4. Timely: On a daily basis, humans make 90% of decisions using System 1, automatic thinking. Considering that nudges are the most effective way to change people’s lives and that, due to present bias, people value the present more than what lies ahead, incorporating positive messages can influence people’s decisions. For instance, one could help people understand the advantages of adopting immediate environmentally friendly habits, and help them plan ahead to avoid or minimise the consequences of climate change. 

The Power of Default Options

Making sustainable behavior the default option means nudging people to stick to the default choice or status quo, in other words availability heuristic, a type of cognitive bias which reinforces people’s decisions based on the information they already have. 

Between 2019 and 2020, a study was conducted in ten Chinese cities to understand how green nudges – pop-up reminders would not appear upon online food ordering – can affect individuals’ cutlery decisions when placing food-delivery orders. Seven were controlled cities without nudges (Qingdao, Xi’an, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Wuhan, and Chengdu), and three were controlled cities with “no cutlery” default nudges (Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin). Behavioral differences between the customers in cities with nudges and those in the control cities before and after the introduction of green nudges were compared. The study used customer-level data in collaboration with food delivery platform, Eleme. 

Upon ordering, customers in controlled cities with green nudges could choose the number of single-use cutlery (SUC) sets they wanted, with the default options being “no cutlery.”

Customers who chose the option of “no cutlery” received green points, which could be redeemed for planting a real tree in a desert area. For instance, 16 green points could be earned upon an order without SUC. With 16,000 points, customers could request a real tree to be planted in a desert region of China. 

The concept of changing the default option to “no cutlery” and rewarding consumers with green points on Alibaba’s food-delivery were part of the behavioral economics and social psychology’s concept of nudging. The study found that green nudges increased no-cutlery orders by 648%, particularly among women, older individuals, frequent food-delivery-service users, and wealthy individuals. Overall, the company’s performance remained unaffected, suggesting that this nudge was cost-effective in reducing SUC waste. 

The experiment demonstrates that the proper use of nudges can lead to positive changes, influencing consumption behavior towards more ethical and sustainable choices and increasing environmental awareness. 

You might also like: The Truth About Online Shopping and Its Environmental Impact

The research is particularly reflective of today’s consumerism-based society, where the growth of takeaways and food delivery services has given rise to a series of environmental issues, including plastic pollution and food waste. The US online meal delivery market size reached US$29.1 billion in 2023 and it is expected to reach US$68.6 billion by 2032. If these numbers are not alarming enough, then what is? 

Framing

Messages and choices can be framed to influence people’s choice architecture. Framing can also lead to intrinsic motivation to act if it is placed properly. According to a 2012 article, gain-framed messages are more effective than loss-framed messages in terms of promoting prevention behaviors. 

Likewise, another 2010 research concluded that climate change behaviors may be effective if the topic revolves around the gains of climate change actions instead of the losses due to inaction. As a result, the use of powerful and encouraging messages can be used to draw people’s attention and motivate them to challenge themselves to act wisely. 

For example, using posters or sharing message prompts stating that a ton of recycled paper can save 17 trees might be more beneficial than telling people that using papers everyday is harmful to the environment.  

You might also like: Framing a Crisis: The Evolution of Climate Communication and Storytelling

Gamification and Incentives

Gamification and incentives can be powerful behavioral nudges to encourage sustainable choices. By turning sustainable behaviors into engaging games or providing rewards for environmentally friendly actions, individuals are more likely to adopt and sustain these behaviors. One such example is Germany’s Deposit Return Scheme, said to be one of the world’s most successful systems for refillable beverage containers, achieving a 98% return rate. 

Through this scheme, consumers receive varying incentives for returning reusable and single-use containers. For example, all single-use plastic bottles, aluminium cans, and glass bottles are worth €0.25 (US$0.27). The price for reusable bottles is reduced to €0.08 for glass bottles and €0.15 for plastic bottles.

Making Sustainability Salient and Tangible

As aforementioned, present bias often makes people prioritise immediate gains over long-term benefits, and sustainability can sometimes feel abstract or distant. Behavioral nudges can overcome this by making sustainability more salient and tangible. Providing visual cues, such as real-time energy usage displays, can make individuals aware of their impact and encourage energy-saving behaviors. Additionally, using vivid imagery or personal stories that highlight the tangible benefits of sustainable choices can enhance their appeal and motivate action.

For example, in Hong Kong supermarkets, consumers are charged extra HK$1(US$0.13) for a plastic bag, a move that has led to a significant decrease in the use of shopping plastic bags. Doubling the levy scheme from HK$0.5 to HK$1 has so far been effective in influencing people’s choices and more consumers have become aware of their impacts on the environment ever since the campaign kicked off in 2009.

Final Thoughts

Green nudges can be a game changer in today’s generation to promote sustainable choices and to address the environmental challenges we face. Not only are people’s attention spans getting shorter, but they are easily distracted. 

Behavioral nudges offer a promising approach to encourage individuals to make environmentally friendly decisions. It allows policy analysts and behavioral economists to study how humans make decisions and propose nudges to influence their choice architecture. 

By understanding human behaviour and leveraging techniques such as defaults, framing, and gamification, and many more, we can nudge people towards sustainable choices without compromising their freedom.

The post How Can Behavioral Science Encourage Sustainable Decisions? appeared first on Earth.Org.

About 3,353 tonnes of food are sent to landfill every day in Hong Kong, the equivalent of the weight of 233 double-decker buses. To fight the growing challenges of food waste and plastic pollution, in 2021, the city’s Legislative Council passed a new waste disposal ordinance which is set to come into effect on April 1, 2024. This article aims to explore the key features of the scheme as well as its potential advantages and drawbacks.

—

Background

Hong Kong generates a substantial amount of solid waste each day, which is causing long-term environmental problems on a local and global scale. Indeed, solid waste directly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions through the release of methane during anaerobic decomposition process of waste, a potent greenhouse gas with 84-86 times higher in global warming potential than carbon dioxide across a 20-year period.

You might also like: What Can We Do to Minimise Landfill Waste?

According to the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (EPD), in 2021, 5.67 million tonnes of solid wastes were disposed of at landfills, with municipal solid waste (MSW) accounting for over 70% of the total. 30% of it is food waste, followed by plastics (21%) and waste paper (20%). Hongkongers dispose of 1.53 kilogrammes of MSW per day, two times higher than the global average, with a recycling rate of only 31%. 

Why is this alarming? According to data by the World Bank, the East Asia and Pacific region generated the most waste in 2016, and it is forecast to be the leading waste producer from 2030 to 2050. In 2016, solid waste treatment and disposal generated 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 5% of worldwide emissions. 

Hong Kong has already closed 13 of its landfills, and the remaining three – West New Territories (WENT), South East New Territories (SENT) and North East New Territories (NENT) – are expected to be depleted soon given the current disposal pace. 

Recognising the urgent need to tackle this issue, in 2021, the government implemented the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Charging Scheme, a crucial step towards waste reduction and effective resource management.

Municipal Waste Charging

The Municipal Solid Waste Charging Scheme will be implemented in accordance with the “polluter-pays” principle for waste disposals from all sectors, including residential and non-residential establishments (commercial and industrial sectors). 

The “Waste Blueprint for Hong Kong 2035” released in February 2021 includes a medium-term target to decrease the amount of waste disposed of per person by 40-45%, and to increase the recovery rate to approximately 55% through the implementation of regulatory policies, promotion of awareness campaigns, public education, and other measures. In the long-term, the government plans to achieve “Zero Landfill” by 2035 through the development of sufficient waste-to-energy facilities and by eventually eliminating the need for landfill disposal altogether. 

Charging Modes

Dual charging modes have been proposed, namely “charging by authorised bags/labels” and “charging by weight via gate-fee.” 

The designated bags charges apply to MSW collected by the Hong Kong Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) via refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) and refuse collection points (RCPs), as well as by private waste collectors (PWCs) using RCVs equipped with rear compactors. Pre-paid designated bags will be available in nine sizes ranging from three to 100 litres. The price will be HK$0.11/litre for the first three years, and $11 per-label for oversized waste. Starting February 2024, these specified bags and labels will be accessible at authorised retail establishments such as supermarkets, convenience stores, pharmacies, and online platforms.

The “gate-fee”, on the other hand, applies to MSW collected and disposed of by private waste collectors (PWCs) using RCVs without rear compactors based on the weight of MSW disposed of at waste disposal facilities, excluding the mandatory use of designated bags or labels.

What Are the Benefits of a Municipal Waste Charging Scheme?

1. Encourage waste reduction and promote recycling

Due to limited land spaces for waste disposals, the primary objective of the scheme is to incentivise waste reduction at the source. By imposing charges on waste disposal, individuals and businesses are motivated to reduce waste generation, adopt recycling practices, and make informed choices about consumption patterns. 

Under the new proposed policy instrument, each household in Hong Kong will pay up to HK$55 (approximately US$7) per month, on average, for waste disposal. Hence, it is expected residents and businesses will consider alternatives to save on waste charges. One way to do this is by following the ‘3Rs’ principle: reuse, reduce, and recycle.

You might also like: Rethinking How We Reduce Packaging and Packaging Waste in Hong Kong: An Interview with Paul Zimmerman

2. Shift responsibility and raise awareness

The scheme emphasises the principle of “polluter pays”. This will shift responsibility for waste management from the government to waste producers, making individuals and businesses more accountable for the waste they generate. 

To facilitate the smooth implementation of the scheme, the government has launched extensive public education campaigns such as “Dump Less, Save More”. The project aims to provide firsthand experience in a quantity-based charging implementation through community involvement projects and collaboration with government departments and stakeholder groups such as the Environmental Campaign Committee, village representatives, green groups, and schools in launching activities. These initiatives aim to raise awareness about waste reduction, recycling, and the benefits of sustainable waste management practices.

You might also like: 4 Smart Waste Management Solutions That Are Revolutionising the Industry

3. Cut greenhouse gas emissions

A 2022 study on China’s household waste management system revealed that the measure is contributing to reducing climate change impacts, including emissions. This is because less municipal waste translates into less energy required to transport and process that waste. 

Additionally, waste reduction can also reduce the amount of methane produced in landfills, which account for 8% of global emissions. 

4. Waste Control

By introducing financial incentives, the scheme encourages individuals and businesses to actively reduce waste generation. This can lead to a significant decrease in the overall volume of waste disposed of in landfills. 

A 2008 published study conducted on 954 Japanese municipalities with pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) systems in place experienced an overall reduction in waste generation. In particular, case studies of four municipalities showed that the implementation of PAYT programs reduced the amount of residual waste generated by 20% to 30%. Moreover, when combined with other measures, such as the recycling of containers and packaging, PAYT programmes were found to bring about significant reduction in waste.

5. Improve waste reduction and recycling efforts

According to the government, with the idea of “dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use“, the revenue generated from the MSW charging scheme will be used to enhance waste reduction and recycling work, a move that is expected to improve the efficiency and sustainability of waste management in Hong Kong. 

Potential Drawbacks

An introduction of a unit pricing system on waste disposal can significantly raise the cases of illegal dumping. 

A research conducted between 2001-2003 and looking at 16 provinces in South Korea found that an additional increase in the pay-by-the-bag unit pricing system of legal disposal had little effect in reducing overall waste generation. For instance, a 1% increase in the legal bag price led to a 3% increase in the number of reports of illegal dumping. On the other hand, a 1% increase in the compensation for recycled goods led to a 6% decrease in the number of reports of illegal dumping. 

Moreover, a 2003 study of 533 PAYT municipalities conducted by the Japan Waste Management Association found that 68% of municipalities had faced issues related to illegal dumping, with 42% experiencing inappropriate discharge and 26% experiencing increased illegal dumping. 

Illegal waste disposal harms the environment and society by degrading public lands, lowering property value, affecting visual appeal, attracting more illegal waste disposal, and increasing government clean-up costs. Hence, it is imperative to formulate an effective policy that will prevent the outbreak of illegal waste disposal in Hong Kong and allocate resources towards the promotion of recycling initiatives. 

A 2019 paper investigating the reasons behind illegal waste disposal suggested that the issue could be prevented by raising public awareness and eco-responsibility through education programmes as well as by emphasising the environmental and health hazards via visual stimuli and messages in text nudges at designated disposal sites. 

Furthermore, the government enforcement efforts should be differentiated across different areas. For instance, the Environmental Protection Department intertwined with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) can incorporate the utilisation of monitoring surveillance systems in blackspots such as staircase, refuse rooms, and roadsides to refrain people from illegal dumping.

Will the Scheme Work?

In this regard, MSW Charging, coupled with the banning of single-use plastics tableware in 2024, can be seen as transformative legislative measures taken by the Hong Kong government to address the long-standing environmental issues. The Municipal Waste Charging Scheme in Hong Kong represents a significant step in the city’s journey towards sustainable waste management. 

By encouraging waste reduction, promoting recycling, and shifting responsibility to waste producers, the scheme can address the pressing waste management challenges faced by the city. With effective implementation and continued public support, the scheme has the potential to transform Hong Kong into a greener, cleaner, and more environmentally conscious metropolis. Though Hong Kong is in its initial phase of the MSW Charging scheme, prior examples from other countries can be taken into account to ensure the successful implementation. 

The post Will the Waste Charging Scheme Help With Waste Reduction in Hong Kong? appeared first on Earth.Org.

In the heart of Hong Kong’s vibrant cityscape, where towering skyscrapers and bustling shopping streets define the daily rhythm of life, materialism and consumerism trends have become a norm. Our consumption choices have come at a huge cost to the environment and human society, contributing to climate change and other related environmental issues such as landfill waste and unprecedented levels of greenhouse gas emission. According to Greenpeace, Hongkongers discarded 110,000 tonnes of textiles to landfills in 2014, the equivalent of approximately 1,400 t-shirts per minute. Did you know that it takes over 20,000 litres of water to produce one kilogramme of cotton, which is equivalent to one t-shirt and one pair of jeans? In this article, we look at minimalism as a potential solution to alleviate the environmental burden arising from consumerism and as a way to encourage consumers to make more sustainable choices.

—

The Minimalist Lifestyle

The central philosophy of minimalism underlines the concept of “less is more.” In other words, being a “minimalist” means possessing fewer items, living a simpler life while having minimal impacts on the environment. Though the original concept of minimalism dates back to the ancient Greek idea of simple living and avoiding excessive material wealth that causes unnecessary waste, the modern minimalist lifestyle that we come to know about has its roots in the 20th century, emerging from artists like Donald Judd and Dan Flavin. 

More importantly, books like The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up by Marie Kondo, Goodbye, Things: The New Japanese Minimalism by Sasaki, and Danshari: Shin Katazukejutsu by Yamashita popularised this philosophy. The three kanji characters “断捨離” can be read as  “Dan-sha-ri” and translate to refusal, disposal, and separation, respectively. This concept encourages individuals to shed old habits, reduce the desire for new items, eliminate attachments, and prioritise personal needs. According to an article published in The Japan Times (2011), this term gained popularity in Japan in 2010 and has since spread globally. An article published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment (2023) argues the aforementioned social movements have laid the groundwork for minimalism, which has evolved into the minimalist lifestyle we know today.

Nowadays, minimalism refers to a lifestyle that prioritises the quality of life while emphasising environmental sustainability. For example, a minimalist practices careful consideration, avoids overconsumption and waste of resources from purchasing to disposal decisions. This way of life values sustainable living, often with the goal of conserving the Earth and eliminating unnecessary waste in society. This simplified way of living can help an individual achieve a sense of tranquillity and take up environmentally friendly initiatives. 

You might also like: 10 Concerning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics

Hong Kong Consumerism and Its Environmental Impact

Hong Kong is battling with several pressing environmental issues, from outdoor air pollution and plastic pollution to landfill waste and biodiversity loss. In recent years, the government has implemented a number of environmental regulatory frameworks to tackle these aggravating problems, including the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO), Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO), Waste Disposal Ordinance (WDO), and Producer Responsibility Schemes (PRS), and in 2021 has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. 

On a global level, in 2015, United Nations member states launched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 goals that focus on improvement and longevity, from ending poverty to tackling climate change. However, according to a 2019 report by the UN Economic and Social Commission (ESCAP), Asia and the Pacific will not achieve any of these goals by 2030. 

“If there are environmental policies, why is it not enough to mitigate the climate crisis?” one might ponder. The answers lie in these data. 

Air Pollution

A paper published in the National Library of Medicine (2020) ranked “air pollution” as the fourth major risk factor for global disease and mortality, with a recent study suggesting that South Asia, home to four of the five most polluted countries in the world, accounts for more than half of the total life years lost globally due to air pollution. In this part of the world, experts estimate that polluted air cuts life expectancy by about five years. 

Meanwhile, another paper estimated that 12% of global deaths in 2019 was linked to outdoor and household air pollution. This goes to show that air pollution is not only a public health hazard but also a global threat that can have severe repercussions on human health and the environment. The public and the government must do more to address environmental issues.

More on the topic: Less Than 1% of Global Land Area Has Safe Air Pollution Levels: Study

In Hong Kong, air pollution is among the most pressing environmental issues. The Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) shows that areas such as Causeway Bay, Central, and Mong Kok, all exceeded the World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guidelines. 

According to a 2020 report by the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (EPD), the major types of chemicals released into the air were carbon monoxide, followed by nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, and the major pollution sources were road transport, navigation and public electricity. In 2022, the total number of private cars registered in Hong Kong was 649,540, a significant increase of almost 32,000 from 2018, though it decreased from 2021 by nearly 7,500. 

Waste

Hong Kong has made headlines for its frenetic consumerism culture; the territory ranks high in 10 of 12 indicators signifying excessive materialistic possessions and an unhealthy dependence on shopping. As much glitz and glamour as fast fashion portrays, its environmental impact has been significant. 

According to the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC) Principal Economist Louis Chan (2022), the global fashion industry releases as much as 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, while the global value of discarded clothing has reached US$460 billion a year, of which only 13% can be recycled. This demonstrates that consumerism can be associated with poor waste disposal. 

A 2021 report by the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department indicates that the total disposed quantity of solid waste in that year was 5.67 million tonnes, an average of 15,533 tonnes every day and an increase of 5.4% compared to 2020. Municipal waste consisting of domestic, commercial & industrial, construction and special wastes are disposed of at landfills, which hold properties toxic for humans and the environment.

You might also like: ​​Minimising Landfill Waste: What Can We Do?

The Minimalism Edge: Streamline Your Life for Maximum Joy

Hong Kong resident and minimalist Nicole Ng told Earth.Org that she is mindful when shopping and chooses quality products even though sometimes it means paying a little extra. 

“Quality shopping is unquestionably the key to more sustainable, durable, and multifunctional products,” she said. 

As a plant enthusiast, she often purchases second-hand plants on platforms like Carousell, Instagram Shop, and Facebook Marketplace, and puts her own plants for sale as she believes it is a more environmentally friendly practice. 

“I came across a video on minimalism by Marie Kondo on Youtube as a university student,” she said when asked what influenced her to get into this lifestyle. “I realised it is much easier to adopt a minimalist lifestyle than I had expected after doing some research.” 

Now, Nicole embraces minimalism by decluttering her wardrobe and kitchenware on a seasonal basis. She said starting this lifestyle has improved her mental and physical health, besides increasing her awareness of the environmental impacts of consumerism, adding that having a clear mindset and setting goals help motivate her to stay on track and develop long-lasting habits.

Minimalism: A Sustainable and Healthy Choice

Minimalism encourages individuals to declutter their life by either donating or recycling responsibly. Being mindful about our own consumption habits can make us more conscious about material possessions and force us to buy less as well as to choose quality over quantity. It also encourages consumers to make environmentally conscious decisions, forcing them to ask themselves questions such as “Do I really need this?” and “What are the long-term benefits and environmental impacts of my consumption choices?” 

Pursuing a minimalist lifestyle helps lowering one’s carbon footprint, with benefits not just on an individual level but also on the surrounding environment.

Individuals who adopt a minimalist lifestyle are more likely to live a healthier lifestyle, improving their mental and physical health. A 2021 study carried out in the US found that minimalists feel fulfilled and respected while less likely to experience a feeling of depression. 

Another 2023 research conducted among 525 participants in China revealed that minimalism improves personal well-being in developing countries. Excessive possession, according to the study, does not lead to greater happiness but rather to increased stress and anxiety. 

While officially classified as a developing country, in recent decades, China has experienced the benefits of rapid economic growth. As ordinary Chinese people’s living circumstances improve, so does their need for high-quality goods. For instance, during the eight-day “Golden Week”, also known as the National Day or the October Holiday – a week-long holiday that takes place annually – the domestic tourism revenue reached 753.4 billion yuan (US$103 billion), up 1.5% from the comparable level in 2019. This is a great illustration of ordinary Chinese people’s ravenous appetite for shopping and consumption and how this is often directly linked to increased standard of living. 

Nonetheless, the study also stated that with economic progress and a declining birth rate, China may soon witness increasing acceptance of minimalism, as observed in several developed countries. 

In addition, reduced purchases save money on items that add no value to one’s life. In other words, consumers who adopt minimalism limit their spending and build up savings, which helps them achieve long-term goals that translate into more fulfilment and happiness. Hence, one aspect of minimalism is attaining financial well-being due to spending less, which leads to avoiding unnecessary debt and enhanced savings. Moreover, a 2023 finding in Pakistan shows that there is a positive relation between minimalism and financial well-being.

Criticism

Some critics claim that the minimalist lifestyle promotes new types of consumption, a desire to purchase multi-functional, energy-saving or wanting to renovate a home that resembles the typical minimal space. 

A 2016 article published in the New York Times Magazine explains that “minimalism is now synonymous with self-optimization, a trend that has also given rise to fitness devices and Soylent. This optimisation, which is frequently driven by technology, is costly and exclusively branded by and for the elite.” 

The author criticises the fact that a minimalist lifestyle will pressurise people to be obsessed over what to declutter and how many items one should own, raising concerns over the consequences of minimalism, such as what would happen if minimalists discarded too many goods at once. The article depicts the movement as arrogant and a trend for privileged people, arguing that being a minimalist requires social capital, a safety net, and access to the internet, something that not everyone possesses.

Final Thoughts

While these are valid concerns, it is undeniable that the minimalist lifestyle offers a transformative approach to living. By reevaluating consumerism, decluttering spaces, practising mindful consumption, and cultivating balance and well-being, individuals can find solace and purpose in the midst of the urban frenzy. 

While the above-mentioned environmental issues may affect Hongkongers’ quality of life as well as many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, an adoption of this lifestyle offers a beacon of hope in mitigating climate change. 

Renowned chimpanzee researcher and activist Jane Goodall once said: “Each one of us matters, has a role to play, and makes a difference.” 

Therefore, embracing minimalism in Hong Kong is not only a personal choice; it is a step towards creating a more sustainable, mindful, and fulfilling way of life in this vibrant city. So, let us embark on this journey of simplicity, embrace what truly matters, and rediscover the beauty of living with less in the midst of Hong Kong’s abundant offerings.

If you like to get started but don’t know where to start, you may follow these simple 5 steps.

1. Decluttering your environment and mind
2. Be mindful when purchasing 
3. Take advantage of digital platforms
4. Try recycling and reusing as much as possible
5. Form a habit to get organised

Learn more about minimalism: Guide to a Minimalist Lifestyle by Caroline Banton, Minimalism by James Clear, Beginner’s Guide to Minimalism | Do You Have The Right Mindset? by Malama Life on Youtube.

Featured image: Sumaid pal Singh Bakshi/Unsplash

You might also like: How to Live a More Sustainable Life in 2023

The post How Minimalism Can Help Hongkongers Address Pressing Environmental Challenges appeared first on Earth.Org.