有見關於膠袋稅/環保那段有有心人留言及討論，現集結如下，有興趣加入討論者可留言。前仆後繼，唔為造勢。

原文

開徵膠袋稅

在網上翻看港台鏗鏘集，其中一集的主題為膠袋，指香港人每天用膠袋量冠全球。當中有一片段訪問一名師奶，問她若果徵膠袋稅如五毫錢一個膠袋何如，她一臉從容地說「都係五毫一蚊，畀得起」。另外一名師奶則謂徵稅措施可行，稅收可捐回作環保用途，此舉不錯。

大錯特錯。

Campaign 式的回應，我會寫，你要付的不是五毫一蚊，若果你抱持這種「雞碎咁多我畀得起」的態度，你要付的代價是你無法計量的多、沉重。但我不是搞活動的。我只會 寫，普羅巿民對環境保育的概念始終仍然停留在表面，所謂的環保推廣大部分我稱之為「走捷徑類」，若果不認識普羅巿民對環保的掌握程度，根本無法有效地推行 任何環保政策。

不論師奶或是政府，錢可以搞掂一切的思想果真根深蒂固。

節目中環團和膠袋製造商強調，最大的問題是濫用。 與其這樣說，倒不如將之扯到我們是否會對自己日常生活作出觀察和反省。Lifestyle vs another lifestyle，我常提醒綠色生活不應該是一種lifestyle〔我最討厭「綠色生活」四隻字〕，故利用這招只會跌入圈套。若果改為「師奶，you got your say」又會否太誇張？

我媽也愛儲膠袋，並且會待閒時把膠袋一個個摺好，現在家裡有三大袋未經「摺好」的大膠袋包細膠袋，再者，她一般對外觀美麗的膠袋愛護有加。膠袋在師奶眼中其實是否一種購物慾作用下的另類戰利品？除了方便，膠袋與師奶的政治經濟學實在密不可分。

審視自己呢，我喜歡無端端興起走到超巿買一兩包薯片和飲品，就算沒有帶袋，兩手空空的，大概都不會跟收銀員要膠袋，怪相中有點型。

回應：

5/24/2007 10:34 上午匿名 said...
HI OR,

反而有興趣想知你點解抗拒綠色生活四隻大字...>

p


5/25/2007 7:37 上午　Chris said...
那是針對傳媒、政府〔甚至是某些環團〕所建構什麼所謂「綠色生活」的意義而言，比如說綠化家居、慳電、廢物回收、買或食用有機食品、周六日往郊外親親大自然。

然而這些「行動」的「內涵」其實往往將我們的生活與環境脫離了關係，這可能是因為執行或運作上的陋習、不能清楚了解行動背後的意義與承擔，更多時候只是一種被形塑出來的「正確．綠色．生活．態度」。

我對四字此尤其抗拒，是因為曾在環保團體內因宣傳環境保育信息而感受到這種「生活態度」是如何被簡化，或調轉　－　任何與環境育信息有關都可以簡化成「齊來支持綠色生活」等語句，結果多變成將本來要向公眾闡明複雜的背後理念和構想化成傳媒／普羅大眾聽得明白的論述。

在我腦中，融入環境，從而有意識地保育是一種反思過程；我們要多少食物？在生產這些食物時我們又要用多少資源？足夠便夠？先要多一點再補償？

再者，技巧上來說，現在的綠色生活被打造成一種lifestyle，一來極有被扭曲的趨勢，二來是以lifestyle打lifestyle，基本上沒有得打，最終只是「選擇」問題。



5/29/2007 1:30 下午　Yun said...
嗯﹐很值得反省。是啊﹐綠色生活已慢慢變成一種lifestyle﹐還是高尚的。

but﹐to educate people about recycling is fairly difficult to do... so I'm also thinking, is 「走捷徑類」better than nothing?

I keep having this thought, how many people can I influence about recycling? 10? 20? Does that make anything difference? Then I reassure myself that thost 10, 20 will influence another 10, 20 people... and so forth. But, a lot of time, I feel it's difficult... and not to say I'm doing a good job either... I'm worry about our mother nature.


5/25/2007 4:32 下午　匿名 said...
Yes, I understand your point and I agree. So you are not objecting to the idea of “green life” but just resisting to the way it is interpreted. Being instant and convenient is always the most preferable in Hong Kong society. If it is the general phenomenon of the society, (I believe not only in the domain of conservation/green life), there should be an exit outstand others – a normal development of the trend as the society wishes. It might take time, and it might be running out of time. But there should be an exit and awaiting someone to find it out, disseminate the message in an influential way, and make a difference. Don’t underestimate oneself’s power and intention. But still, the increasing emphasis on “green life”, regardless of how it is interpreted, perceived and implemented, be it commercialized, exaggerated or simplified, is a good start. It is an entrance to a real “green life”. Supply and demand should meet each other. I think it is about what learning process best suit Hong Kong people. Start by entertainment, knowledge, experience or contemplation? Start by economic incentive, the desire to be healthy, the pursuit of spiritual well being, or just convenience? How to instill the message to populace from a “lower level”, like arousing the willingness to purchase organic food by providing incentive, to a “higher level”, like analyzing the (economic/ecological) cost of generating (organic) food, to a philosophical level, like contemplating the reason, the motivation, the meaning, and the value behind, which will in turn re-adjust the attitude of purchase, such as deliberating the amount we should consume? The problem of NGOs/media/government/public in Hong Kong is we pause at the first stage and think it is the whole. We stop going further. That’s why the green movement in Hong Kong halted in a half way while those in other countries is more advanced and now moving towards a more viable direction.

That’s why I appreciate Tao Kit very much... He lowers his level of interpretation to meet the standard of general public, whereas still having his stands on a certain issue and still bringing out message which stimulate the thoughts of people. Though one might have disagreed his viewpoint and cannot stand his attitude of mocking sometimes, it does no harm to provide a very different (sometimes ridiculous) viewpoint which really stimulates.

p


5/27/2007 11:11 上午　Chris said...
有一次看蘋果論壇版，一位經常指控環團／環保份子的博客黃牛說，保育動物、環境只是借口，你們這班人的主要攻擊其實是對現在生活貢獻良多的資本主義。

看罷笑了，因為他的說話十分有意思。若果以照我的想法，這位黃牛也果真十分了解某一取向的環保人的思考邏輯。

「搞」環境保育並不能獨善其身，他牽涉到社會發展、政治、經濟環境等因素，更必須考量在地因素。

傳理／新聞的[有限]訓練讓我也不能不將信息化簡，因為我們的TA是廣大巿民。其後有所反思，一．廣大巿民的領略有時並非如我們的想像中愛即食愛易食〔那跟降低level一點有關〕；二．若果環保界大潮流都是以這種簡化信息為主導，是否更/也有需要，更/也值得提倡另一些似深非深的東西[有些只不過是我們未接觸過便覺得深]，讓保育的層面更「多元」？

讓我再想想。



5/27/2007 12:33 下午　匿名 said...
原本打0個篇, 冇左...>_<...唔重新打過了, 撮要如下: 簡化信息本身無罪, 因材施教本身無可厚非. 但要抵消其中的不良結果, 則依靠如何把零碎的信息連結成一個big picture 和一個完整的環. 現在的社會, 由4歲小朋友到40歲師奶, 到80歲阿伯都識講環保, 都知道要做什麼達至環保, 只是答案是一樣的(有冇做係另一回事). 多得環團和政府的大力推動. 這是你所講的簡化而不多元. 環保本身係有好多兩難同矛盾的. 究竟去完廁所的廁紙如何處理才更環保? 丟入馬桶, 直奔大海? 丟入垃圾桶, 拿去堆填? 直接用水沖洗身體? 但現在香港來來去去都只是某一些"簡化信息"和活動, 十年如一日. 從我小學時代已鼓吹的3r, 到現在還是一樣, 不但理念一樣, 活動也一樣. 這是香港環團/政府最令我不屑的 - 毫無創意, 永遠只採用最安全和"政治正確"的方法推動環保... 香港, 缺乏"平台/單位/機構", 把保育和環境不同的層面帶給市民. 其中一個主因係, 佢地聘請的員工中, 好少係有咁高層次, 會反思, 明白整個保育概念..