Environment & energy roundtable | ‘Right now we don’t really have an energy policy’

Agnes Lam smiles

An energy and environment roundtable discussion was held at Jardim de Vasco da Gama yesterday afternoon, seeking to understand energy consumption patterns in Macau, considering alternative sources to power the region, and the effect that these may have on the environment.
Organized by political association, Macao Civic Power, the discussion was partly seeking to frame the group’s energy and environment policies for the Legislative Assembly election next year. However, when the Times visited the roundtable in the late afternoon, there were only a dozen people present.
Among these was scholar and roundtable panelist, Agnes Lam, who told the Times that she doesn’t think that there is sufficient public awareness in Macau over our energy consumption and even what an energy policy should look like. Her comments reflected the low attendance at the public forum event.
“Right now we don’t really have an energy policy,” she said. “It’s important for us to understand how much energy we are using and where it is coming from. Then we can look at the impact on the environment and consider any alternatives.”
The government does have a basic energy strategy but it is undeveloped and non-specific, argued Chen Junming, the president Macau Green Student Union.
“The government’s [intention to] reduce electricity consumption per capita in Macau is not working well because, although they have released some guidelines for this policy, the strategy is not well-developed,” said Chen.
He added that he hoped yesterday’s roundtable discussion would help pave the way to examine the potential for Macau to further utilize cleaner and renewable sources of energy.
Regarding the gaming industry and its energy demands, Agnes Lam said, “I think we should have some sort of control” over gaming operators.
“Right now the [gaming operators] have arrangements with energy suppliers that afford them discounted prices per unit of consumption [as large customers]. We need to control this and to prevent them from being encouraged to consume more,” she proposed. “I am not suggesting a punishment… but some sort of incentive for them to reduce their usage. And this should be a part of [the government’s] energy policy.”
On the other hand, Chen highlighted that although the rise in commercial demand for electricity has been driven by the development of the gaming industry, “it is hard [for the government] to bargain with the casinos, because that is the major source of the government’s income.”
The panel, which included two other speakers aside from Chen and Lam, also planned to discuss the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant.
Lam proposed that the panel discuss whether the Taishan facility is the only option for the MSAR. “Is this the only alternative or source we have?” she asked.
Asked whether she would be in favor of the project, which is currently under construction, should it be proven within reasonable doubt to be safe, Lam said: “I can’t say whether I will accept it or not, without understanding the other options. Here in Macau we just don’t know [what those options are], so that’s part of the purpose behind today – to understand our choice.”
Safety concerns over the facility were heightened earlier this year when it emerged that certain components had been manufactured in mainland China, not in France as was previously thought. Mainland and Macau authorities stressed that safety assessments of the plant’s construction were in line with international standards. Nevertheless, the issue has prompted concerns from lawmakers and the general public.
“Why do we need it near [Macau]? Is it really safe?” Lam asked. “We just don’t know whether it will be a security threat to Macau.” She added that it would be a good idea for the Macau Liaison Office to voice the concerns of the people in the MSAR, but signaled she is “not sure how much they can say.”

land law cannot be decided by the few

On the sidelines of the roundtable yesterday, Agnes Lam said that she is opposed to changes to the Land Law, justifying that “any change in the future has to come from a collective opinion, not just a few developers [with an interest in the matter].” “Some of the developers will lose their land but that’s the purpose,” she said. “Not to confiscate their land but […] ensure that it is used for the public interest and not anything else.”