21 restaurants fined for breaching Hong Kong disposable plastic regulation one year after ban
Under the first phase of the citywide plastic ban, which began in April last year, restaurants are prohibited from using styrofoam tableware, as well as most single-use plastic items such as utensils, stirrers, and plates. They had a six-month 'adaptation period,' which ended in October.
Plastic cups and food containers are currently still allowed to be sold and used for takeaway but cannot be distributed for dine-in purposes.
In a Facebook post published on Monday – a day before Earth Day – the Environment and Ecology Bureau (EEB) said that it had received 122 reports of restaurants suspected of violating the ban between October, when the adaptation period ended, and mid-April.
Most of the eateries complied after follow-up by the authorities, and only 21 restaurants were fined for still breaching the rule despite receiving a written warning, the bureau said.
A business will be fined HK$2,000 if it fails to comply within 10 days after receiving a warning for violating the plastic ban.
However, the EEB also highlighted some improvements. 'Relative to the over 26,000 eateries in Hong Kong, we can see that the sector has mostly gotten used to the new laws,' it wrote in the Chinese-language post.
It added that an increasing number of customers have been getting into the habit of bringing their own reusable cutlery and that restaurants have also been using alternatives to plastic.
'The restaurant chains say that more than 80 percent of their customers no longer ask for takeaway cutlery, thereby preventing over 60 million sets of disposable cutlery from being dumped into landfills in Hong Kong,' the bureau also said.
'Low-carbon city'
Under the second phase, the ban will be extended to more types of tableware including plastic cups, cup lids, food containers and food container covers, which are currently only banned for dine-in services but still allowed for takeaway customers.
No timeline has yet been announced for the second phase and the Facebook post also did not mention when the new rules would kick in.
But the bureau said it was preparing to collaborate with 'large-scale restaurant groups' to conduct tests in the middle of the year for plastic alternatives to identify substitutes that would 'affect citizens' lives the least.'
The bureau hopes to promote a plastic-free culture and turn Hong Kong into a 'green, low-carbon city,' it added.
According to Hong Kong's Climate Action Plan 2050, which was released in 2021, the city aims to reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent from the 2005 levels before 2035, and to achieve carbon neutrality before 2050.
Green groups, however, have criticised the plan, saying it does not have a mechanism for reporting the progress of meeting the objectives.
The government should establish regular reporting and clear reduction targets for different sectors, they said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
12 hours ago
- RTHK
China tourism sees upgrade in hospitality sector
China tourism sees upgrade in hospitality sector Domestic tourism is on the rise with the hospitality sector having to adapt to changes in tourist experiences. File photo: Xinhua China's tourism boom is pushing upgrades in its hospitality sector, with shifting travel preferences and growing popularity of digital technologies spurring hotels to embrace cultural integration, artificial intelligence (AI) and international management. In the first half of 2025, domestic tourist trips hit 3.285 billion, up 20.6 percent from a year earlier, according to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Summer travel is set to accelerate, with an estimated over 2.5 billion trips, according to data from the China Tourism Academy. Hotel giants are feeling the heat. Jin Jiang Hotels, one of China's largest hotel groups, reported receiving more than 40.7 million guests in its Chinese hotels in July. In addition to the robust data, customers' hospitality demands are also changing. "Chinese travellers are no longer satisfied with just a bed for the night. They seek immersive, multifaceted experiences that turn hotels into hubs of exploration and engagement," said Qian Kang, vice president of Jin Jiang Hotels. Integrating hospitality services with culture, commerce, tourism, and sports has been identified as a major strategic opportunity for the hotel market in 2025, according to an industrial survey released earlier this year by hotel market observer HUAMEI Consulting Group. In Shanghai, Jin Jiang Radisson Hotels launched a culinary initiative, offering exclusive dining deals and immersive food tours. Jin Jiang Hotels China Region's AI voice system handles 70 percent of guest calls, resolving 86 percent of requests within 15 minutes, often coordinating with in-house robots for tasks like deliveries, according to Qian. (Xinhua)
South China Morning Post
14 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
How Chinese investors quietly transformed Athens – one visa at a time
China has changed the Greek capital in both visible and less obvious ways. On the one hand, authentic Chinese restaurants – from spicy hotpot to Cantonese cha chaan teng – have sprung up in central Athens, where many patrons speak the northeastern Chinese dialect and work for China Ocean Shipping Company , an industry giant managing Europe's fifth-largest port. On the more discreet side, Chinese buyers have snapped up thousands of flats in a rush to apply for the Greek investor residency scheme, commonly known as the 'golden visa'. In June 2025, nearly 8,000 Chinese citizens – 7,795 to be precise – were first-time members of the scheme, meaning they had not yet reached the five-year mark to renew their permits. That represents 47.8 per cent of all first-time permit holders, making them by far the largest group, according to data from the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum. Among the 5,679 people who had renewed their golden visa, 61 per cent were also Chinese citizens, the ministry reported.
AllAfrica
17 hours ago
- AllAfrica
China dependence poses existential risk to US universities
In July 2025, the Trump administration paused export controls on advanced AI chips to China in an effort to restart trade talks. The decision drew criticism from national security circles concerned about China's expanding tech dominance. Yet a quieter and more enduring pipeline of technological transfer remains largely overlooked: America's elite universities. Institutions such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Columbia are global beacons of research and innovation. Their mission statements reflect an ethos of internationalism and academic freedom. Harvard seeks to 'inspire every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world,' for example, and Columbia commits to 'advancing knowledge and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.' These ideals sound noble, and they often are, but they also create blind spots in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. Some of the most influential voices in academia have grown increasingly critical of America's global role. Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs has argued that the US suffers from 'imperial overreach' and argues for a multipolar world where China plays a leading role. American University political scientist Amitav Acharya has, similarly, advocated a 'multiplex world order' that seeks to challenge America's global dominance. Even Princeton's John Ikenberry, often seen as a defender of liberal internationalism, has expressed concern that US unilateralism could unravel the very international order that America has helped build. These aren't abstract academic theories. They shape how universities approach international research and collaboration. In many elite institutions, the pursuit of knowledge is considered to be inherently global; an endeavor that should remain open, inclusive and free of political constraint. But as the boundary between civilian and military technologies grows fuzzier, particularly in fields like AI and quantum computing, academic openness can come at a cost. Such national security concerns are sometimes brushed aside by academia and are viewed as illegitimate, or even as reactionary or xenophobic. At the heart of this matter is money. Students from China and India compose more than half of the 1.1 million foreign students studying in the US. During the 2023–24 academic year, international students contributed more than $40 billion to the US economy. With annual tuition at elite schools often exceeding $60,000, these students fund research centers, laboratories, and faculty salaries. This revenue stream gives universities every reason to remain globally open, even if doing so occasionally creates tension between their priorities and national security. More significantly, many of these institutions maintain formal research partnerships with Chinese universities tied to state and military entities. Harvard, for instance, has collaborated with Tsinghua University, often referred to as China's MIT, on joint research on artificial intelligence, quantum physics, and biomedicine. While billed as academic exchanges, many projects in these fields relate directly to China's civil-military fusion strategy, whereby breakthroughs in science serve Chinese economic development as well as military modernization. These are not theoretical risks. They are playing out in real time. According to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, about one-third of Chinese nationals who earn PhDs in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in the US return home within five years. Many go on to work in high-priority sectors supporting China's strategic goals. Kai-Fu Lee, a Carnegie Mellon Ph.D., led Google China before founding Sinovation Ventures, an AI-focused firm closely aligned with Beijing's national objectives. Jie Tang, a Cornell PhD, now leads major AI research initiatives at Tsinghua. During my own fieldwork in China's aviation sector, I mentored two promising students, Kankan Xie and Jikuo Lu, through elite US graduate programs. One is now a professor at Peking University; the other works on AI at Meta but plans to return to China. Both were grateful for the opportunities they found in the United States but made clear that their long-term goals were to support China's national development. Faculty are not blind to this. Martin Widzer, who teaches at the University of Colorado Denver and at the International College Beijing, told me that many of his Chinese students were candid in their nationalist convictions. Several now attend elite US institutions, and many plan to return home, equipped with a world-class education and a strong sense of purpose. Even more concerning is the growing trend of academic self-censorship. Scholars who rely on access to China or funding from Chinese sources often steer clear of politically sensitive topics such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, cyber espionage and technology theft. A prominent China scholar declined to let me publish his comments, fearing that it could jeopardize his visa and access to archives. The pressure is real, and it is only growing. As China scholar Ming Xia has noted, this kind of self-censorship undermines academic independence. When faculty or institutions depend on partnerships with authoritarian states, they risk shaping their research agendas to align more closely with the priorities of their funders, conducting experiments based on what is deemed acceptable rather than on the pursuit of truth. This is not a call to end international cooperation. US science has thrived on open exchange. But universities must balance openness with strategic awareness and recognize how generosity can aid strategic rivals. Policymakers must adopt a tougher stance. Research that involves dual-use technologies alongside institutions in authoritarian states known for serious human rights abuses should be banned outright. Partnerships linked to foreign military or intelligence agencies must be suspended or ended immediately. The US should expand green-card access to foreign STEM graduates who have earned their degrees in the United States, to retain talent for American innovation and security. Moreover, increased federal and state funding for public higher education is essential to reduce universities' reliance on foreign tuition, which currently threatens national security and America's technological edge. Protecting our strategic interests allows no compromise. If the US is serious about maintaining technological leadership in the 21st century, we must recognize that the same institutions that are producing Nobel laureates and Pulitzer winners might also be accelerating China's military and technological rise. Derek Levine is a professor at Monroe University. He is the author of 'The Dragon Takes Flight: China's Aviation Policy, Achievements, and International Implications' and 'China's Path to Dominance: Preparing for Confrontation with the United States.' This article first appeared on The National Review and is republished with the author's kind permission.
