關於 not necessary不一定 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

今天是巴菲特91歲生日，
在這一天和你們分享這句巴菲特曾說過的、
帶給我們許多啟發的話。

But what we do is not beyond anybody else's competence.
I feel the same way about managing that I do about investing:
It's just not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results.

我們所做的並沒有超出任何人的能力。
我對管理投資的方式亦一樣：
不一定要做非凡的事才有非凡的成果。

成功其實並不需要過人的聰明或者是天賦
不斷地學習與堅持更為重要。

【還原「物業帶動鐵路」的歷史時空】 #永續港鐵霸權 #7月專研

港鐵霸權一大核心就是長期壟斷「鐵路上蓋物業發展權」，今時今日香港土地問題走到如斯局面，與經常被吹噓為「國際成功模式」的「鐵路加物業」(Rail + Property) 不無關係，但服務大眾的鐵路公司搖身一變成為追求利潤的發展商，絕對不是一夕間發生的合理事情。「鐵路上蓋物業」的原意又與今日有沒有變化? 是次研究專題將會透過回顧過上千頁有關香港地下鐵發展的英國解密檔案，還原70年代「物業帶動鐵路」發展模式的源起及原意，將有助進一步理解現時逐漸扭曲的港鐵發展形態。

▌構思初現：初期鐵路物業的背景與概念

「以地養鐵」更早可以在日本找到相類似發展模式 (Murakami, J., & Gregory, K. I.,2012)，然而最早「引進」香港的來源暫不可考。但從現有官方內部檔案中，可找到早於1970年交通諮詢委員會 (Transport Advisory Committee)提交的一份《集體運輸計劃總報告書》，報告中建議除了計劃興建已設計的4條鐵路路線，並分9期(nine distinct stages) 完成「理想」鐵路系統(preferred system)外，已有提及「發展上蓋物業」的構思。在報告提及鐵路系統的長期發展影響：

”Wherever subway systems have been built experience shows that property and land increase in value. This opens up the strong possibility that a part of the cost of providing station concourses could be met through arrangements which permit the private development of station superstructures and surrounds.”

當年報告所述，由於預視到鐵路系統的帶動下，當地物業及地價將會升值。因而報告提到有很大可能可以容許私人發展 (private development) 上蓋物業去補貼鐵路站的建設成本。值得注意的是，報告除了提出上蓋 (station superstructures)發展外，首次提到發展上蓋周邊 (surrounds) 的發展概念。可見，現時港鐵圈地/上蓋物業發展一早出現在早期鐵路系統構思之中。

70年代還有差點讓鐵路系統觸礁的財政艱難，更清晰定位鐵路中的「物業收益」有何功能。參考早期關於興建鐵路系統的英國解密檔案顯示，早於1972年，香港政府成立集體運輸臨時管理局(Mass Transit Railway Provisional Authority)，打算先行興建較全面、工程單一批予日資財團(Japanese consortium)的早期系統(initial system)，但後來石油危機爆發，日本經濟陷入危機，財團先是提出可否修訂興建成本價格上限由50億為60億，遭到管理局拒絕後則宣佈退出鐵路興建，檔案中可看到港英政府曾一度為此而與日資財團就賠償爭執，甚至有香港主要大班 (怡和除外) 都因財政理由反對繼續推展興建鐵路計劃。

當年港英內部評估1980年代交通系統會超負荷，即使鐵路系統已被日資延遲一年(have effectively delayed the MTR project for 12 months)，連帶物料通賬的財政問題，但卻認為必須「頂硬上」，調整鐵路系統的財政預算、規模以及未來發展方向，於是臨急推出後來實現的修正早期系統 (Modified Initial System)。在1975年一份關於修正早期系統行政局內部文件，港英將會排除必要鐵路系統以外的多餘支出 (eliminate all expenditures not strictly necessary for resultant simpler system)，不僅使整個鐵路規模「大縮水」，同時更建議以溢價債卷(Premium bond)作為融資措施，以及發展沿線上蓋物業(property development on lines)抵消(offset)財赤，皆為確保(safeguard)鐵路在任何情況下的財政可負擔性(the financial viability in any event)，讓減少後規模的總興建成本能夠保持於49億的水平。可見，當初「鐵路加物業」發展的概念是在財政大緊縮的特定歷史脈絡生成，目的為防止鐵路興建所帶來財政不穩定情況的其中一法。

▌立業辟地：港鐵上蓋四小龍

直到1975年，為了確保鐵路系統的財政可負擔性以及應急儲備，集體運輸臨時管理局向政府申請批出四個鐵路上蓋物業的綜合發展權(comprehensive development)。而當時行政局內部討論中，一份十分詳細記錄有關批予集體運輸臨時管理局四個上蓋發展權的行政局文件顯示，最早期物業上蓋發展的具體情況：

—九龍灣車廠上蓋物業(現時德福花園)：

當時除了作為首個利用鐵路車廠上蓋作物業發展的項目，而且亦成為物業上蓋住宅發展的先例，佔地165,800平方呎，打算興建大型屋苑，滿足18,000個人口的住宅需求。

—亞皆老站(即現今旺角站)上蓋物業(現時旺角中心第一期)：

首個非鐵路站上蓋作物業發展，只是相鄰於(adjacent to) 鐵路站，為首個利用鐵路通風樓(ventilation shaft)的物業發展。

—金鐘站上蓋物業(現時海富中心)：

佔地60,000平方呎的海富中心，當時金鐘站上蓋物業批地條例原來有列明非工業用途，包括興建酒店(non-industrial purposes which may include a hotel)。

—畢打/遮打站(即現今中環站)上蓋物業(Pedder/Chater)(現時環球中心)：

當時批中環商業靚地予鐵路公司的理據明顯為商業利益最大化(maximum exploitation of the commercial possibilities)，一來可以善用土地資源(物業建於鐵路站上蓋)，二來物業及鐵路站同時興建，可以減少工程興建時發展阻礙(development disturbance)。

其後地鐵公司分別與恆隆、合和、長實多間發展商共合發展上述四個上蓋物業，作為「鐵路加物業」發展模式的雛型，當時內部估計以上物業收入將會佔地鐵公司總收益的20%。當年批出九龍灣車廠上蓋物業上公頃的市區發展土地，整體政府部門都相當歡迎，認為可以平衡當區公屋主導的房屋格局，與及能夠為該區提供額外設施的機會，甚至具體要求屋苑內有至少10戶1車位的發展條件 (XCC(75)52)。此四幅最早批出的上蓋物業發展，從通風樓到車廠、由單一大廈到綜合發展，已是奠定了日後鐵路物業發展的主要選址方式與發展類型。

▌誰主上蓋物業？

這份行政局文件亦載有早期鐵路用地發展權的重要批地原則(principles to be adopted in respect to land grant to Mass Transmit Railway Corporation)，是還原物業上蓋發展歷史一份重要參照。文件清楚列出，上蓋物業不一定是地鐵公司「囊中物」，鐵路物業發展權是否批出，或批給誰，完全是政府「話事」 (the grant of comprehensive development rights on land affected by railway installations will be discretionary)。

文件亦同時指出，程序上地鐵公司需要先向政府申請(formally apply)批地，政府可以基於實際考慮 (practical consideration) 決定如何運用這些鐵路上蓋用地的發展潛力 (for government to decide on how to dispose of any development potential remaining in the land over and above its Mass Transit usage) 。換言之，港鐵的上蓋發展絕對可以由政府主導及決定，包括根據現時的實際考慮（公營房屋供應長期落後及不足）用作興建公屋，不一定用於與發展商合作興建私樓供港鐵公司利潤最大化。

▌物業收益應急而起

70年代尾，鐵路系統打算擴建至荃灣區。翻查1978年有關鐵路擴建荃灣(Mass Transit Railway extension to Tsuen Wan)的行政局文件顯示，當時除了提及車廠上蓋物業發展的選址爭議外，亦有提及港英對發展上蓋物業的財政原則。物業發展的收入原本並不用作補貼鐵路成本 (revenue from property development was not originally envisaged as being used as a means of financing the capital cost of the railway itself)，而是作為應急儲備及改善現金流(contingency reserve and to improve its cash flow)。而且更補充荃灣車廠上蓋物業發展的剩餘收入，可以用作應對以下4個應急情況：

—抵消「超支」建築成本(offset any excess construction costs)

—抵消收入財赤(offset any revenue deficiencies)

—加速還債(accelerate loan repayments)

—提早鐵路公司對港英政府的投資分股息的日子(bring forward the date when the Corporation begins to pay the Government as share holder on behalf of the public dividends on its investment)

可見，港英多次強調，鐵路上蓋物業收入為確保財政可負擔性(viability)及應急(contingency)，而非像現時政府愈來愈恆常化送地予港鐵興建私樓賺錢。

引述法國城市學者Aveline-Dubach整理地鐵公司至其後港鐵自1980至2016年收入可見，明顯看見90年代末東涌綫及其後的將軍澳線所帶動的物業發展收入比例愈來愈重，已經超越鐵路票務收入，現時每年物業收益足足佔港鐵總收入四成。可見，透過重現當初的批地原意，更能突顯漸走向扭曲的港鐵發展形態，形成尾大不掉之勢。

▌賣樓補車費：明言物業發展利潤補貼車費

港鐵不應用上蓋物業賺盡的討論，亦見於地下鐵路公司條例的立法階段的重要討論。一份1975年討論地下鐵路公司草案(Mass Transit Railway Corporation Bill)的行政局文件，提及鐵路公司需要按照審慎商業原則 (prudent commercial principles)。鐵路作為公共交通工具，不應最大化其投資回報 (maximize its return on investment)，只應賺取足夠(enough)收入作營運開支。

文件亦可見當年政府就發展上蓋物業項目的收益，會清晰公開回應指物業發展可為鐵路帶來的額外利潤，以維持一個「保守的車費政策」 (assist the railway by providing extra revenue to maintain a conservative fares policy）。比起今天已經與物業收益「脫勾」的「可加可減」車費制度，當日港英政府明顯認為物業收益有助更平宜的車費定價。

在40多年前的歷史時空，當初「鐵路加物業」發展模式跟現時已經不可同日而語，發展上蓋物業不論就其發展型態、財政狀況、規劃模式、補貼原意，明顯有其特定的歷史脈絡及原意。是次研究專題透過還原早期興建地鐵的歷史討論，帶出現時不斷被政府吹奏作為「國際級典範」—港鐵發展模式，並不是一套千秋萬世的發展方程式。

參考資料

1971 FCO 40 358 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong

1975 FCO 40 658 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong

1975 FCO 40 659 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong

1975 FCO 40 660 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong

1978 FCO 40 974 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong

Aveline-Dubach, N., & Blandeau, G. (2019). The political economy of transit value capture: The changing business model of the MTRC in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 56(16), 3415-3431.

Murakami, J., & Gregory, K. I. (2012). Transit value capture: New town codevelopment models and land market updates in Tokyo and Hong Kong. Value capture and land policies, 285-320.

研究自主 月捐撐起最新專研系列：https://liber-research.com/support-us/
FPS ID：5390547
HSBC PayMe 捐款支持：https://bit.ly/32aoOMn
戶口號碼：匯豐銀行 640-198305-001 (LIBER RESEARCH COMMUNITY (HK) COMPANY LIMITED)
義工招募：https://bit.ly/2SbbyT3

近來我發現，在那些針對「熱衷探索自然」的戶外活動愛好者和發布秘境貼文者所日益增長批評裡，最常見的莫過於：

「遊客會製造垃圾！」
「這些地方很多人去的話，接下來就等著看到滿地垃圾吧！」
「這些『熱愛大自然』的人們就是最大的問題！」
「我們不能開放戶外景點給一般大眾，因為他們都不負責任，而且會破壞環境！」

但，真的是這樣嗎？這些遊客是將大量塑膠垃圾傾倒在山林河川當中的主力嗎？讓我們來深入檢視一下這個議題：「為什麼有些廢棄物的最後下場，不是在掩埋場、焚化爐、回收廠、或是相對應的公共衛生處理單位呢？」

不幸的是，一些不成熟的遊客走進了大自然，把垃圾丟在那裡。如果您拜訪任何受歡迎的瀑布或溫泉，可能還會在那裡看到一些垃圾。

遊客傾向於做出兩個錯誤的假設:
<露營垃圾全是可燃的>
這是錯誤的。就像您在家一樣，應將垃圾分類為廢物和可回收物，並隨身攜帶離開。您的垃圾都不應進入營火中。

<食物會迅速分解在自然裡>
雖然沒錯，但蔬菜和加工食品分解可能需要幾個月的時間，橘子皮，蛋殼，骨頭可能需要數年。如果您將麵條或白菜扔進河裡，它們就不會被魚吃掉。它會在那兒呆數周和數月，聞起來酸味並腐爛。即使魚類和動物確實吞噬了您的垃圾，但餵養野生生物也不是您的工作。有生命力的食物種子最終會成為入侵物種，奇怪的食物會使動物生病或死亡。所有多餘的食物都應隨身帶離開。沒有例外。

更糟糕的是隨處可見的煙蒂頭。為什麼吸煙者不認為這些有毒的塑料和化學物質是垃圾？這是無法接受的。

儘管這真令人氣憤，但它並不是山上垃圾的最大來源。嚴重的系統問題是與垃圾收集和處理需求有關

這支影片當中，展示了位於高雄六龜葫蘆谷瀑布的一些垃圾堆。這裡的地勢陡峭，任何被丟進森林裡的垃圾都會沿著斜坡滾下。每當雨水來臨之際之際，重量較輕的塑膠製品就會被沖刷到河流，一路漂流至下游，也就是大家會去玩耍的瀑布那兒；最終，它們進入海洋，並被海浪打上遙遠的某處沙灘。

不過，這隻影片清楚地展示了何謂「誤解」：第一眼看過去，覺得只是幾個保麗龍手搖杯和一些大家會為了踏青而帶出門的東西。但當我們再次細看，裡面居然出現水桶、巨型農用塑膠布（通常寬幅至少為一公尺，幅寬則可長達數十公尺）、農藥空罐、傢俱、和一般家庭垃圾：那些「沒有」任何一個去健行的人會帶著走的物品。這些廢棄物源自山裡，最有可能的來源也就是那些住在山裡的人們。那些垃圾，並非外來者所帶去的。

這並不罕見，也非單一事件。只要在任何山路旁停下，低頭向山壁下望去，就能看見成堆的垃圾袋。那些都是在家裡打包綁好的家庭垃圾，然後在行進中的車上往車窗外扔。家庭垃圾，是來自家庭，並非來自露營者；只要能檢視這些垃圾裡所含有的文件或郵件，便能揭曉它的來源。

即使這些會任意丟棄垃圾的人們只佔了山間居民的極小部分，他們還是有著極大的影響力。而在山區違法傾倒垃圾有過之而無不及的破壞力。無論是什麼原因，有部分居住在山上的住戶，偏好將家庭垃圾棄置於河川勝於妥當的處理。這裡所討論的並非這裡一個、那裡一個的零星垃圾。一個住在台灣的四口家庭，年平均垃圾製造量大約1600公斤。這樣的垃圾量，實屬相當巨大。

而正是因為一個家庭所能產生的垃圾量如此龐大，我們實在很難切確了解這樣的（隨意扔丟家庭垃圾）行為究竟擴及到什麼樣的程度。我在路旁的樹叢裡看過不下數百件垃圾⋯⋯或許數千件了也不一定。但這是因為數十或數百個家庭這麼做，我並無法斷言。唯一能確定的是，塑膠垃圾將「傳承」好幾世代。

如果今天去到偏鄉，將垃圾丟進垃圾桶裡，那些垃圾下場的可能性之一是，人們請來收垃圾的那些車隊將垃圾從民宿或餐廳接走，沒有依照環保署的規定處理，不但沒有把垃圾載到目的地，他們會找個在附近不為人知的地點就隨便把垃圾給倒了。山林裡滿滿都是這樣的情況。我們在河裏所見的一部分垃圾，就是從這些非法掩埋場所洗刷出來的結果。
除了上述提到的部分之外，卻還有其他來源也正在為這樣的情況有所「貢獻」：在許多地方，整卡車的垃圾就是直接傾倒於山路邊，直落山腳的河中。這裡所指的，並非單純的家庭垃圾或傢俱，而是包含來自建築、農業、和工業等的大型廢棄物。諸如此類的物件並非一般民眾所能接觸的到；那麼，之所以會在這裡看到這類型的垃圾只有一個原因：無論是本身製造這些垃圾的單位，或著是他們委託的民間清潔業者，最終選擇不按常規處理廢棄物，選擇違法私了，隨意傾倒。政府的相關單位真的應該要發展一套策略，來確認這些垃圾最終有好好抵達該去的地方。

每年颱風來臨，就會把這些成千上噸的垃圾帶到海洋。但那些垃圾堆卻不會因此減少：因為卡車會帶著新一批的垃圾來再度傾倒。

在對這一切麻痺之前，我那時還會拍攝影片來講述這樣的情況；但現在，我只會假裝眼不見為淨。

話說回來，我倒是能夠理解為何有些偏鄉的家庭垃圾並無法抵達該去的目的地。我本身就是來自於美國的偏鄉地區。在我的成長過程當中，並沒有「公共收垃圾」的這項服務。我們將廚餘做成堆肥，埋在遠離主建築的庭院一角，用落葉堆在上方，放置兩年後再挖來替花園施肥。垃圾和回收物會分在不同的袋子裡。每週一次，我父親會將這些袋子用車子載去離家約二十分鐘車程的郡屬廢棄物集散地和回收中心。的確，整個過程費力費時，但做好回收和妥當處理廢棄物對我爸爸來說非常重要，而我們當時也有這過程裡所需的一切資源來達成這項任務。

但並非我們的街坊鄰居都這麼做。有些家庭沒有時間好好處理垃圾，所以就把成堆的垃圾、生活用具、壞掉的車子和玩具等等，隨意散落在他們的住家四周。這也是相當常見的街景一隅。

在很多方面來說，偏鄉跟都市的生活條件比較起來，的確是不方便許多。以現實層面而言，實際的生活、家庭、經濟狀況，樣樣都會佔去不少時間。並不是所有家庭都能每每在需要之際，花上一個小時來丟好垃圾。但也有人是「能做，但我就是不想做」。沒有垃圾車的時候，他們便會選擇最為便捷的方式。政府真的應該針對山間社區提供更多的收垃圾選項。

我在這裡所訴說一切其實大家都了然於心，卻鮮少被提起。大部分在山林間那些路旁和河邊的垃圾並非來自登山客或是瀑布遊客。那些垃圾來自於那些從未抵達掩埋場的一般人類消耗結果。住在山間那些人們也不願見到如此景象。但這就是現實狀況。

這也是為什麼當我看到像是「殺風景！苦花潭遍地遊客垃圾 部落擬封閉」這樣的標題時，總會不由自主地翻個大白眼。沒錯，遊客不應該留下任何垃圾，但在不到百米之外，就有個在森林深處的家庭垃圾集散地。幾乎到哪兒都有垃圾。

如果大家有興趣前往探勘現場狀況的話，以下提供三個例子：
(大型): 24.035258, 121.170819
(大型): 24.6080971,121.2830025
(小型): 22.705481, 120.669413

面對這樣的狀況，針對個人的罰鍰並沒有太大幫助。大家平時在生活裏已經有夠多的煩惱了，否則也不會這樣處理事情。就是把收垃圾這件事情弄得再簡單一些就能幫上很大的忙了。山區的垃圾廢棄必須得簡單又方便，如同城市裡所提供的一樣。

最後還是要呼籲大家，因為疫情影響，人民改為國內旅遊，這是一件好事，多了親山近水的機會，也增加露營野餐烤肉樂趣，讓朋友家人感情更融洽!但是大家在拜訪大自然的同時，更需要以身作則，帶來多少食物垃圾，也請一件不留帶走。野生動物不需要被人類餵食，牠們喜歡自己自食其力，所以不用擔心動物會餓，而故意留下吃剩食物殘渣。揮揮衣袖，請帶走全部垃圾，包含烤肉架，野生動物不需要自己烤肉啦~

還有，大家不要再報復性集中旅遊啦~明明台灣美景青山綠水多到數不清，要記得分散人流，防疫新生活還是要落實，真的不知道去哪裡玩嗎?歡迎大家逛逛我的部落格，我製作了全台300多個景點地圖，可以選偏僻冷門的景點去唷~

One of the most common criticisms I see raised against nature goers and people who post 秘境 online is that visitors bring a lot of trash with them. If these areas have a lot of visitors, the result will be that there is a lot of trash. Nature-lovers are the problem. We can’t open up the wilderness to the general public, because they are irresponsible, and will trash the place. But is that really true? Are tourists the main driver of plastic waste in rivers and mountains? Let’s examine this issue a bit further and try to determine why some waste ends up in the rivers instead of landfills and public waste processing centers.

Unfortunately, some of immature tourists go into nature and leave their trash there. If you visit any popular waterfall or hot spring, chances are you will see some trash there too.

Tourists tend to make two false assumptions. One is that camping trash is burnable. It’s not. Your trash should be separated into waste and recyclables, just like you do at home, and taken out with you. None of your trash should go in the campfire.

The other is that food degrades quickly. It doesn’t. Vegetables and processed foods can months, orange peels, egg shells, bones can take years. If you toss noodles or cabbage into the river, it won’t be eaten by fish. It will stay there for weeks and months and rot and smell. Even if fish and animals did eat your garbage, it’s not your job to feed the wildlife. Viable food seeds end up as invasive species and strange foods make animals sick or die. All excess food should be taken out with you. No exceptions.

Even worse are cigarette butts. Why do smokers not think these toxic bits of plastic and chemicals are trash? This is unacceptable.

As infuriating as this is though, it’s not the biggest source of mountain garbage. There are serious systemic problems relating to garbage collection and disposal that need to be addressed.

This video shows a large trash pile at Hulugu Waterfall in Kaohsiung City, Liugui District. The terrain here is very steep. Any trash thrown into the forest will roll down the hill. When it rains, the lighter plastic products will be washed into the river and flow downstream, into the waterfalls you play at, and eventually to the ocean, and eventually onto a remote beach somewhere.

However, a closer look at the piles shows that this can be misleading: at first glance, it looks like a few styrofoam tea cups and items that people might bring on an outing with them. But as we look closer at the waste, we can see there are buckets, plastic farm sheeting, pesticide bottles, furniture, and general household waste. Items that no hiker would ever bring with them. This waste originated in the mountains, by people who live in the mountains. It was not brought by outsiders.

Neither is this a rare or isolated incident. If you stop at literally any section of mountain road and look over the edge you will see entire trash bags down below you. These are household trash bags that were packed and tied shut at home, then thrown out of the window of moving vehicles. It’s household trash, from houses, not campers, and critical examination of this waste would reveal the source through mail and other documents inside.

Even if it’s only a small percentage of the mountain population, they still have a big impact. Illegal trash dumps in the mountains have an even bigger impact. For whatever reason it is, some mountain dwellers prefer to throw their household waste into the river than dispose of it properly. This is not a stray bag here and there. The average 4 person household generates 1600KG of trash per year in Taiwan. That’s a lot of trash.

Because a single family can generate so much garbage, it’s difficult to tell how widespread this practice is. I’ve seen hundreds of trash bags in the forest by the side of the road. Possibly thousands. But if this is by dozens of families or hundreds of families I can’t say. Plastic lasts for generations.

If you visit rural communities and dispose of your trash in their trash can, there is a possibility that the private trucks they hired to pick up those waste from the restaurant or minsu aren’t taking it to an EPA landfill. Instead of delivering the trash to the final destination, they find an isolated spot nearby and just dump the garbage there. It may end up in one of these dumping sites instead. The mountains are full of them. Some of what you will see in a river is washed down from these illegal landfills.

In many places, entire truckloads of trash are dumped over the side of the roads and into the river below. This isn’t just household waste and furniture, but also construction, farming, and industrial waste too. This type of waste is not something that tourists bring into the mountains. Whoever was in charge of disposing of this waste properly decided to dump it into the forest instead. The government needs to develop a method of confirming that mountain waste reaches its intended destination.

Every year typhoons carry tons of this trash away to the ocean, but the trash piles never go away, because new trucks arrive to refill them.

I used to make videos about them before I became desensitized, but now I just pretend I didn’t see them.

I do understand why some rural household waste doesn’t make it to the correct locations though. I’m from a rural area myself. I didn’t have a trash service where I grew up. We composted food waste. It was dumped into piles far away from the house. We covered them with leaves and let them sit for two years before using it for soil in the garden. Trash and recyclables were separated into different bags. Once a week my dad drove these bags 20 minutes into town to the county dump and recycling center. It was a lot of effort, but recycling and proper waste disposal were very important to my dad, and we also had the resources to do it.

Not everyone on my street did though. Some families did not have the time and resources for proper waste disposal, and so they had piles of trash, appliances, broken down cars, broken toys, etc around their property. It was a very common sight.

In many ways, country living isn’t as easy and convenient as living in the city. Sometimes real life, family, and financial problems take up all your time. Not all families can spend an hour each time they want to take out the trash. Some people can, but just don’t want to. When trash trucks are not available, they will take the most convenient option. The government needs to increase trash pickup options for mountain communities.

What I’ve written here is well known, but not often talked about. Most of the roadside and riverside trash in the mountains isn’t from hikers and waterfall goers. It’s from normal human consumption that never makes it to a landfill. People who live in the mountains don’t like it either. But that’s what it’s like.

That’s why when I see headlines like (殺風景！苦花潭遍地遊客垃圾 部落擬封閉), I can’t help but roll my eyes. Tourists shouldn’t be leaving trash there, but there is also a household forest trash dump less than 100 meters away. There’s trash almost everywhere.

Here are a few examples if you wanna go check em out yourself:
(big): 24.035258, 121.170819
(big): 24.6080971,121.2830025
(small): 22.705481, 120.669413

Fines to individuals won’t help. People have enough problems, otherwise they wouldn’t act this way. Just make it easier to take the trash away. Trash disposal needs to be easy and convenient for mountain communities, just like it is for urban communities.

Finally, I still want to appeal to everyone. Because of the impact of the epidemic, the people have changed to domestic tourism. This is a good thing. There are more opportunities to get close to the mountains and rivers. It also increases the fun of camping and picnic barbecues, so that friends and family can feel more harmonious! But everyone is visiting nature At the same time, it is more necessary to set an example, and please don’t leave any food waste with you. Wild animals do not need to be fed by humans. They like to support themselves, so there is no need to worry that the animals will be hungry and intentionally leave leftover food residue. Flick your sleeves, please take away all the garbage, including the barbecue grill, wild animals don’t need to barbecue by themselves~

It’s clear that Taiwan’s beautiful scenery, green mountains and green waters are countless, remember to disperse the flow of people, and the new life of epidemic prevention still needs to be implemented. Do you really know where to go? Welcome everyone to visit me In my blog, I have made maps of more than 300 scenic spots in Taiwan. You can choose remote and unpopular scenic spots to go to

常常听到大家都说做人一定要有梦想，那么如果真的没有梦想话又怎么办呢？

Canon M50 : http://www.kldslr.com/-AUGUST-Canon-EOS-M50-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera-with-15-45mm-Lens-Black-Canon-Malaysia-Free-Sandisk-32GB-SD-Card-Extra-Original-Battery-Canon-Bag-2599.00.html-18051524533

Smallrig camera cage : https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-cage-for-canon-eos-m50-2168.html

Manfrotto PIXI mini Table Top Tripod : http://www.kldslr.com/Manfrotto-PIXI-Mini-Table-Top-Tripod-Red-Gray-MTPIXI-RD-88.88.html-16111116832



Shot with : Canon M50
Edited with : Final Cut Pro

No external Microphone ( Forgive me for the loud ambience sound around )

Drop a like and Subscribe !
记得点个赞和订阅哦！

► Music Credit: SUNDANCE
Track Name: "Perséphone - Retro Funky (SUNDANCE remix)"
Music By: SUNDANCE @ https://soundcloud.com/sundancemusic
The SUNDANCE Official Website is HERE - http://lefthandmusic.fr/
Follow SUNDANCE on BandCamp: https://sundancemusic.bandcamp.com/
License for commercial use: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Music promoted by NCM https://goo.gl/fh3rEJ