Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Local

Japan trip to study waste ‘is garbage’ – Lawmakers’ visit to incinerators criticised

Sep 5th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Cheung Chi-fai, SCMP

A group of 26 politicians will visit Japan with the environment chief and his officials this month to inspect waste-incineration plants in what one critic branded a “brainwashing” exercise to persuade them to accept such facilities in their areas.

The trip, partially paid for by the Environmental Protection Department, will host members of the Tuen Mun and Islands district councils, whose districts are potential sites for an incinerator capable of handling 3,000 tonnes of waste a day but which oppose the plan.

They will visit incinerators and landfills in Tokyo and Osaka from September 14 to 17.

The department said the tour aimed to give a better understanding of how such advanced facilities worked in Japan, but a district councillor shunning the trip said it served no purpose but brainwashing.

“It is almost certain that only positive things will be displayed,” Yim Tin-sang, a Tuen Mun district councillor, said. “You will have no chance to talk to local green groups or meet opponents.”

But Lam Chung-hoi, another councillor who will take part, said it was their duty to find out the truth about incinerators, though it would be unlikely to soften their stance.

“Officials have been saying how beautiful these incinerators are in Vienna or Japan. We are obliged to understand more if they are telling the whole truth,” he said.

Tuen Mun is often seen as a victim of the government’s poor planning that has resulted in a cluster of polluting facilities, such as a power plant and sludge treatment works in the district.

This week the council passed a resolution opposing a plan to double the size of the landfill, to cope with the city’s mounting waste problem.

The trip will cover at least seven facilities, including the largest waste-burning plant, Shin Koto, in Tokyo, which can process up to 1,800 tonnes of waste daily. Some community facilities associated with these plants are also on the itinerary.

The group includes 17 councillors from Tuen Mun, nine from the Islands, and Heung Yee Kuk chairman Lau Wong-fat and vice-chairman Daniel Lam Wai-keung.

Nearly half of the delegation members are from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, though there are also councillors from the Democratic Party, as well as independents and government-appointed members.

They will be accompanied by Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah and senior department officials.

Hahn Chu Hon-keung, environmental affairs manager of Friends of the Earth, said it was good for politicians to learn how other places were managing their waste. But the study trip should not just focus on technology but also on policies.

Japan not only had some of the most advanced incineration technologies but one of the highest densities of incinerators. Some are even located within city centres.

Toxic mix

Aug 27th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Christine Loh – SCMP

Hong Kong will be stuck with a large number of ageing, dirty buses for at least another decade

It is good to see that the focus of debate on the government’s proposed air quality objectives and clean-up measures is fixed firmly on reducing roadside pollution. It’s equally pleasing that the 6,000-odd buses, which contribute about 40 per cent of roadside pollution, are under the microscope.

However, rationalising bus routes, which is now receiving a great deal of attention, is unlikely to deliver the reductions in roadside concentrations of pollutants that we need to make a major impact.

There are two interconnected reasons for this. First, the bus fleet is an integral part of the transport network – it is affordable and comprehensive, and, because of all this, it is convenient. Many people, especially those on lower incomes, depend greatly on buses for their daily commute.

Bus rationalisation efforts between the government and bus operators have reduced the number of buses on some routes, thereby easing traffic congestion that also helps to reduce exhaust emissions from buses. From the public’s perspective, passengers have no problem with rationalisation as long as services remain reasonably convenient.

Second, passengers and their district councillors (for whom this issue is an opportunity to show commitment to their constituents) have a vested interest in retaining bus services at current levels.

The idea that passengers may have to wait a few minutes longer for the next bus, or that some bus stops may have to be eliminated to improve traffic flow, have come unstuck because of the assumption that this will cause greater inconvenience. Politicians in this case need to expend too much political capital that may not be worthwhile.

This is why end-of-pipe solutions – finding answers to a problem at the final stage of its cycle of causes and effects – are more attractive than ones involving management, planning and road pricing. Thus, politicians and government officials prefer taking the “easier route” to focus on reducing pollutants emitted by buses.

The good news here is that Hong Kong’s standards for new buses are broadly compatible with those of other developed cities. The bad news is that a whopping 75 per cent of the fleet is still running on highly polluting Euro II-standard engines, or worse.

And this is where Hong Kong is stuck. According to the Environmental Protection Department, the last of these buses is not due for retirement until 2019, and no mechanism exists to get them off the road any earlier. This means that, rather than upgrade their fleets, the bus companies will continue – perfectly legally, if not altogether responsibly – to run their toxic clunkers for at least another decade. This is clearly unacceptable.

So what should be done to clean up? Singapore is upgrading its equally dirty fleet to the substantially cleaner Euro V standards and will have a much cleaner fleet than Hong Kong, and much sooner.

Slow coach Hong Kong could also consider a range of other, even cleaner, options. London, for example, is trying out hybrid buses, while 20 per cent of Berlin’s buses now run on hydrogen – the cleanest of all fuels.

Buses in both mainland China and the US use natural gas, and electric trolley buses operate in many cities worldwide. In short, there are plenty of options.

So why not in Hong Kong? Much is made of our unique combination of a hot and humid climate, hilly terrain and heavy congestion. Certainly, there are technical issues that need to be resolved. But many of our buses run along flat routes.

The real problem is that there are no mechanisms in the bus franchises, air pollution legislation or current government consultation for revising air quality standards either to provide incentives for trials of new technologies or to force the dirtiest vehicles off the roads.

We know the problem, there are tried and tested solutions, and Hong Kong has the resources to create both the “carrots and sticks” that could quickly and effectively drive change.

But, until the government mandates the retirement of these dirty buses, we will all be sucking down the same toxic cocktail for another 10 years. Moreover, as other cities combine tail-pipe solutions with planning, pricing and management ones, Hong Kong may well be left behind for even longer if we do not act.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chairman of the Clean Air Network and chief executive of the think tank Civic Exchange

Little headway made in bid to cut bus trips

Aug 24th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Cheung Chi-fai and Anita Lam – SCMP

Bus trips have been cut by just a fraction on the city’s busiest traffic corridors in the past three years despite the government’s programme to streamline the routes of the three franchised bus companies.

Last year, just 360 daily trips were cut from the target routes of Nathan Road in Tsim Sha Tsui, Yee Wo Street in Causeway Bay and Des Voeux Road, Connaught Road and Queen’s Road Central.

This was fewer than 1 per cent of the 37,000 daily bus trips on these corridors, Transport Department figures and the department’s latest environmental report show.

But this was an improvement from 2007 and 2006.

Numerous proposals have been suggested over the years to cut bus trips but the conflicting interests of commuters, politicians, bus companies and railway operators have meant few have gone ahead.

The streamlining is aimed at shortening or amalgamating overlapping routes, rationalising bus frequency and relocating bus stops.

It peaked in 2005, when more than 1,100 daily trips were axed.

There are now concerns the streamlining efforts have reached their limit, despite the Environment Bureau’s recent proposal to further cut trips by 10 per cent to improve roadside air quality. The bureau, in its review of air-quality objectives, said such exercises were cost-effective and improved air quality considerably, but it also acknowledged the moves were unpopular among commuters and politicians.

An official familiar with the situation said that with so many vested interests, including opposition at the district level, there was not much “fat to trim” unless there were more rail services.

Transport Department figures show 4,373 bus trips have been cut in the three busiest corridors since 2002. Between Shantung Street and Dundas Street in Nathan Road, for example, buses made up 44 per cent of all traffic in 2003. This had fallen to 29.9 per cent last year.

But on weekdays there are still an average of 11 buses passing that section every minute, and in the mornings, one in every two vehicles is a double-decker bus.

In Des Voeux Road Central, the bus trip ratio reaches nearly 70 per cent in the morning and stands at more than 30 per cent for the rest of the day.

While franchised buses are the second-most-used form of public transport after rail, carrying 3.7 million passengers a day, the diesel-fuelled buses are blamed for deteriorating roadside air quality. They account for 6 per cent of suspended particles emitted by the total vehicle fleet.

The three major operators, Kowloon Motor Bus, New World First Bus and Citybus, have 5,600 vehicles serving 600 routes.

Among these routes, at least 57 serve the southbound Nathan Road section between Shantung Street and Waterloo Road, while 40 ply eastbound Yee Woo Street in Causeway Bay. Many are heading to the same destination when they converge on these key spots. For example, KMB’s routes 6 and 6A originate at Mei Foo and neighbouring Lai Chi Kok but both head to the Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry via Nathan Road.

The traffic census last year showed that an average double-decker bus in Nathan Road was carrying 24 people, while it had 100 seats. Yau Tsim Mong district councillor Henry Chan Man-yu said this was because many commuters got off before the buses reached the end of the route in Nathan Road.

“The commuters are scattered among the vast number of routes converging into Nathan Road from all over Kowloon and the New Territories, which drags down occupancy rates,” he said.

An Environment Bureau spokesman said the bureau had no concrete plan on how to achieve the 10 per cent target. But it hoped the cut could mainly come from non-peak-hour services. He said the completion of new rail services could further cut bus trips, but the drop would still depend on public acceptance.

Many suggestions have been made to get commuters to use trains in preference to buses since the government decided 10 years ago that rail travel should be the backbone of the city’s transport system.

To get buses out of busy corridors such as Nathan Road and Causeway Bay, officials have proposed passengers get off at transport interchanges on the edge of the busy districts, switching to the MTR or circular bus routes within the area. But this idea was dropped even before the public had a chance to air its views.

“There is not enough space to house such a big interchange,” an official familiar with the proposal said. “Besides, commuters simply do not like switching transportation when they are a few stops before their destination.”

The officer said the Transport Department had considered Mei Foo, Prince Edward and Admiralty as possible locations but none were feasible for buses.

“After stopping at Admiralty for example, some buses must return to Kowloon and the New Territories, which means they will have to pass through Wan Chai and Causeway Bay anyway,” he said.

So how about offering commuters bus-rail interchange fare concessions so some bus routes do not have to run parallel to railway lines?

The department said it encouraged public-transport operators to offer interchange fare discounts, but with no government subsidies the operators would only do it when there were mutual benefits.

At present, only 14 among more than 600 bus routes offer bus-rail interchange concessions, and some free feeder bus services are in danger of being cut since the opening of the Kowloon Southern Link last week.

As for the proposals submitted to the 18 district councils every year on shortening, removing or reducing the frequency of various bus routes, it is no surprise how they are received by an affected community.

“Keeping a bus route that may be chopped otherwise – even though it carries only four passengers a bus – is one of the greatest achievements a district councillor can put on his political portfolio,” Mr Chan said.

And if one district backs the removal of a bus route, the department still needs the support of the other districts covered by the service before a decision can be made.

Fewer than 10 routes were removed in each of the past three years, and the department’s target in late 2006 to eliminate 100 buses was only half met.

The latest idea by the Environmental Protection Department to ban commercial vehicles that do not meet the toughest European emission standards from busy corridors is under public consultation.

Either way we pay

Aug 15th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

ALBERT CHENG, SCMP

Air pollution has been a grim perennial problem in Hong Kong, posing a risk not only to the health of seven million citizens, but the city’s image as an international financial centre. Filthy air is choking our economic development by scaring away foreign investors.

Hongkongers have for many years blamed the city’s poor air quality on the polluting factories on the other side of the border. Indeed, many of these factories have suspended operation since the economic downturn began last year. But, despite this, our air quality remains atrocious, which has unequivocally proved that the pollution is local. It is mainly caused by emissions from vehicles including pre-Euro I diesel models and from our two power stations that burn cheap coal. Both are believed to be responsible for contributing 30 per cent and 15 per cent of air pollutants, respectively.

The environment minister, Edward Yau Tang-wah, recently unveiled 19 measures to achieve new air-quality objectives as part of a two-year review to overhaul the 1987 objectives. The government hopes that these measures, expected to cost about HK$600 million a year, will bring benefits of HK$1.2 billion a year as a result of the improvement in public health and savings in energy costs. But the public will need to cough up higher power tariffs and bus fares in return.

These measures include an increased use of natural gas in the energy mix, the early retirement of heavily polluting vehicles such as double-decker buses, and rationalising existing bus routes. Mr Yau stressed that an overall improvement in air quality would bring immediate benefits. As this is a collective responsibility, every citizen should be prepared to accept a 20 per cent rise in electricity tariffs and a 15 per cent increase in bus fares.

On the other hand, if we chose to do nothing, the economic costs in terms of public health and economic impacts would be massive.

The government is in actual fact advocating a “consumer-pays” principle to fund the clean-up, which I believe is reasonably acceptable. It is indisputably our civic responsibility to protect our environment and make Hong Kong a better home, but a fair share of this should be shouldered by the administration.

It is time the government reviewed its public transport policy, of which a top priority should be to reduce the number of polluting vehicles. Besides making sure that we have cleaner power plants, cleaner fuels and cleaner vehicles, we also need improved traffic management. One effective way would be to force franchised bus companies to downsize their fleets to lower total emissions.

Street-level pollution, which is worryingly high, comes almost wholly from the vehicles on our roads. Therefore, traffic flows need to be managed more efficiently, and the number of vehicles must be reduced dramatically.

We have four franchised bus companies, providing overlapping bus services that are not only wasteful but ultimately clog our roads while churning out toxic fumes that damage our health. But there is little incentive for franchisees to reduce their fleets, which bring in lucrative revenues by doubling as mobile billboards.

To further compound the problem, most district councillors often object to rationalisation of bus routes to avoid upsetting their constituents. If only they could be more objective and see that fewer buses would ease traffic congestion and, as a result, shorten commute times. Besides, our city is too small to warrant four franchised bus companies. The government should consider pushing for a merger to consolidate their services. This would give Hong Kong a more efficient and sustainable public transport system; while at the same time improve overall air quality without having to shift the financial burden to the general public.

We can no longer disregard the magnitude of Hong Kong’s air pollution and every one of us should be prepared to make sacrifices to minimise our environmental footprint. A Native American proverb sums it up pertinently: “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.”

Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator. taipan@albertcheng.hk

Fresh thoughts

Aug 6th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP

Any cross-border clean-up of air pollution must require co-operation among regional authorities. Opportunities for strong collaboration can be created and sustained, but Hong Kong must make this happen. A good place to start is our own government’s consultation on reviewing local air quality standards.

I’m often asked whether people across the border are sufficiently aware about environmental problems to want to do something about them. Studies clearly show a high level of public concern in the Pearl River Delta. In 2001-2002, when Civic Exchange worked with a Shenzhen organisation on the first environmental survey of public attitudes in the PRD, air pollution ranked third among people’s environmental concerns, behind food safety and clean drinking water. At the time there had been a spate of illnesses linked to contaminated food and water.

Further studies since then provide a clearer picture of what our neighbours think. In 2007, the mainland-based Horizon Research Consultancy Group surveyed the environmental attitudes of residents in 10 major cities. Among the nation’s many severe environmental problems, the health affects of air pollution was the leading concern. Urban air pollution was ranked the most urgent national environmental problem by 64 per cent of respondents. These results were corroborated by a Pew Global Attitudes Survey last year that found 74 per cent of Chinese respondents said air pollution was a serious problem.

Curiously, when residents in the 10 cities were asked in 2007 to rate their local air quality, many thought it was good or even very good. This may indicate that people have become accustomed to heavy air pollution and did not have sufficient information to know the severity of pollution. For example, half the residents of Beijing thought their city had moderate air quality, even though available data showed it was poor. Only 14 per cent said air quality was bad or very bad. In the case of Hong Kong’s neighbour, Guangzhou, 38 per cent thought air quality was good or very good, 32 per cent thought it was “neutral” – neither good nor bad – and only 30 per cent thought it was bad or very bad. Nevertheless, among the 10 mainland cities, Guangzhou residents were the least happy with the local air quality.

The 2007 survey tested whether residents thought economic growth was more important than environmental protection. A substantial majority, 77 per cent, favoured environmental protection even if it had negative impacts on the economy. The survey also explored people’s choice if the city were to set up a business that could provide more than 1,000 jobs but would cause pollution at the same time. Sixty-six per cent said they would object to it.

Some may argue that the mainland economy in 2007 was in much better shape and that people might respond differently today. This may be true but the point is the survey tells us mainland city dwellers are willing to consider sacrificing a degree of economic growth for a better environment.

In terms of how to improve environmental conditions, the mainland respondents wanted better public policies, higher penalties for offenders, better environmental technology, and improved laws and regulations. They also thought the most effective way to make their voices heard was through the media, local neighbourhood committees and even complaining directly to the authorities.

These findings provide a useful foundation to move ahead. Hong Kong’s moves to clean up its air through cleaner power plants and factories, integrated land use, cleaner fuels and electric vehicles, improved traffic management and other policies will set the pace for the rest of the nation.

By working closely with Shenzhen and Guangzhou to clean up shipping- and port-related emissions, Hong Kong can help the region adopt green port policies that are on par with those in the US and Europe.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org

Cleaner air objectives are inadequate

Jul 30th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP

We welcome the long-overdue review of air quality objectives and the newly proposed strategies for air pollution control by the Environmental Protection Department.

The underlying principles of protecting public health, the long-term goal of adopting the targets set by the World Health Organisation and the need for a regular review of Hong Kong’s air quality objectives, are all clearly stated in the review document. However, the recommended objectives are unnecessarily conservative.

Rather than aiming for the WHO’s stringent air quality guidelines, the department has chosen to adopt the interim targets, which are inadequate for health protection.

For example, the newly recommended objectives for annual PM10 (particulates) concentrations, set at the WHO Interim Target 2 of 50 micrograms per cubic metre, is a decrease of only 5mcg per square metre from the outdated objective of 55mcg. Both values far exceed the WHO guideline of 20mcg. All other air quality objectives are, where applicable, set at the even more lenient WHO Interim Targets 1. The absence of a timetable for the achievement of these new targets, and for the adoption of the next targets, gives the public no indication as to when Hong Kong is expected to reach the ultimate air quality guidelines.

The Environmental Protection Department recommends 19 strategies and lays out cost-benefit analyses of the options. The findings of a cost-benefit approach depend on the comprehensiveness of the list of benefits and how they are valued and are too technical for a public consultation. It would be easier for the public to understand if the actual health consequences, for example the number of lives that could be saved, or episodes of illness that could be avoided, are presented for each strategy.

The department’s strategies are limited by thinking inside the box. The control of old diesel vehicles is a useful and important strategy, but alternative modes of transport, such as trolley buses, light rail and modernised trams, are not even mentioned.

While marine air pollution from ocean-going vessels is also recognised as a problem, its solution – which requires a joint effort between all of the ports in the Pearl River Delta and major seaports further north – has not been addressed. Air pollution continues to pose a major public health problem in Hong Kong. The government must take bolder control measures to improve our air quality.

Wong Tze-wai, professor, Sian Griffiths, director, Andromeda Wong, research assistant, school of public health, faculty of medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Clean-air investment will reap big returns

Jul 27th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP

A business plan that projects returns of HK$1.2 billion for a HK$600 million investment sounds like an excellent deal. Company executives would scrutinise the details to ensure that there were no hidden costs or loopholes. Department heads would argue over where cuts could be made to finance the project. Driving all involved, though, would be the understanding that this was an offer too good to pass up and that it had to be clinched as a matter of urgency.

This is, in essence, the deal Hong Kong’s government has laid out for four months of public debate with its package of 19 proposals to toughen air quality standards. Unveiling the scheme last Thursday after years of discussion, authorities made plain the costs and benefits. They estimated an investment of HK$600 million was needed to cut polluting emissions, while conceded that this was by no means a definitive figure. In return, our city would get HK$1.2 billion in benefits, ranging from paying less for energy to longer life.

If Hong Kong was a company – a matter not too difficult to imagine – approving such a deal would be a no-brainer. Yet as happens so often with wide-ranging proposals, the discussion is quickly turning from how to make it happen and addressing the shortcomings, to whether the community can bear the cost. Some companies are already complaining that they will have no choice but to increase their charges; others contend that they will be forced out of business. A scheme that has been too long in coming and does not offer a timetable could well be delayed and watered-down – as experience has time and again shown.

Such was the case with the recently introduced levy on plastic shopping bags and implementation of the final stage of the smoking ban in indoor public places. Until their introduction, Hong Kong for years trailed other parts of the developed world. For the same reason, the recycling of waste is still at a rudimentary stage, idling vehicle engines are permitted and electronic road pricing continues to be off the government’s radar. The inaction and part-measures mean that the benefits are either never realised or only partly attained.

The temptation to follow this route with the air-quality objectives has to be fought down. Hong Kong is living by 22-year-old standards, and pollution levels have risen markedly in that time. We have since become only too aware of the contribution of emissions from power plants, factories and vehicles to health and climate change. New World Health Organisation guidelines have to be embraced promptly to the highest practicable levels.

Among the government’s proposals are car-free zones and using more gas to generate power. Highly polluting vehicles would be barred from low-emission zones and phased out. Electricity charges were projected to rise by at least 20 per cent and bus fares by 15 per cent. But our air would be cleaner and healthier. Such measures are investments in Hong Kong’s future. They make our city more liveable and attractive to investors and visitors. There are some costs and the community as a whole, or parts of it, will have to pay – exactly who must do so should be the focus of debate. That needs to be a robust, vigorous debate. But the benefits are so far-reaching that there should be no hesitation about putting the measures in place.

A publicly listed company that repeatedly gave short shrift to golden investment opportunities would fall foul of shareholders. Questions would quickly be raised about the manner in which the firm was being operated. Investors would take flight. The analogy is one that the government must keep firmly in mind as it steers Hong Kong towards cleaner skies and less dangerous air on our streets.

Air quality should meet strictest WHO guideline, 71pc in poll say

Jul 27th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Amy Nip – SCMP

The government should set new air quality objectives in line with the toughest guidelines proposed by the World Health Organisation, 71 per cent of respondents to a green group’s survey said.

A survey conducted by Lingnan University for Greenpeace polled 532 people this month. Some 380 respondents, or 71.4 per cent, agreed or strongly agreed that the government should work with the most demanding guidelines regardless of cost.

The government launched a four-month public consultation on air quality objectives last Thursday and has proposed standards based on criteria sanctioned by the WHO in 2005 – 10 to 64 per cent more stringent than existing ones.

Nevertheless, the new criteria could still be too low to achieve an improvement in Hong Kong’s air quality, Greenpeace said.

The survey suggested people were unsatisfied with the quality of the air they are breathing. Some 80 per cent of respondents said they thought there was satisfactory air quality on only half the days in a year.

In contrast, Greenpeace estimated the levels of two pollutants – suspended particles and sulphur dioxide – at the Causeway Bay roadside station will fall within the new objectives proposed by the government for 84 per cent of the time.

“I don’t think any citizen would find air quality in Causeway Bay satisfactory for 80 per cent of the time,” Greenpeace member Prentice Koo Wai-muk said.

The current sulphur dioxide standard for Hong Kong is 350 micrograms per cubic metre in 24 hours. The government proposes to lower the new objective to 125mcg per cubic metre in 24 hours, while the strictest WHO guideline says it should be 20mcg.

Business groups back air quality plan, despite activists’ criticism

Jul 25th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

Cheung Chi-fai and Paggie Leung, SCMP

Two major business groups have thrown their weight behind the air quality improvement plan unveiled by the government two days ago, despite reservations voiced by a clean air advocacy group.

Teresa Au, deputy chairwoman of the General Chamber of Commerce environment and sustainability committee, said it was worth paying for better air, which was vital to the city’s competitiveness and attractiveness to overseas talent.

“There is always a price for better environment and long-term benefits will require some short-term investments,” she said.

Suen Kai-lit, the new chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, also backed the plan, saying: “We support the government putting in more effort to improve the environment, even if it needs to use taxpayers’ money.”

But the Clean Air Network, a newly formed advocacy group on air quality, said even if the new targets were met, it would not be enough to prevent harm from bad air.

A consultation paper has proposed a set of air quality objectives and 19 control measures to attain them. It offered no timetable but said the measures had the potential to increase the average life expectancy of city dwellers by a month.

Ms Au said the lack of a timetable would give officials room to negotiate with power firms and bus operators who would be asked to use cleaner fuel and phase out polluting vehicles.

She said the chamber would submit a detailed response later.

Mr Suen said that if power stations had to use cleaner raw materials to improve air quality, consumers would be prepared to pay more for electricity.

But the Clean Air Network said if the measures were implemented, there would still be at least 950 premature deaths a year, compared with about 1,100 based on emissions figures for 2007.

The estimates were projected from the Hedley Index, developed by local scientists, which tracks the health and economic costs of pollution.

Lai Hak-kan of the University of Hong Kong’s department of community medicine said new sulphur dioxide targets could be worse than the existing ones as they allowed more exemptions.

“We are surrounded by ports in the region and many ocean-going vessels are using dirty fuel loaded with sulphur. But we do not see the government taking it seriously,” he said.

Meanwhile, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah told RTHK that the consultation was “not all about expenses”.

“The energy-efficiency measures can give savings to consumers and rationalising bus routes costs almost nothing and saves running costs.”

Plans for cleaner air are welcome, if overdue

Jul 24th, 2009
by AdminCTA.
Comments are off for this post

SCMP

If there is one thing on which there has long been consensus it is that we would like to breathe cleaner air – for our health’s sake. The public consultation announced yesterday on an upgrade of the city’s air-quality objectives should therefore convey a sense of urgency. Instead it lacks a timetable and is hedged with political caveats on proposed clean-air measures, such as whether people are prepared to meet the cost or adjust to inconvenience.

Of course, some will object to paying more for electricity or bus rides, or doing without under-patronised off-peak bus services, or replacing polluting commercial vehicles. No one wants to be presented with the bill, least of all the less well off. But the time has long since passed when such difficulties justify not doing more to reduce air pollution. If the consultation does not tackle them, the government must, even if this means devising a socially equitable sharing of the burden and subsidising costs.

For all that, the consultation is welcome, if overdue. It is nearly three years since the World Health Organisation issued revised global air-quality guidelines to minimise risk to health and life expectancy, with softer interim targets to enable governments to take into account local economic and political factors. It was two years before the government committed to adopting new targets in stages for our city’s air-quality objectives. The consultation paper, based on a review by a consultant, is the result.

Meanwhile, the government has made incremental progress in tackling emissions from power generation, transport and industry, and co-operating with the mainland to mitigate pollution. But the resulting improvement in air quality at rooftop level has raised false hopes. As this newspaper reported earlier this month, analysis of roadside pollution levels in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok during the first half of this year showed that it was above the “very high” 100 mark for the equivalent of 44 days – six times worse than in 2005.

The government has adopted less demanding interim targets than the WHO guidelines for the key pollutants sulphur dioxide, ozone and fine air particles – the ones that were tightened the most. But this takes account of the contribution of pollution from the mainland. And for the first time Hong Kong is to have a standard for fine air particles – the most dominant and most hazardous to health – which the United States and Europe have had for a long time.

It is disappointing, however, that the pace of implementation of new emission control measures has been left to the public consultation. The lack of a timetable for stronger air-quality objectives does not reflect the urgency of the WHO report on the growing death toll from pollution and its impact on the quality of life.

That said, the consultation does propose a wide range of measures to cap and control emissions, backed up by initiatives such as car-free and low-emission traffic zones, bus route rationalisation and mandatory building energy codes. If and when they are all implemented, the anticipated social and economic benefits include a drop of more than 4,000 a year in hospital admissions attributable to air pollution, enhanced life expectancy and economic benefits in public health, and energy savings of more than HK$1.2 billion – double the economic cost of introducing them.

The consultation paper asks respondents: are you willing to bear the cost of emission control measures, such as higher power bills and bus fares? For the sake of our health, the community has no choice but to say yes.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →