Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Marine

China produces about a third of plastic waste polluting the world’s oceans, says report

13 February, 2015

Li Jing

Plastic bottles, barrels, bags, toothbrushes and even syringes are piled high around rural villagers and migrant workers tasked with recycling it.

They sort, clean and break up the rubbish before putting the pieces into furnaces where they are melted and remoulded, eventually to be processed into small granules.

The scene is typical of many family-run plastic recycling mills clustered in rural areas of Hebei, Shandong and Jiangsu provinces, to name a few, according to independent documentary director Wang Jiuliang, who has been filming the business for several years.

Yet the tale shows just one side of China’s huge plastic footprint. A study published this week in the journal Science said China was responsible for nearly 30 per cent of the plastic pollution clogging the world’s oceans.

The environmental and health impacts of China’s unregulated plastic recycling business were immense: the cleaning process pollutes waterways, melting and burning the scraps released toxic pollutants into the air, and leftover pieces unfit for recycling were dumped directly into riverbeds, Wang said.

His documentary, Plastic Kingdom, tells the story of how an 11-year-old girl almost became one such plastic recycler spending three years helping her parents – who wanted to make enough money from the business to send her to school, but failed.

According to the new study, led by Jenna Jambeck, an assistant professor of environment engineering at the University of Georgia, an estimated eight million tonnes of waste plastic enters the oceans each year from the world’s 192 countries with coastlines, based on 2010 data.

China’s heavily populated coastal cities contributed between 1.3 million and 3.5 million tonnes of the waste, the study found.

Chen Liwen, a researcher with the environmental group Nature University in Beijing, who has focused on the problem in her research, was not surprised by the findings.

“Plastic waste that has no value for recycling is either burned directly or dumped in waterways and eventually ends up in the sea. This is very common in China’s rural areas, where there is no waste management in place,” she said. Such waste includes thin plastic bags and plastic foam, used for food packaging.

China banned such bags in 2008, but enforcement is lax. The prohibition on plastic foam was lifted in 2013, sparking criticism from environmentalists, but even when the ban was in place, about 15 billion disposable plastic lunch boxes were produced every year, official statistics say.

Meanwhile, China was also the world’s largest importer of plastic waste, much of it from the United States, according to Wang, the filmmaker. Some plastic waste was even smuggled into China, as some areas of the business had become very profitable.

The study, published on Thursday, also found eight of the top 10 biggest contributors to the problem were in Asia, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh.

The US, the only wealthy industrialised nation in the top 20, ranked at No20. Coastal European Union nations combined would rank 18th. This is mostly because developed countries had systems to trap and collect plastic waste, Jambeck said.

The findings mark the most detailed assessment yet of the scale of plastic waste circulating in the oceans, imperiling wildlife and blighting once-pristine sites.

Jambeck projects that by 2025 the total accumulated plastic waste in the oceans will reach around 155 million tonnes. That’s based on population trends and continued waste management disposal problems, although there may be some early signs of change, she said. “We need to wake up and see our waste,” Jambeck said. “I think the problem in some ways has sort of snuck up around us.”

Researchers estimated more than nine million tonnes would end up in the oceans this year.

Additional reporting by Bloomberg and Associated Press

http://www.scmp.com/article/1711744/china-produces-about-third-plastic-waste-polluting-worlds-oceans-says-report

Disturbing U-turn on flawed environmental report for third runway

Friday, 12 September, 2014

Samantha Lee

The Advisory Council on the Environment will meet on Monday to discuss whether to advise the Environmental Protection Department to give the green light to the third-runway plan. After a closed-door meeting of the council’s impact assessment subcommittee last week, the majority of members now appear to support endorsing the Airport Authority’s environmental impact report.

This is a complete reversal from last month, when most council members criticised the measures proposed to lessen the project’s effect on Chinese white dolphins. What made them change their mind?

Two main concerns were initially raised. First, the proposal for a marine park was deemed “too little, too late”, as it would not be located in a key dolphin habitat and would only be set up after the construction phase.

Second, nothing was proposed to lessen the impact on the dolphins of the more than 300 vessels travelling daily in and around the construction site. In addition, the species would suffer a permanent loss of 650 hectares of habitat.

Then came the turnaround. On September 1, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department suddenly announced that it was ready to designate two new marine parks – proposed 14 years ago – off Lantau Island by 2017.

The department has denied any link between these new parks and plans for the third runway. Yet, one day after the announcement, the council’s impact assessment subcommittee held another meeting, at which the majority of members said they would approve the Airport Authority’s environmental impact assessment report for the third runway.

The reasons for this U-turn are difficult to fathom.

The marine park announcement cannot be used to facilitate approval of the third runway. If members really want the two marine parks to help alleviate the project’s impact on the dolphins, they need to be discussed in the context of the third runway; the first step being an extension of the new parks’ boundaries to link up with existing marine parks near Tai O. Some council members may also have been swayed by the Airport Authority’s new 30-page plan released on September 2, which suggests financing conservation and research on marine ecology and fisheries. Yet there are doubts about some of the scientific claims in the report. Further, the authority describes it as “supplementary information”, casting doubt on whether the suggestions would actually be implemented.

Then there is the fact that the plan lacks any effective measures to alleviate or compensate for the loss of marine habitat caused by reclamation work during the building of the third runway.

In fact, none of the proposed marine parks would lessen the impact of the large-scale reclamation work. So why the sudden change of heart by council members when no progress has been made? It’s disturbing, when the authority’s impact assessment report clearly remains substandard and flawed.

Council members must make decisions in the best interest of Hong Kong’s environment. If the impact of the project cannot be properly addressed with the proposed measures, then the council is duty-bound to reject the impact assessment report.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/article/1590821/disturbing-u-turn-onflawed-environmental-report-third-runway

Airport Authority expert’s ‘fairy-tale’ predictions about marine park questioned

Government advisers on Monday were highly sceptical of the Airport Authority’s assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed third runway at the airport, with one expert consultant’s predictions about a new marine park questioned.

But the authority said they were “confident” the environmental advisers would eventually give a green light to the project.

The remarks came on the first of three days of meetings being held by the Advisory Council on the Environment, which will offer its view to the government on whether measures outlined by the Airport Authority for offsetting the environmental impact of a third runway are sufficient.

The authority has proposed designating a nearby site as a marine park in 2023 after the runway is built. It’s consultant, marine biologist Dr Thomas Jefferson, said numbers of Chinese white dolphins living in the north Lantau area would drop during construction but rebound later when the marine park is designated.

“Dolphins are very complex animals … they have the ability to move around,” Jefferson had said in June.

Council member Dr Hung Wing-tat said the authority needed to present data showing how many Chinese white dolphins would return to the area once the proposed 2,400 hectare marine park – connecting the existing Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park with a planned Brothers Islands marine park – is designated.

Watch: SCMP took a look at Hong Kong’s pink dolphin habitat

“You speak of creating a fairy tale … a paradise … How can you make sure that in seven years time [in 2023] there will be peace in that area for the dolphins? How can you ensure that there won’t be any other disturbing activities?” he asked.

“This will set a very bad a priori case for any [future] project… Others may have the same theory [that the dolphins will come back] too.”

Jefferson had based his prediction in part on the experience of dolphins returning to the area after the initial construction of the airport at Chek Lap Kok.

This was dismissed by council member Dr Gary Ades as “comparing a grape with an apple”.

But Peter Lee, the authority’s general manager for environmental projects, said he was confident the council would eventually give them the green light.

“We are confident that our mitigation measures … are sufficient and appropriate for mitigating the impacts from our projects.”

The authority on Monday revealed four additional measures to mitigate the impacts of the project on the dolphins, including a cap on the number of high-speed ferries from the SkyPier at its current level of 99 per day and conducting night studies on dolphin activity.

A coalition of green groups including the Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society, Greenpeace, WWF-Hong Kong and Friends of the Earth protested next to the venue of the meeting.

They urged the council not to rubber stamp the authority’s mitigation proposals and to reject them.

WWF-HK assistant conservation manager Samantha Lee Klaus said the authority was adopting a “destroy first, conserve later” approach.

Monday, 11 August, 2014

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1571451/airport-authority-experts-fairy-tale-predictions-about-marine-park

Third runway decision on hold over dolphin habitat concerns

Wednesday, 20 August, 2014

Cheung Chi-fai

Airport officials’ measures to protect dolphins during building of third airstrip ‘unconvincing’, says subcommittee studying impact report

Prospects for a proposed third runway at Hong Kong International Airport seemed uncertain yesterday as environment advisers delayed their decision on whether to approve its environmental impact assessment study.

The advisers – from a subcommittee under the Advisory Council on the Environment – were concerned about how adequate and effective measures to mitigate the project’s impact on the threatened Chinese white dolphin habitat would be.

If the study is approved and the HK$130 billion project is given the go-ahead, some 650 hectares of prime habitat for the shrinking dolphin population would be lost to land reclamation for the third runway. Construction would last from 2016 to 2023.

The Airport Authority will respond in writing to further queries from the subcommittee, before another meeting on Monday for the advisers to deliberate their decision.

The subcommittee, which has spent 15 hours in three days grilling the authority’s officials on the environmental impact assessment study, met yesterday afternoon to discuss whether to recommend the advisory council to endorse the report.

But by the end of the meeting, it had still not drawn a conclusion on the city’s single most costly infrastructure project. The council has to submit its views by late next month to the environmental protection director, who will then decide whether to issue a work permit for the project.

A subcommittee member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said members at the meeting “freely expressed their opinions” about the report and what outstanding issues had to be further addressed by the authority.

“We haven’t come to the time to indicate our preference,” he said. “This takes time as … environmental impact assessment is a very complex issue.”

Another member said the subcommittee had a number of doubts on the mitigation measures to protect the dolphins during construction and what could be done to draw them back after the work is done. The authority’s replies had been unconvincing, he said.

The authority has so far agreed to set up a 2,400 hectare marine park to compensate for the habitat loss, but will build the park only after the runway is completed in 2023.

It also promised to re-route its Skypier high-speed ferry services and lower the ferries’ speeds during construction, but rejected suggestions to relocate the pier from the east to the west side of the airport.

The authority’s other mitigating measures include adopting a non-dredging reclamation method to reduce underwater noise that would affect the dolphins, and to set up an eco-enhancement fund to support dolphin research.

The subcommittee member said the group was also concerned about the authority’s role as a proponent of the large-scale project that would involve various government departments.

“The authority can’t speak for the government, and this leads to the question: to what extent does it have the power to do what it has pledged to do,” he said.

Samuel Hung Ka-yiu, a dolphin expert who has been opposing the runway project, said he was pessimistic that the subcommittee would reject the controversial project.

“The government’s hands are everywhere and officials will make sure that the project is passed,” he said.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1577141/government-advisers-hold-back-giving-nod-third-runway

Endangered dolphins deserve better than flawed airport report

Sunday, 17 August, 2014

“Dolphins v Development” has become the overarching focus of the controversial struggle raging over Chek Lap Kok airport’s proposed third runway: just how much of a threat the development poses to the habitat of Chinese white dolphins and other marine life and land-based organisms in the area.

As a group of University of Hong Kong ecology alumni, we applied our professional knowledge of environmental conservation to review the Airport Authority Hong Kong’s Third Runway Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – in particular, the quality of the judgments about the ecological impacts on marine life and plants and animals on land.

Overall, we believe this report has several major technical deficiencies and failed to meet the standard required by the Technical Memorandum issued, under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, which aims to avoid, minimise and control the project’s adverse impacts on the environment.

It played down the need to conserve potentially important fish spawning and nursery water areas, and sensitive species, such as a soft coral found only in the western waters of Hong Kong, rare yellow seahorses and longtooth groupers.

Many assessment methods were inappropriate, based on limited scientific support. A minimal loss of the carrying capacity of dolphins’ habitats was predicted, but this was not supported by careful modelling. The estimated low impact on egrets was made without assessing the combined effects of multiple disturbances on birds. There were also questionable results, and mistakes in surveying the impact on fisheries.

The effectiveness of some proposed measures to mitigate the effect of the new runway was often exaggerated. It was expected dolphins will move away from the construction area but “return” once finished. Even assuming they will reappear, suggested rules for vessel speeds and volume will still be unsafe for them.

Also the new marine park, proposed as a major mitigation measure, will be designated only seven years after construction of the runway has begun. Yet the project proponent will have no jurisdiction over exactly where it will be located, or how it will be carried out. Similarly, there were misleading claims about new runway structures providing foraging grounds for birds because bird control will be enforced at the airport.

Owing to a lack of scientific support for the EIA report, and unreliable claims of the effectiveness of mitigation measures, it would be best for the Environmental Protection Department’s decision to err on the side of caution – and reject this report.

Alex Yeung, ecology alumni representative, University of Hong Kong

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1575027/endangered-dolphins-deserve-better-flawed-airport-report

dynamco Aug 17th 2014 9:20am

MS Anissa WONG Sean Yee
Director of Environmental Protection
Permanent Secretary for the Environment
List of Government EIA reports rejected by her as follows:
0
End
www.scmp.com/business/article/1556562/hong-kong-will-get-its-third-runway-hook-or-crook

www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/register/aeiara/all.html

All EIAs approved
EIA-077/2002 Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility for Hong Kong International Airport -Airport Authority Hong Kong The Court of Final Appeal ordered on 17 Jul 2006 that the decision of the Director made on 2 Aug 2002 approving the EIA report be quashed
During the tenure of Robert Law ,the EIA report which was rejected under the Ordinance in October 2000 was on the proposed Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line project
Needless to say the spur line now exists

Experts slam lack of novel ideas to protect white dolphins from third runway construction

Tuesday, 19 August, 2014

Cheung Chi-fai chifai.cheung@scmp.com

Government advisers express exasperation at Chek Lap Kok officials’ lack of fresh thinking on protecting dolphins if third runway is built

Government environment advisers vented their frustration yesterday at the Airport Authority’s failure to come up with “out-of-the-box ideas” to protect the threatened Chinese white dolphin during construction of the proposed third runway.

They were speaking on the last of three days’ scrutiny of the environmental impact assessment study on the runway.

“We hear nothing new. You just repeat and repeat,” said Dr Hung Wing-tat, vice-chairman of the Advisory Council on the Environment subcommittee studying the report.

“You just can’t say let [the environmental impact] study pass first and we will see what we can do. Can you invest a little bit more? And don’t always just ask the government to do things.”

Subcommittee members had been unhappy at the last meeting over the lack of measures to compensate for plans to reclaim 650 hectares of prime habitat for the shrinking dolphin population – and it emerged as the key issue again yesterday.

The meeting was the last opportunity to provide new information to the subcommittee before it makes its recommendations to the council, which will decide next month whether the report should be endorsed and what conditions to attach.

Before Hung’s criticism – which was met by silence from airport officials – Professor Nora Tam Fung-yee also vented her frustration at the authority’s performance.

She criticised it for failing to respond to members’ previous call for “out-of-the-box ideas”, such as setting up another marine park farther from the works site in southwestern Lantau.

The authority proposes opening a 2,400 hectare marine park after the runway is finished, saying dolphins that leave the area during construction will return.

Tam also queried the effectiveness of a proposal to re-route the Skypier high-speed ferries to Macau and the Pearl River Delta and lower their speed during the construction.

The measure would re-route ferries travelling to the north of Lung Kwu Chau marine park – a vital dolphin sanctuary. The authority also proposes to freeze further growth until 2023 of its ferry business that carries 2.5 million transit air passengers a year.

Authority consultant Eric Ching Ming-kam said the diversion of the ferries and their lowered speed could benefit the dolphins by reducing underwater noise without significantly reducing passenger comfort.

But Tam said the increased journey times might increase the dolphins’ exposure to noise and demanded a proper assessment.

Another member, Gary Ades, listed a number of other options, including relocating the Skypier. But his idea was rejected by the authority as not practical.

Under present plans, the new 2,400-hectare marine park would connect the existing Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park with the planned Brothers Islands marine park.

Another consultant, Dr Thomas Jefferson, said in June that some decrease in dolphins was to be expected during construction, “but the plan and hope” was that the large marine park would draw them back.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1576255/experts-slam-lack-novel-ideas-protect-white-dolphins-third-runway

High PM2.5 on Sunday: Ocean-going vessels major culprit of HK air pollution

Hong Kong officials continue to legislate for switching out old diesel engines on road vehicles, singing their own praises and splashing public funds in the process. Yet Hong Kong’s air quality remains extremely poor – a simple look outside the window suffice to dissatisfy.

Air quality on a Sunday afternoon. PM2.5 readings are very high, at 150-170.

The number of vehicles on the roads on Sunday is the least in the week, in addition to the consideration of all the work that the officials proclaim to have done in reducing vehicles emissions. The PM2.5 particles, on the other hand, don’t lie. Their continued presence points to shipping emissions as the real major source of pollutants in Hong Kong.

The Northeasterlies at the Northeast brings emissions from Yantian; the Northwesterlies at the Northwest brings emissions from Shekou; Southerlies at the South brings emissions from ships passing through and into Hong Kong.

Hong Kong urgently needs to legislate and enforce an emissions control area for shipping. It remains to be seen if the city’s officials will take real action.

Mingpao: HKIA admits new runway will affect habitats of white dolphins

Ahead of a study on the environmental impacts of the proposed Third Runway Project to be completed by the end of the year, the Hong Kong Airport Authority has released its findings on the potential impacts to the Chinese white dolphin population native to the Pearl River Estuary.

The study finds that reclamation works for the new runway will affect the usual movement patterns of the dolphins which forage around the waters off the Brothers Islands and Northwestern Lantau Island.

HKIA’s analysis claims that the population density and numbers of the dolphins in the areas north and west of the airport can only be classified as ‘medium’ and ‘low’. Overall data indicates a continual decline in the numbers of the white dolphin in the waters around the airport, with a longitudinal study released by HKIA yesterday finding that, within the waters of the proposed reclamation project, in the past year, a total of 215 dolphins were tracked in 62 pods, with each pod numbering 1 to 14 dolphins.

Additionally, the number of dolphins tracked in the areas north and west of the airport was recorded at an average of 11 dolphins per 100 km2, lower than the numbers of 67 and 44 dolphins per 100 km2 recorded by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department off the coasts of northwestern and western Lantau Island respectively.

Chinese white dolphin sightings in Hong Kong. The proposed reclamation area is shown to be a hotspot for the dolphins. (Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society)

The HKIA, however, admits that if the project receives the go-ahead, the channel used by dolphins for moving between the waters of Long Kwu Chau and the Brothers Islands will be obstructed by the reclamation area jutting out into the channel, forcing their movement paths north.

(more…)

Will ‘measurement’ of pollutants in HK take extraterritorial sources into consideration?

Cheung Chi-fai of the SCMP reports that Hong Kong will be linking up with the World Health Organisation (WHO) to ‘develop a mechanism to measure changes in air quality and public health’ to help the city improve its environment. The plan, if it could be called one at all at this time, is extremely vague, but even if it becomes the best-laid of plans, it would run into a fundamental problem: the basis of the study is an investigation about the city’s clean air policies, but some of the worst air pollutants come from outside the city’s jurisdiction. For example, ocean-going vessels passing through Hong Kong’s nearby shipping channels use bunker fuels with 2.75 to 4% sulphur content, significantly higher than the 0.005ppm(0.0000005%) of Euro5 diesel fuel; prevailing easterly winds blows sulphur compounds and respirable suspended particles (RSP) into Hong Kong, a situation worsened by the density of urban structures that helps to trap air particles within its confines. The many incinerators on the Shenzhen side of the border also figures to be a major factor in Hong Kong’s air quality.

This ‘plan’ would need more serious thinking if it intends to be anywhere near producing true analysis of Hong Kong’s air quality.

Click here to read the SCMP report:

Proposed 3rd runway on Chek Lap Kok creates more problems than the one that AAHK allege exists

The Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK)’s recent proposal to reclaim more land in the Pearl River Estuary to build a third runway has come under much flak, and perhaps rightly so. The AAHK is alleging that, based on the continued growth of air traffic volume in the past years, Chek Lap Kok’s capacity will be saturated by 2030. It seems obviously necessary to expand Chek Lap Kok, but this narrative is less appealing when one considers several other events at play: Chek Lap Kok is currently running only at about 65% capacity; neighbouring airports in Shenzhen and Guangzhou are aggressively expanding, providing fierce competition for the growth pie that is being projected; the airways around Chek Lap Kok are already congested in part because of this competition; poor economic horizon is on the horizon, which will affect airline profits; a growing market to consume internally China’s produce rather than exporting, reducing the demand for cargo shipment.

Rapidly expanding airports in Guangzhou and Shenzhen competes with Chek Lap Kok for both airspace and business. (Shenzhen Media Group)

Of course, AAHK can choose to ignore these warning signs and continue drinking the kool-aid. But they cannot ignore the very real problems that building the Third Runway is going to cause:

  • The increase in simultaneous air traffic is going to generate a lot more noise pollution, a concern for Tung Chung residents not just as annoyance but quite possibly a direct health hazard.
  • The reclamation work required for the runway expansion is huge, and will severely impact pink dolphins native to the Pearl River Estuary. This concern has already been thrown out of the window during the proposals for building the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge and should not be ignored again.
  • The expansion comes into a direct conflict of interest with Shenzhen’s cargo shipping network. Height restrictions on cargo ships passing through shipping channels in the vicinity of the airway will come into play, which will deeply displease Shenzhen’s port development authorities. Incidentally, they are already fuming over a failed proposal to expand the waterways near Chek Lap Kok, which the Hong Kong government rejected on precisely the environmental concerns for the pink dolphins that they themselves now ignore; Shenzhen officials see this slight as Hong Kong’s tactics to stave off competition.

AAHK’s representative saw fit to address only the issue of cargo shipping space, and even there, all there is is a single vague assurance: “putting in place an appropriate administrative arrangement between the relevant authorities in Hong Kong and Shenzhen”; no evidence that they have given the real problems substantial thought.

James Middleton makes a simple and salient point: it would be easier and cheaper to soundproof every single Tung Chung residence and change Chek Lap Kok’s from an 18-h to a 24-h airport, than to build a new runway.

It's probably easier to soundproof all apartments in Tung Chung than to build a third runway. (Square Foot)

Decision makers would do well to step back from dreaming of grand projects and justifying their legitimacy with visions of problems, while ignoring the real problems they would cause.

Click here for more coverage on this issue: