Roadside

For those who still believe the Government of Hong Kong has done a good job with our environmental problems, this letter from the deputy director of the EPD , published some 11 years ago, demonstrates the apathy of the Hong Kong Government to act. Now, 11 years later the Government wants to allow a 3 minute ‘legal to pollute’ idling engine exemption and to issue a ticket to the driver, not the vehicle owner (as in parking contraventions ) for the offence – only large diesel vehicles need an idling period to fill their airbrake reservoirs to allow the brakes to be released and if two licence holders in the vehicle swap the driver’s seat position every 170 seconds they can run their idling engines all day without getting a ticket. Taking a leaf out of the Government book for the anti smoking legislation (implement  new legislation but deliberately allocate meagre insufficient enforcement manpower resources thus rendering the law ineffective) the Government has decided to add a whopping 18 additional traffic wardens to help enforce the ‘new’ idling engine legislation throughout Hong Kong.

Idling engines not significant air polluters

Updated on Nov 20, 1999

Your correspondent Ted Thomas (South China Morning Post, November 6) retells the tale of the London smog which killed many thousands up until the early 1950s, when legislation was introduced to control it.

The London smog was caused by the burning of fuels that were high in sulphur and a very similar situation existed in Hong Kong throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Our problem was caused by emissions from industrial buildings and power stations, but in some areas was so acute that the steel fittings on residential buildings adjacent to industrial areas were dissolving in the acid rain produced by these emissions.

The Air Pollution Control Ordinance, passed in 1983, was intended to prevent these hazardous emissions, but by the late 1980s many establishments had found loopholes in that legislation. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Department developed the Fuel Restriction Regulations, which when implemented in June of that year transformed many districts of Hong Kong, much as, decades earlier, the Clean Air Act had cleared the air in British cities.

We have photos, taken only a week apart in 1990, which demonstrate the dramatic improvement that was brought about by the introduction of the new controls.

Mr Thomas also referred to the issue of idling vehicle engines. Whilst the emissions from idling engines are not a significant contributor to our overall air pollution problems, in some locations they can be not just a nuisance, but an unacceptable impact on the health of nearby pedestrians.

Typical problematic locations are enclosed public transport terminuses and narrow streets where lines of taxis or buses wait with engines idling, such as Jardine’s Bazaar in Causeway Bay and Beach Road in Repulse Bay. No doubt readers will recall many similar locations.

In many communities, it is socially unacceptable to let your engine idle, just as it is to leave your taps running or your lights on when no one is at home. In some communities, legislation has been introduced to prohibit the idling of engines.

However, in almost all that legislation there is an exemption for hot or cold weather conditions and a threshold time period specified, below which it would not be illegal to let your engine idle.

The combined effect of these two provisions on such similar legislation in Hong Kong might be to allow vehicles to be exempted altogether in the summer months and to allow more unscrupulous drivers to circumvent the legislation by the simple expedient of switching off the engine before the statutory time threshold is reached.

I have raised these difficulties simply to demonstrate that the legislative control of idling engines is rather more complex and contentious than your correspondent seems to appreciate.

Nevertheless, we have developed proposals for legislation to control idling engines and will publish them in the near future for public consultation. We believe that at the very least, such legislation will establish a benchmark for society as to what is the unacceptable use of an engine in a stationary vehicle.

M. J. STOKOE Deputy Director of Environmental Protection

Cap on fuel sulphur lowered to reduce emissions (SCMP 8th May 2010)

An amendment was introduced to the Air Pollution Control (Motor Vehicle Fuel) ordinance yesterday to tighten specifications of motor vehicle diesel and unleaded petrol to Euro V standards from Euro IV. The amendment tightened the cap on sulphur content in fuel to a fifth of previous levels, in a bid to reduce vehicular emission of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent, other major gaseous emissions by 10 per cent and respirable suspended particulates by 5 per cent. Petrol stations, which have since 2007 offered Euro V diesel and Euro V petrol, sold half the petrol imported into Hong Kong last year.

Roadside pollution comes mostly from local vehicles here. The Government has finally proposed a further exemption to the Motor Vehicle Idling (FP) Bill by allowing a 3 minute ‘still legal to pollute’ grace period for stationary drivers to run their engines which issue the most microfine pollutants at idling speed. The only vehicles that need to idle to become operational are large goods vehicles which need to fill their airbrake reservoirs and this requirement should be covered separately.

The Government chooses to cherry pick that several Toronto municipalities (but not elsewhere in Canada) have a three minute vehicle and boat idling period. It conveniently omits that Toronto allows car and boat engines to continue idling when the temperature inside the vehicle is above 27 Deg C or below 5 deg C, that the fixed penalty for the offence is between C$100 – C$ 380 (two to 8 times more than here) and can be up to C$ 5,000 if contested in court. It does not mention that the vehicle emissions’ standards in Canada are far stricter than Hong Kong http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/ca/#hdv

nor that Toronto has an average of 15 cms of snow and at 630 sq kilometers with a 7,200 sq kilometer green belt surrounding it, is far more spread out as a city and does not have the same curtain wall urban canyon effect that traps roadside microfine pollutants here.

Here is yet another example of Hong Kong’s obdurate Government trying to issue a loopholed piece of legislation to pander to big Business  and is worthy of a sketch from ‘Yes Prime Minister’. The law as proposed , is unenforceable – should the enforcers stand next to the vehicles  for an hour and count a total of 3 engine idling minutes to wait to issue a ticket ? In Europe several countries even demand engine switch off at red lights whilst already having a far cleaner and less polluted environment than Hong Kong. The Government should learn from its deliberately flawed anti smoking laws that allowing such exemptions resulted in  legal tobacco sales’ increase in 2008 after the flawed ban with exemptions came into place, so must we expect the same increase in engine idling with this potholed legislation ?  They should re-name the Engine Idling legislation the ‘Amazing Grace’ Ordinance. It seems the Government yet again puts vested interests ahead of the health of the local public to which it has a duty of care.

In addition the Government wishes to inflict the penalty on the driver rather than the vehicle owner. If more than one driver is in the car and if they swap places in the driver’s seat every 2 1/2 minutes the wardens are powerless to issue a ticket and idling can continue.

James Middleton

Chairman Energy Committee

www.cleartheair.org.hk

Last updated: April 21, 2010

Source: South China Morning Post

I refer to recent articles and a letter from Anders Ejendal (“Idling engines in Repulse Bay“, April 19), regarding idling engines. I wish to point out that all vehicles, including coaches, can enjoy air-conditioning while stationary without their engine running.

As an electric vehicle designer, I can assure everyone that all these petrol/diesel coaches require is an extra supply of battery power and some smart electronics, and this is not expensive. For example, most taxis can have a workable system installed for around HK$10,000.

Replacing old air conditioners with hi-tech ones will enormously reduce electricity needs. Technology is available to convert any coach to fully electric drive, and it is an economically viable proposition.

Nigel Lam, Kowloon Tong

Last updated: April 21, 2010

Source: South China Morning Post

I refer to your recent news stories about the new law which requires drivers to limit the amount of time their vehicle engines are idling.

Such a law appears laudable as the government takes steps to reduce pollution and help prevent climate change.

However, with only a slight amount of critical thought, one wonders whether the government introduced the law merely to lull the public into thinking they are looking out for their best interests.

Considering all the sources of pollution that affect Hong Kong, the idling of engines is surely so far down the list as to be laughable.

The two biggest local pollution contributors are coal emissions from electricity generators, and vehicle exhausts. But the vast majority of pollution from the latter is surely caused by engines burning fuel in order to move rather than to stand still.

In effect, the government has put its time and energy into writing a law whose outcomes will have minimal gains, yet may bring appearances of being green.

In the meantime, it drags its feet on the big issues: reducing the amount of coal burned to generate electricity, installing scrubbers on power plants, getting highly polluting vehicles off the road and getting tougher on marine emissions.

Colin Whittington, Ma On Shan