Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Roadside

Panel on Transport and Panel on Environmental Affairs

Legco panels discussed reducing or reorganizing bus trips this morning.

Legco panels discussed reducing or reorganizing bus

Clear the Air, Edited by Ryan Chan

22nd Jan, 2010

Bus is one of the main sources of air pollution in Hong Kong. According to the document of Legislative Council, on a territorial basis, franchised buses accounted for about 6% of respirable suspended particulates and 11% of the nitrogen oxides of road transport emission in Hong Kong in 2008. At busy traffic corridors, they could account for up to 40% of the total vehicular emissions. Therefore reducing or reorganizing bus trips is an effective way to mitigate the roadside air pollution and hence the health risk to the people. Thats why Panel on Transport and Panel on Environmental Affairs met together to discuss about the issue.

In this meeting, many Legislative members made suggestions to the issue. They knew that reorganizing bus trips can help to reduce air pollution in Hong Kong. For example, Mr. Wong Kwok-hing mentioned that the citizens are willing to interchange between different bus trips as they want to improve air quality in Hong Kong. Mr. Kam Nai-wai had another opinion; he thought that reorganizing bus trips per se cannot solve the problem. In order to improve the air quality in Hong Kong the government needs to phrase out the use of per-euro buses promptly, and introduce environmental friendly vehicles. Some of the members stated that the Government did not provide enough information for the citizens to judge the effect of the policies. If there are research and data about different policies, the citizens can distinguish which policies is better for improving air quality.

After discussed for an hour, Ms. Audrey EU Yuet-mee concluded the meeting with two suggestions:

  • l Require Ms. Carolina YIP, Deputy Commissioner / Transport Services & Management, Transport Department to draft a report about the effect of switching to updated Euro buses in Hong Kong to be a reference to the citizens.
  • l Require Transport Department to draft a list of bus trips that can be reorganized or reduced. The list is useful for the District Council to discuss the issue. At the same time, the impact on the bus drivers brought by the reorganization of bus trips needs to be calculated, and being reported by the Transportation Department.

The citizens are not familiar with the effect of the policies about reducing or reorganizing bus trips. If government can do a research about that, the data collected can be a reference for the citizens. If they know that the policies are good to their health, we are sure that they will support the policies, just like what Mr. Wong Kwok-hing had mentioned in the meeting.

立法會交通事務委員會及環境事務委員會聯席會議

巴士是香港空氣污染的其中一個源頭,從立法會的文件,我們可以看到:「專營巴士在2008年排放的可吸入懸浮粒子和氮氧化物分別佔該年全港整體車輛的有關總排放量約6%11%。但在繁忙的交通幹道,專營巴士的廢氣排放量佔總車輛廢氣排放量可高達40%。」因此,重整或減少巴士班次是一種有效的辦法來減少路邊空氣污染,從而降低對市民大眾所構成的健康風險。立法會交通事務委員會及環境事務委員會就為這個議題作出討論。

2010/1/22的聯席會議中,不少議員都提出建議,希望可以儘快重整巴士路線。而其中有不少議員都明白到重整巴士路線對空氣質素有一定的幫助,如黃國興議員指出,有些市民為了改善空氣質素是不介意轉車的,所以政府就更應該要做。而甘乃威議員就提出單是重整是不足夠的,必須儘快把香港的巴士轉換成環保的型號,才能解決問題。會中亦提到政府並沒有給予足夠的數據,讓市民難以明白重整巴士路線及更換歐盟新型號環保巴士對空氣污染的改善程度,亦難以分辨那一個措施可以更有效改善空氣質素。

綜合了會議的結果,環境事務委員會主席余若薇議員建議政府作出二個行動:

第一,請運輸及房屋局首席助理秘書長(運輸)廖李可期女士為提早更換新型歐盟巴士對香港環境保護和改善空氣積素的效益作出報告,並提供足夠數據讓市民大眾可以參閱。

第二,請運輸及房屋局整理可以改動、重組的巴士路線的列表,用以交給區議會討論重整路線的可能性。同時亦希望有關方面把重組路線對職業司機的影響亦作出估量,寫成報告。

由於市民對改善空氣質素的政策效果認識不深,如果政府可以研究它們的效益,並提供資訊予市民參考,就可以令這些政策獲得更多市民的支持。重整巴士路線就是其中之一,就如黃國興議員所指,市民知道此舉可以改善空氣質素,他們是不介意改變他們的乘車習慣的。

Deadly air pollution on the increase in Hong Kong

Want to do sports in HK? There are only 30 days in HK which the air is safe to do sports outside according to the WHO guidelines.

Want to do sports in HK? There are only 30 days in HK which the air is safe to do sports outside according to the WHO guidelines.

A report in Hong Kong media last week says the city and its surrounding areas experienced life-threatening levels of air pollution one in every eight days last year.
The South China Morning Post reports figures from the Environment Protection Department showing there were 44 days of ‘very high pollution’ reported in Central, on Hong Kong island. In some areas air quality has deteriorated five-fold in just five years, and there are criticisms that official records do not show the whole picture.

Click here to read the report from New York Times.

Presenter: Bo Hill
Speaker: Gerald Winnington-Ingram, Clear the Air Hong Kong

WINNINGTON-INGRAM: We have now in Hong Kong a situation where we only have 41 days of healthy breathable air according to the WHO guidelines per year. Irrespective of the fact that you cannot see anything which is a shame, because it really is a beautiful city and a beautiful place to be living, the health implications are very, very serious and you certainly would not want to be doing any physical exercise on one of those days. We have only some 30 days in which it is safe to do sports outside and then according to the WHO guidelines.

HILL: Are there particular areas of Hong Kong, say Central or the New Territories, that suffer worse than elsewhere?

WINNINGTON-INGRAM: There are. For example, Nathan Road, which is an extremely popular tourist destination – well there we have nitrogen dioxide levels at some 380 milligrams per cubic metre and that’s well in excess of WHO guideline which is for 200 milligrams per cubic metre and in fact even Hong Kong’s own air quality objective is for 300, so it’s well in excess of that. So that’s Nathan Road. Plus also parts of the Central District – Des Voeux Road, which is a major thoroughfare running through the central business area, that has a reading of around 390 milligrams per cubic metre of nitrogen dioxide. Hennessy Road is another one which is in Wan Chai, again a very popular local area – 480. So these are areas you certainly don’t want to be going in at all on a bad day. But if you’re suffering from any form of respiratory disease or heart complaint, it is actually very dangerous. We had in 2008, over 1,000 avoidable deaths, some 81,000 avoidable hospital days as a consequence, something in the order of seven and a quarter million avoidable doctors visits and all of that amounts to the cost in the order of about 230 million Hong Kong dollars, which could have been avoided. Now that doesn’t even take into account all the other ailments such as coughs, sore throats and itchy eyes, that were not even reported.

HILL: So huge costs, not only monetary but also physically. What’s been done about it and can Hong Kong authorities be doing more?

WINNINGTON-INGRAM: Well, I think they could be doing a lot more and we certainly and other green groups are campaigning extremely hard. Fifty three per cent of air pollution is local and it’s actually Hong Kong is the dominant source. Yes, we do get air pollution coming from the Pearl River Delta of course, but roadside pollution which is a major problem in Hong Kong is caused by local conditions. Some 50 per cent of Hong Kong’s total emissions is also being caused by power plants. Forty per cent of roadside emissions have been caused by buses. The government’s figures go nowhere close to showing the real picture and the real affect of air pollution in Hong Kong.

source: Radio Australia‏
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201001/s2791277.htm

No excuse not to switch bus fleet to diesel-electric hybrid models

SCMP, Charlie Chan Wing-tai, Sha Tin

7th Jan, 2010

I read with interest the report (“Roadside pollution a bigger life threat”, January 4).

The severe roadside pollution in Hong Kong is a result of traffic emissions, in particular those from diesel buses.

Even though bus companies have pushed for more environmentally friendly buses over the past few years, there is room for improvement.

As the largest bus operator in Hong Kong, KMB continues to study the feasibility of electric hybrid vehicles and the use of alternative fuels.

In a letter to these columns in 2004, Susanne Ho, the head of corporate communications at KMB, pointed out that the diesel-electric hybrid technology for buses was still in its infancy and was limited to a small number of single-deck prototypes.

She said that issues such as mechanical reliability, battery life, fuel economy, drivability and passenger capacity would need to be improved before diesel-electric technology could be seriously considered for a mass-transit bus fleet that provides reliable services.

However, there has been a rapid advancement of hybrid technology.

Bus operators running hybrid vehicles in London have been unreserved in their praise of the performance, reliability, fuel and CO{-2} reductions being achieved by the single and double-decker made by the firm Alexander Dennis.

Alexander Dennis is one of the main manufacturers of Hong Kong’s double-deckers.

This brand’s single and double-decker hybrid buses are already achieving CO{-2} and fuel reductions of between 35 and 38 per cent in London.

Also, the fleet of hybrid buses operating in Britain’s capital is achieving service availability of 94 per cent, a figure that is steadily increasing.

At the same time, the Greater London Authority has made it clear that it is determined to meet its greenhouse gas targets.

The British government has also made commitments.

It has set up a £30 million (HK$374 million) green bus fund designed to promote the purchase of several hundred new low-carbon buses.

Hong Kong, as a world-class city, must have good air quality.

London has already begun to replace the city’s public buses with a hybrid version.

So when will our government and bus companies follow and eventually catch up with policies being implemented in other international cities?

A different route

SCMP

Hong Kong needs to clean up its buses and goods vehicles. Our roadside pollution is extremely bad and these fleets are a large part of the problem. There is no disagreement about this; the debate is over how to do it. The environment minister has suggested the government might pay for new buses to expedite the renewal of the fleet. Some political parties are open to the idea while others are uncomfortable with the government taking a more active role.

Hong Kong’s bus companies are allowed to operate services based on franchises. The operators’ primary interest is to have the best return on their investments. Thus, they want to run their buses as long as possible to squeeze the highest use from a capital asset.

The problem for the community is that technology improves all the time and an old bus fleet, even if well maintained, is much more polluting. If the franchise doesn’t give incentives or penalties based on the bus fleet’s level of emissions, it makes sense to keep running buses as long as possible.

The facts are plain to see. Hong Kong has five commercial bus operators running a fleet of about 6,000 buses. Three-quarters of them still have Euro II or older engines. The latest diesel-engine standard is Euro V. While the franchises require the purchase of the latest technology when new buses are acquired, old clunkers can still have a considerable lifespan.

Every few years sees technological improvements in fuels and engine design. For example, Euro VI buses [Roman numeral designations are for diesel engines] are expected by 2014, or diesel-powered technology could be swapped for natural gas. Hybrid, hydrogen or electric-powered trolley buses are also available.

The challenge for governments, including ours, is how to adopt new technologies. Some city authorities run their own buses, while others, including Hong Kong, allow commercial operators to provide services, usually in the form of franchises. If Hong Kong wants a much cleaner bus fleet because we want better public health, the franchises are going to have to be reframed. Indeed, government policy and all relevant legislation will also need to be revised.

Money is one issue. New buses or technology requires an upfront payment that may cut into short-term profits. Bus operators who are used to enjoying a certain level of return may be reluctant to see their profit margins reduced. If they have to invest in new assets or pay higher operating costs, they will want to pass that on to passengers. But the government will also fear a public backlash over higher fares. That is presumably why officials have floated the idea of the government paying to replace buses to expedite fleet renewal. The logic is that, if the operators’ investment costs in new buses are reduced, then fares do not need to rise, or not by much. In return, the community gains by having cleaner air and better health sooner.

It should be possible to estimate what the new fares may be against improved public health benefits once we know the level of subsidy and timeframe, although officials have not presented these figures yet.

The government has probably already begun to explore possibilities with the operators. It is much easier dealing with five bus companies than the thousands of goods vehicle owners.

The government’s target to deal with buses is a short-term measure but a necessary one. It is also not too early to consider how to reframe franchises.

Bus operators make good money in Hong Kong. They know they run a public service under franchise and public policy must keep up with the times.

Indeed, smart politicians should remind them of this and not focus on how much more the public has to pay. There should be no issue with reframing franchises to reflect new policy goals to improve air quality so that it no longer poses a public health threat, and buses must play their part. The public must press hard for this.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chairperson of the Clean Air Network and CEO of the non-profit think tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org

Toxic mix

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

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.

Long wait to clean up air is unacceptable

SCMP

I could not agree more with the comments made in the report (“Clean-air ideas abound but hard choices rare, green groups charge”, July 15) on the heavy roadside pollution caused by Hong Kong buses. Green Power and Friends of the Earth deserve credit for pointing out the core factor behind the serious air pollution here, buses and trucks.

Unfortunately, the government appears to be far too complacent in the face of bus companies and truck drivers’ groups’ opposition to replacing polluting fleets. Hong Kong’s roadside air pollution has reached a serious level. Any sensitive and responsible government would jump at every chance to improve the situation. But it seems our administration is biased towards profit-driven bus companies, which have reportedly threatened to raise fares.

The government should act swiftly to replace the many pre-Euro and Euro I diesel vehicles on our roads.

Should the bus companies decide to raise fares, let Hong Kong people decide if they want to rely on selfish, greedy transport providers.

Rather than giving subsidies to operators to replace their vehicles, why not subsidise people to take other forms of transportation such as the under-utilised West Rail? Bus route rationalisation should also be a priority, as many routes are apparently serving the same districts, for example, Central and Wan Chai.

It is unreasonable for the government to ask Hong Kong people to wait till 2015 to enjoy good air quality. A responsible and visionary administration would not adopt such an attitude.

W. Yeung, Mid-Levels

Breathless in the city

Christine Loh, SCMP

There’s no avoiding the fact that roadside air pollution is so high it’s a major threat to our health

Can there really be any doubt that street-level pollution in Hong Kong comes almost wholly from the vehicles on our roads? It’s definitely not from across the border. But it is frighteningly high, and presents a major threat to public health. Roadside air monitoring stations showed that levels so far this year are much worse than they were in the same period in 2005.

The South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) reported on Wednesday that the stations in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok recorded the equivalent of 44 days – or 1,066 hours – of “very high” pollution levels, using the government’s outmoded Air Pollution Index (API).

To really understand the true costs of air pollution in Hong Kong, we should be looking at the Hedley Environmental Index. This monitors and publishes in real-time the economic costs of Hong Kong’s air pollution in terms of public health impacts and their monetary value.

What most people do not know is that even at “high” or “medium” API levels, the pollution is bad enough to affect our health. That’s because the API is based on a set of outdated air quality objectives. These have not been revised since 1987 – yet health science has advanced a lot since then and much more is now known about the impact pollution has on people. Clearly, then, these objectives cannot protect our health; air quality that meets them just isn’t good enough. Worse, not meeting these objectives presents an enormous health hazard.

Almost on a daily basis, roadside air pollution levels are “medium” to “high”, and quite regularly reach “very high”. We have just three roadside monitoring stations – in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok – so people naturally assume these must be the most polluted areas. This is not necessarily true; we just happen to measure pollution levels there. They were chosen because they are areas with a high density of population and traffic, yet there are other, just as busy, places where the pollution may be even worse. We don’t know, because we are not measuring the levels.

The bottom line is that pollution from vehicles poses a severe health threat to a very large number of citizens. Just how many people? Well, consider all the streets where the “canyon effect” traps pollution between buildings. Now think of all the people who live in low-rise, older buildings or on the lower floors of high-rises, as well as those who attend schools and clinics in some of the most densely populated areas of town. Then there are the people who work in such areas, particularly those in shops and cafes that open onto busy streets. And, let’s not forget drivers, street vendors, street cleaners, postmen and police officers on the beat. The number of people exposed to very high levels of roadside air pollution for a significant time every day must be enormous, perhaps in the millions.

The government’s response is that there have been improvements. Officials say some of the pollutant levels – those for sulphur dioxide, particulates and nitrogen oxides – have been reduced by 20 per cent since 1999. Hong Kong’s leading air-pollution and public-health experts continue to debate with officials about the significance of such claims. Even if we agree there have been “improvements”, they need to be seen in context.

It is undeniable that street-level pollution is extremely high. It was so in 1999; it remains so today. The so-called improvements are insignificant when it comes to our health.

If we use the World Health Organisation’s guidelines as the yardstick – rather than our own lax objectives – our roadside pollution is so bad that we have only one choice: clean it up, to protect public health, and do so quickly. It is the government’s duty.

People want to know what can be done. Here are a few measures to consider:

  • The government must adopt a new policy goal to improve air quality to the point where pollution no longer poses a significant health risk. All bureaus and departments must work together on this.
  • Our air quality objectives must be revised using the WHO standards, and implementation plans with timelines must accompany interim targets.
  • Officials should devise a scheme to switch diesel and petrol vehicles to natural gas and environmentally sustainable biofuels while using electric-powered transport where appropriate.
  • Highways and transport officials must not be allowed to dictate – as they do today – road designs without considering environmental and health factors.
  • Traffic flows need to be managed more efficiently, using information technology, and the number of vehicles on our roads must be reduced.
  • Finally, vehicle tax and licence fees should be set according to the amount of emissions produced.

A new mindset is needed, to put people before cars, and plan the city accordingly. The last thing Hong Kong should do is blame its roadside pollution on someone else.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chairwoman of the new Clean Air Network (CAN), and CEO of the non-profit think tank Civic Exchange. For the Hedley Environmental Index, see: http://hedleyindex.sph.hku.hk.

Al Salam Bank-Bahrain executes a pioneering biodiesel investment in Hong Kong

27 Feb. 2008

Al Salam Bank-Bahrain (ASBB) announced the successful signing of a major, multi-faceted deal with six global strategic partners to invest in a pioneering alternative energy project in Hong Kong.

Mr. Yousif Taqi, CEO of Al Salam Bank Bahrain.

Related stor

Yousif Taqi, the Bank’s Chief Executive Officer, said that ASB Biodiesel (Hong Kong) Limited (the Joint Venture Company) will build and own a new plant which produces biodiesel using mainly waste products.
The plant will be located in the Tseung Kwan O industrial area of Hong Kong. The 100,000 metric ton per year facility will be the first of its kind in Asia and will aim to sell biodiesel – which effectively substitutes regular fossil diesel – both locally and to European markets, he clarified.

Traditionally, the production process of biodiesel reforms any variety of vegetable oils such as rapeseed, corn, and soybean oils into a single specified automotive fuel accepted by all diesel engines. However, in using virgin vegetable oils, this process has the disadvantage of competing with human consumption and cooking oil needs. There is also growing concern that demand for biodiesel from virgin oils such as palm oil may lead to destruction of tropical rainforests.

Taqi pointed out that what sets the JVC apart from traditional biodiesel producers, and further emphasizes ASBB’s environment-friendly approach, is that the new plant will utilize waste products including: used cooking oil, waste animal fat and grease trap waste (restaurant sewage) as some of the major feedstock components for biodiesel production.

He clarified that there is a three-pronged environmental benefit; reducing harmful vehicle emissions and global warming through the usage of biodiesel, productive use of materials which often go to a landfill (thus reducing landfill needs) and preservation of virgin vegetable oils for human consumption, thus addressing the issue of rainforest destruction and escalating food prices.

Mr. Taqi said:

“This is an innovative investment. It illustrates our bank’s strategy to meet clients’ expectations for attractive investment opportunities that are differentiated by sector and geography, and to ensure competitive returns to our shareholders. It also underlines our commitment to identify projects that have the potential to add value to the community and positively impact the environment.”
Mr. Taqi also thanked the strategic partners for their trust and confidence placed in Al Salam Bank-Bahrain, and for sharing their specialist industry knowledge and market experience, which has proved invaluable in finalizing this ground-breaking transaction

Breathe easy

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/7133

ssue: Jan 15, 2006

EU proposes cleaner air

EUROPE is set to regulate fine particles less than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5 ) through a proposal put forward in the European parliament recently. This regulation is a part of the European Commission’s (EC) Clean Air Strategy — a plan to reduce the number of people dying from air pollution-related diseases by 2020 up to 40 per cent from the 2000 level.

“The strategy will substantially improve Europe’s air quality and prevent thousands of premature deaths from pollution-related illnesses and also reduce damage to crops, forests and other ecosystems,” EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

The proposal requires each member state to reduce average PM 2.5 concentration by 20 per cent between 2010 and 2020 with a mandatory cap of 25 mg per cubic metre in high pollution areas.

Estimated to cost about US $8.7 billion annually, it also aims to reduce pollutants from fossil-fuel combustion and agriculture, which includes ammonia, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. Health benefits are being valued between US $ 50 billion to US $160 billion annually, apart from other environmental benefits.

Currently, none of the European Union (EU) laws regulating air pollution include PM 2.5. “Once the directive is adopted the 25 mg limit would be mandatory. It would be reviewed in 2012,” says Lone Mikkelson, EC spokesperson. Each member state would be allowed to choose its best pollution control strategies.

The overall clean air strategy includes long-term objectives and streamlining of previous EU laws. However, ammonia emissions from fertiliser and shipping and aviation emissions do not have a time limit.