South China Morning Post
Proceeding with the third runway is pointless if nothing is done to increase local airspace capacity |
| Albert Cheng Updated on Jul 16, 2011 |
| What lies at the heart of the debate of whether Hong Kong International Airport should build a third runway to keep the city’s position as an international aviation hub is not hardware capacity or airspace boundary; but the airport’s ability to increase aircraft movements.
First and foremost, we must boost our capacity to handle more landings and take-offs to cope with increasing air traffic. Failing to do so would mean falling behind our neighbouring rivals. In theory, having an extra runway should put the city ahead of other airports and enhance its competitive edge. The runway’s current estimated price tag of HK$136.2 billion, while high, is certainly within Hong Kong’s means. But we should not go ahead with the project unless we are absolutely sure that it is worthwhile. We are racing against time to meet rapidly rising air traffic demand. Even if we could get the green light to start building the new runway tomorrow, the project would take between eight and 10 years to complete. By then we could be confronted with a new set of problems. Our priority is airspace capacity. With the nearby Shenzhen airport expanding so rapidly, it is very likely that our airspace capacity will be pushed to the limit in the near future. So, if we do not resolve this issue quickly, we risk being marginalised. In short, having all the additional hardware in place 10 years from now will be pointless if we no longer have the airspace available to match the expansion. Rapid development in the Pearl River Delta over the past decade has seen growth in its gross domestic product exceed or approach 10 per cent every year, according to mainland statistics. The International Air Transport Association has found a correlation between GDP growth and an increase in air traffic. With GDP forecast to continue growing in the coming years, passenger traffic is also likely to rise. This means there will be tough competition for airspace in the region. Hence, it is critically important that our airport takes action to boost its capacity to handle more aircraft movements. On average, Shenzhen airport’s single runway, one of the world’s busiest, handles more than 500 flights per day while Hong Kong’s average is more than 800. However, we have to bear in mind that a substantial portion of our air traffic goes through the mainland, which means we don’t really have the upper hand when it comes to competing for the allocation of more airspace. In other words, if we want to get more airspace, we must first make sure we have the additional capacity to fill up the extra quota. First, we need to maximise our dual-runway system. Instead of permitting one runway for landings and one for departures, we should lift the restriction to optimise usage. Had we applied a bit of flexibility, we could have easily raised aircraft movements to 1,200 per day. Our capacity crisis is a man-made one more than anything else. A third runway will not solve the problem in the long run if we fail to effectively manage and maximise our resources. |
July, 2011:
The sky’s the limit
Companies ‘should be held responsible’ for environmental harm
by The Parliament, Martin Banks
July 14th, 2011
The commission has been urged to hold companies operating in the EU legally accountable for any “harm” they cause to people and the environment around the world.
Burn plant campaigners will battle on
by Hector Mackenzie, Ross-shire Journal
September 2nd, 2011
A COMMUNITY group which sprung up out of opposition to proposals for a £43million waste-to-energy incineration plant has used its first anniversary to pledge it’s in it for the long run.
Veolia accused of running scared by Hatfield anti-incinerator campaigners
http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/veolia_accused_of_running_scared_by_hatfield_anti_incinerator_campaigners_1_1006707
August 29th, 2011
ANTI-INCINERATOR campaigners have accused Veolia Environmental Services of “running scared” from the public’s questions about its plans to build an incinerator in Hatfield.
Incinerator: Union adds cash to fighting fund
Lynn News
August 22nd, 2011
Union leaders have given their support to the fighting fund to challenge the incinerator plans in the courts.
£800m North Wales Residual Waste Treatment talks start
BBC News North East Whales
August 5th, 2011
Public consultation is starting over plans to process non-recyclable waste in north Wales, possibly building an incineration plant.
Incinerator latest: Peter Barrett fires more volleys at Grundon
by Alison Anderson, Perthshire Advertiser
August 5th, 2011
PERTH councillor Peter Barrett yesterday expressed his amazement that applicants for a highly controversial waste plant in Perth have added to their plans.
Plan to burn hazardous waste in Duleek
by Ann Casey, The Meath Chronicle
July 28th, 2011
Controversial proposals to burn light hazardous waste at the Carranstown incinerator near Duleek – and increase tonnage and operating times at the new plant – is likely to cause huge concern in the local community.
Labour gains in council elections could scupper controversial incinerator plans
by Martin Shipton, Whales Online
July 27th, 2011
A controversial plan to build an incinerator to burn most of South Wales’ municipal waste could be in jeopardy if Labour makes gains in next year’s local government elections, it has emerged.
Borough council says NO to incinerator
Lynn News
July 25th, 2011
County council officials were accused of deceiving the public over the Lynn incinerator scheme as borough councillors rejected the plans yesterday.
Not enough rubbish to go around
by Jennifer Buley, The Copenhagen Post
July 21st, 2011
Councils scramble for foreign rubbish to fuel nation’s waste-to-energy incinerators
£140m plan for household waste incinerator in Leicestershire is scrapped
ThisisLeicestershire
July 20th, 2011
Plans to build a £140 million rubbish treatment plant are to be scrapped because they are too expensive.
Hatfield incinerator protest starts as exhibition begins
by Ross Logan, Times24
June 8th, 2011
A TWO-DAY protest will start later today (Wednesday) in Hatfield, to coincide with an exhibition on the New Barnfield incinerator.
Pickles rejects Sherwood Forest incinerator
UK Without Incineration Network
May 29th, 2011
Following a public inquiry, the Secretary of State Eric Pickles has refused planning permission for Veolia’s proposed 180,000 tonne waste incinerator inRainworth, Nottinghamshire.
PM2.5 Combustion-derived nanoparticulate induces the adverse vascular effects of diesel exhaust inhalation
Air pollution is increasingly recognized as an important and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease.1 Acute exposure has
been linked to a range of adverse cardiovascular events, including hospital admissions with angina,2myocardial infarction,3 and
heart failure,4 and long-term exposure increases the lifetime risk of death from coronary heart disease.5 Long-term residential
exposure to air pollution is also associated with the extent of atherosclerosis in the carotid and coronary blood vessels.6 – 12
These associations are strongest for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution that arises from a variety of sources, including
the combustion of diesel fuel by automobiles. This important source of PM2.5 is thought to explain the association between transient
exposure to road traffic and the triggering of acute myocardial infarction.13
Conclusions
Inhalation of dilute diesel exhaust (but not the associated gaseous pollutants or carbon nanoparticles alone) impairs vascular function
in man. These findings suggest that the adverse vascular effects of diesel exhaust are predominately mediated by combustion-derived
particles and provide a rationale for testing environmental health interventions to reduce particulate emissions to establish
whether they can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events.
Download PDF : eurheartj.ehr195.full
Could city still fly without runway 3?
South China Morning Post — 11 July 2011
Controversial plan for a third runway has attracted massive support from business and the aviation sector, but others question the social and environmental costs
Is the HK$136.2 billion third runway project our only choice to remain competitive?
The barrage of information in the three weeks since the proposal’s release would make you think so.
The Airport Authority has argued that the investment would bring a huge return: an economic benefit of HK$912 billion over 50 years.
Stakeholders from the tourism, aviation, logistics, hotel and retail sectors have all echoed their support for what would be the city’s most expensive works yet.
But every time there is a public debate on the need of a new piece of infrastructure, the economic benefits are touted first, with officials pledging to mitigate the social and environmental costs. It takes longer for the project’s impact on public health, air quality, water, marine life and natural habitats to emerge.
When the secretary of state for transport of the United Kingdom voiced his support back in 2009 for the building of a third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport, it was estimated that the improvement would provide a net benefit of £5.5 billion (HK$68.7 billion).
However, a group called the New Economics Foundation found that if the costs of noise, air quality, surface congestion and community blight were taken into account, the project’s costs could outweigh its benefits by at least £5 billion.
In a world-class city as fast and efficient as Hong Kong, it may seem like there is no reason big enough to stand in the way of growth. But while the damage to our environment may not have quite reached breaking point yet, we are no longer the up-and-coming economy we were three decades ago, when development ruled above everything else.
For those who find Mong Kok and Causeway Bay suffocating and the city’s traffic intolerable, this project may offer exactly the right opportunity to contemplate how much more of our standard of living and natural resources we are willing to sacrifice in exchange for a boost to the city’s economy.
Officials have never clearly explained how many years of growth the third runway will bring.
But a careful look at figures provided by the Airport Authority shows that the runway – with an annual capacity of 620,000 flight movements – could handle growth only until 2031 before the airport would be saturated again. That assumes annual growth of 3.2 per cent in traffic demand, said to be a prudent projection.
Is it value for taxpayers to spend HK$136.2 billion, plus other unquantified costs in worsened air quality, traffic and the permanent loss of 650 hectares of marine habitat, for a runway that could become saturated eight years after it opens?
Here are some of the factors that have not received much public discussion yet.
How important is an airport to the economy of a city?
No one disputes the aviation sector’s importance to Hong Kong. But it would be an overstatement to suggest Hong Kong’s economy would fall into the abyss if the airport failed to expand.
While accessibility is crucial for a city’s economy, air traffic is not the only means of facilitating the flows of goods and people.
Macau, for example, has only a tiny airport serving some 4 million passengers a year – less than one-tenth of Hong Kong’s traffic – but its gaming and tourism sector has prospered throughout the years.
An enclave with just a fraction of the land area of Hong Kong’s Lantau island, Macau entertained nearly 25 million tourists last year, compared to 36 million for Hong Kong.
“People fly to a city, not to its airport,” an industry insider said. “A corporation does not decide where to list its shares because the place has a nice big airport.”
Could Hong Kong make better use of nearby airports on the mainland?
Chek Lap Kok need not be the only airport that serves Hong Kong.
The Airport Authority and Cathay Pacific have repeatedly rejected suggestions that we should use the capacity of neighbouring airports, such as Shenzhen Baoan and Zhuhai . They said co-operation between airports “simply never works” because passengers hate switching between them.
Besides, the argument goes, funnelling passengers to other airports would deny Hong Kong the economic benefits of keeping them here.
But advocates for regional co-operation say this is tunnel vision.
“Forget about the money you could have made by selling a bowl of fish-ball noodles – as long as traffic keeps flowing, it does not matter which airport they land in,” a business leader familiar with the industry said. “The whole region’s economy will benefit.”
And the advocates are not really talking about funnelling passengers from airport to airport. They see Shenzhen simply as a second airport for Hong Kong – like Gatwick Airport is for London.
Shenzhen Baoan airport just opened its second runway and will add a third in time. It takes more than an hour now to get there from Hong Kong by metro or cross-border coach, and flights suffer frequent delays due to congested airspace.
But civil aviation officials are struggling to free up more sky for commercial flights in light of an acute growth in air traffic demand, and there are plans for a rail link that could link Chek Lap Kok and Shenzhen Baoan in 20 minutes, with a stop possibly in Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen Long.
“Shenzhen airport is just 30 kilometres away from us, why don’t we make better use of it?” asked Peter Lok Kung-nam, former commissioner of civil aviation. “They have space to expand, not us. Besides, with five airports co-existing in the congested airspace within a radius of 150 kilometres, it is difficult to see how any of them can utilise its capacity well.”
For years, the Airport Authority engaged in talks with mainland authorities over closer co-operation for the five airports in the Pearl River Delta: Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Macau. The idea was to consolidate the airports’ interests and assign Hong Kong to manage it all, but the Hong Kong government apparently didn’t like the idea.
“Hong Kong thinks it could excel on its own, but the truth is we have this natural limitation in land and resources,” the business source said. “Today they may be slow and inefficient, but you can’t count on their flaws forever, when they become just as efficient as us, why should a mainlander shun the airport in his backyard and come all this way to Hong Kong to bridge a flight?”
Hong Kong now processes 80 per cent of air passengers and 90 per cent of cargo originating from the Pearl River Delta. But most future growth will be from the mainland, according to projections by the aviation sector.
Even supporters of the third runway say it could take the mainland less than a decade to catch up.
“It may have taken us many years to build our critical mass,” a former aviation official said. “But the mainland airlines do not have to wait before they gather sufficient cargo and passengers to launch a route. They have the backing of the government.”
The rise of the mainland in terms of infrastructure and labour skills has driven both Hong Kong’s manufacturing industry and port cargo businesses to the north during the past three decades.
Hong Kong argues aviation is different because it competes more on service quality than costs. But costs still make an impact somewhere, as can be seen by the many budget flyers who have shifted to Shenzhen over the years.
“Decades ago, the shipping industry also cited economic reasons to persuade the government to build a tenth container terminal. They didn’t succeed, and the sector is shrinking. But is it because they failed to get that terminal? Or was it a losing game anyway?” the official asked.
Even without the third runway, Chek Lap Kok will be able to handle 74 million passengers and 6 million tonnes of cargo when already-planned expansions are completed – exceeding Heathrow, which served a total of 65 million passengers last year.
With a third runway, Hong Kong would be able to handle 97 million passengers – more than Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the world’s busiest since 1999, handling an annual average of just below 90 million passengers in the past five years. It has five runways.
Will a saturated airport maintain its global connectivity?
Officials say that when an airport is saturated, its global connectivity doesn’t remain at the same level. It slowly deteriorates. That’s because airlines, squeezed with fewer flight slots, tend to replace the less profitable destinations with more flights to profitable ones.
At Heathrow, the number of destinations fell from a peak of 220 during the 1990s to 186 nowadays. But a better deployment of flight slots has enabled the London airport to top the world in international passengers captured.
If an airport reaches capacity, some connecting flights may be replaced by direct flights that serve mainly local residents and those for whom the airport is their final destination.
Direct-flight passengers are said to bring four times the level of economic benefit of transfer and transit passengers – who only stop by in Hong Kong for a few short hours before boarding another flight to their intended destinations.
In the past five years, transfer and transit passengers made up about one-third of all passengers at Chek Lap Kok; during the Kai Tak era, that proportion was once as low as 10 per cent. Because travel demand by local residents has largely matured, the momentum for future growth is expected to come from mainland visitors – many of them using the Chek Lap Kok airport for overseas flights – further boosting the proportion of transit and transfer passengers at the Hong Kong airport.
“There is only so much growth you can expect from local residents,” the business leader said. “The bankers in Central are already travelling two to three times a week, if they travel any more their wives will divorce them. Shall we spend all this money to build a runway that serves primarily the less profitable transit and transfer passengers?”
He added: “It is funny that when we suggested sending the passengers to Shenzhen Airport, officials said it would not work because it was inconvenient for passengers. However, it was not so inconvenient when they asked mainland passengers to come to Hong Kong for transit.”
A full-capacity airport actually has some benefits for airline companies, as they are forced to make more efficient use of their aircraft in loading and yield.
“Sometimes an airline opened a route just to keep a favourable time slot or expand its network. The economic value of that destination, however, could be marginal,” Lok said. “The aircraft may only be half full or even less at off-peak seasons, wasting resources and [being] not so environmentally friendly.”
Runway supporters say that transit passengers do help boost traffic volume.
And airports in major cities like Singapore and Dubai compete to act as hubs for their regions.
Stanley Hui Hon-chung, the Airport Authority’s chief executive, has warned that passengers may shoulder higher air fares and suffer a worse service if a saturated airport suffers the stress of constant overcrowding.
More flights may be delayed and more bags may go missing, as they do at Heathrow.
On the other hand, if the HK$136.2 billion third runway is given the go-ahead, passengers may be charged more under the user-pay principle.
Is expansion really the key to boosting air traffic levels?
There may be as many arguments for as against the runway proposal – but even without an airport expansion, there are ways to increase Hong Kong’s air traffic.
A recently published study from the European Commission said Europe’s busiest airports could boost their capacity by 28 million passengers every year just by improving the allocation of take-off and landing slots. Another possibility would involve opening up more of the airspace controlled by the mainland.
Although this is largely a decision for the mainland’s military authorities, the Civil Aviation Department in Hong Kong could continue to develop new air traffic control arrangements with its counterparts in Macau and the mainland.
After the latest update of air traffic control handling, the two runways at Chek Lap Kok can handle up to 68 movements an hour, well behind the 80 movements an hour London Heathrow can handle with the same number of runways.
Geographical constraints – the presence of two hills to the south of the runway – go some way to explaining that discrepancy – but there are hopes that improvements in technology will allow the city to offer more flights per hour and further narrow the gap.
Australia steps up battle to cut pollution
South China Morning Post – 11 July 2011
PM Julia Gillard unveils carbon tax plan that aims to cut national emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020 – a reduction of some 160 million tonnes
Australia unveiled its most sweeping economic reform in decades yesterday with a plan to tax carbon emissions from the nation’s worst polluters, reviving hopes of stronger global climate action with the largest emissions trade scheme outside Europe.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said 500 companies including steel and aluminium manufacturers would pay a A$23 (HK$193) per tonne carbon tax from next year, rising by 2.5 per cent a year, moving to a market-based trading scheme in 2015.
“It’s time to get on with this, we are going to get this done,” said Gillard after a battle to win political support for the scheme, which has polarised voters and business. A parliamentary vote on the scheme is expected before the year-end.
Australia is the developed world’s worst per-capita greenhouse gas emitter because of its heavy reliance on cheap coal for power generation. Emissions are set to rise in the booming economy without a carbon cost, the government says.
The stakes are high for Gillard’s Labor party, which relies on the support of Greens and independents for a one-seat lower house majority. Her popularity has slumped to record lows over the scheme.
With the details now finally released after months of waiting, Gillard will now try to convince voters opposed to the plan ahead of a parliamentary vote, trying to deflect a campaign against it by the hardest hit businesses.
“It is absolutely critical that the government sells this effectively,” said Tony Wood, a director of the energy programme at the Grattan Institute, a policy think tank.
Retail and clean-energy stocks were expected to be among the winners, and airlines and miners the losers, but analysts said financial markets overall were expected to take the policy in their stride.
The scheme aims to cut national emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, which would mean a cut of about 160 million tonnes.
The package already has the broad support of the Greens and independents, although crossbenchers said they had yet to support extra measures to protect steelmakers and jobs in the vital coal industry.
Parliament twice rejected previous attempts to price carbon in 2009 and any fresh rebuff in a vote expected later this year would seriously threaten Gillard’s government.
The danger is that a vigorous campaign by the conservative opposition and business groups opposed to the tax, could erode public support and frighten political backers ahead of elections due by 2013.
“This tax is going to go up and up and up as time goes by. I think this package is going to compound the trust problem that has dogged the prime minister. This package certainly sets up the next election to be a referendum on the carbon tax,” said conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott.
Abbott has seized on voter fears of a new tax and higher costs from a scheme that aims to transform how the nation generates and uses energy across the economy.
To neutralise opposition, Gillard said more than A$24 billion to be raised from pollution permit sales over the next three years would go to households through generous tax cuts worth more than A$15 billion.
Australia’s scheme will cover 60 per cent of carbon pollution apart from exempted agricultural and light vehicle emissions, with Treasury models showing it would boost the consumer price index by 0.7 per cent in its first year, to June 2013.
It could also aid global efforts to fight carbon pollution, which have stalled since US President Barack Obama last year ruled out a federal climate bill in his present term. Outside the European Union, only New Zealand has a national carbon scheme.
“Other countries will look at one of the most carbon polluting economies on the planet that has made one huge stride forward towards putting a price on carbon,” said John Connor, the chief executive of the Climate Institute.
Australia said it hoped to link its scheme, which would cost A$4.4 billion to implement after household and industry compensation, to other international carbon markets and land abatement schemes when its emissions market was running.
Gillard said her government would spend A$9.2 billion over the first three years of the scheme to ensure heavy polluting industries like steel and aluminium production were not killed off, and help close the oldest and dirtiest power stations.
Australia, a major coal exporter, relies on coal for 80 per cent of electricity generation, which in turn accounts for 37 per cent of emissions.
“Australia to tax nation’s top CO2 emitters, compensate households for higher power costs” (A$23 dollars ($25) per metric ton of CO2)
10 July 2011
Australia to tax nation’s top carbon dioxide emitters, compensate households for higher power costs
Associated Press
SYDNEY (AP) — Australia will force its 500 worst polluters to pay 23 Australian dollars ($25) for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, with the government promising to compensate households hit with higher power bills under a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unveiled Sunday.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to reassure wary Australians that the deeply unpopular carbon tax will only cause a minority of households to pay more and insisted it is critical to helping the country lower its massive carbon emissions. Australia is one of the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluters, due to its heavy reliance on coal for electricity.
“We generate more carbon pollution per head than any other country in the developed world,” Gillard told reporters in Canberra as she released details of the tax, which will go into effect on July 1, 2012. “We’ve got a lot of work to do to hold our place in the race that the world is running.”
The government hopes businesses affected by the tax will seek out clean energy alternatives to reduce their bills. The affected companies will have to pay AU$23 per metric ton of carbon, with the price rising 2.5 percent a year until 2015, when the plan will move to a market-based emissions trading scheme.
The carbon tax is the government’s main tool in meeting its pledge to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 to at least 5 percent below 2000 levels. By then, the tax will have helped reduce carbon pollution by 160 million metric tons — the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road, Gillard said.
Critics of the plan say Australian households will be unfairly burdened by higher costs passed onto them by the big polluters. To help compensate for the higher bills, nine out of 10 households will receive some kind of assistance in the form of income tax cuts and payments. Two-thirds of all households will receive enough assistance to cover the entire financial impact of the tax, Gillard said.
Under the plan, the average household will see its costs increase by AU$9.90 a week, which includes an additional AU$3.30 per week for electricity and another AU$1.50 a week for gas. But the government says on average, households will receive AU$10.10 a week in assistance.
Industries affected by the change will get AU$9.2 billion in compensation over the next three years, with the worst-hit businesses expected to be steel and aluminum manufacturers.
Conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, an outspoken critic of the plan, insisted it will drive up the cost of living for millions of Australians and will do nothing to help the environment.
“It’s socialism masquerading as environmentalism,” Abbott told reporters. “It’s a package which is all economic pain for no environmental gain.”
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the tax would weaken the economy and do little to help the environment.
“Economically, the tax is a harsh blow to import and export competing businesses, especially small and medium businesses,” the group’s CEO Peter Anderson said in a statement. “Our international competitors get a free kick, of our own making.”
Mitch Hooke, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, also slammed the plan, saying it will cost the minerals industry AU$25 billion ($26.8 billion) between 2012 and 2020.
Hooke said the government and Greens party were “imposing costs that none of our international competitors face, and cannot be justified in transitioning the Australian industry to a low carbon future.”
“It will simply export investment, jobs, global market share and emissions offshore,” Hooke said.
Environmental groups were cautiously optimistic about the scheme.
“This package is not perfect, but it is absolutely essential Australia gets started,” Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry said in a statement.
Greenpeace said the package was a good start, but believes the price per ton of carbon should be higher.
“The fact that we have any price at all is testament to all Australians who demanded the government take action on climate change,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific CEO Linda Selvey said in a statement. “But equally, the fact it is such a low price, with such limited coverage is testament to the power of the big polluters to dominate Australia’s political leadership.”
Scientists say carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases emitted by industry, transportation and agriculture are driving global temperatures higher.
Without dramatic reductions in emissions, scientists have warned that melting polar ice caps will inundate islands and coastal areas, certain plant and animal species risk extinction and extreme weather conditions will increase.
The Clean Air Act and Health — A Clearer View from 2011
NEJM | July 6, 2011 | Topics: Public Health
From my office, I have views of downtown Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Mountains. Air pollution infrequently obscures these views, and only rarely are my eyes and throat irritated by smog when I’m outdoors. The Los Angeles air of today is far better than that of the mid-20th century, when severe oxidant pollution, initially of unknown origins, threatened the health and welfare of the city’s residents. Severe smog was a common occurrence. Today, throughout the United States, air quality has improved greatly, and the last century’s severe, life-threatening episodes of air pollution, such as one that caused about 20 deaths in Donora, Pennsylvania, over a 3-day period in 1948, have largely been forgotten. The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) has driven this progress, but we now face new challenges in air-quality management.
The 20th-century pollution episodes and the pervasive smoke problem in cities motivated increasingly stringent and sweeping laws and programs to address air pollution. For more than 40 years, the CAA, aided by amendments passed in 1977 and 1990, has been the foundation for U.S. air-quality management. It provides a broad regulatory framework, covering air-pollution standards, various stationary and mobile sources, acid deposition, and stratospheric ozone protection. Two sections of the law address the major pollutants in ambient air, including particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, as well as lead, which ceased to be a widespread problem when it was removed from gasoline. These pollutants are referred to as “criteria pollutants,” thanks to a passage in the law that requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue “air-quality criteria,” accurately reflecting the scientific evidence related to identifiable public health and environmental effects, for any substance designated as an air pollutant.
The CAA also requires the EPA administrator to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants for which air-quality criteria are listed. The language of the law on this point provides a strong public health mandate that has evolved through application and litigation. By intent, the NAAQS must protect susceptible groups within the U.S. population, although protection for the most susceptible may be unattainable. The achievement of what the CAA calls an “adequate margin of safety” does not imply that risk-free levels have been set, but that an acceptable level of risk has been reached, given uncertainties in the evidence. The costs of implementation and compliance are not to be considered in setting the NAAQS, although the law does call for costs to be considered in the setting of individual emission standards (e.g., for vehicles and electric utilities) that are intended to help meet the NAAQS. Under the CAA, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC, which I currently chair) provides peer review for the EPA’s reports and analyses that support NAAQS revisions.
Over the 40 years since NAAQS were first promulgated, they have led to progressive reductions in levels of criteria pollutants (see graph). Economic analyses indicate that these reductions have been highly cost-effective.1 However, as the EPA administrator now considers revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone, the CAA’s tenets are being questioned. The questions are motivated by the possibility that even lower concentrations for the NAAQS will be proposed, leading to the designation of large regions of the country as out of compliance with the law; such a result would carry implications for many municipalities and states and multiple U.S. industries. The evidence supporting lowering of maximum levels comes largely from epidemiologic studies showing that current levels of particulate matter and ozone are adversely affecting public health. Discussion of the NAAQS and the CAA has been further complicated by a U.S. Supreme Court finding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the remainder of 2011, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, will make key decisions with regard to lowering the NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone. For ozone, she has reopened the 2007 decision of then-administrator Stephen Johnson to set the standard at 0.075 ppm as the 8-hour average, which was made on the basis of the scientific evidence available at the time and the CASAC’s recommendation that the limit be in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. Subsequently, the CASAC has reaffirmed that recommendation and answered additional questions about the scientific foundation for the ozone NAAQS. There is great interest in the administrator’s final decision; in its teleconferences discussing the EPA’s questions on ozone, the CASAC received input from 57 public commenters. Some raised concern that the evidence was still too uncertain to warrant lowering the NAAQS and that any mandated reduction would be costly and lead to the elimination of jobs, whereas others claimed that such a reduction was needed to meet the CAA’s requirement for protecting public health. For particulate matter, a decision will be forthcoming by year’s end with regard to recommended reductions in the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. If the administrator follows the CASAC’s recommendations, the NAAQS will be set at lower levels for both particulate matter and ozone.
As the NAAQS have been reset at lower and lower concentrations, the gaps between acceptable concentrations and irreducible background levels have narrowed, raising the question of how much lower the limits can be pushed. For ozone and particulate-matter pollution, because no thresholds have been identified below which there is no risk at all, the EPA is using scenarios of risk and exposure to gauge the effects of setting the standards at various concentrations and giving consideration to the burden of avoidable disease. In promulgating the NAAQS for these pollutants, the administrator must weigh the public health burden against the uncertainty of the scientific evidence related to lower concentrations, keeping in mind the CAA’s requirement for an adequate margin of safety. It is challenging for researchers to reduce this uncertainty, given the narrowing and low range of concentrations at issue and the difficulty of disentangling the effect of one pollutant from those of others.
As an alternative to regulating pollutants one at a time — the approach outlined in the CAA Amendments of 1990 — consideration is being given to multi-pollutant strategies that would enable the greatest possible reduction in the public health effects of the mixture of inhaled pollutants.2Exposure to traffic-related pollution generally, for example, has adverse health effects but is not specifically addressed in the CAA.3 Some multi-pollutant strategies have already been introduced. The CASAC has just reviewed a multi-pollutant approach for managing the combined effects of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur as they are deposited in sensitive aquatic ecosystems.4 More integrated strategies for air-quality management might also improve control of greenhouse gas emissions, which come from the same sources as the criteria pollutants. New research approaches would be needed to support such integrated strategies.5 Ongoing research may lead to more refined indicators for particulate-matter pollution, to replace the current mass-based standard, which includes a mixture of particles from many sources.
Further interpretation or amendment of the CAA may eventually be needed to advance multi-pollutant air-quality management. Revised interpretation can be controversial and subject to legal challenge; amendments have been passed infrequently and cautiously in the past. But the individual-pollutant approach no longer accords as well with our scientific understanding of air pollution and its potential hazards for human and environmental health. More integrative strategies might well address air-quality problems extending from local to global levels. Any future Congressional action on the CAA should be consistent with the spirit of previous amendments, which recognized that U.S. standards for air quality should be grounded in the best available scientific evidence.
Fourth runway may be needed
South China Morning Post – 6 July 2011
Airport Authority figures indicate that proposed third runway may reach full capacity as early as 2029, just six years after coming into service
| The HK$136.2 billion it would cost to build a third runway at Chek Lap Kok may only buy six to eight years of growth in traffic for the airport before it is saturated again, according to Airport Authority figures.
In three public forums – the last of which took place on Saturday – to lobby support for the project, officials said the multibillion-dollar investment would cater for the airport’s needs until 2030 and beyond, but did not say how far beyond. A careful look at the figures provided in the Airport Master Plan 2030 – a blueprint outlining the airport’s development for the next two decades – shows that even using the authority’s “prudent” projection of an average annual growth in air traffic of 3.2 per cent, the runway will be full by 2031. Taking the more “aggressive” prediction of 3.6 per cent, the runway would reach capacity as early as 2029, six years after its opening in 2023. This does not take into account any delay the project may encounter during a construction over 11 years. “The Airport Authority should tell the public if the third runway can only meet growth for a few years,” said Emily Lau Wai-hing, chairwoman of the Legislative Council finance committee that will determine if the project receives public funding. “Do we need a fourth runway? We should listen to all opinions.” Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society chairman Samuel Hung Ka-yiu said there was simply no more space for a fourth runway. “It is ridiculous that such a costly project could just meet a few years of growth,” he said. “The third runway is just 1 kilometre from a marine park in Lung Kwu Chau. If they built a fourth runway, the park would have to be removed. How many natural resources can we afford to lose in this expensive game chasing economic growth?” The third runway would boost the airport’s handling capacity from 68 flights an hour to 102, which translates into 620,000 movements a year. According to the authority’s forecast, air traffic demand will reach 602,000 movements by 2030 based on annual growth of 3.2 per cent. If the growth continues for just another year, aircraft movements will reach 621,264 – already exceeding the capacity of a three-runway system by 1,264 flights. Under the more robust prediction of 3.6 per cent growth each year the number of aircraft movements will exceed 600,000 by 2028, and over 620,000 by 2029 – one year before the end of a period where growth demand was said to be sustainable. In fact, the third runway is likely to be saturated even earlier than that. In the 20 years to 2010, the annual average growth for passenger throughput, cargo throughput and aircraft movements were, respectively, 4.8 per cent, 8.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent – all higher than the rate adopted by the authority in forecasting air traffic for the next 20 years to 2030. Besides, officials appeared to have used a lower base when plotting the growth curve; while aircraft movements reached 316,000 last year, the dot reflecting the number of flights for 2010 was put below the line of 300,000. An Airport Authority spokesperson said last night that with future air navigation technology and improvements in air traffic management, runway capacity could potentially be stretched further. “This may increase by about 10 per cent in future if there are enhancements in aircraft or air traffic control or the Pearl River Delta airspace structurer.” It earlier said Hong Kong will lose more than 100 million passengers and 15 million tonnes of air cargo in the 10 years to 2030 without the third runway. Officials have said they will review the need of a fourth runway in due course. |
Emissions from aircraft will grow
The 2 per cent aviation emissions figure Cathay Pacific Mark Watson cites (“Aviation industry is committed to addressing climate change impact”, June 20) in response to my letter (“Emissions accelerating, not declining”, June 13) differ from the 3-3.5 per cent cited by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) website.
The ICAO’s projected aircraft emissions growth of 3-4 per cent per year contrasts with Mr Watson’s planned halving of emissions by 2050. In 38 years, a 3.5 per cent exponential growth will quadruple, not halve, current emissions: 628 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually will become 2,512 million tonnes. Because aircraft engines release CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates into the stratosphere, their impact is amplified. Current contrail-generated cirrus clouds insulate the atmosphere adding an independent warming effect greater than all previous aircraft CO2/NOX emissions since we began flying. Also, the 70 per cent of improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency has already been achieved. To “radically reduce” that remaining 30 per cent of emissions is technically increasingly difficult.
Any future efficiency improvements are offset by the doubling of flights projected by the Airport Authority (advert in this paper on June 21). I quote: “HK’s GDP forecast at compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.4 per cent” (GDP doubles in 20 years); “Mainland’s CAGR at 7 per cent” (an unrealistic quadruple GDP increase over 38 years); “Air traffic demand doubling by 2030”, coincidentally, a 3.5 per cent annualised growth in demand. Where is this growth to come from? Cheap extractable oil, without which these growth projections are unfeasible, is almost exhausted.
If the authority’s growth projections are correct, aircraft emissions will rise exponentially, making climate change a major problem – or peak oil will terminate the 20th century infinite-economic-growth/business-as-usual model, making flying prohibitively expensive, thereby killing demand. Thus, a third runway either adds to climate change or is redundant.
Richard Fielding, Pok Fu Lam
Letters to Editor SCMP
Airport Authority Hong Kong – Online Survey
Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) is consulting the public on the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) Master Plan 2030 (MP2030), which outlines the strategic direction of the future development of HKIA, that is, maintaining the existing two-runway system or expanding into a three-runway system, and has commissioned the Social Sciences Research Centre (SSRC) of the University of Hong Kong to independently collect and compile public views. Your opinion is very important and valuable for this consultation. It will only take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire and all information collected will be kept strictly confidential and for collective analysis only. If you have any queries on this survey, you can contact the SSRC at 3921 2600 between 9 am and 6 pm from Monday to Friday.*
http://www.hkairport2030.com/en/listen/comments.html
MasterPlan 2030 :
http://www.hkairport2030.com/en/
http://www.hkairport2030.com/en/environment/index.html
OPTION 1 :
OPTION 2 :