Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

October, 2011:

Row over funding of court battles

South China Morning Post – Oct. 20, 2011

DAB points finger at Civic Party lawyers as it queries use of legal aid to pay for rising number of judicial reviews, often aimed at thwarting government plans

Clear the Air says:

The DAB should declare the sources of its $70m yearly funding and how it is used before casting aspersions.

The bridge will bring further pollution to Tung Chung whose poor air quality already exceeds USA., European and WHO standards.

The bridge is being built to connect Zhuhai domestic airport to the outside world via Chep Lap Kok.

The Airport Authority of Hong Kong (sole shareholder HK Government) controls 51% of the Zhuhai airport joint venture company.

Tens of millions of dollars in legal aid is being pumped into a mounting number of judicial review cases – many of them challenges to government policies. And that’s sparked a row about whether the fund is being abused for the benefit of lawyers.

In particular, pro-government politicians have questioned whether lawyers from the Civic Party made any gains from the court case that recently delayed the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge – drawing an angry rebuttal from the party.

The government would not disclose how much legal aid had been spent on judicial reviews, except to say that recent landmark cases including the bridge review and a domestic helper’s right-of-abode case had cost about HK$4 million so far.

Statistics from the Legal Aid Department’s annual reports show that HK$79 million was spent in 2009 on non-immigration-related judicial reviews, probate and money disputes, of which judicial reviews formed a majority. This was a jump of 23.4 per cent on the previous year.

In 2001, 20 of 147 applications for help with judicial reviews were approved. Last year, the department received 268 applications and approved 93. In a majority of the cases, the lawyers were nominated by the applicants, not legal aid officials.

The trend for more judicial reviews is part of a global trend in democratic countries.

The bridge case sparked controversy when applicant Chu Yee-wah said she was prompted by “unidentified parties” to challenge the bridge’s environmental impact assessment report, causing delays the government says will cost billions.

Ip Kwok-him, a lawmaker for the pro-government Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, questioned yesterday whether legal aid was being abused.

“Is there any mechanism to stop someone from making money out of these judicial review cases?” he asked.

Civic Party lawmaker and barrister Audrey Eu Yuet-mee said such concerns were not justified, as many cases were related to public interest.

“It shows that the DAB has no clue of what rule of law is,” she said, and called the attack on the Civic Party a smear campaign.

Eu said the Legal Aid Department had very stringent processes to scrutinise applications and lawyers nominated by applicants were not always allowed. Asked why such cases were on the rise, she said it showed people trusted the courts more than the government.

Secretary for Home Affairs Tsang Tak-sing, meanwhile, said police were not investigating whether the bridge case involved champerty – where a person funds a case to win a portion of the benefits – because there had been no such complaint.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting, associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, said it would be very difficult to prove a lawyer was orchestrating litigation for personal gain, and it would be dangerous if anyone tried to “plug the loophole”.

“Unless you can prove that these lawyers were relying on such litigation for a living … it is difficult to say there is a case of champerty,” Tai said. “In fact, most senior counsels could possibly earn three to four times more than they get from legal aid cases because the Legal Aid Department caps attorneys’ hourly charges.”

Officials say the delay in the bridge could cost HK$6.5 billion.

Officials say the delay in the bridge could cost HK$6.5 billion.

Regulator is holding Chek Lap Kok back

Albert Cheng says air traffic control is not being fully utilised to increase capacity

South China Morning Post – Oct. 19, 2011

Last weekend, in his response to my recent column on aviation safety, the Civil Aviation Department’s assistant director general for air traffic management, Wong Ping-fai, said Hong Kong did not lack air traffic controllers. He pointed out that controllers worked an average of 36.17 hours per week and had 36 days of annual leave, which means there is no fatigue problem or overworked staff.

According to Wong, the department has 154 frontline air traffic controllers, up from 148 last year. Over the last five years, he said, there had been a 25 per cent increase in the total number of air traffic controllers.

But the number of annual flight movements has been on a rapid rise over the past four years: from 296,000 in 2007 to 310,000 last year. This year the figure is expected to reach 320,000. The volume of flight movements will therefore expand by 24,000 just over the past five years.

The current air traffic handling capacity at the Hong Kong International Airport is 62 flight movements per hour, which pales by comparison with others in neighbouring regions. Baiyun Airport in Guangzhou now handles 60 flight movements per hour, but a third runway under construction will boost capacity to 106 flights per hour when it is completed before the end of this year.

Beijing International Airport’s capacity is 68 flights per hour and London Heathrow’s is 85. It is unacceptable that Hong Kong,  as a regional aviation hub, can handle only 62 flight movements per hour.

The Civil Aviation Department has hurt our reputation by not optimising the capacity and resources of the airport. Yet department officials now propose to build a third runway, which will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. What a waste of money! We could have reached a higher handling capacity if the department could better utilise resources.

The old Kai Tak airport, right in the midst of residential buildings and with only one runway, could handle 35 flight movements per hour. Now, Chek Lap Kok with two runways and a far less challenging location for pilots to land can’t even double the Kai Tak capacity. How ridiculous it makes us look.

The problem is that we are operating with the format of “one in, one out”. Incoming aircraft land on the northern runway while outgoing flights take off from the southern runway instead of utilising both runways for take-off and landing. It defies logic why we can’t allow both runways to operate independently.

It’s obvious that the stumbling block is the Civil Aviation Department’s refusal to move with the times. They appear to be reluctant to upgrade existing equipment to optimise the capacity of existing runways to allow landings and take-offs to take place on both runways.

The key to making this work is whether we can maintain the safety margin as well as efficiency when allowing incoming and outgoing flights to take place on both runways at the same time.

It’s true that the surrounding landscape at the airport does make it slightly difficult to come up with an ideal set of approach and departure procedures as well as missed approach procedures. But it’s not impossible.

The Civil Aviation Department is well equipped to handle the situation. In 2000, it bought a multimillion-dollar air traffic control radar – the Precision Runway Monitor, which provides the most up-to-date, real-time data to air traffic controllers to prevent any aircraft deviating from its intended flight path and give out timely warnings in advance.

The PRM could be put to better use to help raise our airport capacity. The department can’t keep on shirking its responsibility by putting the blame on outside factors such as the congested airspace in the Pearl River Delta region.

We need to seriously consider the option and allow both runways to operate at maximum capacity. At the same time, we must recruit more air traffic controllers to handle future flight movement increases. It’s time to welcome foreign talent.

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

Legco Papers

Year 2009 – 2010

LC Paper No. Paper Meeting date
CB(1)916/09-10(01) Administration’s paper on rationalization of bus routes to improve air quality 22 January 2010
28 May 2010
12 July 2010
CB(1)2009/09-10(03) Administration’s consultation papers for District Councils on the 2010-2011 Bus Route Development Programme (Chinese version only) 28 May 2010
12 July 2010
CB(1)2009/09-10(02) Administration’s paper on environmental benefits on expedited replacement of franchised buses 28 May 2010
12 July 2010
CB(1)2009/09-10(01) Administration’s paper on results of consultation with District Councils on franchised bus route development programme for 2010-2011 28 May 2010
12 July 2010
CB(1)2454/09-10(01) Administration’s paper on guidelines on franchised bus service rationalisation 12 July 2010
CB(1)2454/09-10(02) Administration’s paper on pilot low emission zones for franchised buses 12 July

CE pledges to improve air quality

RTHK – 19 Oct. 2011

http://www.rthk.org.hk/APSuppics/mfile_56_792040_1.jpg

Chief Executive Donald Tsang answering questions from listeners. Photo: RTHK.

The Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, has pledged to push through new air quality objectives before he steps down from office.

Speaking on an RTHK radio phone-in programme, Mr Tsang stressed that tackling air pollution is one of his main priorities.

In his final policy address last week, he said the government was now drawing up the final recommendations. He hoped they would be submitted for discussion in Legco by the end of this year.

Seeing Through the Smog

http://hk.asia-city.com/city-living/article/seeing-through-smog

In addition to all the particles and toxic gases floating through our city’s air, there’s a lot of misinformation, too. We tracked down the experts and combed research reports to debunk common myths about air pollution. We’re not gonna lie—some of the stats, and the general apathy towards the issue, are pretty scary. But since staying indoors all day isn’t an option, arming ourselves with knowledge is the next best thing, and it’s the first step toward a long-term solution. The air itself may not be crystal clear now (or ever) but we hope you come to see the situation a little more clearly.

By HK staff | published Oct 20, 2011

Seeing Through the Smog

Seeing Through the Smog

Seeing Through the Smog

China, rather than local sources, is the main reason for all of our air pollution problems.

False.
Hongkongers shy away from taking responsibility for the air pollution problem afflicting our city. We have an easy scapegoat—which to argue that it’s factories and other sources on the mainland that emit most of the pollutants that invade our air, and that Hong Kong itself only plays a minor role. That is definitely not true—just look at the statistics.
A research study conducted by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in 2007 showed that local sources are the primary factors contributing to air pollution 53 percent of the time. Regional sources, on the other hand, are crucial influences on air pollution only 36 percent of the time.
At a local level, exhaust from vehicles (cars, trucks, buses stopped end-to-end in traffic) and marine transportation (yes, all those container ships constantly chugging through our waters) are major sources of pollutants. It is difficult for pollutants to disperse, especially in such a densely populated city, where they stagnate along the roads, trapped in by high-rise buildings that create urban canyons. At the same time, Hong Kong’s power plants, from Tuen Mun’s to Lamma’s—which burn coal in order to generate electricity—also plays a major role in dirtying our air. – Grace Tsoi
It can give me asthma, respiratory illnesses or other health problems.
Sad but true.
Lots of stuff suspended in our air—Including tiny particles, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, smog, carbon monoxide and lead—has been linked to everything from heart and lung illnesses to diabetes to simple irritation of the eyes, nose and throat—especially for children and the elderly, according to information compiled by Clean Air Network. Studies are constantly underway, but thus far HKU researchers have pointed out that there are correlations between air pollution and visits to your general practitioner, hospital stays and premature deaths.
On an anecdotal level, online forums like Geoxpat are full of threads by newly arrived residents who face a number of health issues upon moving to Hong Kong. Granted, those could be from living in a place with an array of viruses and other disease carriers that their immune systems aren’t yet equipped to fight off, but experts say that the pollution sure doesn’t help.
Respected institutions, ranging from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US to the World Health Organization, have published papers on the negative health effects of air pollution. Back in 1974, an American institution called the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences started to fund research that eventually showed a link between air pollution and respiratory health.
According to the NIEHS, it found that “people living in the more polluted cities had a higher risk of hospitalization and early death from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases than those living in the less polluted cities”—and those kinds of correlations continue to be studied to this day. Even the Hong Kong government, which tends to downplay the impact of air pollution on the city, acknowledges on the Centre for Health Protection website that “[t]he impact of air pollution on human health has been widely recognized.”
Most recently, a study published earlier this year by HKU researchers found that all those days when you can’t see the other side of the harbor or the top of the ICC (okay, when there’s low visibility in general due to pollution, rather than to rain clouds) have a direct correlation with the city’s increased mortality rates. “The results show that for each 6.5 kilometers [of] reduction in visibility, there is a 1.13% increase in all natural (non-accidental) causes of death, accounting for about 450 deaths,” researchers write. “By applying the visibility measurement result, over the four years from 2007-2010, poor visibility was associated with 1,200 deaths annually in Hong Kong, a total of 4,800 additional deaths.”
Most of that was due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease. It’s not that the smogginess necessarily caused death, but merely that it serves as a reliable, easily interpretable indicator by which to measure how many pollutants are in the air that day.
That’s not to say that everyone has to cower inside on days when it looks like grey soup outside the window—more on that later—but it’s one more notch of evidence that the health effects of air pollution aren’t anything to scoff at. – Hana R. Alberts
If the Air Pollution Index (API) is more than 101, the government advises certain at-risk populations to avoid exercise and outdoor activities; if it’s more than 201, the general public is given the same recommendations. But if the API is less than 100, there’s nothing to worry about.
NOPE.
You’d think measuring air pollution would be pretty straightforward, but it’s not. The government keeps its own readings, which are presented in a list of measurements taken at various points, from hotspots like Central to green, idyllic spots like Tap Mun (whose readings, by the way, aren’t that low). These are taken from stations on top of buildings, which don’t reflect the extent of roadside pollution, a.k.a. just how much the buses spew exhaust in your face as you’re waiting at the crosswalk.
There are three roadside monitoring stations that measure just how bad the air is in the traffic-jammed streets of Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Just for reference, at the Central roadside measuring station, as of Oct 16, 98 out of 289 days so far this year have been alert days.
Advocacy groups like Clean Air Network and Clear the Air take issue with how the Hong Kong government measures air pollution—and how it interprets the readings. To put it simply, the World Health Organization has more stringent guidelines for what it considers to be the maximum amount of pollutants in the air; meanwhile, according to CAN, Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives “permit pollutant levels two to four times greater than those recommended” by the WHO.
In any case, API levels of 101-200 are classified as high, and 201-500 as severe—meaning the public is advised to refrain from physical exertion or even outdoor activities during those days. As Environmental Protection Department Information Officer YF Chau explains, “API is a simple way of describing air pollution levels. In Hong Kong, the API converts air pollution data from several types of pollutants into a value ranging from 0 to 500. We report the real-time general and roadside APIs hourly. These pollutants are nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and respirable suspended particulates. An index is calculated for each of the five pollutants and the highest index is reported as the API of that hour.”
But does this mean we are A-OK when API levels are below 100? Not according to Jia Yu-ling, education and research manager at Clean Air Network. “The API is a simplified index for assessing general air quality levels, but the standards are based on the government’s own Air Quality Objectives (AQO), and these objectives are very outdated—they’re more than 20 years old and backwards compared to standards from the World Health Organization,” she says.
Even the government acknowledges that lower API levels don’t translate to complete safety. For levels from 51-100, the EPD website says: “Long-term effects may, however, be observed if exposed at such level persistently for months or years.”
Even if the API isn’t below the danger zone, it doesn’t mean it’s safe to go out, Jia asserts: “There is no research [out there] based on what level API will be safe.” As CAN’s website further explains, “[Even if] pollutant levels are considered unsafe under the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, they may not result in an API reading in excess of 100. When the API is below 100 but pollution exceeds the [World Health Organization recommendations], you must make a judgment call for yourself about the advisability of venturing outside in a highly trafficked are.”
There’s a lot of jargon involved in these kinds of analyses, but it’s all a complicated way of saying that everything’s not peachy keen if it looks like a clear day and the air pollution measurements aren’t sky-high. There’s still plenty of risk, it’s just a matter of how we choose to deal with it. – Adele Wong
It’s not safe to exercise outside because of it.
True, technically—but let’s not get all alarmist and agoraphobic here.
Just because our smoggy air can carry short- and long-term health effects doesn’t mean that we should stay indoors all day and avoid inhaling when we’re outside. That’s just not viable.
Exercising is a bit different, though, because while running or biking, we breathe hard to take in more oxygen to support our physical exertion, meaning that we’re inhaling more of the stuff that’s in the air (remember the tiny particles and the lead and all the rest of it) and introducing it to our respiratory and circulatory systems. “Athletes typically take in 10 to 20 times as much air,” than regular folks, an American university professor told the New York Times in 2007. Many media reports, too, have documented how athletes fear the effects of air pollution on their bodies—take, for example, the way many competitors were wary of the air quality in Beijing ahead of the 2008 Olympics.
According to a report called “The Air We Breathe: A Public Health Dialogue,” on policy think tank Civic Exchange’s website, dated from 2009, “Hong Kong’s average pollution levels are so high that in recent years there have been only about 30 days per year when it would be truly safe to do exercise.” This stat was determined by HKU researchers based on the number of days and the amount by which Hong Kong’s air pollution exceeds the WHO guidelines, and also took into account that exercise inevitably means that you take in more air in a shorter time span, “increasing exposure to pollution and amplifying damage to the body.”
“Anyone taking exercise in Hong Kong needs to be aware of the risks air pollution poses to their health,” then-HKU professor Anthony Hedley said in the report. “People here are caught in an impossible dilemma—regular exercise is absolutely necessary for good heath—but most of the time it also increases exposure to the harmful effects of air pollution.” (Hedley himself, incidentally, moved away from Hong Kong earlier this year in a very public and drastic statement about Hong Kong’s air quality.)
Now for some practical advice: Hak-Kan Lai, a research assistant professor at HKU’s school of public health whose research focuses on the intersection of air pollution and health, recommends people work out at 6am, like he does.
“The best would be even earlier. If people are capable of waking up even earlier, it would be better,” he says, adding that people should always exercise away from busy highways: “Try to jog somewhere far away from the roads.” – Hana R. Alberts
Moving out to the New Territories or to outlying islands can reduce the negative effects of air pollution on our bodies.
TRUE (ish).
For many Hongkongers, one solution to the air pollution problem is to simply move house. As pollution worsens and property prices in the city get even higher, rural areas such as Sai Kung, Tai Po and the outlying islands can seem like more attractive options—particularly for those with young families. But are we just kidding ourselves? Can we really significantly protect ourselves and our loved ones from the negative effects of air pollution just by moving out of town? We
took a closer look at the Environmental Protection Department’s air pollution readings for the first three quarters of 2011 at Tap Mun (an island in outback Sai Kung) Tung Chung (Lantau) and Central.
While the air quality out in the boondocks is better than in the town center, with a total of 1,974 “Low” Air Pollution Index (API) hours (82 days) logged in Tung Chung and 1,841 hours (77 days) logged in Tap Mun, it still pales in comparison to the “High to Very High” bad air hours, of which there were 2,550 (100 days) and 2,095 (87 days) respectively. However, you’re better off there than in Central, where roadside stations logged a shocking 5,563 hours (231 days) of “High to Very High” readings, and, um… zero “Low” readings for the year so far.
“Is Lantau safer? Generally, yes,” says Jia Yi-ling, education and research manager at the Clean Air Network. “There’s less traffic and more open space, so pollution can better disperse. But that doesn’t mean it’s safe. In general, air pollution in Hong Kong is bad, no matter how far you move.”
So there you have it: Sai Kung and the outlying islands might have better air, but working on a relative scale here—you’re still better off emigrating to New Zealand. – Sarah Fung
Smokers and tobacco use are a negligible part of air pollution.
FALSE.
There is no denying the impact of cigarette smoke on the air. “Tobacco smoke, including the smoke exhaled by the smoker and the smoke emitted from the burning tobacco at the tip of a cigarette or cigar, is one of the important sources of indoor air pollutants. It contains more than 4,000 individual chemical compounds.
Many toxic agents and more than 50 carcinogens have been identified in cigarette smoke,” says YF Chau, information officer at the Environmental Protection Department. Since the city’s indoor smoking ban, enacted in 2007 and extended to bars, clubs and mahjong parlors in 2009, James Middleton says that the situation has gotten a bit better, although government enforcement of the ban is still inadequate.
But what about outdoor smokers? “Tobacco smoke plumes are as dangerous outdoors to bystanders,” Middleton says. A Stanford University study in 2007 also points out that smoking outdoors is very harmful.
“Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air,” assistant professor and lead author of the study Neil Klepeis told the Stanford University News service. “But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels.”
“It is undeniable that tobacco use deteriorates air quality,” says Angel Tam of the Hong Kong Council of Smoking and Health. But it does far more than that—it also costs the city human lives. According to Middleton, 7,000 people die every year in Hong Kong because of cigarette smoke, and 23 percent of them are passive smokers—meaning they don’t smoke themselves but inhale cigarette smoke from those around them.
That’s approximately 1,600 people dying each year from inhaling toxic cigarette smoke from the environment. Sidestream smoke, which is let off into the ether while someone holds a smoldering cigarette, cigar or pipe, is five to 53 percent more toxic than what the smoker inhales himself, says Middleton.
It’s not exactly the same as the carbon monoxide in bus exhaust or the tiny throat- and lung-clogging particles emitted by a coal-burning power plant, but it’s just one more item to add to a long list of worrying air problems for Hongkongers. – Adele Wong
If everyone had electric cars, and the buses switched off of diesel, we wouldn’t have problems anymore.
False.
It would help, no doubt about it—but it’s highly unlikely. “Car emissions [are the] second largest source of pollution in Hong Kong,” says CAN’s Jia Tu-lin. Clean Air Network believes focusing on reducing the number of commercial vehicles running on diesel is an important step to protect Hongkongers’ health. They make up 20 percent of vehicles on the road but pose the biggest health threat.
“A lot of buses in Hong Kong today have old engines [which] are highly polluting,” says Jia. “If those buses can switch to newer engines, roadside pollution will be reduced.”
Clear the Air’s Middleton thinks big bus terminals should be built in areas skirting the densest parts of the city that would act as massive interchanges where you could change from a regular bus to an electric one, meaning that only electric buses would run through the busiest parts of the city.
It would prevent us from further damaging our air quality, and it would also be more efficient, given the glut of buses trolling the streets and emitting noxious exhaust that are less than full.
“Walk around 10:30 in the morning in Central and just count the number of buses and how many people are on them,“ Middleton says. “We call the buses moving advertising billboards, because that’s all they do for 90 percent of the day.”
But what about electric cars? Less than 100 electric cars were registered by the end of last year. And while it’s a good goal to get gas-guzzlers off the streets eventually, there’s a long road
ahead—both for engineers working on affordable technology like batteries and charging time and for advocates to encourage adoption of the technology among drivers who prefer the status of brand-name vehicles. – Katie Kenny
The government recognizes the problem, and is doing everything it can to help abate it.
Yes and no.
The Hong Kong government has cited air pollution as an important issue in its policy addresses from both 2011 and 2010, and Pearl Ng, assistant information officer at the Environmental Protection Bureau, states that “the government has accorded top priority to combat our air pollution.”
Some of the measures put forward to combat air pollution include switching to zero-emission, electric buses; subsidizing public transport vehicles that utilize liquefied petroleum gas (LPG); and drafting a proposal for updating the air quality objectives (AQOs). However, the government has been consistently criticized by both mainstream media outlets and local environmental groups for not doing nearly enough.
“Donald Tsang looks out and sees a blue sky and he thinks the air is clean,” said Clear the Air’s Middleton, referring to a 2006 interview with the Hong Kong Journal where Tsang stated that “the air is not all that bad… the air quality today is not inferior to Washington, D.C.,” when, in fact, Hong Kong’s air pollution was about 4.5 times as bad.
“The government is doing something, but not enough,” adds Joanne Ooi, chief executive of Clean Air Network. “Although Tsang announced two major initiatives in this year’s policy address… he has yet to deliver on his stated promise to announce new Air Quality Objectives before the end of this year. Without new AQOs, Hong Kong is still missing the cornerstone of a clean air regime, leading Clean Air Network to question Tsang’s understanding of the connection between air and health.” – Leanne Mirandilla
If I buy an air purifier, I can protect myself from pollution.
Half-true.
Step into any Fortress store, and you’ll see that air purifiers are all the rage.
Available in every kind of shape and size, these machines promise to remove harmful airbound substances from our homes. But how effective are they really?
Suzanne Cheung, head of environmental management at the Business Environment Counsel, warns against placing too much trust in air purifiers to improve your living environment.
“Firstly, it depends what kind of pollution you are trying to stay away from. Common pollutants at home include dust, mites, tobacco smoke, VOCs and adhesives—particularly in newly renovated homes. If you want to get rid of these pollutants, then an air purifier can help you get rid of those.”
In terms of Hong Kong’s general air quality however, Cheung advises caution. “Air purifiers are not magic machines. Most of them will get rid of dust, but for very fine particles, the commercially available ones are not so effective.” There are some on the market, however, that are able to filter smaller particles, but these are usually very large.
Before buying an air purifier, no matter what purpose it’s for, Cheung recommends looking for certification from a third party so you know that it can live up to the manufacturer’s claims. “If you want to properly purify the air in a larger room, you’ll need on that’s at least half the height of your door,” advises Cheung. For small Hong Kong flats, it may be impractical—but those are the costs. – Sarah Fung
There’s nothing I can do to help.
Absolute tripe.
There’s plenty that an ordinary Hongkonger can do—and most of these don’t involve any radical lifestyle changes.
“[A] simple action [is to] use public transport more and drive less. If driving is necessary, try [using an] electric or hybrid,” CAN’s Ooi suggests. Adds Middleton of Clear the Air, “Keep out of the streets of Causeway Bay and… Mong Kok” to limit exposure to roadside air pollution.
People can also shake things up by expressing their concern. “People can express their point of view by [attending] public forums or [using] social media to encourage decision makers to take action,” Ooi advises.
Middleton, however, favors a more hard-nosed approach: “Force the government to act. Yes, get in the streets. That’s the one thing Beijing doesn’t like to see. If you get 100,000 people in the streets of Hong Kong complaining about the lack of action on pollution, then things will happen.” – Leanne Mirandilla

China, rather than local sources, is the main reason for all of our air pollution problems.False.Hongkongers shy away from taking responsibility for the air pollution problem afflicting our city. We have an easy scapegoat—which to argue that it’s factories and other sources on the mainland that emit most of the pollutants that invade our air, and that Hong Kong itself only plays a minor role. That is definitely not true—just look at the statistics.A research study conducted by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in 2007 showed that local sources are the primary factors contributing to air pollution 53 percent of the time. Regional sources, on the other hand, are crucial influences on air pollution only 36 percent of the time.At a local level, exhaust from vehicles (cars, trucks, buses stopped end-to-end in traffic) and marine transportation (yes, all those container ships constantly chugging through our waters) are major sources of pollutants. It is difficult for pollutants to disperse, especially in such a densely populated city, where they stagnate along the roads, trapped in by high-rise buildings that create urban canyons. At the same time, Hong Kong’s power plants, from Tuen Mun’s to Lamma’s—which burn coal in order to generate electricity—also plays a major role in dirtying our air. – Grace TsoiIt can give me asthma, respiratory illnesses or other health problems.Sad but true.Lots of stuff suspended in our air—Including tiny particles, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, smog, carbon monoxide and lead—has been linked to everything from heart and lung illnesses to diabetes to simple irritation of the eyes, nose and throat—especially for children and the elderly, according to information compiled by Clean Air Network. Studies are constantly underway, but thus far HKU researchers have pointed out that there are correlations between air pollution and visits to your general practitioner, hospital stays and premature deaths.On an anecdotal level, online forums like Geoxpat are full of threads by newly arrived residents who face a number of health issues upon moving to Hong Kong. Granted, those could be from living in a place with an array of viruses and other disease carriers that their immune systems aren’t yet equipped to fight off, but experts say that the pollution sure doesn’t help.Respected institutions, ranging from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the US to the World Health Organization, have published papers on the negative health effects of air pollution. Back in 1974, an American institution called the National Institute of Environmental HealthSciences started to fund research that eventually showed a link between air pollution and respiratory health.According to the NIEHS, it found that “people living in the more polluted cities had a higher risk of hospitalization and early death from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases than those living in the less polluted cities”—and those kinds of correlations continue to be studied to this day. Even the Hong Kong government, which tends to downplay the impact of air pollution on the city, acknowledges on the Centre for Health Protection website that “[t]he impact of air pollution on human health has been widely recognized.”Most recently, a study published earlier this year by HKU researchers found that all those days when you can’t see the other side of the harbor or the top of the ICC (okay, when there’s low visibility in general due to pollution, rather than to rain clouds) have a direct correlation with the city’s increased mortality rates. “The results show that for each 6.5 kilometers [of] reduction in visibility, there is a 1.13% increase in all natural (non-accidental) causes of death, accounting for about 450 deaths,” researchers write. “By applying the visibility measurement result, over the four years from 2007-2010, poor visibility was associated with 1,200 deaths annually in Hong Kong, a total of 4,800 additional deaths.”Most of that was due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease. It’s not that the smogginess necessarily caused death, but merely that it serves as a reliable, easily interpretable indicator by which to measure how many pollutants are in the air that day.That’s not to say that everyone has to cower inside on days when it looks like grey soup outside the window—more on that later—but it’s one more notch of evidence that the health effects of air pollution aren’t anything to scoff at. – Hana R. AlbertsIf the Air Pollution Index (API) is more than 101, the government advises certain at-risk populations to avoid exercise and outdoor activities; if it’s more than 201, the general public is given the same recommendations. But if the API is less than 100, there’s nothing to worry about.NOPE.You’d think measuring air pollution would be pretty straightforward, but it’s not. The government keeps its own readings, which are presented in a list of measurements taken at various points, from hotspots like Central to green, idyllic spots like Tap Mun (whose readings, by the way, aren’t that low). These are taken from stations on top of buildings, which don’t reflect the extent of roadside pollution, a.k.a. just how much the buses spew exhaust in your face as you’re waiting at the crosswalk.There are three roadside monitoring stations that measure just how bad the air is in the traffic-jammed streets of Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Just for reference, at the Central roadside measuring station, as of Oct 16, 98 out of 289 days so far this year have been alert days.Advocacy groups like Clean Air Network and Clear the Air take issue with how the Hong Kong government measures air pollution—and how it interprets the readings. To put it simply, the World Health Organization has more stringent guidelines for what it considers to be the maximum amount of pollutants in the air; meanwhile, according to CAN, Hong Kong’s Air Quality Objectives “permit pollutant levels two to four times greater than those recommended” by the WHO.In any case, API levels of 101-200 are classified as high, and 201-500 as severe—meaning the public is advised to refrain from physical exertion or even outdoor activities during those days. As Environmental Protection Department Information Officer YF Chau explains, “API is a simple way of describing air pollution levels. In Hong Kong, the API converts air pollution data from several types of pollutants into a value ranging from 0 to 500. We report the real-time general and roadside APIs hourly. These pollutants are nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and respirable suspended particulates. An index is calculated for each of the five pollutants and the highest index is reported as the API of that hour.”But does this mean we are A-OK when API levels are below 100? Not according to Jia Yu-ling, education and research manager at Clean Air Network. “The API is a simplified index for assessing general air quality levels, but the standards are based on the government’s own Air Quality Objectives (AQO), and these objectives are very outdated—they’re more than 20 years old and backwards compared to standards from the World Health Organization,” she says.Even the government acknowledges that lower API levels don’t translate to complete safety. For levels from 51-100, the EPD website says: “Long-term effects may, however, be observed if exposed at such level persistently for months or years.”Even if the API isn’t below the danger zone, it doesn’t mean it’s safe to go out, Jia asserts: “There is no research [out there] based on what level API will be safe.” As CAN’s website further explains, “[Even if] pollutant levels are considered unsafe under the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, they may not result in an API reading in excess of 100. When the API is below 100 but pollution exceeds the [World Health Organization recommendations], you must make a judgment call for yourself about the advisability of venturing outside in a highly trafficked are.”There’s a lot of jargon involved in these kinds of analyses, but it’s all a complicated way of saying that everything’s not peachy keen if it looks like a clear day and the air pollution measurements aren’t sky-high. There’s still plenty of risk, it’s just a matter of how we choose to deal with it. – Adele WongIt’s not safe to exercise outside because of it.True, technically—but let’s not get all alarmist and agoraphobic here.Just because our smoggy air can carry short- and long-term health effects doesn’t mean that we should stay indoors all day and avoid inhaling when we’re outside. That’s just not viable.Exercising is a bit different, though, because while running or biking, we breathe hard to take in more oxygen to support our physical exertion, meaning that we’re inhaling more of the stuff that’s in the air (remember the tiny particles and the lead and all the rest of it) and introducing it to our respiratory and circulatory systems. “Athletes typically take in 10 to 20 times as much air,” than regular folks, an American university professor told the New York Times in 2007. Many media reports, too, have documented how athletes fear the effects of air pollution on their bodies—take, for example, the way many competitors were wary of the air quality in Beijing ahead of the 2008 Olympics.According to a report called “The Air We Breathe: A Public Health Dialogue,” on policy think tank Civic Exchange’s website, dated from 2009, “Hong Kong’s average pollution levels are so high that in recent years there have been only about 30 days per year when it would be truly safe to do exercise.” This stat was determined by HKU researchers based on the number of days and the amount by which Hong Kong’s air pollution exceeds the WHO guidelines, and also took into account that exercise inevitably means that you take in more air in a shorter time span, “increasing exposure to pollution and amplifying damage to the body.”“Anyone taking exercise in Hong Kong needs to be aware of the risks air pollution poses to their health,” then-HKU professor Anthony Hedley said in the report. “People here are caught in an impossible dilemma—regular exercise is absolutely necessary for good heath—but most of the time it also increases exposure to the harmful effects of air pollution.” (Hedley himself, incidentally, moved away from Hong Kong earlier this year in a very public and drastic statement about Hong Kong’s air quality.)Now for some practical advice: Hak-Kan Lai, a research assistant professor at HKU’s school of public health whose research focuses on the intersection of air pollution and health, recommends people work out at 6am, like he does.“The best would be even earlier. If people are capable of waking up even earlier, it would be better,” he says, adding that people should always exercise away from busy highways: “Try to jog somewhere far away from the roads.” – Hana R. AlbertsMoving out to the New Territories or to outlying islands can reduce the negative effects of air pollution on our bodies.TRUE (ish).For many Hongkongers, one solution to the air pollution problem is to simply move house. As pollution worsens and property prices in the city get even higher, rural areas such as Sai Kung, Tai Po and the outlying islands can seem like more attractive options—particularly for those with young families. But are we just kidding ourselves? Can we really significantly protect ourselves and our loved ones from the negative effects of air pollution just by moving out of town? Wetook a closer look at the Environmental Protection Department’s air pollution readings for the first three quarters of 2011 at Tap Mun (an island in outback Sai Kung) Tung Chung (Lantau) and Central.While the air quality out in the boondocks is better than in the town center, with a total of 1,974 “Low” Air Pollution Index (API) hours (82 days) logged in Tung Chung and 1,841 hours (77 days) logged in Tap Mun, it still pales in comparison to the “High to Very High” bad air hours, of which there were 2,550 (100 days) and 2,095 (87 days) respectively. However, you’re better off there than in Central, where roadside stations logged a shocking 5,563 hours (231 days) of “High to Very High” readings, and, um… zero “Low” readings for the year so far.“Is Lantau safer? Generally, yes,” says Jia Yi-ling, education and research manager at the Clean Air Network. “There’s less traffic and more open space, so pollution can better disperse. But that doesn’t mean it’s safe. In general, air pollution in Hong Kong is bad, no matter how far you move.”So there you have it: Sai Kung and the outlying islands might have better air, but working on a relative scale here—you’re still better off emigrating to New Zealand. – Sarah FungSmokers and tobacco use are a negligible part of air pollution.FALSE.There is no denying the impact of cigarette smoke on the air. “Tobacco smoke, including the smoke exhaled by the smoker and the smoke emitted from the burning tobacco at the tip of a cigarette or cigar, is one of the important sources of indoor air pollutants. It contains more than 4,000 individual chemical compounds.Many toxic agents and more than 50 carcinogens have been identified in cigarette smoke,” says YF Chau, information officer at the Environmental Protection Department. Since the city’s indoor smoking ban, enacted in 2007 and extended to bars, clubs and mahjong parlors in 2009, James Middleton says that the situation has gotten a bit better, although government enforcement of the ban is still inadequate.But what about outdoor smokers? “Tobacco smoke plumes are as dangerous outdoors to bystanders,” Middleton says. A Stanford University study in 2007 also points out that smoking outdoors is very harmful.“Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air,” assistant professor and lead author of the study Neil Klepeis told the Stanford University News service. “But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels.”“It is undeniable that tobacco use deteriorates air quality,” says Angel Tam of the Hong Kong Council of Smoking and Health. But it does far more than that—it also costs the city human lives. According to Middleton, 7,000 people die every year in Hong Kong because of cigarette smoke, and 23 percent of them are passive smokers—meaning they don’t smoke themselves but inhale cigarette smoke from those around them.That’s approximately 1,600 people dying each year from inhaling toxic cigarette smoke from the environment. Sidestream smoke, which is let off into the ether while someone holds a smoldering cigarette, cigar or pipe, is five to 53 percent more toxic than what the smoker inhales himself, says Middleton.It’s not exactly the same as the carbon monoxide in bus exhaust or the tiny throat- and lung-clogging particles emitted by a coal-burning power plant, but it’s just one more item to add to a long list of worrying air problems for Hongkongers. – Adele WongIf everyone had electric cars, and the buses switched off of diesel, we wouldn’t have problems anymore.False.It would help, no doubt about it—but it’s highly unlikely. “Car emissions [are the] second largest source of pollution in Hong Kong,” says CAN’s Jia Tu-lin. Clean Air Network believes focusing on reducing the number of commercial vehicles running on diesel is an important step to protect Hongkongers’ health. They make up 20 percent of vehicles on the road but pose the biggest health threat.“A lot of buses in Hong Kong today have old engines [which] are highly polluting,” says Jia. “If those buses can switch to newer engines, roadside pollution will be reduced.”Clear the Air’s Middleton thinks big bus terminals should be built in areas skirting the densest parts of the city that would act as massive interchanges where you could change from a regular bus to an electric one, meaning that only electric buses would run through the busiest parts of the city.It would prevent us from further damaging our air quality, and it would also be more efficient, given the glut of buses trolling the streets and emitting noxious exhaust that are less than full.“Walk around 10:30 in the morning in Central and just count the number of buses and how many people are on them,“ Middleton says. “We call the buses moving advertising billboards, because that’s all they do for 90 percent of the day.”But what about electric cars? Less than 100 electric cars were registered by the end of last year. And while it’s a good goal to get gas-guzzlers off the streets eventually, there’s a long roadahead—both for engineers working on affordable technology like batteries and charging time and for advocates to encourage adoption of the technology among drivers who prefer the status of brand-name vehicles. – Katie KennyThe government recognizes the problem, and is doing everything it can to help abate it.Yes and no.The Hong Kong government has cited air pollution as an important issue in its policy addresses from both 2011 and 2010, and Pearl Ng, assistant information officer at the Environmental Protection Bureau, states that “the government has accorded top priority to combat our air pollution.”Some of the measures put forward to combat air pollution include switching to zero-emission, electric buses; subsidizing public transport vehicles that utilize liquefied petroleum gas (LPG); and drafting a proposal for updating the air quality objectives (AQOs). However, the government has been consistently criticized by both mainstream media outlets and local environmental groups for not doing nearly enough.“Donald Tsang looks out and sees a blue sky and he thinks the air is clean,” said Clear the Air’s Middleton, referring to a 2006 interview with the Hong Kong Journal where Tsang stated that “the air is not all that bad… the air quality today is not inferior to Washington, D.C.,” when, in fact, Hong Kong’s air pollution was about 4.5 times as bad.“The government is doing something, but not enough,” adds Joanne Ooi, chief executive of Clean Air Network. “Although Tsang announced two major initiatives in this year’s policy address… he has yet to deliver on his stated promise to announce new Air Quality Objectives before the end of this year. Without new AQOs, Hong Kong is still missing the cornerstone of a clean air regime, leading Clean Air Network to question Tsang’s understanding of the connection between air and health.” – Leanne MirandillaIf I buy an air purifier, I can protect myself from pollution.Half-true.Step into any Fortress store, and you’ll see that air purifiers are all the rage.Available in every kind of shape and size, these machines promise to remove harmful airbound substances from our homes. But how effective are they really?Suzanne Cheung, head of environmental management at the Business Environment Counsel, warns against placing too much trust in air purifiers to improve your living environment.“Firstly, it depends what kind of pollution you are trying to stay away from. Common pollutants at home include dust, mites, tobacco smoke, VOCs and adhesives—particularly in newly renovated homes. If you want to get rid of these pollutants, then an air purifier can help you get rid of those.”In terms of Hong Kong’s general air quality however, Cheung advises caution. “Air purifiers are not magic machines. Most of them will get rid of dust, but for very fine particles, the commercially available ones are not so effective.” There are some on the market, however, that are able to filter smaller particles, but these are usually very large.Before buying an air purifier, no matter what purpose it’s for, Cheung recommends looking for certification from a third party so you know that it can live up to the manufacturer’s claims. “If you want to properly purify the air in a larger room, you’ll need on that’s at least half the height of your door,” advises Cheung. For small Hong Kong flats, it may be impractical—but those are the costs. – Sarah FungThere’s nothing I can do to help.Absolute tripe.There’s plenty that an ordinary Hongkonger can do—and most of these don’t involve any radical lifestyle changes.“[A] simple action [is to] use public transport more and drive less. If driving is necessary, try [using an] electric or hybrid,” CAN’s Ooi suggests. Adds Middleton of Clear the Air, “Keep out of the streets of Causeway Bay and… Mong Kok” to limit exposure to roadside air pollution.People can also shake things up by expressing their concern. “People can express their point of view by [attending] public forums or [using] social media to encourage decision makers to take action,” Ooi advises.Middleton, however, favors a more hard-nosed approach: “Force the government to act. Yes, get in the streets. That’s the one thing Beijing doesn’t like to see. If you get 100,000 people in the streets of Hong Kong complaining about the lack of action on pollution, then things will happen.” – Leanne Mirandilla

Mongolia’s capital tries to shed its smog

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/idINIndia-59928420111017

Neon signs are illuminated in Mong Kok district in Hong Kong, October 4, 2011. REUTERS/Bobby Yip

By Michael Kohn

ULAN BATOR | Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:51am IST

ULAN BATOR (Reuters) – Inside a stove showroom deep in the suburbs of this sprawling smoke-filled city, Mam Ivermint, 80, is shopping for a new coal-fired stove — her unlikely contribution to the cause of cleaner air.

The cast-iron stove she selects is low tech, but very different from the traditional Mongolian heaters responsible for spewing much of the grit that fills Ulan Bator’s skies, making it the world’s second-most polluted city. It includes features that cut smoke emissions by 80 percent.

“I am happy to replace my old stove,” said Ivermint, a retired accountant. “This new stove burns much cleaner and is more fuel efficient. It will make our city a cleaner place to live.”

The plan to swap old stoves for cleaner models is part of a new effort by the government and donor organisations to reduce air pollution in one of the world’s smoggiest cities. The World Health Organisation places Ahvaz in southern Iran in the top, most-polluted spot.

Many residents live in gers, drafty felt tents that Mongolian nomads have used for centuries. Tens of thousands of nomads have moved to Ulan Bator in recent years in search of work, bringing coal-fired cast iron stoves to keep warm in temperatures that fall to minus 30 Celsius (minus 22 Fahrenheit) in winter.

The resulting soot that envelopes the city — particularly during the winter — has created a health crises, say experts. A recent report by Simon Fraser University in Vancouver stays that one in 10 deaths in Ulan Bator is associated with air pollution.

Conditions in the capital constrast sharply with the rest of Mongolia, a vast and mostly empty country with plains, mountains and blue skies.

Ulan Bator’s air also underscores the increasing contribution of developing world to global warming. Developing nations now emit more than half of mankind’s greenhouse gas pollution, fuelled by soaring demand for coal, oil and gas to power their booming economies.

“The pollution problem becomes apparent to anyone who lands at the airport in winter. you can see it on approach, it’s a very dark brown smog over the city,” said Courtney Engelke, a representative of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a US-funded donor organisation working to clean up Ulan Bator’s blackened skies.

“I have been to ger districts in the height of winter,” she added. “I found it close to unbearable. I felt a shortness of breath. Almost a choking sensation.”

INSTALLING STOVES AND PLANTING TREES

When Mam Ivermint installs the new heater, her old family stove will not merely be tossed aside. It will be destroyed to prevent others from using it.

The plan to swap old stoves for cleaner models is a part of a joint project by the government and the MCC to sell the stoves at subsidised rates.

The original price of the stoves is 325,000 tugrik ($260), but after a subsidies from the MCC and the government, the cost to the buyer falls to 25,000 tugrik ($20).

That compares with US$25 to $40 for a traditional stove.

Using a unique air flow pattern, the stove allows coal to burn longer than a traditional stove, requiring one third the amount of coal. Most of the coal’s particulates are burnt up inside the stove, eliminating four-fifths of the exhaust that exits through the stove pipe.

The stoves have been wildly successful so far, with more than 15,000 units sold in less than three months. The MCC hopes to sell an additional 80,000 during the final two years of the project.

Besides the low smoke stoves, other options developed by the MCC include heat efficient felt coverings that wrap around the ger and a vestibule fitted around the door. The programme also includes tree planting in ger districts, which for the most part are sprawling patches of waste ground.

The MCC is putting US $50 million into the project with additional commitments made by the government.

The WHO survey on air quality looked at the density of airborne particles less than 10 micrometers, also called PM10 concentrations. The annual average PM10 concentration in Ahvaz was 372 micrograms per cubic metre while Ulan Bator was runner up with 279. Washington DC had just 18.

Ulan Bator’s pollution is seasonal, with relatively low amounts in summer, but critical levels in the depths of winter when the PM10s can reach 2000 micrograms per cubic metre in the worst affected areas.

The 10 most polluted cities on the planet are all in emerging market or developing countries: Iran, Pakistan, India, Botswana and Mongolia. Chronic polluter China no longer has any cities in the top 10.

Most of the PM10s are produced in sprawling slum-like “ger districts”, where in winter most of the 150,000 families living in these areas burn two or three small bags of raw coal a day.

Burning raw coal emits mercury, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and fine particulate matter (PM), as well as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

“The poorest of poor burn other things, like garbage and tyres, which creates a toxic brew of its own,” said Engelke.

The city’s three Soviet-era coal-fired power stations

— Mongolia was once a satellite state of the Soviet Union — and its 180,000 cars are other contributing factors.

“DEADLY” AIR

Ulan Bator’s population, 1.2 million, has doubled over the past decade. Yet, despite the crowded conditions in the capital, Mongolia is the world’s least densely populated country, three times the size of France but with a total population of just three million.

Atmospheric scientist Christa Hasenkopf, says breathing the city air over the course of 12 months would be equivalent to living in a home with somebody who smoked 60 cigarettes a day.

“It’s a rough calculation, but by any measure the air quality in winter is deadly,” says Hasenkopf. “The particulates are a main source of respiratory disease because they are so small and can reach deep into the respiratory system.”

For the government, the long-term solution is to convert the ger areas to more permanent housing, with apartments that can be connected to the central heating grid. But years, perhaps decades, are needed to build the infrastructure required to house a half million people.

The government has also proposed banning the use of raw coal in districts close to the city centre, but enforcement of such a ban could be difficult in hard to reach, overcrowded areas.

The retired accountant Ivermint, a new crusader in the fight against air pollution, hopes the success of the clean stove project will help end to Ulan Bator’s Dickensian winters.

“I am going to advise my neighbours to buy one as well. Nothing will change if only a few buy it,” she said. “When I first came to Ulan Bator 18 years ago, the city skies were clear, maybe if everyone uses this new stove it can be like that again.”

(Editing by Don Durfee and Ron Popeski)

China’s manufacturing exodus

Clear the Air says: so how can airfreight from the PRD through HK International Airport possibly increase and why do we need a third runway and the pollution it will bring ?

South China Morning Post – 17 Oct. 2011

Relentless rises in production costs and wages are forcing mainland manufacturers – and product buyers – to the cheaper markets of Southeast Asia

As overseas buyers flood China’s largest and most established trade show, the Canton Fair, change is afoot in the world’s largest exporter.

Relentless inflation in production costs and wages had forced many manufacturers to relocate production from the Pearl River Delta or Yangtze River Delta to Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, some buyers said at the 110th China Import and Export Fair at the weekend.

They said moving offered a solution for manufacturers, who had limited room to raise costs for buyers at a time of a possible double-dip recession in the United States and European Union, China’s largest trading partners. It also came at a time when Beijing’s policy was to force factories to upgrade or migrate.

Fight for the right for everybody in Hong Kong to breathe easier

South China Morning Post

Updated on Oct 16, 2011

In April, Tung Chung resident Chu Yee-wah successfully challenged the government for allowing the environmental assessment of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge. That court decision was later overturned; the Court of Appeal found that the Highways Department was only required to conduct an assessment of the cumulative impact of the project.

Commentary from the Liberal Party and Albert Cheng in the South China Morning Post blamed the Civic Party for engineering this judicial review. In our opinion any person, organisation or party in Hong Kong that defends the right to breathe clean air deserves a medal.

The World Health Organisation recently released a study of the levels of pathogenic airborne particulate matter in more than 1,000 cities. Fine particles (PM2.5) are less than 2.5 microns in size and result from the combustion of fossil fuels. PM2.5 is the most lethal form of pollution, capable of carrying heavy metals into the lungs and remaining suspended in the air for weeks.

In 2006, our chief executive stated: “In fact, the air is not all that bad. The air quality today is not inferior to Washington DC. We have now cleaned up our old vehicular fleet.”

The truth: in 2005, when Donald Tsang Yam-kuen took office, the annual level of PM2.5 at the roadside in Central was 48 micrograms per cubic metre of air (ug/m3). The WHO figure for Washington was 10.7, that for Vancouver 4.7, that for Sydney 7, that for London 13.5 and that for Singapore 19. Many cities already meet the WHO’s air quality guidelines, which suggest an annual standard of 10ug/m3 for PM2.5.

The learned judges left our air quality and health in the hands of the Hong Kong government, so how does it compare?

In 2010, the PM2.5 level at the roadside in Central was 36 ug/m3; in Tung Chung it was 29, in Tsuen Wan 30, and in Yuen Long 32. (The Environmental Protection Department had no PM2.5 sensors in our two most polluted roadside areas: Mong Kok and Causeway Bay.) Tung Chung already exceeds all international air quality standards before construction starts on any bridge connecting Zhuhai’s domestic airport to Hong Kong airport with its third runway, supposedly needed to handle the (dwindling) exports from the Pearl River Delta.

We need more Chu Yee-wah’s in Hong Kong for the sake of everyone’s health for as long as the Hong Kong government prevaricates on air quality.

Edwin Town, vice-chairman, Clear the Air

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution by HK staff | HK Magazine Online

April 2010 – respirable suspended fine particulates levels (PM2.5) in micrograms per cubic meter of air (the most lethal form of pollution)

Let’s see some cities in the world PM2.5 levels:

Vancouver 4.8, Sydney 7.0, Hobart 7.1, Perth 8, Stavanger 8.1, Adelaide 8.1, Washington DC 10.7, Madrid 13.1, London 13.5,Los Angeles-Long Beach port 14.8,

Hannover 15.4, Rotterdam 17.9,Singapore 19, Metro Manila 21, Paris 22.9, Dar es Salaam 23, Athens 27.4, Beirut 31, Lima 34.2, Krakow 35.5,

HONG KONG CENTRAL ROADSIDE 36 ! , Dakar 38, Accra 49.8

The (no political will to act) TSANG Pollution Legacy – good riddance !

http://hk.asia-city.com/health/article/wake-and-smell-pollution

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

June Ng and Jakki Phillips head into the smog to investigate Hong Kong’s bad air crisis.

By HK staff | published Apr 01, 2010

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

Hong Kong’s air pollution index hit an alarming record of 500

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

One of the five pollutants in the air – Carbon Monoxide

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

Satelite image of Hong Kong

Wake Up and Smell the Pollution

Common kind of mask cannot filter out particulates less than 10 micrometers

Hong Kong’s air pollution. You know it’s always been there, and you know on some level that you’re breathing bad air every day, but once you get used to it, you kind of forget about it. Until one day, our sky turns completely yellow and a sickly haze literally engulfs us all.

Without the sudden arrival of a severe sandstorm late last month, we might not have had the crucial wake-up call to our worsening air pollution that we desperately need. And though the cloud has lifted, the government still has its head buried in the sand. When faced with the city’s air pollution index (API) hitting an alarming record high of 500, their less than confidence-boosting response was to claim, “It’s really just sand you’re seeing, not pollution.” Considering that this figure was more than double the previous record high API of 202 in July 2008, you would think the government would take bold and decisive action when faced with a truly alarming reading. Perhaps a few announcements outlining a pollution-busting action plan rather than simply blaming sand from the mainland?

So with the sandstorm thankfully behind us, now is a great time to take a good, hard look at the mess we’re in and figure out just how we got here. How bad is our air pollution problem? Can we expect more choking sandstorms? What’s the government going to do about our air pollution woes? We also look into how you can prepare for the next sand storm, and finally, what you can do to help. Hold your breath, and here we go.

What Exactly is in the Air?

There are six pollutants contributing to our bad air: sulfur dioxide, particulate matters, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead. Last year the Air Quality Objectives Review (AQO) was carried out to re-examine and reset the standard acceptable levels for these pollutants. The original guidelines were drawn up in 1987 and based on WHO guidelines of the time. But, rather shockingly, the government chose only to meet WHO’s entry-level standards—which are for developing countries—rather than adopting levels for developed countries.

For example, the proposed annual objective for the pollutant PM10 (particulates of 10 micrometers or less) is 50 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter), only slightly lower than existing outdated levels of 55μg/m3; while PM2.5, the most dangerous particulate because it is respirable, gets a target of 35μg/m3 (the target for developed countries is 10μg/m3). The objective proposed for sulfur dioxide will be 125 μg/m3, yet the WHO guideline is 20 μg/m3. Mike Kilburn from think tank Civic Exchange says the government only wants to follow the levels for developing countries because it means we’re “allowed” to have dirtier air. This means pollution statistics won’t look so bad and it will seem like we don’t have many bad air days because higher levels of toxic particulates are deemed “acceptable.”

For example, official government data from last year only shows us suffering 40 dirty days, that is, days considered to have excessive pollution levels. If we had to meet WHO guidelines for developed countries our pollution levels would regularly exceed the targets and we’d probably end up with 300 dirty days which would reflect badly in government pollution records. And there is more worrying news. The biggest power company, CLP, recently announced its emissions of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and respirable suspended particulates have increased by six percent, 20 percent and 30 percent respectively. The rise occurred after they lowered the proportion of natural gas in the fuel mix because they were worried gas in the South China Sea might run out in 2012. But in 2008 the mainland government promised power companies in Hong Kong a steady natural gas supply. But until our government builds the pipelines, the power companies will continue to conserve gas and as a consequence, further pollute our air.

Christian Masset of Clear The Air, an environmental NGO that has been advocating the improvement of air quality in Hong Kong since 1997, thinks the government isn’t doing enough to tackle major polluters in the private sector such as the power companies and bus companies. He says: “We have been talking to the government about introducing an ‘agglomerator’ when burning fuel, which is a technology that can cut down 90 percent of respirable suspended particulates. But after a year-and-a-half they still say they need more time to study.”

Public transport is also a big problem as there are still many Euro I and II buses on the road, together with heavy diesel vehicles. (The “Euro Emissions Standard” is a measurement of vehicle emissions used in EU countries; the higher the number, the lower the emissions). Lau also says a contributing reason for traffic pollution is the inadequate subsidy program for converting heavy trucks from diesel to cleaner models such as Euro IV or above. He says that while the owner of a diesel taxi can get a one-off $40,000 grant to convert to LPG, the subsidiary for trucks varies and can be as low as $10,000. The result of the taxi scheme is that 99 percent now operate in this cleaner mode while the truck scheme has been far less successful. As for bunker-fueled ferries and container ships (the cheapest, and by far most toxic type of fuel), while there are regulations in many countries that stipulate they must switch to low-sulfur fuel when entering the port of the city, there are no such rules in Hong Kong. “The government’s slow pace in dealing with things shows whether they think tackling air pollution is an urgent matter,” says Prentice Koo from Greenpeace.

Don’t Be Blinded by the Sandstorm

While the sandstorm’s heavy dust content did contribute to the record high pollution readings of up to 500, we mustn’t forget that for four days before the storm struck, the Air Pollution Index (API) was at the “very high” level in urban areas such as Causeway Bay, Mong Kok, Central/Western and Eastern District. Our air was bad to start with long before the sandstorm rolled into town.

But while the government rightly encouraged “contingency measures” such as urging people to use public transport as much as possible, drivers to turn off their engines while stationary, asking power companies to use cleaner fuel, and even smokers to smoke less, why aren’t they actively trying to bring down the pollution on a regular basis, or issuing people with guidelines on what to do during a bar air day? Secretary of the Environmental Bureau Edward Yau claims that air pollution, unlike typhoons, would not affect people’s daily routines.

Greenpeace climate change campaigner Prentice Koo is upset by the government’s response, which he thinks is irresponsible. He says: “Edward Yau said air pollution would not affect people’s daily lives as much as a typhoon does. But it does affect our health.” Professor Anthony Hedley, professor of Community Medicine at the University of Hong Kong, says, “the sandstorm is definitely a potential health hazard and will have caused many problems such as eye and skin irritation and upper respiratory symptoms. However, the sandstorm will probably not be as toxic as Hong Kong’s usual daily mix of combustion particles and gases, that throughout the year is caused by Hong Kong’s own pollution emissions from traffic, shipping, port activities and power generation.”

The severe index reading may, in fact, be a timely wake-up call reminding us how unacceptable our air pollution levels are. Professor Alexis Lau, a meteorologist with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology says: “Although the API surge to 500 was due to the sandstorm, that doesn’t mean that our air is fine and that there aren’t things we can do to reduce pollution here.” According to Lau, the last time Hong Kong had a similar crisis was in 1996—but the concentration of pollutants in the air was half that of the recent scare. Also deeply concerned about Hong Kong’s pollution levels is Mike Kilburn, the environmental program manager of local think tank Civic Exchange. He says: “The sandstorm has helped make people aware that air pollution is an issue, and the government has to respond to the public.”

Does the Air Quality Index Work?

Yes, it does work—but the statistics will be a day old by the time you read them. The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) reports the real-time general and roadside APIs hourly and these indices are calculated by comparing the measured concentrations of the major air pollutants with their respective health-related Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) established under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance. Some data used to calculate the so-called hourly “real-time” indices are not actually real-time—the amount of total suspended particulate and respirable suspended particulates (RSP) are measured 24 hours ahead of the time published on the website, meaning that the API doesn’t truly reflect what is going on at any given moment.

Also, the API is only determined by the highest concentration of one of five pollutants in the air (sulfur dioxide, particulate matters, nitrogen dioxide, together with ozone and carbon monoxide). Therefore, the index fails to address the pollution levels of the other four. But not many Hongkongers are aware of this. Edwin Lau from Friends of the Earth says the government has a responsibility to educate the public about how the index is formed. “The government should break down all the scientific data to a laymen level so people can understand.” It is also technologically feasible to calculate a real-time index although the government doesn’t provide the service. Professor Anthony Hedley founded his own Hedley Index (hedleyindex.sph.hku.hk) last year that gives true real-time pollution levels across the city. The website also calculates the value of tangible and intangible loss caused by pollution, for example, the cost of health care or lost productivity due to pollution. “The present API is totally useless as an instrument for risk communication,” says Hedley. “The so-called ‘health advisories’ issued by the EPD, without any authority whatsoever from the public health specialists in Hong Kong, are seriously misleading. There is very little possibility that any measures taken on the basis of these so-called health warnings will benefit anyone.”

He also stresses that the damage pollutants do to our health occurs at levels below the air quality objectives because they are so lax. The Council for Sustainable Development has suggested the government set up a three-tier warning system for air pollution, similar to the rain storm warnings, which allows people to work from home on days with a high pollution index. Environmental Secretary Edward Yau has not promised that the department will consider it.

Why Weren’t We Warned?

Less than 24 hours before Hong Kong’s pollution levels rocketed to record-breaking highs of 500—the API was predicting levels of only 180. So why was the forecast so inaccurate? The most obvious reason, as previously mentioned, is because the guidelines on acceptable particulate levels are out of date, but there is also the fact that the Hong Kong Observatory does not have equipment to detect or forecast sandstorms. Greenpeace campaigner Prentice Koo says, “Everyone knows Hong Kong does not suffer from earthquakes but we still have a warning system developed for them. Shouldn’t we do the same for sandstorms that could have a direct impact on us?” Although the Hong Kong Observatory does not have the technology to predict sandstorms, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University does. According to Janet Nichol, a professor at the department of land surveying and geo-informatics at Poly U, the government could make reasonable predictions with the same technology and data that they have. The EPD say they will collaborate more with the Observatory to analyze sandstorm patterns and will make better use of their network with the mainland to issue an early notice. But there is currently no news regarding the implementation of a sandstorm warning system.

The Impact of Desertification

When Hong Kong was choked by pollution last week, we were actually feeling the impact of severe environmental degradation in China. The harmful air quality was partly caused by a sandstorm originating in northern China that blew loose dust and dirt mixed with industrial pollution down south, adding to Hong Kong’s already serious smog problem. It was China’s worst sandstorm in more than a year, affecting 270 million people across 16 provinces. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates that there are 24 sandstorms a year, six times the number 50 years ago, according to China Daily. The increase is the result of desertification caused by deforestation, overgrazing, drought and urban sprawl. China’s government has invested huge sums of money in projects aimed at stopping the relentless spread of sand, such as tree planting and the protection of existing foliage. But rising temperatures, increased pressures on water resources and 30 years of huge economic growth has meant limited success. In fact, China Daily reports that about 30,000 square miles of China’s grassland turned into desert over only the last few decades. So, with the number of sandstorms in China increasing and more of the country’s land crumbling to dust, we should prepare ourselves for more sore throats, headaches and stinging eyes.

Our current API is divided into five bands: Low (0 to 25), Medium (26 to 50), High (51 to 100), Very High (101 to 200) and Severe (201 to 500). When it reaches “very high” to “severe” levels, people with existing heart or respiratory illnesses may notice a mild to significant aggravation of their conditions.

What About the Animals?

While there is no official research about the effect of air pollution on animals in Hong Kong, Andy Cornish, the conservation director of the World Wide Fund (WWF), says “if people are dying prematurely because of polluted air, it will affect animals too. And if migratory birds saw a sandstorm coming, out of instinct, they would fly away.”

So what about our four-legged friends? It turns out dogs get the same health issues as humans when the pollution index is high. Vet Justin Chu says: “Even healthy dogs might get a sore throat, or develop itchy eyes or skin. But it will be worse for old dogs and those with lung and heart disease.” You’ll know if your dog is suffering from pollution if it has a hoarse bark, watery nose or keeps licking its lips. If your pet displays any of these symptoms on a bad air day, Chu’s advice is to keep them indoors. Cats are less likely to be affected by pollution because they go outside less.

The Not-So Great Outdoors

What’s the point of having mountains to hike up, trails to run along and a sea to swim in if soaring pollution levels result in government warnings telling us to “stay indoors and avoid physical exertion”? Lister Woo has been dragon boating in Hong Kong for more than 15 years but was forced to cancel his training session for the first time ever last week. “It’s never happened before and we wouldn’t cancel our practice unless we thought it could be bad for our health. We saw the government warning and decided not to risk it.” Woo paddles for the Hong Kong International Paddle Club, which will compete in the world dragon boat championships in Macau at the end of July. “It’s worrying because if we have to cancel more training sessions it could affect our performance at the competition.”

Keith Chan has been running in Hong Kong for 30 years and is the founder of HKrunners.com. He says: “I was going to go for a run last week but when I saw how high the index was, I decided against it. I definitely think pollution is getting worse and it’s affecting runners all over Hong Kong. Many people now avoid running at night because the traffic fumes are so bad. Some people only run in the hills to avoid the city center pollution. It’s a shame that pollution gets in the way of people doing a sport they enjoy.” Pollution levels above 200 are considered “severe” and carry a government warning telling us to “reduce physical exertion and outdoor activities.”

Pollution in Central reached dangerous levels one out of every eight days last year. But as outdoor sports grow in popularity in Hong Kong, more people will be risking their health in order to pursue their passions. Richard Thornton is the president of the Hong Kong Dragons Triathlon Club and says the quality of air here is a growing concern for his members. He says: “The thought of pushing hard in a training session at near maximum heart rate and swallowing lungfuls of Hong Kong’s air is becoming more distressing because all triathletes want to train, but then feel restricted because of the pollution levels. The effects of training in these conditions can definitely be felt afterward. It would be a shame to see participation in such a great sport dwindle as people shy away due to air pollution concerns.”

It’s not just local sporting clubs and associations that are struggling against the fumes. Some international runners refuse to take part in the Hong Kong marathon because of poor air quality and concerns were raised as to whether it was safe for teams to train before the Rugby Sevens. With the tourism board promoting Hong Kong as a hiking destination, we should also consider the impact air pollution has on the tourism industry. Winnie Leung is a volunteer hiking guide who regularly takes out groups of tourists. She says: “I cancelled three hikes last week because of the pollution, which meant disappointing a lot of people. Unless Hong Kong can clean up its act, I worry hikers will go elsewhere and our tourism will suffer.”

Leung’s sentiments are shared by Michael Pieper who runs his own hiking website (www.hiking-hong-kong.com) and Facebook hiking group. He says: “High pollution levels in Hong Kong can be directly related to the number of visitors to my hiking website. When there are blue skies, visitor numbers soar and likewise when pollution skyrockets, visitor numbers drop right off. There is only so much that I can do to promote Hong Kong’s vast array of hiking trails. The rest comes from the government’s commitment to caring for the health of its people by cleaning up our dirty skies.”

Also see: how to protect yourself during the next bad air day.

Pollution Solutions by Scott Murphy | HK Magazine Online 2006

2006 , YES, 2006 – no political will in Hong Kong  = continued pollution

The TSANG Legacy 2011 = no political will in Hong Kong = continued pollution

http://hk.asia-city.com/city-living/article/pollution-solutions

Pollution Solutions

Our pollution problem seems utterly hopeless. But other cities have been where we are – and cleaned up. Five pollution-busters who beat the smog in their own cities give some advice to Hong Kong.

By Scott Murphy | published May 18, 2006

Pollution Solutions

Looking across Victoria Harbor to Tsim Sha Tsui on April 25, 2006

Pollution Solutions

Same scene on May 9, after the mainland’s “golden week” factory shutdown

Pollution Solutions

Los Angeles, USA

Pollution Solutions

Bogota, Colombia

Pollution Solutions

Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA

Pollution Solutions

Sudbury, Ontoria, Canada

Pollution Solutions

Mexico City, Mexico

LOS ANGELES, USA

Population: 6 million
Problem-solver
: Jim Lents, executive director of South Coast Air Quality Management District from 1986-1997.

The Problem: “In the 1970s and into the 80s, your eyes burned so bad that it was difficult to be on the streets in the afternoon. You could only take about half a breath of air. Visibility was so bad that tourists wouldn’t even be able to see the mountains surrounding the city.

“The cities weren’t doing a lot because they were afraid of offending the industries. But after pressure from environmental groups, the government started passing laws. One of the most important groups was the state legislature. Each county had individual agencies blaming each other and not wanting to do anything. So the state legislature created a single agency (the South Coast Air Quality Management District, or CAQMD) overseeing them all. It had a $30 million budget and 300 employees even in the 70s.”

The Solution: “You first have to identify the problem. Then the government has to be inspired to say, ‘We’re not going to take this anymore. We’re going to make radical changes.’ In our case, in1975, they started to hold legislative hearings to raise the visibility of the pollution issue. After the environmental groups made a big issue out of it with the state legislature, the first round of cleanup started in the 70s. A statewide Clean Air Act passed in 1987, starting the second round. In the 80s, we spent a lot of effort to understand the sources of our emissions. Then we started to develop cost-effective control measures. We looked at the situation in economic terms. We decided to spend up to US$10,000 per person on cleanup measures and pollution control equipment. You can clean up pollution for cheaper than that per person, but that’s the figure we decided on.

“We also came up with strict regulations on automobile and factory emissions. We even set regulations on barbecues and restaurants. Those that didn’t comply were fined heavily. When our group (CAQMD) had 1,000 employees and a budget of about US$100 million, the board of directors was changed because we thought it was getting too cozy. I believe these agencies need to reinvent themselves every decade or they become too interconnected with the industries they regulate. We put together a comprehensive air pollution management plan in 1989. It was revised in 1994, 1997 and 2000. Every few years, you have to step back and take a look at what new control measures should be considered.”

The Result: “Air pollution levels came down dramatically throughout the 90s. We were able to cut pollution in half from 1977 to 1987. And then we cut that in half from 1987 to 1997. Since then, our progress has been slower. The mobile sources of pollution have been controlled, but not the ports. That’s where the big battle is looming now. The ports are protected by international laws. Trains and ships are just being addressed. Los Angeles has one of the busiest ports in the world, second to Hong Kong or Singapore. It’s much more difficult to regulate. Now we are trying to get cleaner fuels and set up shore-side agencies. Otherwise, now you can see the mountains everyday. The job isn’t over, but we’ve made tremendous progress. It’s slow, very slow, but in the end, it’s very rewarding.”

Lessons for Hong Kong

➔ “Identify ways to clean up, develop regulations and decide what is a fair regulatory burden.”

➔ “Establish an authority to implement those regulations.”

➔ “Police the regulations. In Los Angeles, there was a huge contingent of people enforcing the rules. They tried to tailor the fines to the size of the industry, sometimes in the millions of dollars. Offenders were identified and prosecuted.”

➔ “Recognize that you can’t walk away. Plans have to be reviewed at regular intervals. New technologies have to be looked at to see what can be added to the plans.”

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA

Population: 7 million
Problem-solver: Gil Penalosa, former Commissioner of Parks, Sports and Recreation (1995-97), who worked with his brother, then-mayor Enrique Penalosa (pictured right, with Gil in helmet), to clean the air.

The Problem: “During the early 90s, Bogotá was one of the most polluted cities in South America. There were a lot of respiratory problems, mostly caused by cars. Traffic was chaotic. Buses were running everywhere they wanted. There were no regulations. Everybody would park their cars on the sidewalks. It was crazy. People had almost given up. There was no sense of pride.”

The Solution: “We created a mass rapid traffic system which has since become a model for many other countries. We set up dedicated lanes for buses. People cut their commuting time by three-quarters. We made 180 parks. We cleaned up the creeks and put monetary sanctions on companies that were polluting them. We created 250 kilometers of dedicated bicycle paths citywide. My brother and I closed 113 kilometers of road every Sunday and got 1.5 million people out each weekend to enjoy it. We introduced a citywide car-free day once a year, which created a lot of talk. It was a way to take measurements of how contaminated the city was on a regular day. But it was also a way to get people thinking about their future, and to force future governments to think about public transport options in the future. After initial opposition, it’s now an annual event. When my brother initially made these changes, he was nearly impeached. But by the end of his term, he was our most popular mayor of the past 30 years. But at the end of that first year things were rough.”

The Result: “We changed the way residents thought about the city. Now anybody running for office has parks, environment and the quality of life as major issues on their platform. For many years, people were thinking cars, cars, cars. All of a sudden, people got to thinking that the issue was essentially about moving people. So it became pedestrians first, then bicycles, mass transit, and finally, if there was any money left, cars. People realized it’s better to have a sidewalk than a road. That’s a major shift. There will always be many more needs than resources. Once you start saying pedestrians are first, then you can find the way. Now all streets built in the city have to be designed for use by pedestrians, then mass transport and then by cars. It’s important for people to realize this.”

Lessons for Hong Kong

➔ “Just do it. There will always be people who can give you 101 reasons why something cannot be done.”
➔ “People said nothing could be done with mass transit. In 36 months, we changed it.”

➔ “It takes leadership. Leadership includes having the vision and the capacity to do the things you set out to do. Vision with no action creates frustration. It takes both to change things.”

➔ “You have to start with projects that are highly visible and have a really high chance of success. They provide you with the credibility to tackle more difficult ones.”

CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, USA

Population: 170,000
Problem-solver: Wayne Cropp, lawyer and director of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau

The Problem: “In 1969, Chattanooga was recognized as having the worst air in America. On an anecdotal basis, there were days when you’d go outside and you could only see a few yards in front of you because of the pollution. You’d have to turn on your headlights to drive in the middle of the day. There was a TNT plant (producing more of the explosive than any other factory on Earth), which released nitrogen dioxide into the air everyday. Women’s clothes hanging out to dry would be eaten up by the pollution. Men would carry changes of shirts with them because they would stain just from walking around in the air. We had the highest amount of total suspended particulates (TSP or simply “soot”) in the country. We were first runner-up to Los Angeles in benzene-soluble organic particles (BSO). When you’re cited on national news by Walter Cronkite as being the worst city in the US, you know something has to be done.”

The Solution: “The medical community was one of the first that came on board. They rose up and started to educate the public about the health effects of pollution. They held annual seminars and invited national speakers to talk about respiratory problems. This was cutting edge in those days.

“We also created our own air pollution control program, which pre-dates state and national efforts. A local ordinance was created, calling for companies to comply with certain standards. Companies that came into compliance by the deadline were recognized publicly. Those that didn’t were heavily fined. The business community responded and led the effort to clean up. There was also tremendous community support for the effort, which meant there was strong political support. You need political muscle to make things like this happen. Two thousand citizens submitted letters and telegrams, which arrived in bushel baskets at the mayor’s office, demanding something be done about the problem. Eventually, there was a ‘visioning process’ in the late 70s, where 2,000 ideas were submitted for what Chattanooga could, should and ultimately has become. A lot of these were public-private partnerships.”

The Result: “We were the first metropolitan area on the US national ‘dirty air list’ that achieved what was called ‘attainment’ status – or clean air (one of the few cities in America to do so). Chattanooga is now in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency for control of particulate matter. We have a program in place to maintain and inspect automobiles. We will soon be in compliance with the new national EPA standards, which are the toughest standards yet. The air quality continues to get better every year.”

Lessons for Hong Kong

➔ “The medical community responded first, letting everyone know the dangers of what they were breathing.”

➔ “Once the community understood, they responded and demanded that the government do something. The community, alongside business leaders, stepped forward with a plan to attack the problem.”

➔ “We applied the ‘carrot and the stick’ method to offending companies. Those that complied were recognized. Those that didn’t were fined heavily.”

➔ “We created a continuous education process with the public and children. Children were educated about the effects of air pollution, which are still being felt today.”

SUDBURY, ONTARIO, CANADA

Population: 155,000
Problem-solver: Dr. Peter Beckett, associate professor of biology at Laurentian University

The Problem: “Sudbury is an industrial town with three different smelters belonging to two different companies. The smelting industry here goes back to about 1929. When they roasted the ore, they were essentially burning off the sulfur, which would come out of the chimneys as sulfur dioxide. Up to two million tons of sulfur dioxide was coming out a year during maximum production in the 50s and 60s. It wiped out all vegetation. Seventeen thousand hectares of land was devastated. There was also a nearby forest that had its growth stunted – another 64,000 hectares. It all became a barren zone, just rock that turned black from the sulfur. The national notion of Sudbury was, ‘Who wants to go and live in that hellhole?’ It was called a moonscape, a horrible place to live. Less is known about the effect on the people, but you can be assured that there were all kinds of lung problems.”

The Solution: “The first thing to happen was the environmental movement of the 60s, which spurred on the will to change. The Ontario government then set up the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, which established emission limits on sulfur dioxide. This was followed by the typical business reaction of trying to delay the implementation of the limits. But the government held firm. The only choice the industry had left was to modernize. They rebuilt one of the smelters in the west end of town, a 381-meter chimney. This sent the pollution higher up into the air, where it would be more diluted. They also installed electrostatic precipitators, which remove most of the metal particles from the emissions. The sulfur was added to water to create sulfuric acid, which was then sold to the chemical industry (a benefit to the company).

“In the 70s, as pollution started to go down, people started to wonder if they could do anything to improve the landscape. This led to the Sudbury Regreening Project of 1978, which was launched to improve the environment and the quality of life. People realized if Sudbury were to survive, it would have to diversify. To do that, they would have to improve the city’s image to attract new industries and business. An advisory committee comprised of citizens, organizations and technical people was formed. It would go off into the communities with black hills and green them. Next they worked on the 330 lakes in the area and started cleaning up the watersheds. After all this time, the cleanup is only about halfway completed.”

The Result: “Sulfur dioxide levels are now less than 10 percent of what they were in the 60s, with further government-mandated reductions due by 2008. Mining is still the largest industry, but it doesn’t dominate the way it used to. Now, Sudbury is not only a regional hub, it even has a tourist industry. It has some of the best air in Canada. Ironically though, the biggest chimney is now criticized for wasting energy.”

Lessons for Hong Kong

➔ “Nobody was going to rock the boat in the 60s. Business had control. But then the university opened. This brought in people who weren’t dependent on industry, people who had nothing to lose by complaining.”

➔ “People pointed fingers both locally and internationally. The local and provincial government started working together to make changes. Once changes started, people in the community got involved.”

➔ “The Ontario Ministry of the Environment was set up and charged with creating a clean environment in Ontario. The government came down with orders and laws. If you didn’t meet them, you were fined. These were hefty fines. The first step was big. But now it’s like a technological challenge. The industry wants to improve itself.”

➔ “Cleaning pollution has to be a partnership between industry, various levels of government and concerned citizens. It has to be a real cross-section of the community, from professionals to the average citizen. Now we have a Clean Air Sudbury committee. It’s no longer an us-versus-them scenario. It’s a ‘What can we all do together?’ situation.”

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO

Population: 17 million
Problem-solver: Nancy Kete, director of EMBARQ, a US-based center for international transportation and environment.

The Problem: “The combination of a very dense urban population, a high elevation and the volume of emissions make Mexico City one of the worst places in the world for air pollution. Two- to three-hour rush hours a day are not uncommon. But it’s also one of the most studied pollution problems on the planet. Over the past two decades, the city has taken some measures to reduce the problem. Some worked for a while, but they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of cars. They have what was once one of the best metro rail systems in the world, but it doesn’t reach into the suburbs, which is where the major population growth is. Fifty-five to 60 percent of trips made by commuters are on unregulated private transit services. They cost more than the public services, and they pollute more. They are dangerous and crime-ridden. But they’re fast and convenient. Fortunately, there is a high level of understanding that pollution is very bad and there’s a lot of pressure on the city to clean it up.”

The Solution: “The Secretary of the Environment of Mexico’s Federal District, Claudia Sheinbaum, was empowered to take on air pollution and congestion. We formed a public-private partnership between the city, EMBARQ and the World Resources Institute to find sustainable solutions to the air-quality problem. We achieved three concrete goals: We started a ‘bus rapid transit system,’ a dedicated bus lane which is now the fastest way around the city. (There are plans to extend it to the suburbs.) We modernized the bus fleet. And we installed pollution-control equipment on the new buses, aiming to achieve the emission reductions seen in the US or Europe. We had a 90 percent reduction in particulate matter.”

The Result: “Working with a national laboratory in Mexico, we put personal exposure monitors on passengers to discover what they were breathing at both street level and on the bus. We found they had 35 percent less exposure to particulate matter and 50 percent less exposure to carbon monoxide when on the new buses. Riders now want more bus routes. The plan was a pilot – but it was successful. Now Mexico is committed to feeding this service into the suburbs. What we did was merely a drop in the bucket, but for those 250,000 daily passengers, these are huge improvements.”

Lessons for Hong Kong

➔ “No city will succeed unless it has a champion at a very high level. There needs to be a politically empowered champion. They have to want it, understand the political risks and be ready to take them.”

➔ “If I were to give the Chief Executive of Hong Kong advice, it would be this: Be bold. The political gains will outweigh the risks if you do it right.”
➔ “You have to have public-private partnerships. They’re important. The role we had was as creative and constructive disrupters of the status quo.”

➔ “You’ll need to fix the transit system through a combination of segregated corridors, congestion and parking charges, and new standards on fuel quality and emissions.”

➔ “The biggest barriers are not technological, but lie somewhere between the political and the inertial.”