Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

April, 2016:

Finland: 1,600 early deaths every year due to air pollution

Apr 13th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Air pollution is estimated to cause some 1,600 premature deaths in Finland every year, says a new report from the Environment Ministry. Deaths caused by air pollution shorten the lifetime of the individuals by an average of 16 years.

Taken across the entire population, this means that the life expectancy of Finns is shortened by an average of over five months due to air pollution.

Most of the health damage is caused by tiny particles (PM) or by nitrogen oxides.

About half of the PM concentrations in Finland emanates from emissions from outside the country, while the other half comes from domestic emission sources, primarily from small-scale wood burning (46%), other energy production (16%), traffic exhaust gases (12%), street dust (10%), peat production (9%), and industry (7%).

Source: Environment ministry press release, 13 April 2016

http://www.ym.fi/en-US/Latest_news/Press_releases/New_report_over_1000_premature_deaths_in(38896)

The Secret to San Francisco’s Zero Waste Success

Apr 13th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://waste360.com/waste-reduction/secret-san-francisco-s-zero-waste-success

Is there a secret in San Francisco related to their zero waste success?

Yes, I think there is, and unfortunately it is rarely discussed.

I love San Francisco and the zero waste work they are doing. And I want to draw attention to what their “secret ingredient” is so that other cities can better understand what they don’t have but might want to pursue locally, even if in an altered form.

Last month, the New York Times wrote another admiring piece about the San Francisco zero waste program. And again, the reporter missed asking the logical question, “Why San Francisco?” What is different about Golden Gate City that makes it such a star when it comes to progressive waste management systems?

It isn’t a unique technology, as Jack Macy even admits in the article. That is an important point considering all the sketchy “new tech, one-bin” proposals we’ve been seeing lately as the way to achieve zero waste.

There is more than just one reason that San Francisco is successful. But I am going to focus on the one thing that is really special, and it’s the relationship between the San Francisco government and the private sector service provider Recology. The working relationship between these two entities is very unique and I think is the key to enabling their soaring success. So why are they such good buddies in pursuit of a common goal when elsewhere we see conflict and struggle, such as the recent Houston-Waste Management Inc. contract tussle?

I didn’t want to misspeak here, so I ran this column past a San Francisco insider to make sure I got this right. The company known today as Recology is, in fact, a very old company with deep roots in the San Francisco waste business dating to the early 1920s. They did something unique and remarkable many years ago. Two Recology predecessor haulers, Scavenger’s Protective Association and Sunset Scavenger Company, got written into the City Charter through a voter initiative ordinance as the exclusive official refuse haulers for the entire city. These exclusive refuse collection licenses could be overturned by the voters, but as long as voters were happy with the deal, it was forever. In Italy, this is called an “inside company” and is actually accepted as an option for providing public service. No surprise then that the original Recology was started by an Italian family.

This has created a sweet deal for Recology and they knew it. When the city staff approached the company in the 1990s and told them San Francisco wanted to become a zero waste city, Recology was in a good position to either fight the effort or join it. I don’t know what was said exactly. But I do remember having a personal discussion with a Recology manager back in the 90s. (When they were called Norcal.) This manager told me that the behind-the-curtain informal agreement was that the city would share the risk of this new zero waste path for long enough for Recology to learn how to transform their existing business model based upon primarily landfilling into a business plan that was based upon landfill diversion. By sharing the risk, the Recology would still be making profits during the transition. This sounded fair to me at the time, and it has proven to be a wise move.

But the remarkable part that I want to highlight here is that this sort of cooperation and planning between government and the private sector rarely happens in America. I think it must be due to Recology’s legally-protected status of being written into the City Charter that enables them to have a unique power within the relationship that can be used in partnership with the city to achieve community benefit and ensure a certain level of private sector profit.

I think this close relationship is similar to how my town “coordinates and plans the future” with our electric utility provider. This “public utility monopoly” approach for electricity exists in nearly every town in America.

So in some ways this special relationship that San Francisco and Recology have isn’t that unique. It’s just that other cities don’t use the public utility approach in the waste management industry. I think we should start doing so!

I don’t think the San Francisco City Charter approach is replicable across the entire country for many reasons. But I do think that many of the working elements that make their approach successful are replicable. At its core, the San Francisco zero waste program is run like a social enterprise, meaning that its primary purpose for being is to fulfill a mission (i.e. zero waste) and that the program is expected to make a profit while doing so. I know a lot about this approach since I created the nation’s largest nonprofit zero waste social enterprise here in Boulder, Colo., where our partnership success with the city came not from a legal protection like Recology’s, but from a civic mandate delivered to the city by a citizens army organized by Eco-Cycle.

This “double bottom-line (DBL) approach” to creating value for the community is an exciting new way of using the power of the marketplace in partnership with local government. The place to watch to see how far it can go is the U.K. right now, especially Scotland. We are watching new “legal vehicles” for the creation of DBL enterprises emerge with names such as “the CIC” (community interest company), or the “B” Corp (the for-benefit corporation), and my favorite, the “the L3C” (low-profit limited liability company LLC).

In the last few years we’ve heard the giants of industry, like Bill Gates and others, call for a more “compassionate capitalism.” The reason this topic is up for discussion is because there is a growing recognition that the current form of free market capitalism isn’t capable of addressing the serious social and environmental problems of our times. On top of that, our local, state and national government entities can’t do it either as their funding and public support is shrinking.

I say don’t mess with the existing single bottom-line capitalism—it has brought us Apple and Amazon—but that it is time for a new addition to the national economic operating system which I’ll call Capitalism 2.0, (as in two bottom lines), and that there are special needs in our world today, like clean energy and zero waste, that need a new marketplace approach that combines the leadership of government with the horsepower of business.

When more cities step forward and support the social enterprise approach, then maybe San Francisco won’t stand so alone as a national star in the race to zero waste.

Third runway raises fears of mainland say on airspace

Apr 13th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

It would be necessary for Hong Kong to allow mainland authorities to administer its airspace if the airport’s third runway is to be built, an aviation official told lawmakers.

Members of the Legislative Council’s subcommittee on the third runway yesterday expressed fears that issues arising from a new runway would be a repeat of the Express Rail Link co- location immigration arrangement, as the transport chief refuses to make public arrangements on airspace.

When the third runway is built, the number of flights per hour would increase to 102, and it would be inevitable for Hong Kong to let mainland authorities administer some of its airspace, said Samuel Ng, senior evaluation officer of the Civil Aviation Department.

The arrangement is in line with the Basic Law and international standards, Ng said.

Lawmaker Kenneth Chan Ka-lok said Hong Kong people may not feel comfortable with letting mainland authorities administer their airspace.

Legislator Lee Cheuk- yan said the biggest problem is that lawmakers have no idea about what agreement the SAR government reached with its mainland counterparts.

“I can smell the scent of the Express Rail Link,” Lee said.

Ng said the airport has once reached its highest capacity of 68 flights per hour last winter, the main constraint is the safety distance between aircraft required by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Ng said delegation of airspace conforms with regulations of the ICAO, and is a common international practice, giving Singapore and Malaysia as an example. The arrangement conforms with the Basic Law and will not involve the allocation of civil aviation airspace from the SAR to other jurisdictions.

Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung said the plan on air-traffic management by civil aviation authorities of Hong Kong, the mainland and Macau took the third runway into consideration.

“The plan involves many technical details of other authorities. We cannot reveal those by ourselves,” Cheung said.

Hong Kong indoor air pollution so bad it could be making you chronically ill, tests show

Apr 12th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Pollutant levels up to 1,250 per cent higher indoors than outdoors, and PM2.5 fine-particle pollution worse than beside some of the city’s busiest roads, shock research by Baptist University finds

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-beauty/article/1935398/hong-kong-indoor-air-pollution-so-bad-it-could-be-making-you

The air pollution inside some Hong Kong homes is worse than beside some of the city’s busiest roads, tests show. And it could be making the homes’ occupants chronically ill, worried scientists say.

Levels of small-particle pollution, known as PM2.5, that can lodge deep in people’s lungs were on average nearly 10 per cent higher indoors than the highest level found outdoors.

Levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – carbon-based chemicals that easily evaporate at room temperature – were, on average, over 1,250 per cent higher in kitchens than outdoors. And the median level of VOCs in 27 of 32 homes tested exceeded the recommended maximum level for Hong Kong offices.

One of the researchers said indoor air pollution – from perfumes, cleaning products and cooking fumes – turned the average Hong Kong home into a “mini chemical warehouse”.

Studies in other countries have also found indoor air pollution is higher than that outdoors. The situation in Hong Kong could be aggravated by factors such as high-rise living, subdivided flats, a lack of windows and ventilation in some rooms, and restaurants occupying ground-floor premises in residential buildings, one of the researchers said.

The research was conducted by Baptist University’s biology department and household appliances manufacturer Dyson. Air quality was tested in 32 homes, with samples taken in their living rooms and kitchens, and directly outside these rooms.

The tests showed the median level of indoor VOCs in most of the homes tested was 345 parts per billion (ppb) compared with 95.5ppb outside the flats. Hong Kong’s Environmental Protection Department says VOCs should not exceed 200ppb in offices. Kitchen VOC levels were far higher.

“VOCs are consistently higher indoors than outdoors. Even so, the research found that the kitchen VOCs are on average 1,258 per cent higher than outdoors,” said Baptist University’s Dr Lai Ka-man, who led the research in March.

The researchers’ report, citing the US US Environmental Protection Agency, says: “Toxic fumes released from cleaning solvents, deodorants and scented candles are some of the most common indoor air pollutants. Other major indoor air pollutants include gases from cooking, mould, pet hair, pollen and allergens.”

The scientists tested for two classes of particulate matter (PM), fine particles resulting from combustion such as that by vehicle engines and power stations. In the home, particulate matter can be produced by cooking and by smoking tobacco. Exposure to excessive levels can lead to allergic reactions of the lower respiratory tract, such as asthma, and to strokes and heart attacks, according to health professionals.

Readings were also taken at seven outdoor locations around the city.

The tests found micro-particle pollution, or PM0.1, was on average 68.5 per cent higher inside homes than outside. (PM0.1 is one-thousandth the diameter of a human hair, and can penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream.)

“The highest outdoor PM0.1 was 94 million particles per litre (ppl), recorded at the junction near the Sogo department store in Causeway Bay. The highest indoor sample was a worrying 46.8 per cent higher, at 138 million ppl [recorded in a Tai Wo flat in the New Territories]”, Lai said.

Hong Kong has no guidelines on recommended levels of indoor particulate matter, but it is indicative that outdoor readings in busy roadside areas often reach dangerous levels on the air pollution index – levels that, ironically, trigger warnings to residents with respiratory problems to stay in their homes.

Surprisingly, Lai said, indoor levels of PM2.5 were higher than outdoors. Indoor readings were on average 9 per cent higher than the highest reading recorded outdoors, of 369 ppl, outside Sogo in Causeway Bay; the PM2.5 reading in Nathan Road, Mong Kok, one of the city’s busiest urban roads, was 363ppl.

Learn from Singapore’s refuse solution

Apr 10th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Letters to the editor, April 10, 2016

The paucity of discussion about waste in Hong Kong means that our city faces a refuse crisis that requires prompt and decisive action.

Successive governments’ waste management strategies have been a failure and our landfills will reach capacity in the near future.

We should look at what Singapore has achieved. It has done an excellent job dealing with its garbage problem, which poses no threat to marine ecosystems and uses some refuse for landfills.

The Semakau Landfill is Singapore’s first and only landfill situated offshore among the southern islands of Singapore.

It covers a total area of 3.5 square kilometres. It began operating in 1999 and is expected to remain in use until 2045, and this deadline may be extended if a variety of waste minimisation and resource conservation initiatives are implemented.

It is mainly filled with ash produced by Singapore’s four incineration plants. The refuse is transported in covered barges. This prevents the ash from being blown away in the wind.

Precautions were taken before the landfill was opened to ensure that the site is not foul-smelling and unhygienic and to protect nearby coral.

There is regular water testing to make sure that all the precautionary measures implemented are still effective.

I think Hong Kong can learn from Singapore’s successful strategy, with a balanced policy that prevents the landfills reaching capacity, protects marine life and guarantees further reclamation projects are possible.

Reclamation is important for Hong Kong, with its large population. With reclamation projects, more land can be made available on which to build homes.

Tina Yeung, Ngau Tau Kok

Criticism of Hong Kong’s proposed third runway should be based on facts

Apr 10th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Raymond Li says there are many mistaken ideas among the public about a three-runway system at the airport, and they need clarification

In February this year, the Town Planning Board completed its review of the draft outline zoning plan supporting a three-runway system at Hong Kong International Airport and agreed to submit it to the Chief Executive in Council for approval. This will pave the way for the implementation of the three-runway system which is essential to meet our long-term air traffic demand.

Many opinions were heard during the board review meetings, some of which were misconceptions that have unfortunately persisted despite attempts at clarification. The Civil Aviation Department would like to address some of these.

Fact 1: To meet safety requirements, the maximum capacity of Hong Kong’s existing two runways is 68 flight movements per hour.

Some commentators suggest that the maximum capacity could reach 86 movements per hour if airspace were better managed. This appears to be based on misinterpretation of the 1992 New Airport Master Plan.

The master plan presumed that if the two runways were able to support an “independent mixed mode” – that is, two runways were used for both take-offs and landings at the same time, as if they were two independent airports – the maximum capacity of the two runways could reach 86 movements per hour. Nonetheless, the same report clearly stated that, fettered by the surrounding terrain of Lantau Island, it is impractical for the two runways at the airport to adopt this mode of operation due to incompliance with the safety requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, particularly in relation to the safe distance to be maintained between aircraft during take-off and landing. In other words, the capacity of the existing two runways is constrained, and it is impossible for the two runways to reach 86 movements per hour. Subsequent international consultancy studies reaffirmed this.

Let me draw a comparison with a train station. If there are only two platforms at the station and the trains have to operate at a fixed time interval at each platform, the maximum number of trains that this station can operate is constrained. Without a new platform, the number of trains to be operated by this station will never go beyond the limit, even if more tracks are built to connect this station with other stations. The same applies to the two runways at the airport. Only by building an additional runway can we greatly enhance the number of aircraft movements.

Fact 2: Removing some hilltops on Lantau Island will not enhance runway capacity.

There were views that capacity of the runways could be boosted if the peaks of two small hills on Lantau could be removed. This misconception again probably stemmed from the 1992 master plan. While the report mentioned removing the peaks of two hills, which were 610 and 810 feet high, the suggestion was made in connection with possible options of lowering the climb-out gradients for departure aircraft in case of engine failure. This has nothing to do with runway capacity.

Claims that flight tracks will be in conflict are unfounded

If we were to alter the surrounding terrain for the sake of increasing the capacity of the runways, most of the high peaks on Lantau Island would have to be levelled to satisfy the relevant safety requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This would mean forgoing the Ngong Ping cable car, Big Buddha and Po Lin Monastery and a part of the Lantau country parks, which does not appear acceptable to the public.

Fact 3: Claims that flight tracks between Hong Kong and Shenzhen will be in conflict are unfounded.

As early as 2004, the mainland, Hong Kong and Macau set up a tripartite working group to formulate measures to rationalise airspace structure and air traffic management arrangements in the Pearl River Delta region to optimise the use of airspace and enhance safety.

The three sides jointly established a plan in 2007, which took into account the operational needs of a three-runway system in Hong Kong as well as the development needs of Shenzhen and other major airports in the region. Progressive implementation of the plan will not lead to any conflict between the flight tracks of the three-runway system and that of Shenzhen airport (or any other airports in the Pearl River Delta).

I have seen a graphic depicting the existing flight tracks of Shenzhen airport together with the flight tracks of the future three-runway system, suggesting that the flight tracks are overlapping and unsafe. We treat this kind of misleading accusation very seriously as there is absolutely no question of the government compromising aviation safety in any manner.

There is absolutely no question of the government compromising aviation safety

Fact 4: Shared use of airspace complies with the Basic Law.

Some people have alleged that the shared use of airspace between Hong Kong and Shenzhen may violate the Basic Law. This is absolutely groundless. As a matter of fact, the International Civil Aviation Organisation has been advocating that air route structure and air traffic management efficiency, instead of national boundaries, should be the prime considerations in planning airspace. Such airspace management is a common international practice, for instance between Singapore and Malaysia, and between Germany and Switzerland.

The High Court earlier rejected an application for a judicial review in relation to the three-runway system [4]. The complaint that the implementation of shared use of airspace under the plan would breach the Basic Law was considered not reasonably arguable. The court also considered that even though the Civil Aviation Department would permit the mainland authority to utilise a small portion of Hong Kong airspace to facilitate air traffic control, and vice versa, the ownership of the concerned airspace would still belong to the original civil aviation authority.

The State Council issued a guideline on March 15 on promoting co-operation within the Pearl River Delta region which clearly stated that the central government supports the development of a third runway in at the Hong Kong airport, to reinforce the city’s position as an international aviation hub. I hope that this article can help dispel misconceptions.

Raymond Li is asistant director general of civil aviation (air traffic management)

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1934646/criticism-hong-kongs-proposed-third-runway-should-be-based

Newer Posts →