Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Air Pollution

Losing Sight of Hong Kong’s Harbour

Apr 30th, 2006
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Losing Sight of Hong Kong’s Harbour

Douglas Woodring, Associate, Civic Exchange pens his second article for Britain in Hong Kong on the burning issue of Hong Kong’s worsening air pollution. He brings our attention, this time, to local marine emissions and the negative impacts they are having on our air quality.

Impact of Marine Emissions

Hong Kong’s greatest asset is its harbour, yet as we all know, this has become harder and harder to appreciate with clarity as air pollution appears to be steadily on the increase. We often focus on vehicle, power plant and industrial emissions as the culprits, but what about marine emissions? What impact does living next to two of the world’s top four busiest ports have on our air quality, and what is being done about it?

Unfortunately, the answer is that port traffic is a significant contributor to the deterioration of our air quality, and that a lot more can be done to make improvements. Based on transportation figures, in 2004, more than 225,000 vessels arrived in Hong Kong. Of them, 16% (36,000) were ocean going vessels and 84% (190,000) were river vessels (38% ferries and 62% cargo vessels). As it stands today, marine air pollution is not regulated within the Air Pollution Control Ordinance which is the main regulatory control mechanism for emissions within Hong Kong.

Marine emissions in Hong Kong are important for two reasons. Firstly, they are one of the only emission sources whose emissions continue to increase year on year, and secondly, although the absolute amount of marine emissions are less than motor vehicles, are emitted in the heart of Victoria Harbour and are released close to the ground level and within a few kilometers of the densely populated Kowloon peninsula. They pose as serious health risk. In fact, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Sulphur Dioxides (SO2) have both been on the constant increase in Hong Kong since 1990, with both almost doubling in the past 10 years. Each of these pollutants are contributors to the haze and grey skies that are seen in our city, with NOx being a source of ozone creation which is widely considered to be dangerous in terms of health and environmental impacts. A recent study by CLSA and Civic Exchange has shown that Hong Kong’s hazy days have increased from less than 10 per month in 1990, to over 25 per month in 2004.

Sulphur Oxides

While the extent of the influence of PRD regional based pollution has been long known, the influence of local marine sources on local SO2 levels is relatively new information which contributes to the mounting concerns over marine emissions. Ocean going cargo vessels are legally able to use high sulphur fuels with sulphur content up to 4.5%, which contrasts with current requirements and availability of road vehicle fuel in Hong Kong which is 0.005% for motor diesel and petrol/gasoline. Marine fuels are often called Heavy Oil or Bunker Fuel, and these contain high amounts of sulphur which forms SO2 upon combustion, along with substantial amounts of elemental-carbon, nickel and vanadium, all which have significant health implications for affected populations. To put this all into perspective, recent studies show that marine vessels around Kwai Chung are responsible for 36% of total SO2 concentrations measured at the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department’s air quality measuring stations. Surprisingly, local power plants were only responsible for 7% of total SO2 concentrations at the same stations. Furthermore, marine vessels burning high sulphur fuel appear to be the major source of SO2 in specific locations within the heart of the urban area. To further show the severity of marine vessels’ contribution to sulphur oxides (SOx), ships anchoring at Tokyo’s port emit eight times more SOx per year than the total amount emitted by autos in six Tokyo Wards along the bay.

An Overlooked Problem?

In some aspects, marine pollution has been overlooked as a problem source, partly because marine vessels do not operate on land where the human population moves about each day. Similarly, there are various local and international bodies that govern marine transport, and because ocean going vessels move from port to port, a higher level of international cooperation and understanding of these problems is necessary in order to effectuate a policy on emissions which can be widely accepted, adopted and monitored.

Currently, most of the shipping industry (for ocean going vessels) feels that shipping regulation should be undertaken and enforced uniformly on an international basis through the United Nation’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Regulatory issues in the PRD then involve consideration of three different jurisdictions: (i) Hong Kong’s, (ii) Mainland China’s, and (iii) the international jurisdiction of the IMO. International pollution controls are primarily implemented through the MARPOL Convention, of which Annex VI “Prevention of air pollution from ships” came into force in May 2005. This sets limits on SO2 and NOx emissions, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. Currently 27 countries have ratified Annex VI, representing 64% of the world’s tonnage in ships. Hong Kong and China have yet to ratify Annex VI, with only Japan and Singapore complying with this annex within Asia. Hong Kong authorities have stated that they expect to ratify Annex VI within 2006 and in any event their current regulations are largely compliant with its requirements.

The IMO also enables regions to be declared Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA). To date there are two SECAs in the world which require ships to reduce SOx emissions within their boundaries through using cleaner fuels within those zones. Other emission reductions are also being achieved, largely in the US and European Union, through the reduction of vessel speeds within harbours, changing to cleaner fuels while operating auxiliary engines when approaching harbour, retrofitting ships with emission reduction equipment and the use of shore-side power while docked at port. It is unlikely that Hong Kong will be able to establish a SECA under the IMO regulations. This is largely because in order to achieve SECA status, Hong Kong and Mainland China, being two adjoining countries, must jointly apply and each must have already ratified Annex VI. Moreover, each must have individually taken strong measures nationally to reduce marine emissions before SECA status is granted. Neither Hong Kong or the Mainland appears to have made any effort thus far to reduce marine emissions at its increasingly busy ports, with one commentator saying that “the [Chinese] government has made great efforts to reduce emissions from stationary sources and vehicle exhaust; however, emissions from ships are usually neglected.”

What Can We Do?

What then, can Hong Kong do to improve this situation within our jurisdiction and the PRD? Examples from the U.S. and Europe have shown that two different approaches are being explored and implemented: (i) the use of incentives for complying vessels in the form of reduced fees, shorter waiting time for dock space, and reduced inspection times, and (ii) taxation, differentiated dues and other penalties for failing to comply. In some cases, incentives given by individual ports have shown to be just as effective in cleaning up emissions as regulations handed down from national or supra-national bodies. Use of clean vehicles and equipment at the port itself must also be a coherent part of emission reduction policy.

Hong Kong’s high level of river traffic should also be a main focal point for making improvements, as this accounts for 84% of our marine traffic. In this case, close coordination and cooperation from the PRD will need to be put into place. Cleaner fuels and shore-based power are two of the most likely options for progress, but this then runs into issues relating to fuel policy and availability in the PRD which will be covered in the next article in this series.

In summary, marine pollution is an increasingly worrying contributor to our local air quality problems, and one which is having a clear health impact on the entire population of Kowloon. International protection through the designation of a SECA will be difficult without the support of many countries/ports in the region, and Asia is lagging behind other regions in respect to this type of coordinated response to marine emissions. Hong Kong’s main target for improvement should therefore be aimed at local port policies (Hong Kong and Shenzhen), and programmes to address the use of fuel and/or emission standards on the vessels that constitute the high volume of river traffic within the PRD. Lack of action in the marine industry will contradict any improvements that may be made in land-based emission improvements.

This is the second article in a four-part series on Hong Kong’s air pollution. The next piece will focus on fuel options in the Pearl River Delta, and how that can impact our situation in Hong Kong.

Further information on shipping emission reduction options is available in Civic Exchange’s recently released report “Marine Emission Reduction Options for Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta”, March 2006, available at www.civic-exchange.org

Local Perspective on Hong Kong Air

Mar 31st, 2006
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Local Perspective on Hong Kong’s Air

We all know that our air is polluted, but are we getting the full information of its severity? Are we greatly underestimating the scale of our problem? Douglas Woodring, a concerned resident of Hong Kong and local think-tank, Civic Exchange have come together to answer these questions for Britain in Hong Kong.

UNFORTUNATELY, it took Hong Kong’s largest sporting event, the recent marathon, and one of our all too common “bad air” days, to really get people to understand that we are truly under threat from our air quality. Without the knowledge on where we truly stand, however, the calls to action from the community, and the incentive to make necessary improvements, have yet to occur in a way that would be expected in Asia’s world city.

Who is to blame?

Sadly, the main blame for our air quality is the industrial growth on the other side of the boundary, which we cannot easily rectify, although 70,000 factories in the Pearl River Delta are under Hong Kong ownership and should be held more accountable. This is true, but we also need to be able to demonstrate that we have done everything we can in Hong Kong to tackle our own local air pollution before we can fairly criticise emissions north of the boundary.

With little manufacturing remaining in Hong Kong, the numbers are clear. There are two main components of our local emissions: the excessively high dependence on poor quality diesel vehicles, and air pollution from power generation, particularly from coalfired plants, as natural gas and nuclear generation alternatives are significantly cleaner local fuel sources. It is good news, in that the targets are easy to define, but it is unfortunate for all of us that not enough has been done to make the real changes that are needed. Instead, we are all paying the price of a slow pace of change with our and our families’ health and quality of life.

API Index: HK vs. EU

The first issue to understand is the true level of pollutants in our air. Unfortunately, we are still being given Air Pollution Index (API) readings that are skewed by taking an average reading of various pollutants from the previous 24 hours. Moreover, the Air Quality Objectives that have been introduced for Hong Kong in 1987 are only objectives, but not actual standards. No one is accountable if they are not achieved. If you look at the API index based on European Union standards (http://www.cleartheair.org.hk) you will find an enormous difference in readings.

The EU claims that it is “very unhealthy” when there are 50 micrograms of pollutants per cubic metre of air, where Hong Kong’s “very unhealthy” level is only reached at 180 micrograms. The day before the Hong Kong marathon, the levels in Central reached almost 300 (based on the EU index). Based on the EU index, the readings are above 200 in Central more often than not, yet our local API index reports the same days as just under 80. With nearly 20-year-old Air Quality Objectives in place, Asia’s world city is out of step with standards set in other parts of the world, and until our API index readings and interpretations of their content are inline with those of the developed world, our decision makers will continue to underplay the urgent need for change.

Road blocks

Hong Kong has the highest percentage of “diesel” road miles driven per capita out of any major developed city in the world. This is a major challenge for Asia’s world city. Tokyo recently embarked on a stringent campaign to limit diesel vehicle use in the city during the day time, while California has declared diesel a carcinogen. The European Commission is also preparing to introduce more stringent limits on diesel particulate emissions, reducing it to a level five times lower than the current Euro 4 standard, as the soot produced primarily by diesel cars has been blamed for a variety of respiratory problems. Daimler Chrysler has recently said that it will equip all of its diesel models with particulate filters starting this year in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. This is because the community there demands it. Why can’t these filters be used here in Hong Kong?

In contrast, one of Hong Kong’s bus operators is applying for a new 10-year licence, yet the government has yet to set new minimum standards in its type of engines or pollution control equipment, and only 10 out of 752 buses in operation are of Euro III standards. In fact, out of Hong Kong’s licenced bus fleet, 83 per cent out of 4,025 buses are below Euro III standards. One recent response from a government official to the expedition of the replacement of buses to Euro III standards was “that there is a need to adopt a gradual and cautious approach in considering bus replacement.”

Hazardous to health

Locally, Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are primarily produced from power generation and transportation. They affect living materials, building materials and contribute to acid rain. NOx are also a key ingredient of ground-level Ozone, of which diesel fuels are a significant contributor. A 2005 study commissioned by CLSA and prepared by Civic Exchange shows that Ozone concentrations are rising rapidly in Hong Kong, the results of which can be eye and lung irritation, with long-term recurring exposure potentially
causing chronic health problems.

Dialogue has started to introduce Euro V fuels, where the Sulphur content is five times lower than that of current diesel. This will have very little impact, however, if the quality of the majority of Hong Kong’s diesel engines used is not brought up to date. Serious efforts should be made to phase out older diesel vehicles of all types, retrofit others with the most sophisticated particulate traps, and make sure that the fuel used is of the highest quality. This also means making sure that fuels from across the border, where sulphur content is from 50 to 500 times that of Hong Kong, do not make their way onto our roads.

Polluter pays

In terms of energy production in Hong Kong, with the Scheme of Control under review, it would be timely for the introduction of coal-fired emission control equipment to be introduced under a new regulatory regime, which includes environmental performance targets. Hong Kong needs to embrace the “polluter pays principle”. In this regard, a combination of ‘carrot and stick’ comprising bold leadership, world standards, meaningful penalties, attractive incentives and civic education all need to be utilised to deliver necessary improvements.

One solution recommended by economist Philip Bowring’s recent South China Morning Post article suggested an ‘energy tax’, which would simply mean that those who use the most of our resources pay accordingly. Since there is no longer a significant industrial base in this city, this option appears to have merit, also prompting conservation and energy efficiency along the way, which few seem to have the true incentive to pursue today. Until older polluting vehicles are phased out, part of the proceeds from such an ‘energy tax’ could be used to help convert, modify and greatly improve the tens of thousands of outdated diesel vehicles that travel (and idle) on our roads every hour by retrofitting state of-the-art pollution traps and filters.

The options for improvement, that we have in Hong Kong can control, are fairly straightforward, but we all have to want improvement. Unfortunately, not all of us ask for it with such urgency because we are not aware of what is really happening when we are given air pollution readings, which are out of step with international standards. The choice is ours, but we need to put the goal posts in the right places so that we can judge the results and bring accountability to the system.

Hong Kong Marathon – 2006

Feb 27th, 2006
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Hong Kong Marathon – 2006

Monday, February 27, 2006

Pollution index bogus

The Hong Kong marathon has again brought the environmental crisis into sharp focus and this will probably recur for years to come. We can only hope that the marathon’s high profile will promote government action rather than denial and further false rationalisation. In the meantime, the marathon has highlighted several major inconsistencies, reflected in pronouncements by different sectors of the community, which should be addressed urgently. First, the Athletic Association sought to defend the event by pointing to an air pollution index (API) of 100 as “safe”.

It is not to be blamed for this, because, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the government continues to cling to this meaningless and misleading measure. I realise that to do otherwise (that is, tell the truth) would precipitate a political furore, but there are no grounds for arguing that such a level of pollution will not cause an injury to respiratory and cardiovascular systems of even healthy people.

I suggest that everyone who took part in the marathon was at risk of harm to their health from pollution. Mostly silent and unobservable, these medical events contribute to our lifetime risks of disease in the heart, blood vessels and lungs.

Second, I disagree with the downgrading of the risks by some medical colleagues, and the suggestion that these will amount to minor and insigificant symptoms. At the very least, they are signals of more fundamental damage. I suggest that the Academy of Medicine convene a consensus conference so that we can all speak with one voice on the matter.

Until and unless we have the courage to admit that we have lost control of air-quality management throughout the region and that the API is a completely bogus health-protection measure, we will move even further away from urgently needed definitive action.

ANTHONY J. HEDLEY, department of community medicine, University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong Marathon report

Feb 13th, 2006
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Twenty-two people were taken to hospital, two in critical condition, after taking part in Hong Kong’s biggest marathon as the territory was hit by the worst air pollution in months.

DON’T UNDERESTIMATE BAD AIR

… an expert in Hong Kong urged people not to underestimate the effects of bad air during strenuous exercise.

Pollution may have been the cause because of the high level of suspended particulates. For people with a history of asthma, polluted air can cause tightness in the chest,” said medical doctor Lo Winglok.

Hong Kong Marathon Air Pollution Alert

Feb 13th, 2006
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

News Release – 13 February, 2006

Hong Kong Marathon should have sounded an air pollution alert

The air pollution levels were so high Sunday morning for the Hong Kong Standard Chartered Marathon 2006 there should have been air pollution alert to warn runners that their health was at significant risk.

According to the US Environmental Protection agency, an Air Pollution Index (API) of 88 – 100 means that everyone should reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. For an API over 100 everyone should avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Says Annelise Connell, Chairman of Clear The Air “It was inexcusable for the Hong Kong Government to claim that no action should have been taken and that running a marathon in this pollution was not a risk to healthy people.”

Running in this marathon was guaranteed to make everyone sick to some degree because of the pollution. There is often a three day lag time between pollution episodes and symptoms, so everyone who ran on Sunday should check their health over the next few days and report any heart or respiratory symptoms to their doctor, the Health Department and the Environmental Protection Department.

The Air Pollution Index is worthless to athletes during a race because it is an average of the previous 24 hours. The air pollution peaked at 9 am and the runners were sucking in very unhealthy amounts of pollution.

Said Ms. Connell “All sporting events organizers should check the Greenpeace / Clear The Air website to see if athletes need to be warned of the air pollution levels.”

European Union “very unhealthy” level is 50 micrograms per cubic metres of air.
Hong Kong “very unhealthy” level is 180 micrograms per cubic metres of air.

Dont run in smog

Dec 19th, 2005
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Dont run in smog

Monday, December 19, 2005

Letter to the South China Morning Post

We believe that many of your readers are interested in whether physical exercise in an environment of polluted air is harmful to health. We would like to follow up on the letter “Running in smog risky” (December 12), by Wong Chit-ming, Lam Tai-hing and Anthony J. Hedley, who suggested that there were no studies addressing this important issue.

Some years ago, we conducted an epidemiological study of the association between air pollution and cardiopulmonary fitness of primary-school children in Hong Kong. We showed that physical exercise was positively associated with cardiopulmonary fitness in those children who lived in and attended schools in the less-polluted district in our study, but not in children living and attending schools in the more-polluted district.

In other words, the beneficial effect of physical exercise that we all know seems to have disappeared among children exposed to an environment with high air pollution, in contrast to those living in a district of relatively clean air.

In our study, cardiopulmonary fitness was represented by “maximal oxygen uptake” – the maximum amount that a child can consume during maximum physical effort. The higher the oxygen uptake, the fitter the child. We estimated this parameter by an indirect method, using a standard test widely adopted in sports science. The study is called “Impact of air pollution on cardiopulmonary fitness in schoolchildren.”

Owing to limitations in the study design, our results could not demonstrate a definite cause-effect relationship, but the conventional wisdom that physical exercise is always beneficial to health must be questioned. Specifically, we consider it prudent to refrain from strenuous physical activity in highly polluted environments, for example, jogging on roads with moderate to heavy traffic. Moreover, the potential harm to the health of children playing in school grounds that are exposed to heavy traffic fumes should be urgently assessed.

WONG TZE-WAI and IGNATUS YU TAK-SUN, department of community and family medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Running in smog risky

Dec 12th, 2005
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Running in smog risky

Monday December 12 2005

The answer to Rob James’ important question about the hazard of exercising in highly polluted air is potentially complex (‘Damage to exercisers?’, December 7). Research on this and related health issues is seriously hampered by lack of funding.

So far, on a whole-population basis, our analyses have shown that pollution causes large-scale harmful effects to health at all ages. Equally, they show that exercise is hugely protective to our health and prevents premature death. We have evidence that this protective effect operates for some even in the presence of air pollution.

But it is important to note that the large benefits of exercise are gained at relatively very low levels of activity. While athletes need to ‘regularly train and race outdoors’, doing this in highly polluted air will predictably cause an injury to heart, lungs and blood vessels. In susceptible individuals this could lead to acute adverse health effects. Children may be particularly vulnerable.

But those who take regular vigorous exercise are a highly self-selected group who are probably less likely to experience health problems in the short term. It is equally likely that many non-athletes limit their activity because they experience pollution-induced symptoms.

The benefits of exercise and good nutrition may mitigate these pollution-induced health effects, but we suggest there are no strong arguments for raising your ventilatory rate to very high levels in the air of the Pearl River Delta. Unfortunately, Hong Kong’s Air Pollution Index is of no help because most of the measured harm from pollution occurs well below the average level, where health effects are officially stated to be ‘not expected for the general population’.

CHIT-MING WONG, TAI-HING LAM and ANTHONY J. HEDLEY, department of community medicine, University of Hong Kong

LegCo Presentation – Tamar Canyon Effect

Nov 30th, 2005
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

LegCo Presentation:

Feb 2006 – Tamar canyon effect – Dr. Jimmy Fung

Air pollution numbers wrong and canyon effect not considered

CB(1)511/05-06(13)

November 30, 2005

TO: Panel on Planning, Lands and Works – Special Meeting 17 Dec, 2005 – Tamar
Fax: 2869-6794
email: cshiu@legco.gov.hk

Honorable Chair and Members,

We ask that you not accept anything from the Government regarding the Tamar site until the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for CRIII is updated with recent, actual air pollution data using a proper model that includes the “canyon effect” of our buildings in trapping air pollution.

We note the following regarding the results of the Environmental Impact Assessment shown to you in 2001.

  1. The predictions were wrong – the Environmental Impact Assessment is no longer valid
  2. The model used in the Environmental Impact Assessment assumes Central is a flat surface
  3. There is no urgency. There is time to do a new report properly with current data and the correct model (estimated 3 months and $300,000)

Comparison of predicted and actual 24-hour Average Respiratory Suspended Paticles (RSP)

Predicted and Actual Levels of RSP in Central 2003

* Environmental Impact Assessment (July 2001) supported by Urbis Limited, Babtie BMT Harris & Sutherland Regards

** Data from Environmental Protection Department Central roadside air pollution monitoring station 2003

Annelise Connell
Vice Chairman , Clear the Air

Central Reclamation Phase III

South China Morning Post – Sunday November 20 2005 – Tamar pollution prediction ‘far too low’

Tamar Pollution Prediction Far Too Low

Nov 20th, 2005
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

South China Morning Post – Sunday November 20 2005

Tamar pollution prediction ‘far too low’

Niki Law

Official environmental report ‘pretends Central has a flat surface’ with no tall buildings, say experts

Official figures seriously underestimate the pollution levels people will face in Central once the new government offices are built at the Tamar site and the surrounding district developed, it has been claimed.

The Sunday Morning Post has learned that air pollution could be three times higher than predicted by the Environmental Protection Department’s 2001 environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, due to miscalculations.

Annelise Connell, vice-chairwoman of Clear the Air, says pollution predictions on the Tamar site and the Central Reclamation Phase III were based on 1999 data plugged into a prediction model that assumes Central has no buildings.

‘The entire air pollution assessment is useless,’ she said. ‘There is not a chance in the world that the real numbers are within objective. The Central Reclamation Project III and Tamar site project would not have been approved if the real figures had been used.’

In the assessment, respiratory suspended particles (RSP) at the Central roadside station were not expected to exceed an average concentration of 80 micrograms per cubic metre and the Air Pollution Index was expected to remain below 100. In reality, the respiratory suspended particles figure has been as high as 257 micrograms and the air pollution index has reached 100 some 97 times.

…

Meanwhile, air-quality-modelling expert Jimmy Fung Chi-hung says the government’s pollution model ‘pretends Central is a flat surface’ and ignores the fact that pollution gets trapped.

The University of Science and Technology associate professor said a ‘deep canyon’ of pollution was created when buildings by the road were twice as high as the width of the road. ‘Pollution is three times higher than in places where air can flow freely. If you have doubts, just think of how bad the air is in Causeway Bay,’ he said.

‘For a two- to three-lane road, a three-storey commercial building is high enough to create a deep canyon. Cars release exhaust very close to the ground. Central’s canyon would be very deep.’

He suggested the government produce another report using a newer model that considers the buildings. This would take about three months and cost $300,000.

However, the department is standing by its methods and findings. Asked by the Post for comment, a spokeswoman said the study had been conducted in line with environmental impact assessment procedures and the public and the Advisory Council on the Environment had been consulted before the report was approved.

The Constitutional Affairs Bureau felt there was no need to delay the Tamar project, which a spokesman said would have ‘no significant impact on the air pollution in the Central Business District’.

Cleaning Up The Bus Fleet

Oct 1st, 2005
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

Cleaning up the fleet

October 2005

by Fung Man Keung

Lecturer, Department of Automotive Engineering,
Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education

When concentrating on emission quality only, particulates and nitrogen oxides are the main foci as revealed in Euro IV and V standards.

There is no doubt that liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is superior to diesel because of its homogenous combustion characteristic, where only very tiny particles and pollutants are emitted. A diesel fuelled engine, with its inherent heterogeneous combustion process, promotes higher concentration in the said pollutants. That’s what we care about.

In Hong Kong, the EPD says that the concentration of diesel engined vehicles is too high. We could add to this and say that the concentration of purely mechanical and unsophisticated / older diesel engined vehicles is too high.

However, applying the state-of-art technology in engine design and after-treatment devices enables them to comply with stringent emission Regulations; therefore, the ban on new light diesel vehicles may not be persuadable enough especially when they comply with latest emission requirements;

You may find that almost half of the new light vehicles in Europe are diesel fuelled and many well known manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into light diesel vehicle research and development and hence manufacturing much cleaner engines.

Diesel possesses a higher energy density compared with various other types of fossil fuels which are commonly used in vehicles. About 40% higher than liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and diesel engines achieve a higher thermal efficiency compared with spark ignition (LPG or gasoline) engines which may be the driving force for the manufacturers to develop diesel vehicles more aggressively.

From an energy conservation point of view, diesel is therefore the best choice to reduce energy consumption because global warming gases are reduced as a consequence.

In our opinion, new diesel vehicles which comply with the latest emission regulations should have the right to play the fair game with other types of engines;

But… we should make every effort to ensure the emission quality during their service life remains high instead of simply banning them. More frequent monitoring, say biannually, and up-to-date standards for used / older vehicles will be an effective measure to maintain a lower pollution level.

Whichever the type of vehicle, engine deterioration is the prime factor in the decline of emission quality, especially high mileage, public service and commercial vehicles;

Unfortunately, engine deterioration caused by vehicle age and mileage is not part of the existing inspection criteria. Instead, a highly tolerable (easy to meet) emission standard is applied to all vehicles whether they are just 2 or over 10 years old, for instance.

How can owners be encouraged to upkeep their new or lower age vehicle close to the original emission quality? Right now, most vehicles on road just comply with the emission standards of ten years ago or even earlier.

Emission standards for new vehicles are reviewed from time to time in order to aim towards the goal of zero emission; in the meanwhile, if the standards for those vehicles on road are not revised according to their manufacturing year, the road to improving air quality in Hong Kong will be greatly prolonged.

In summary, we would need to realize that all combustion engines are harmful to the environment. Due to the ever developing technologies the differences between the emissions from internal combustion engines burning differing kinds of fuels are diminishing.

We can no longer single out one engine as being very much worse than another (e.g. dirty diesels).

Arguably the key factors to ensuring that engines run as cleanly as possible are

  1. application of the latest technologies
  2. effective maintenance
  3. use of high quality / clean fuels, and
  4. high durability of any given product or system

No matter how clean the emissions of any given internal combustion engines are, such engines will still emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and raw heat, but the toxic gases / particles will likely be greatly minimized.

Any given jurisdiction should take steps to carry out regular emissions checks on all vehicles, say once or twice per year. The data should be collected and analyzed to see where the problem areas are and then corrective actions explored / taken.

Polluting vehicles should be rejected from being reregistered on the road to ensure that good maintenance is applied across the whole Hong Kong fleet.

It therefore follows that having the most stringent regulations is quite useless unless these are matched with appropriately stringent enforcement.

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →