News›Hong Kong

TRANSPORT

Cheung Chi-fai chifai.cheung@scmp.com

Subsidies to owners of polluting diesel vehicles may be raised to 40pc of cost of replacement

The government has hammered out a revised HK$10 billion-plus scheme with beefed-up subsidies to get fleet operators to phase out pre-Euro IV commercial diesel vehicles.

The scheme will be tabled to the legislature for discussion on October 2.

Transport sources said the Environment Bureau would increase not just the amount of subsidies given to the operators but also improve how the subsidies were granted.

They said that under the revised scheme there would no longer be a distinction between operators who wanted to scrap their vehicles and those who wanted to replace them.

Both are expected to get the same subsidy, depending on the emissions standards of their vehicles.

The maximum subsidy also might be increased from 30 per cent to up to 40 per cent of the vehicle’s replacement cost.

But questions have been raised in the trade as to whether the government might have to seek extra funding from the legislature to implement the revised plan.

At least one person familiar with the situation said extra funds would be needed, but not a significant amount. He said the top-up required might be around 10 per cent.

Another concern was whether the bureau would extend the timetable for phasing out the vehicles in three phases.

It is understood the bureau might postpone the deadlines by one year to 2017, 2018 and 2020.

Undersecretary for the Environment Christine Loh Kung-wai has said the plan for the multibillion-dollar scheme has been finalised, but she did not reveal details.

The scheme, described by Loh as the “biggest of its kind in the world”, aims to phase out more than 80,000 commercial diesel vehicles, excluding franchised buses, in three stages, depending on their emissions standards.

Operators of old vehicles whose emissions are regarded by World Health Organisation as carcinogenic will not be allowed to renew their licences once the deadlines pass.

Since the scheme was announced, some in the trade have questioned whether the proposed incentives are adequate and fair. Some operators said the scheme was unattractive as they could not afford to buy a new vehicle, even with the subsidy.

Leung Kun-kuen, of the Kowloon Truck Merchants Association, said that from what he had heard about the revised scheme, the association would “cautiously accept” it.

“There is still uncertainty as to when the scheme will be implemented, as manufacturers have found it difficult to adjust to fluctuations in demand for new vehicles,” he said.

Yuen Cheung-fung, of the Federation of Trade Unions, said individual operators were concerned whether they could continue to make a living. He said the revised scheme could partly address their concerns.

Comment›Insight & Opinion

MY TAKE

Alex Lo alex.lo@scmp.com

The government doesn’t just pander to taxi and minibus operators with a massive subsidy to replace old catalytic converters, a wise reader has pointed out. It mollycoddles the entire transport trade.

Besides the HK$150 million for taxis and minibuses I wrote about [1], there is the HK$400 million earmarked to retrofit the old bus fleets with new emissions control devices under KMB, Citybus, New World First Bus and Long Win.

As an Environmental Protection Department official put it with a perfectly straight face: “We propose to fully fund the franchised bus companies for the capital costs of retrofitting for some 1,400 Euro 2 and 3 buses, including the buses selected for the pre-qualification trial.”

But all those hundreds of millions pale before the mind-boggling HK$10 billion the government has proposed to spend to phase out about 88,000 dirty diesel trucks by 2019 – that is, pre-Euro 4 diesel commercial vehicles.

The plan is still being worked out in discussions with trade leaders – who will no doubt demand their pound of flesh and get it – and then presented to the Legislative Council for funding.

So, the operators pollute our air, and we foot the bill for the clean-up. Another glorious example of our generous welfarism for big corporations and the rich. No wonder corporate types like Stanley Lau Chin-ho of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries denounces welfarism for the poor. Boys and girls, it’s truly a nasty class war out there.

No doubt the trade has argued, and they are probably not bluffing, that either they would do nothing if they had to pay for converting or replacing the polluting vehicles, or they would raise fares and charges to such a high level that the public would end up blaming the government for enforcing tough emissions standards.

I love this corporate welfarism – heads I win, tails you lose. It’s all carrot and no stick.

We all recognise the need to remove or at least lower sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and other particulate emissions in our environment. But there must be new and greater penalties and enhanced monitoring to make all these massive subsidies worthwhile. Otherwise, we face an endless cycle of trade subsidy.

Polluters should pay for clean vehicles [1]

Comment›Insight & Opinion

Simon Ng

Simon Ng says officials must insist on removing old polluting trucks from our roads because it benefits us all, including the affected drivers

“I have been a lorry driver for my entire life and exposed to all sorts of fumes coming out of the exhaust. See how healthy I still am; I have no cancer or other health complaints. Show me the proof of how diesel exhaust fumes are causing cancer! Why are we being targeted?”

This is the view shared by many professional drivers, and exactly the sentiment of those representing various transport associations and transport workers’ unions, who turned up at a recent bills committee meeting on the Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill 2013. The meeting was called primarily to collect views about the new air quality objectives, which are expected to take effect from January 1. The transport trade has been taking every opportunity to reiterate their concerns over the scheme to replace diesel commercial vehicles, and the prospect of losing their jobs because of it.

People may sympathise with the owner-drivers, who worry that they may not be able to afford a new, cleaner vehicle, even with a government subsidy. This means they could be out of business once their vehicles have to be deregistered.

Yet, from a broader perspective, few may agree with the trade because it is scientific fact that exposure to air pollutants pose a serious risk to human health. It affects everyone. Healthy adults may be less susceptible to the effects of air pollution, but children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with existing heart and respiratory illnesses are extremely vulnerable.

In other words, as much as one must pay attention to the transport trade’s worry about the threat to livelihood, members of the trade also cannot dismiss the science and the social costs of air pollution to which they contribute as polluters on the one hand, and pay for as collective members of society on the other.

So let’s not frame these disagreements as clean air versus jobs. There is no winner here, as everyone will suffer in the end because of bad air, health-wise and in economic terms. We should look at it as a win-win opportunity. If air pollution is reduced, society will benefit as clean air will reduce the health bill, increase productivity, improve Hong Kong’s long-term competitiveness, and create new jobs.

So often in the past, the government has backed down in the face of opposition pressure. Policymakers want a consensus and if they do not get it, they would rather go back to the drawing board. There have been so many missed opportunities over the years, and they have proved very costly. Hong Kong has been paying a huge price for not acting swiftly enough to cut air pollution. We must not continue to make this mistake.

We need the government to stand firmly by its plans. Hong Kong must deliver clean air to everyone for health reasons. In that process, we may need to plan our city or run our business differently. As a result, some people may be affected, but it is being done for the greater good of society. It is up to the government to decide how the affected parties will be compensated, but it must be done at a reasonable level and in a transparent manner.

We must clean up our air now. The delay is killing us.

Simon Ng is head of transport and sustainability research at Civic Exchange

Polluting vehicle

Air Pollution

Environmental Protection