Download PDF : E91399
WHO
HKSARG congratulates Dr Margaret Chan on her nomination as WHO Director-General
Hong Kong (HKSAR) – The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (HKSARG) extends its heartiest congratulations to Dr Margaret Chan on her nomination by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Executive Board today (January 18, Geneva time) for a second term as Director-General of the Organization
We’ve had enough of all this hot air
Dear Legco,
For the attention of the Panel on Environmental Affairs.
Perhaps the ENB would like to comment ?
Kind Regards
James Middleton
Chairman
South China Morning Post – 20 Jan 2012
At long last, Hong Kong has new targets to aim for to improve air quality. They replace guidelines formulated 25 years ago and are closer to those recommended by the World Health Organisation in 2005. That they still fall short in several key areas and are the same as suggestions made after a public consultation in 2009 is disappointing, though. The government claims to be doing its best to reduce worsening pollution levels, but the slow pace of change suggests it is still putting development and the interests of big business before our health.
Officials have had many warnings about the importance of clean air. The dire health effects of prolonged exposure to pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and small particulates from vehicles are well known. Researchers at the University of Hong Kong have attempted to make the government’s slew of measurements meaningful with the Hedley Environment Index, which aims to track the short-term impact of air pollution on society. A revised version, coinciding with the release of the new standards, estimated that an average of 3,200 premature deaths have occurred each year over the past five years, leading to an economic cost to Hong Kong of HK$40 billion.
Those figures are a substantial increase on the last estimates. There will be little chance of them falling if government measures continue to cut at the edges rather than the heart of the problem. The Environmental Protection Department’s recent annual update of roadside pollution levels in our busiest districts showed record increases, with the Air Pollution Index being above the “very high” mark of 100 for 20 per cent of the time. It was disappointing proof of the gap between authorities’ rhetoric and pollution-fighting measures they had implemented.
There is more evidence that cleaning the air is not being given priority with the new air quality objectives. While the inclusion of fine respirable suspended particles of 2.5 microns is welcome and higher standards of between 10 per cent and 64 per cent have been set for seven pollutants, authorities are not legally bound to meet any of the targets. Four of the seven – sulphur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5 and ozone – fall short of the WHO’s highest guidelines and it will not be until 2014 at the earliest that they take effect. Tellingly, Beijing unveiled new standards before Hong Kong and the requirement for the key pollutant nitrogen dioxide was set at a tougher level.
Hong Kong has the finances and resources to make our air healthy. Guidelines should be set at the highest level to ensure we strive as best we can to attain them. Only if people are put before the companies that produce the pollution can there be a possibility that the targets are met. Our government is failing us.
Fuel bills, fares to rise on cleaner air
Hong Kong Standard
Electricity and transport costs will rise by up to 20percent when the new air-quality standards come into force in 2014, the government said.
Kenneth Foo
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Electricity and transport costs will rise by up to 20percent when the new air-quality standards come into force in 2014, the government said.
Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah made the warning a day after announcing plans to raise the Air Quality Objectives to World Health Organization standards.
Yau said the new objectives will lead to a reduction in air pollutants but may also result in a 15 to 20percent rise in transport costs and a 20percent jump in electricity bills, and the public will have to share the financial burden.
The Executive Council on Tuesday gave the green light to tougher clean-air targets for the first time in 25 years, pending approval from the Legislative Council.
About half of the objectives will adopt stricter air-quality guidelines published by the WHO in 2005.
Those for sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone will be set to targets under WHO guidelines.
A total of 22 mitigating measures, including the phasing out of heavily polluting vehicles and the increased usage of natural gas, will be implemented to achieve the new standards.
Yau also welcomed an Airport Authority statement that it will use the updated guidelines when it carries out the environmental impact assessment on the proposed third runway at Chek Lap Kok.
The two electricity companies agreed that government efforts to cut pollution will inevitably lead to higher bills.
CLP Power said yesterday the new objectives, coupled with soaring natural gas prices, will put pressure on it to raise electricity charges.
A spokesman for Hongkong Electric said it will need to install new gas turbines to meet the new standards.
Under the new plan, bus companies have to replace old vehicles with environmentally friendly fleets.
Kowloon Motor Bus, New World First Bus and Citybus said they have already started introducing such vehicles.
But at this early stage they do not know by how much fares will have to rise when the air- quality standards are raised.
A poor disconnect on air quality
South China Morning Post
Edward Yau Tang-wah, our secretary for environment, is fond of saying when discussing air quality objectives that it’s useful to have them as a standard but you must also have effective means for achieving them. You never feel that he really gets it. The thinking behind air quality objectives is that if they are exceeded, public health is damaged. Hong Kong’s objectives are way below World Health Organisation guidelines so the danger to public health from roadside pollution is much greater than indicated by the Environmental Protection Department’s index. But Yau’s approach is to say that we should match the objectives to the measures we are prepared to take to improve the air. His actions indicate he thinks it’s okay to keep the threat to public health at the current dangerously high levels because he and the government are not prepared to take radical measures to quickly improve air quality.
As everyone knows, the dirty engines in buses and trucks cause 80 to 90 per cent of roadside pollution. These old engines need to be taken off the streets – it’s not difficult to achieve. As Civic Exchange pointed out in its report last week, one of the governmental problems is that many years ago the Secretary for Health had oversight over the Air Pollution Control Ordinance and air quality objectives, and could speak with a much stronger voice to the Legislative Council on the dangers to public health of bad air. This disconnect is poor government.
Clearing the air
Hong Kong Standard
Kenneth Foo
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A breath of fresh air is on the way at last – if you can hold out to 2014.
That’s the date for tying Hong Kong pollution gauges to air-quality standards of the World Health Organization.
And new measures to clear the foul air will include car-free zones, more railways and scrapping old polluting vehicles.
Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah yesterday revealed a series of steps to update the Air Quality Objectives.
Seven types of emissions will be monitored, and sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead will be subject to the most stringent standards of the WHO.
The remainder – including respirable and fine particulates – will be monitored according to the lower end of WHO standards. The objectives will be reviewed every five years.
But some experts slammed the moves as not tough enough.
Anthony Hedley, honorary professor of the School of Public Health at the University of Hong Kong, accused the government of setting up ” lax and interim targets that masquerade as long-term solutions to a problem that requires more drastic action.”
Yau said the government will adopt the new standards as the benchmark for conducting environmental impact reports for its construction projects.
But there will be a three-year transitional period for private developments to adjust to the new rules.
“For the standards to be implemented, clearly defined goals, effective means and an emission- reduction package with the consensus of the people ar
e of paramount importance,” Yau said.
He declined to estimate the social and economic costs of the new objectives.
They come as Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, who had pledged to clean up the city’s air, enters the last months of his administration.
During his election campaign in 2006, he vowed a ” blue sky” policy.
While pollutants from the mainland have declined following an emission control pact with the Guangdong government, pollution from vehicles has hurt efforts.
The Airport Authority backed the proposed new objectives and will use them if the government allows it to build a third runway.
The authority said it will follow them for conducting air-quality assessments.
It also backed the retirement of old vehicles and a tree-planting campaign.
A spokesman for the Hong Kong General Chamber of Chamber supported the moves as it said pollution is the top environmental concern of business.
But campaigners are critical.
The head of environmental strategy at Civic Exchange, Mike Kilburn, said: ” It is a move that we have been waiting years for years but we are extremely disappointed as the objectives are not strict enough to make any positive impact on air quality.”
Hedley said public health safety demands that the cap on sulfur dioxide should be set much lower than the proposed rate of 125 micrograms per cubic meter.
The University of Hong Kong yesterday released an update of its Hedley Environmental Index, which shows the impact of pollution on public health.
The new index will have a map showing real-time levels of pollutants at 14 monitoring stations and will benchmark itself to WHO standards.
Based on calculations made from the index, experts have raised their estimates to an average of 3,200 deaths annually – compared with 1,000 made in the previous study.
Economic loss is estimated to be HK$40 billion a year.
Download PDF : hkstandard
Clean-air targets don’t measure up, critics say
SCMP outlines the continued lack of duty of care owed by Government to the people of Hong Kong
18 January 2012
Green groups angered by ‘half-hearted’ approach after objectives finally endorsed. They fall short of WHO standards and won’t take effect for another two years
Hong Kong’s clean-air targets will be toughened for the first time in a quarter of a century from 2014, but they will still fall short of World Health Organisation standards.
Environmentalists criticised the long delay in adopting the new objectives and accused the government of taking a half-hearted approach to implementing more than 20 measures identified to improve air quality.
The Executive Council endorsed the new air quality targets, first put out for public consultation in 2009, yesterday. The Legislative Council must now approve changes to the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.
Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said there was an urgent need to update air quality objectives, which had not changed since 1987. “But we have to understand that the ultimate WHO guidelines are a distant target. Even the European Union cannot fully adopt all of them,” Yau said.
“Given the surrounding environment of Hong Kong, we cannot set a goal that is unachievable.”
The new objectives, which lay down atmospheric concentration limits for seven pollutants, are between 10 per cent and 64 per cent more stringent than existing ones.
Yau said the government could not implement the full WHO guidelines at this stage as regional pollution was beyond its control. Instead, targets for three of the seven pollutants will be based on the WHO’s interim targets, which are intended to help territories with high levels of pollution move towards the full targets.
For the first time, the air quality standards will include a measure of airborne particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), which are more harmful than larger particles as they can penetrate deep into people’s lungs. But the standards will be in line with the loosest of the three WHO interim targets for PM2.5, angering environmentalists.
A total of 22 measures – including phasing out heavily polluting vehicles, promoting hybrid or electric vehicles, and increasing the use of natural gas – had been identified by the government to help achieve the new standards, and Yau said most of them were being implemented.
The steps could extend Hongkongers’ average life expectancy by a month, officials said earlier.
There will be a three-year transitional period after 2014 to allow construction projects that begin earlier to continue under the old guidelines so they will not be delayed, Yau said.
The delay in implementation has meant some key projects, such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge, have had their environmental impact assessments approved under the old air-quality guidelines.
The Airport Authority says it will apply the new guidelines when it carries out the environmental impact assessment on the proposed third runway at Chek Lap Kok, and adopt mitigation measures.
Mike Kilburn, head of environmental strategy at think tank Civic Exchange, said he was “extremely disappointed” with the two-year delay in implementing the policy.
Dr Man Chi-sum, chief executive of environmental group Green Power, said that as well as setting new standards, the government must thoroughly implement the package of measures it set out to help meet the target. “Many of the measures are only being half-heartedly executed.”
Hahn Chu Hon-keung, senior environmental affairs manager at Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong), said the government had failed to set a timetable to reach the WHO’s highest targets and had set the target for PM2.5 at the lowest possible level.
Dismal pollution survey prompts Taiwan’s doctors to take action
http://health.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20111223-317850.html
| Dismal pollution survey prompts Taiwan’s doctors to take action | |||
| Taiwan’s air quality ranked an abysmal 35 out of 38 countries surveyed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with Taipei at number 551 out of the 565 cities profiled, boasting an air quality on par with “smoker’s paradise” Lebanon.
The terrible results prompted the medical industry to push for government action, with health advocates urging once again to scrap the controversial No. 6 Naphtha Cracking Project. Experts put their heads together in a press conference held yesterday by the Taiwan Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology the Changhua Medical Alliance for Public Affairs (MAPA) and the Taiwan Academy Of Ecology. Ko Wen-che, a surgeon at National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH), spoke as a husband whose wife had suffered first-hand the consequences of air pollution – this March, the doctor’s wife was diagnosed with lung cancer that had spread to the adrenal glands. His wife, Ko explained, has never smoked a cigarette in her life and only discovered the disease by accident in an annual checkup. The surgical doctor described immediate procedures to remove the tumor and is thankful that no chemotherapy was required. The diagnosis was a shock, nonetheless. Unbeknownst to the public, Taiwan boasts the highest rate of female lung cancer patients, despite the fact that it has a relatively low smoking population. Ko points to the air quality as the culprit, due to the island’s particulate matter (PM) index, or severe “PM pollution” problem. Every single person residing in Taiwan is inhaling the harmful particulates, said MAPA-associated doctor Huang Min-shen, pointing out that the WHO reports found Taiwan’s air quality to be no better than countries frequently subjected to violent sandstorms. If the government does not take some from of immediate measures, the public will continue to suffer the debilitating health effects of PM pollution, the doctor added. |
|||
Hong Kong’s pollution shame
http://asiancorrespondent.com/71377/hong-kong-pollution-shame/
In a World Health Organization survey, Hong Kong is embarrassingly ranked among the worst in a list of 500 cities in terms of levels of fine particles in the air.
If you’re in Central’s roads on a busy weekday, or perhaps any day, you are exposed to the city’s greatest concentration of large particles. Only Dakar (Senegal), Zabrze (Poland), Kuwait City (Kuwait), Mexicali (Mexico), Antananarivo (Madagascar) and Mongolia’s Ulan Bator – reportedly the second most polluted city in the world – of the 565 cities surveyed are worse than Hong Kong’s pollution levels.
Does this mean the allure of Central as a premium location for business (ifc and Hongkong Land properties) and leisure (Lan Kwai Fong, luxury hotels) has deteriorated? Maybe not. Such news isn’t recent and, for a while, people are already aware of high pollution levels in the city. So if people avoid Central, perhaps leaving Hong Kong is not a far off decision as neighboring districts don’t fare much better either.
Since Hong Kong’s pollution level is worse than many other cities, I’d agree with Friends of Earth’s statement that such status is “disappointing and shameful”. Hong Kong can brag about being a top-notch financial hub or a model of efficiency, but its people are breathing third-world class air. According to a document obtained by FOE from Environmental Protection Department, the pollution level at the intersection of Chater Road and Des Voeux Road Central is 20 times higher than the top-ranked Whitehorse, Canada.
Health specialists say fine particles can penetrate deep into human respiratory system and may cause severe health risks.
Top urban air pollution contributors include motor transport, small-scale manufacturers and other industries, burning of biomass and coal for cooking and heating, as well as coal-fired power plants. What excacerbates the situation is that Hong Kong’s tall buildings, while providing a majestic backdrop for tourist views and source of pride for locals, they trap pollutants confined on narrow roads in what’s called “street canyon effect”. No wonder that if a typhoon comes to Hong Kong, it is also means opportunity to cleanse the city from unwanted elements in the air.
Lack of political will responsible for the polluted air we breathe in HK
South China Morning Post – Dec. 2, 2011
I refer to the letter by Pang Sik-wing of the Environmental Protection Department (“Defending cleaner air measures”, November 24) in response to a number of articles in Lai See.
It was a further masterpiece in the Environment Bureau’s long series of deceptions on air quality management. The full array of short-term and annual pollutant concentrations show that the population is exposed to dangerously high levels of health-damaging particulates and gases, up to several hundred per cent above World Health Organisation (WHO) maximum limits.
Present-day medical evidence shows that harmful effects in children occur even below these limits, and it is likely they will be revised downwards long before Hong Kong is compliant with present international advisories.
Air pollution is a major cause of serious morbidity and mortality and will continue to be for decades, especially for children, the deprived and those with other health problems, even if pollution is reduced dramatically in the near future. This will not happen because the government procrastinates and adopts minimalist measures which do not match the size and severity of the problem. That is why, in public health protection terms, there has been little meaningful change in our exposures from ambient and roadside pollutants for more than a decade.
In 2009 the environment minister claimed that the government had adopted WHO guidelines for the new air quality objectives (AQO). Nothing could be further from reality.
The department and its consultants mostly selected much less stringent “interim targets”. They also engaged in blind tinkering with short-term limits, allowing additional exceedances to accommodate the present high levels of pollution, instead of implementing the full guidelines and enforcing them to drive down pollution on the shortest possible timescales. This constitutes a major health hazard for everyone.
We need to at least start the process of rational air quality management but it is now clear that, whatever else may be introduced by way of pollutant mitigation, these totally inadequate AQOs will not deliver safer air and protect child health. Once these contrived proposals are enshrined in law, it will, as Mr Pang emphasises, be possible to approve highly polluting projects because they will not violate extremely lax standards.
Unless there is a radical change in political will, our bad air epidemic is set to continue for a very long time.
Anthony Hedley, school of public health, University of Hong Kong