Clean Air Network » Joanne Ooi

Sign up for Smoky Vehicle Registered Spotter Training on April 24 (morning), Saturday

Joanne Ooi — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:56:29 +0000

Did you know that, unless you are a REGISTERED spotter, the EPD has no legal obligation to investigate your sighting of a smoky vehicle? Read more about the program on our website. On Saturday, April 24th, the EPD will hold a special training session for members and friends of CAN. We encourage you to become a registered spotter if you really want to make a difference — on the ground. If you would like to sign up, please send us an email at info@hongkongcan.org

The Hedley Lecture: Public health in a changing world – an extra-terrestrial perspective, 28 April, Wednesday, 6 PM, InterContinental Hong Kong

Joanne Ooi — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:59:55 +0000

Anthony Hedley has served for more than 22 years as Chair Professor of Community Medicine in the University of Hong Kong and honorary consultant to the Department of Health and Hospital Authority. He is now retiring from Hong Kong. While we are very sad to see him leave, Civic Exchange and Clean Air Network have organized this lecture, with the generous support of the InterContinental Hong Kong, to provide his many friends and colleagues a final opportunity to hear from one of Hong Kong’s foremost advocates for public health.

Professor Hedley will focus on the importance of risk communication, and the difficulties of translating the scientific evidence of harm into clear messages which can be understood and acted upon by all members of the community, including policymakers, legislators and the general public. He will discuss the critical importance of evidence based approaches and the contest with alternative beliefs which may be antithetical to public health; the role of governments in protecting those who are most vulnerable in the community, and the importance of creating new developments in close collaboration between the scientific and NGO communities in raising awareness across all sectors of current and future hazards to health in a rapidly urbanizing planet. He will call for a new approach to the public health function with the development of an independent advisory role and a principal focus on the reduction of inequity in environmental health and health care.

Time, Date & Venue:
InterContinental Hong Kong
18 Salisbury Road, Kowloon,
(Cypress, Lobby Level)
28 April 2010, Wednesday, 6 pm

The lecture will be conducted in English and will be open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. If you would like to attend, please send us an email at info@hongkongcan.org.

Children exposed to diesel fumes in the womb can suffer from lethargy

Joanne Ooi — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:14:52 +0000

A new study just published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology found that, “neonatal and adult exposure to diesel exhaust damages the central nervous system (CNS) and induces behavioral alteration… The mice whose mothers had breathed the fumes showed significantly less spontaneous motor activity and that this inactivity was associated with alterations in brain metabolism of neurotransmitters.”

Read the full article here.

Understanding how the WHO Air Quality Guidelines apply to Hong Kong’s high daily levels of air pollution

Joanne Ooi — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:17:10 +0000

The following is an explanation from Professors Hak kan Lai, Chit-ming Wong and Anthony Hedley from Hong Kong University about why we should be comparing our daily air pollution levels, which are extremely high, to the ANNUAL, rather than short-term guidelines for each of the 4 pollutants studied by the World Health Organization. If you look at the Hedley Environmental Index to see how the annual standards compare to the short-term standards, you will see that the annual standards permit signficantly lower levels of pollutants. Obviously, when critical periods of high pollution are averaged out over a much longer span of time, the overall average will be much lower.

In fact, the short-term WHO standards are devised to ensure compliance with the annual standards and assume 3-4 exceedances per year ONLY: “The WHO short-term levels (e.g. 24 hour for PM10, PM2.5 and SO2) are designed to limit daily pollutant levels (through compliance) in a way which leads to compliance with the annual guideline. You can demonstrate mathematically that compliance with the short term limits for particulates will lead to the annual guidelines being achieved.”

“For example, the annual level for SO2 will be around 3 to 6ug/m3 IF there is compliance with the 24hr limit of 20ug. So the notional annualised guideline for SO2 is <6ug. (NOTE: There is no formally stated WHO annual guideline for SO2, in fact. Presumably, it is because the annual level is so low.)”

“HOWEVER, nitrogen dioxide is a problem and the short-term 1-hour guideline of 200ug/m3 doesn’t work in a way which ensures that the annual guideline of 40ug will be achieved.” THAT’S BECAUSE DAILY LEVELS OF NO2 ARE FAR ABOVE THE ANNUAL GUIDELINE BUT GENERALLY FALL JUST BELOW THE 1-hr GUIDELINE LIMIT, thus failing to trigger an exceedance event. The HKU team is not certain why such a high exceedance level of 200ug for NO2 was set. But there is no doubt that it is set too high to maintain compliance with the annual guideline limit. “The reason for this high setting for the short term is not clear but it may stem from the fact that nowhere in the world are there such high sustained levels as we experience in Hong Kong . The original calculations may have estimated a lower level but added an extra margin (i.e. up to 200) to take account of uncertainty arising from some studies. However, this doesn’t work for us in Hong Kong’s intensely polluted environment. With continuously high daily levels we estimate that the short term must be much lower if daily controls are to achieve the annual limit of 40ug.”

“We must emphasize that the short term limits are designed only to be exceeded on a few days in the year (strictly about 4 days to 7 days).” Thus, in a very high pollution environment we need to use the annual guidelines to judge everyday levels, trends and exposures.

Hong Kong air pollution hits unprecedented levels

Joanne Ooi — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:46:53 +0000

The HKSAR experienced the worst pollution in its history today. Many of the Government’s air quality monitors were not able to measure the pollution as particulate levels exceeded by more than 14 times the levels recommended by the WHO. The New York Times provided a good overview of the situation. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/science/earth/23hong.html Related Posts This week’s unprecedented Hong Kong [...]

This week’s unprecedented Hong Kong air pollution: explanation & consequences

Joanne Ooi — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:45:03 +0000

How bad is it out there?
The current levels are the highest ever recorded since the EPD began monitoring air quality in 1995. Particulate matter (PM) today has been around 700 micrograms per cubic meter, 14x the levels recommended under the WHO Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs). Even by the HK Government’s very lax, outdated Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), the current levels of PM are 4 times greater than the AQO for PM10. Finally, we would like to point out that, as of 7 pm, all the EPD monitoring stations showed readings of API 500, meaning they were probably maxed out and not calibrated to take readings above 500. (N.B. the API is an averaged index of pollutants which is NOT correlated to micrograms per cubic meter, so do not try to compare the API with the AQOs or AQGs.) Schools and other institutions canceled outdoor activity today because of the dangerous levels of pollution. This Businessweek article provides a good overview. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/hong-kong-pollution-hits-record-levels-above-300-update2-.html

Explanation from HKUST’s Alexis Lau of the sources of this week’s unprecedented pollution
The following is a direct copy and paste from Alexis’ email to us of this morning: “Up to about 4pm yesterday, the pollution was dominated by NO2 and was locally generated. I was asked by two newspapers yesterday whether the pollution was sandstorm related and I said, no, because the dominating pollutant was NO2. However, the sandstorm came over Hong Kong at about 5pm with strengthing easterlies and we are now seeing the worst air pollution I’ve seen in Hong Kong.”

The sandstorm is an aberration, but our daily levels of extremely high roadside pollution are not
Note that, at 7 am, we noted that, while the Central ambient general API was “only” 70, the roadside API was already at 200+, meaning that roadside pollution is still the determining factor in creating levels of pollution hazardous to human health.

What are the health impacts of such high levels of air pollution?“The last few days will predictably have had a major impact on local health; many of those who have not so far become sick will have sustained significant injury and now have to contend with a new intense insult to cardiopulmonary systems. Unfortunately there is very little one can do for health protection apart from (i) avoidance of lifestyle risks such as tobacco smoke and low antioxidant diet; (ii) avoidance of increased exposure through vigorous exercise; (iii) indoors may be marginally safer and certainly roadside exposures potentially lethal for some,” wrote Professor Anthony Hedley of Hong Kong University this morning.
On the “bright” side, Professor Wong Tze Wai of Chinese University of Hong Kong pointed out that the coarse size and crustal source of the particles may make them less harmful than respirable particles from man-made sources. “We must make a distinction between particulates from vehicular, industrial and power plant sources and crustal PM, which is largely composed of silica. Whereas crystalline silica is a well-known cause of important lung diseases – silicosis, the impact of desert sandstorms as a health threat has been reported much less often. Toxicologically, there is a great difference between PM that contains a carbon core coated with nasty PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and toxic heavy metals (PM2.5 generated from local vehicular sources) and PM generated from crustal sources (from the Gobi Desert for example).” Now, of course, this hardly means that these particles are harmless: “Apart from possible cardiorespiratory effects, eye and skin disease are triggered by coarser particles. Another factor of concern is that we have had several intense exposures to PM10, NO2, SO2 and ozone in the days leading up to the sandstorm. The induction of inflammation by these pollutants may make many individuals more susceptible to this new insult. Better knowledge about the chemistry of the “sandstorm” material would help us interpret its significance.”

PRELIMINARY EXPLANATION OF THIS PAST WEEK’S UNPRECEDENTED POLLUTION IN HONG KONG

Joanne Ooi — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:56:43 +0000

COPY & PASTE FROM HKUST’S PROFESSOR ALEXIS LAU:

Up to about 4pm yesterday, the pollution was dominated by NO2 and was locally generated. I was asked by two newspapers yesterday whether the pollution was sandstorm related and I said, no, because the dominating pollutant was NO2.

However, the sandstorm came over HK at about 5pm with strengthing easterlies and we are now seeing the worst air pollution I’ve seen in HK. I will give a detailed analysis later today

CAN’s letter to the editor (SCMP): Various ways to retire old trucks

Joanne Ooi — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:54:16 +0000

I refer to the report (“Higher fees eyed to drive polluting trucks off road”, March 11).

The Clean Air Network wholeheartedly agrees with the Environmental Protection Department’s proposal to penalise polluters through increased licence fees, and it is mobilising the public to encourage legislators to support such “sticks”.

However, it is obvious that the amount of augmented licence fees must be enough to induce early replacement.

Thus, it is crucial for licence fees to go up as vehicles get older.

By the same token, financial incentives must diminish as vehicles age.

Otherwise, only the oldest vehicles on the verge of natural retirement will be taken off the road. Obviously, that kind of retirement or replacement is anything but early and accelerated.

The report noted that the 23,000 pre-Euro vehicles still on our streets are 20 times dirtier than Euro IV vehicles. They are actually 34 times more polluting.

Finally, we strongly support compulsory retirement for vehicles more than 20 years old.

A scrapping fee payable by the government to vehicle owners before this mandatory retirement age could very well be an effective inducement to early retirement of older, polluting vehicles.

The department has mentioned to us that it is studying such an idea.

Assuming fair dollar compensation for the unused lifetime of a commercial vehicle, this could also be an effective policy tool to accelerate the replacement or retirement of the oldest, dirtiest roadside polluters.

Joanne Ooi, CEO, Clean Air Network

RTHK Back Chat: CAN’s CEO & Prof. Simon Ng talk about Hong Kong air pollution & the sign-up campaign

Joanne Ooi — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:46:43 +0000

This morning, RTHK asked Joanne Ooi, CAN’s CEO, and Professor Simon Ng, to describe the goals of CAN’s educational and sign-up campaign. Related Posts AFP coverage of our consumer campaign against Hong Kong’s air pollution CSL to conduct unprecedented campaign in support of cleaning up Hong Kong’s air pollution Hong Kong group launches air pollution campaign

LegCo Diary: Early replacement of diesel commercial vehicles

Joanne Ooi — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:07:39 +0000

On Wednesday, 10 March, CAN made a deputation stating its position on the Government’s proposed $540 million subsidy to encourage replacement of Euro II vehicles. Note that this scheme will follow on the heels of a subsidy for Euro I and pre-Euro vehicle owners, still in effect, which will expire on 31 March. The current subsidy, because of its low up-take, has been widely regarded by virtually all stakeholders to be a failure because only 26% of eligible vehicles applied for it.

The primary complaint, echoed again on Wednesday, has been that the amounts of the subsidy, respectively 12% and 18% for Euro I and II, are too small to function as a genuine financial inducement. Unfortunately, the current proposal is equally unenticing and offers an 18% subsidy only. It is rather obvious that, based on present experience, such a scheme’s carrot is simply too skimpy to alter behavior.

Thus, it is CAN’s position that the carrot needs to be fattened up considerably if we are to achieve EARLY replacement of dirty polluting vehicles. To match this rather paltry carrot, the Govt is proposing to increase license renewal fees slightly. Although the EPD was careful not to mention any dollar figure in the LegCo chamber, they had told us previously that any augmentation will be de minimis — something like an additional $500 per year per vehicle. Thus, the lame carrot will matched by an equally lame stick! Can there be any hope for ACCELERATED replacement of the oldest polluting vehicles with such a toothless set of measures?

In this regard, we certainly agree with the the transport industry: larger per vehicle subsidies would be much more effective. As opposed to other environmentalists, we have no issue with increasing payouts to polluters if it means getting their dirty vehicles off of our streets as soon as possible. Moreover, everyone can agree that it is a terrible use of taxpayer money to grant payments to truck owners to replace vehicles that were already going to be replaced because the vehicles had reached the natural end of their lifetime. No one, truck owner or public, could disagree with this characterization of the current subsidy scheme, which is an outrage in terms of its ineffectiveness.

So, at the very least, we hope the Government is not going to rewrite the errors of its present pre-Euro and Euro I scheme into its new Euro II subsidy plan.

If the per-vehicle subsidy was increased from 18% to 25-35%, for example, it would be fair for the Government to impose a tougher stick in the form of increased license fees. This point was aptly made by the transport industry itself during the LegCo session. At least, then, truckowners would be presented with a genuine choice: take advantage of the Government’s (generous) subsidy to buy a new truck or face substantially higher, penalizing licensing fees. In short, the juicier carrot would be accompanied by a stick of commensurate weight, addressing concerns of inequity from the transport industry itself.

During the session, there was also major discussion of a scrapping incentive. After all, argued the truck owners, getting the worst trucks off the streets is an important public health goal. We do agree. However, how do you address the problem of trucks that are about to fall apart anyway? Outside LegCo, the EPD told us that they were considering a compulsory scrapping scheme, which would, at least in theory, prevent cheating the system. Although we weren’t able to get into a detailed discussion with the EPD, presumably, such a scheme would necessitate the scrapping of a vehicle when it reached an age of, say, 20 years, with a cash payment for scrapping available for vehicles less than that age. The scrapping incentive would be biggest for the newest vehicles and dwindle in direct proportion to the age of the vehicle in order to fairly compensate vehicle owners for the unused lifetime of their trucks. THIS certainly seems like a fair scheme but, as usual, the devil is in the details. Obviously, the correct or incorrect calibration of the cash payment amount could significantly skew the scheme towards success or failure. The example of the present subsidy is instructive.

Annelise O’Connell of Mini Spotters may have proposed the best idea of all: mandatory dynamometer testing and elimination of the oldest vehicles. The method for “removal” could be either scrapping and/or subsidy. But the main point was the identification of the dirtiest vehicles to both optimize use of taxpayer money and reduce roadside emissions. Unfortunately, it appears that the EPD considers such a scheme impractical.

Wednesday’s discussion dealt primarily with the proposed Euro II subsidy, which is already fraught with major defects. But let’s not forget that the even thornier, more urgent problem of getting the oldest vehicles (pre-Euro and Euro I) off the road will remain, even if Euro II vehicles are subsidized more effectively than currently proposed.