Government Policy
The Big Picture
We all know that we have bad air quality – smoggy days are an almost permanent blight on our skies and Hong Kong’s air is twice or three times more polluted than the air in London, New York or Los Angeles. The official pollution reading - the Air Pollution Index – is unhelpful because it systematically understates the threat of our daily air pollution.
Sources of Pollution
While about 80% of the air pollution affecting Hong Kong arises from sources in the Pearl River Delta, research shows that 53% of the time the pollution affecting us comes directly from local sources – principally power stations, vehicular emissions and marine emissions. While power plants emit the largest quantity of emissions, those from vehicles and ships also have major public health impacts. Hong Kong’s roadside pollution presents a daily health threat. Thus, many solutions are within Hong Kong’s own control.
Legislation and Administration
Hong Kong’s air pollution control standards have not been updated for over 20 years. They are therefore based on outdated scientific knowledge. Indeed, the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) is not designed to protect public health. Rather, the ordinance’s purpose, “to make best use of the air”, is difficult to define. The absence of an explicit imperative to protect public health makes the APCO different from equivalent laws in other countries. Furthermore, the APCO is managed by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), while public health is the responsibility of the Health Department. The latter, unfortunately, plays no role in setting pollution control standards.
The Current Review
Following years of pressure from experts and the public, the government finally began the first review ever of the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) this year. The Air Quality Objectives currently in place were promulgated in 1987. The review will last until November 2009. Chief Executive Donald Tsang announced in October 2008: “The Government is now reviewing the Air Quality Objectives. To improve air quality in the long run, we will adopt targets in stages giving due regard to the World Health Organization guidelines.”
Closer study shows the government is considering the adoption of the WHO’s entry-level Interim Target-1 (IT1), which offers no meaningful improvement on current standards.
For each pollutant emission, the WHO has issued guidelines termed “Interim Target-1″, “Interim Target-2″, “Interim Target-3″ and “Air Quality Guideline (AQG)”, with the latter being the most stringent. The WHO issues differential guidelines because “National standards will vary according to the approach adopted for balancing health risks, technological feasibility, economic considerations and various other political and social factors, which in turn will depend on, among other things, the level of development and national capability in air quality management. The guideline values recommended by WHO acknowledge this heterogeneity and, in particular, recognize that when formulating policy targets, governments should consider their own local circumstances carefully.”
CAN’s Position
Considering that most EU countries have adopted air quality standards substantially conforming to the AQGs, that virtually all the leading first-world cities boast superior air quality, and that HK undoubtedly possesses the economic means and technological know-how to implement effective pollution abatement measures, CAN exhorts the government to adopt the WHO Air Quality Guidelines, rather than a lower Interim Target.
Read CAN’s full response to Government’s proposed 2009 AQOs here.
Professor Anthony Hedley’s Position
Professor Anthony Hedley is one of the world’s leading experts on the health impacts of air pollution and chairs the Department of Community Medicine at Hong Kong University. He asserts that the proposed AQO document is “misleading, disingenuous and lacks transparency and does not provide the public with an unbiased assessment of the choices which it is being asked to make.” Read his full response here.
