Green activists have accused the government of delaying the introduction of new air quality objectives by opting for time-consuming legislation.

They say environment officials could enact the objectives through administrative means instead of legislation. But they have no plan to launch any legal challenge since it might delay the introduction of the new standards even further.

The government has already wasted four years – from consulting the public to endorsing the controversial amendments. The outdated objectives were first introduced in 1987.

The Environment Protection Department’s draft bill will be tabled in Legco in the next legislative session beginning in October. After approval, the new objectives are expected to become law by 2014.

But the department also intends to allow a three-year grace period for projects whose environmental impact assessments have already been approved. As a result, the new objectives will not be fully in force until 2017 for some projects.

Environment secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah could introduce the new objectives quickly by amending the technical memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment ordinance. This process does not require legislative approval. Yau is empowered to make such an amendment under the air pollution control ordinance as long as he believed the change was in the public interest and would protect air quality.

An EPD spokesman said the three-year transitional arrangement was needed to ensure the continuity of some projects before the new objectives were introduced.

But he did not explain why the department insisted on a legislative approach.

Related Posts

1. Officials shy away from fight for better air quality
2. Weasel words from Donald Tsang on new air quality objectives for HK
3. A lot of hot air from officials about fighting pollution in the city

(1st February 2012, Hong Kong)　Today, the Financial Secretary John Tsang announced the last budget for the current administration. In the face of billions of surplus in the reserve, the government is still passive and shortsighted in allocating resources to deal with Hong Kong’s growing air pollution problem. The amount earmarked for improving air quality in 2012 accounts for only 0.2 percent of the overall government budget, a lower figure than the average amount for the past five years (0.22 percent). Clean Air Network (CAN) is very disappointed with this news.

With regards to improving roadside air quality, the government merely reiterated similar measures as have been mentioned before, such as subsidy schemes to encourage vehicles owners to replace their old and polluting vehicles with new ones. Past experience has shown that the major setback to these schemes is the subsidy amount, which is too low to act as an effective incentive. The early retirement scheme of Euro II commercial diesel vehicles was launched in July 2011 and thus far, there have been 2,589 applications, which accounts for around 10 percent of eligible vehicle owners. This is a clear example of how unpopular these schemes are. CAN recommends the Government optimize the scheme by raising the subsidy amount and implement a scrapping incentive so that vehicle owners can receive money without having to buy a new vehicle. These measures would help remove many more polluting vehicles off our roads. Instead of aimlessly standing by, the Hong Kong Government should follow the example of the Beijing Government, which has set the target of eliminating 400,000 old, polluting vehicles by 2015. In addition, during the policy address last year, the Chief Executive proposed to reserve HK$150 million to subsidize the replacement of catalytic converts in all LPG taxis and light buses. While there was no mention of this measure today, CAN hopes that the Government will keep its promise.

To promote green transport, the government has no new ideas, except to formulate trial schemes for electric or hybrid vehicles with no timeline for official implementation. CAN’s previously released government budget study revealed that the Pilot Green Transport Fund was allocated fewer funds than the budget for government officials’ home financing allowance was (HK$300 million versus approximately HK$500 million). This demonstrates the low priority being given to the problem of air pollution. Furthermore, many previous trial schemes have gone on for years. Such as in the case of the road testing of the six hybrid buses; the trialing of catalytic reduction devices in Euro II and III buses; the probation of low emission zones in Causeway Bay, Central and Mong Kok. All these measures were meant to help curb roadside emissions, but no positive results have been shown. Last year, London put ninety new hybrid buses into service and Seoul uses electric-vehicle buses on its main roads, meanwhile Hong Kong continues to merely toy with the idea. CAN urges the Government to set an exact date for putting hybrid and electric buses into service as a means to encourage franchised bus companies to replace all their pre-Euro, Euro I and Euro II buses.

CAN’s General Manager Helen Choy says, “Air pollution is a very serious public health problem, causing more than 3,200 deaths per year. This figure is higher than the mortality rates of SARS and the avian flu. Air pollution also significantly hurts productivity, driving down Hong Kong’s economic competitiveness. The Government should adjust their attitudes, optimize existing air quality policies, and apportion air pollution the amount of resources and attention such a severe crisis deserves.”

Related Posts

1. HK Government: Comprehensive list of new environmental budget items including air pollution
2. How committed is the Hong Kong Government to cleaning up our air? An analysis of the government’s expenditures on air quality policies
3. A survey shows that 73% of residents in Sham Shui Po believe the district’s air pollution adversely affects their health

New emissions targets set for 2014 allow 18 days of levels above the maximum for nitrogen dioxide; the figure for last year was 241 days, shock study shows

The immensity of the challenge facing environmental officials responsible for cleaning the city’s air has been exposed by a study which has matched their latest targets with last year’s air quality figures.

The worst discrepancy is for nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant generated mainly by vehicles. The targets for 2014 announced by the Environment Bureau on Tuesday, which are not legally enforceable, allow only 18 days of levels exceeding the maximum for this pollutant.

But if last year’s emissions are repeated, the levels will be in excess for 241 days of the year. Concentrations of respirable particulate matter at least 10 microns wide, or PM10, would exceed the limit by 35 days, but the proposed target is only nine days.

The figures, compiled by the University of Hong Kong’s school of public health for the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) , came a day after the bureau said it would toughen the city’s air quality objectives in 2014.

The new objectives, updating targets formulated in 1987, lay down limits for seven pollutants that are between 10 per cent and 64 per cent more stringent than existing ones.

Critics have slammed officials for the delay in adopting the new objectives and aiming low, as targets for four of the seven pollutants – sulphur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5 and ozone – would be based only on the World Health Organisation’s interim, rather than ultimate, targets.

But officials said targets needed to be practical, as regional pollution – from sources outside Hong Kong’s borders – was beyond its control.

Dr Lai Hak-kan from the University of Hong Kong, who applied the 2011 figures to 2014′s standards, said the WHO suggested no allowances be made at all for most pollutants.

The exception was a three-day allowance for particulate matter, as these levels could be increased by typhoons and dust storms. But Lai said: “Our government sets an even higher nine days for particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.5 [the finest category of particulates, at 2.5 microns].

“Nine days of heavy pollution can cost many lives, especially for people with chronic illnesses. An even bigger problem is that no matter how many days the pollution goes over the limit, the government will, like in the past, face no legal consequences.”

Although the new targets will become statutory requirements after amendments to the Air Pollution Control Ordinance, there will be few legal consequences of a breach, except for infrastructure or construction projects.

When applying for a government work permit for such projects, the owners will have to ensure their works do not worsen the air quality by more than the legal limits.

According to the Clean Air Network, US citizens can take out a civil action against the Environmental Protection Agency if air quality standards are not satisfactory.

And the European Union can withhold funds from regional development projects if there is a breach of air quality standards. But Helen Choy Shuk-yi, general manager of Clean Air Network, said: “The air quality objectives will be meaningless if officials can’t tell us how legally binding they are. Will infrastructure works have to stop if the objectives are not met? Officials are only diverting our attention when they give us those figures.”

A spokeswoman for the Environment Bureau did not respond when asked about any consequences for a breach of the tougher standards.

Secretary for Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said yesterday that the government would continue to implement the 22 measures identified to improve air quality.

But he reiterated that those measures would come with a cost. “We will have to share the costs,” he said. “By reducing emissions from power plants and making them switch to [natural gas], there may be a 20 per cent increase in electricity tariffs.”

By phasing out old buses with dirty engines, transport fees could rise by 15 to 20 per cent, he added.

Thomas Choi Ka-man, senior environmental officer from Friends of the Earth, criticised the secretary for highlighting just the costs and not the benefits to public health.

Related Posts

1. Hot on the trail of that elusive breath of fresh air
2. Why do we hold our breath over clean air?
3. Tung Chung woman files legal challenge to bridge

Mike Kilburn fears air pollution in Hong Kong could get even worse, given the latest evidence that clean-up measures are proving ineffective and officials are failing in their duty to protect public health

This month marks a major watershed for air quality in Hong Kong. At the beginning of the month, the Environmental Protection Department said that roadside pollution last year was the worst on record. At the same time, Clean Air Network presented a table from the China Statistical Yearbook 2011 ranking Hong Kong’s nitrogen dioxide levels (a key indicator of roadside pollution) 31st out of 32 major cities in China – only Urumqi was worse. This is especially embarrassing considering that Hong Kong has a service-based economy with very little industry – and correspondingly fewer sources of pollution than any other city on the list.

Adding insult to injury, the mainland pre-empted the long-delayed release of Hong Kong’s air quality objectives by announcing its own. This was embarrassing for Hong Kong officials who, by dithering for two years since consulting the public on a set of draft objectives, have forfeited Hong Kong’s position as the pacesetter for introducing tougher air quality standards in China. The Ministry of Environmental Protection’s air quality objectives are very similar to those proposed by Hong Kong, but they differ in three important aspects.

First, the ministry has proposed an additional 24-hour limit for nitrogen dioxide of 80 micrograms per cubic metre that is not included in Hong Kong’s objectives. This means the mainland’s standards for this key pollutant are even tougher than Hong Kong’s.

Second, by publishing a set of targets that most, if not all, major cities will take years to achieve, the ministry has signalled its understanding of the powerful role targets can play in driving down pollution – something our officials have yet to grasp. In a radio interview broadcast last year, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah insisted that “apart from setting a target, you have to have a way to achieve it”.

As mainland leaders have shown, the target can certainly precede the plan for attainment, and two years were lost while Donald Tsang Yam-kuen’s administration tried to figure out how to meet the air quality objectives it proposed in 2009.

Third, even though concentrations of respirable suspended particles of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) in many mainland cities are more than double those in Hong Kong, the ministry has set the standard for PM2.5 at the same level as Hong Kong’s – 35 micrograms. As with the target for nitrogen dioxide, this sends a strong message that protecting public health has been accorded a high priority by Beijing.

Conversely, in a May 2011 meeting of the Legislative Council, frustrated lawmakers suggested that the government had not released the new air quality objectives because it feared that major infrastructure projects may fail to meet the new standard. In his response, Tsang appeared to confirm this view: “We must carefully assess the economic and social impacts of any new air quality objectives on Hong Kong. It is only by doing so that we can put forward any long-term and firmly established air quality objectives that are appropriate to all works projects and economic development.”

But there is clear evidence that Hong Kong’s poor air quality is now threatening economic health as well as the well-being of the public. Last September, the Airport Authority released a report expressing concern that high nitrogen dioxide emissions from aircraft using a third runway would create difficulties in securing approvals under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, and could not legally go ahead.

In a similar vein, it was concerns about the health impacts of added traffic on the proposed bridge to Macau and Zhuhai that provoked a judicial review that held up the project.

This week, the government acted. On Tuesday, Yau announced that new air quality objectives for Hong Kong had been approved by the Executive Council and would become law in 2014. These are identical to the objectives put out for public consultation in 2009, raising serious questions about what has been achieved by the two-year delay.

The government’s press release also included a rather cryptic statement referring to new infrastructure projects, saying that “all government projects for which environmental impact assessment studies have not yet commenced would endeavour to adopt the proposed new air quality objectives as the benchmark”.

Environmental assessments follow a statutory process that permits approval of projects if their emissions do not exceed the current air standards. The ordinance makes no allowance to “endeavour” to adopt a new standard, and the director of environmental protection would very swiftly find herself back in court were she to require proponents to meet air quality objectives that were yet to be legally adopted. Hence, regrettably, those fine-sounding words are essentially hollow.

Meanwhile, the need to address air pollution grows more urgent. The University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health and Civic Exchange have launched a revised version of the Hedley Environmental Index. The refined calculations of health impacts indicate that an average of 3,200 premature deaths have occurred each year over the past five years, up from the previous estimate of 1,000 deaths per year.

So what can we conclude? In short, our air quality can get worse, and officials are fudging the issue rather than making it better. The clean-up measures introduced to reduce pollution are failing in key areas – especially at the roadside. The consequences for our health are far worse than we imagined.

The officials whose job it is to improve air quality do not understand the key tools of their trade, and appear more concerned with perpetuating development than protecting public health. It is hardly surprising that Hong Kong has lost its position as the environmental leader in China.

Mike Kilburn is head of environmental strategy for public policy think tank Civic Exchange

Related Posts

1. Roadside pollution is worse than ever
2. Fall 1st time since ’05, economic recovery also ‘partly to blame’
3. HK ranks last on key measure of air quality

Environmentalists say Hong Kong will struggle to meet its new air standards, which are not binding on the authorities

Hong Kong will still lag international standards even after it approves tougher air quality objectives, environmental groups say, while experts believe the city will struggle to meet some of the new targets.

Announcing the new rules yesterday, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said standards for levels of lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide would match the highest level set down by the World Health Organisation. Standards for other pollutants will be less stringent, based on lower-level WHO targets.

Green activists said Hong Kong’s standards would not exactly match those set by the WHO, and argued that lead and carbon dioxide were of little relevance as they were not a main source of pollution in the city.

Greenpeace campaigner Prentice Koo Wai-muk said the installation of desulphurisation systems at electricity stations had already led to significant falls in sulphur dioxide levels.

And Mike Kilburn, head of environmental strategy at think tank Civic Exchange, warned that the city would struggle to meet its new standards for nitrogen dioxide.

Based on the proposed air quality objectives and data from last year, non-profit group Clean Air Network found that there would be at least 600 times a year when hourly roadside levels of nitrogen dioxide at Causeway Bay, Central and Mong Kok exceeded the new benchmark.

Network chief executive Helen Choy said air quality in urban areas would fail to hit the targets every day if no improvements were made.

And Choy said the city would fail to hit its new target for fine respirable particulates (PM2.5) on 11 days each year in Central and Western district, even though the benchmark of 75 micrograms every 24 hours fell well short of the WHO’s highest standard.

If the WHO standard of 25 micrograms every 24 hours was adopted Hong Kong would miss its target on 263 days in the year.

Even developing countries such as India and Bangladesh set tougher PM2.5 standards, Choy said. PM2.5, which like nitrogen dioxide comes mostly from vehicle emissions, can penetrate the respiratory system and cause irreparable lung damage.

“We welcome the inclusion of PM2.5 [in the objectives], but we don’t accept the proposed level,” Choy said.

And, while governments elsewhere in the world have been taken to court for failing to meet air quality standards, Dr Lai Hak-kan, honorary assistant professor of public health at the University of Hong Kong, said Yau’s proposals would not set binding standards for the government.

Yau defended the much less stringent criteria the city will adopt by saying that European countries had not adopted the WHO standards, and Hong Kong had to take a “practical approach”. The WHO says that by adopting its standards on air pollution, countries and territories can protect most of their citizens from the health effects of poor air quality.

Related Posts

1. Breathe in, then out
2. Vision of citizens’ needs Students work with experts to create film calling for better air quality
3. High-fliers flee Hong Kong to breathe freely

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.

To read the full article, click here.

Related Posts

1. HK ranks last on key measure of air quality
2. New plan targets more pollutants
3. More time needed to reach consensus on clean air programme

HKU researchers, using a revised environmental index, say 3,200 people die prematurely every year from illnesses linked to air pollution in the city.

Air pollution in Hong Kong is more harmful than previously thought, according to a revamped environmental index run by researchers at the University of Hong Kong.

While previous estimates by the researchers put the number of premature deaths per year over the past five years at 1,000, the current figures estimate that 3,200 people die prematurely from pollution-related illnesses. They put the total economic cost per year of pollution at HK$40 billion, up from HK$16 billion.

The Hedley Environmental Index attempts to illustrate the “silent cost” of pollution – with health effects that don’t immediately translate to a specific disease.

The revamped index was introduced yesterday – the same day as the government released its air quality objectives, which show no revision from targets suggested in a 2009 consultation and are still well above limits set by the World Health Organisation, according to Hedley and his team. They said the current air pollution interpretation was still inadequate and misled the public about the true risks of air pollution.

Professor Lam Tai-hing, director of HKU’s School of Public Health, said: “The government is looking at an acceptable high of 125 [micrograms per cubic metre] for sulphur dioxide. The WHO considers anything above 20 to be bad for human health.”The WHO set guidelines in 2005 with limits for pollutant levels. Any concentration higher than the limit is said to harm our health.

The difference in figures for the revised index come from adjustments made to reflect the reality of living in Hong Kong. For example, the weighting of roadside pollution was increased from 50 per cent to 60 per cent because most Hongkongers spend a lot of time near roads. Nitrogen dioxide, a common byproduct in roadside pollution, was also given a higher rating to reflect this fact, Hedley said.

The index takes air pollution readings from the government and correlates this to figures on premature deaths, doctor visits, and days spent in hospital with illnesses associated with toxins in the air to come up with rough figures to illustrate the hidden costs of pollution. They measure four common pollutants – nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone and other small particles in the air.

The new version provides a more user friendly health-risk warning meter, based on WHO guidelines, that can be distributed through Facebook – a real-time pollution map at 14 different monitoring stations across Hong Kong; a running tally of avoidable harm to the community in terms of doctor visits, hospital stays and deaths; monthly and yearly summaries of clear and polluted days; and tangible and intangible costs to the community.

To read the full article, click here.

Related Posts

1. Roadside pollution is worse than ever
2. Clean-bus idea needs thought, Tsang says
3. “Tung Chung’s Air Quality is no worse than most of Hong Kong’s”

Think tank Civic Exchange says mainland is more aggressive in moving to tackle smog, which has put pressure on city to act on standards for particles.

Hong Kong is lagging behind the mainland when it comes to tackling air pollution, a think tank says in a summary of Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen’s performance in office.

The conclusion from Civic Exchange came after the environment minister said on Wednesday that the city would measure pollutants smaller than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) at all its monitoring stations by March, a week after Beijing pledged to make similar data publicly available.

Former lawmaker Christine Loh Kung-wai, of Civic Exchange, said the mainland’s recent launch of a consultation to upgrade air quality objectives had put pressure on the Hong Kong government, which had yet to update its 24-year-old objectives despite Tsang’s pledge to do so last year.

“The mainland is much more aggressive than Hong Kong in dealing with setting air quality objectives,” she said. “This has happened because Hong Kong’s senior officials lack the understanding and courage to set demanding [objectives] and to use them as a tool to address the epidemic of public health impacts.”

Beijing will publish its PM2.5 data by January 23, Xinhua reported last week. The announcement came after the US embassy in Beijing began releasing its own PM2.5 readings via Twitter.

Civic Exchange’s head of environmental strategy, Mike Kilburn, said though many mainland cities would take years to reach the new emissions targets – released recently for public consultation – the central government had set targets with the aim of driving down pollution levels.

By contrast, Hong Kong set less stringent targets that were easier to achieve, perhaps for political reasons, Kilburn said.

Citing figures from the University of Hong Kong’s Hedley Environmental Index, Loh said more than 7,200 local deaths had been connected to air pollution in the seven years Tsang had been at the city’s helm.

The Environmental Protection Department last week revealed that roadside air pollution levels last year were the worst on record.

To read the full article, click here.

Related Posts

1. Beijing cleaning up air pollution at breakneck pace
2. Beijing pollution ‘hazardous’: US embassy
3. Beijing takes aim at pollution in quest to become ‘world city’

CAN has found little difference between the current standards and the new standards. When calculating for the number of days the sulphur dioxide (SO2) AQO standard was exceeded in 2011, the number computed when using the current AQO standard and the number computed when using the new AQO standard were very similar. This signals that the new AQOs are no more stringent than the current set and would have only have a very modest effect in abating Hong Kong’s growing air pollution problem, as a comparable number of pollution exceedances would be allowed. Hong Kong’s new AQOs are nowhere near being close to the standards recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Only when Hong Kong meets these standards, will there be adequate protection of public health.

While the current AQOs do not include fine particulate matter (PM2.5), under the new AQOs, PM2.5 would only estimably exceed the set limit for a total of 10 days. However, under the WHO’s recommended air quality guidelines, or even under the Mainland’s ambient air quality standards (2016), the number of days with exceedances for PM2.5 would rise to close to or over 200.

Within the Asia-Pacific region, Hong Kong’s PM2.5 standard, as outlined by the new AQOs, is the most lax, more lax than even India’s own PM2.5 standard.

Table 4: PM2.5 standards of major Asian countries/cities

CAN’s Chief Executive Officer Helen Choy says, “Hong Kong’s roadside pollution deteriorated to the worst levels it has ever been last year, but the government still waited until just now to announce new air quality standards. It is very worrying as to how long it will take to complete the entire legislative process and for the new AQOs to be implemented. And it has to be said, even these new standards are far too lax when it comes to protecting public health; they are not even close to being comparable to the WHO’s recommended guidelines. The Government should set a clear timetable for adopting the WHO’s recommended guidelines; each year that they delay, another 3,200 lives are lost to air pollution.”

Related Posts

1. Government kicks off public consultation period with announcement of proposed new Air Quality Objectives
2. Air Quality Objectives Review Public Consultation Forum 10-10-09
3. Recap of the Legislative Council Meeting on 8 Sept 2010 on the Motion “ Air Quality and Public Health”

(January 16th 2012) Recent data has shown that roadside pollution in Hong Kong has deteriorated to a severe and dangerous level – last year, the Air Pollution Index exceeded 100 for a total of 1,247 hours, a 28% increase from 2010. Chief Executive Donald Tsang has repeatedly pledged to improve the city’s air quality, but to no avail. During his seven years in office, he has been all talk and no action on the issue, at the expense of 6,642 people dying due to air pollution.

Direct quotes from Donald Tsang, including the three times he mentioned updating Hong Kong’s air quality standards, called Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), in his various policy addresses, are clear examples of his empty words – ” [We should] adopt decisive measures as soon as possible to improve air quality;” “The government is determined to combat air pollution in order to protect public health… the Chief Secretary for Administration will plan ahead with this in mind;” “I promise you that an announcement [for new AQOs] will be made within this year [2011].” “The government will draft and propose the new AQOs to present to Legco.”

His lack of action galvanized environmental organizations Friends of the Earth (FoE) and Clean Air Network (CAN) to come forward today. The two organizations jointly went to the Central Government Office to perform a skit satirizing Donald Tsang lying over and over to the detriment of public health and at the cost of human lives.

Tomorrow, FoE and CAN will run an advertisement in Ming Pao newspaper featuring the names of over 10,000 members of the public who signed a petition in support of clean air. The ad will outline the petition’s three demands to the Government:
1) update the Air Quality Objectives, in order to better protect public health;
2) include fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in its official air quality monitoring;
3) set up additional protocols to ensure regular review of the Air Quality Objectives.

Included amongst the signatories are Dr. Chan Hak-kan, Legislative Councillor Leung Kwok-hung (Long Hair), Legislative Councillor Lee Kwok-Lun, the Civic Party, the Democratic Party, Hong Kong University’s School of Public Health, Chinese University Hong Kong’s School of Public health and Primary Care, the Hong Kong Doctors’ Union, the Hong Kong Pediatric Society, the Hong Kong Asthma Society and many other political and medical party members and associations. Environmental groups that have signed include Greenpeace and Greeners Action, amongst others.

The hope is that the scale of this petition with its demands for cleaner air will remind the next Chief Executive to uphold his responsibility to protect public health.

For media enquiries, please contact:
Clean Air Network (CAN)
Campaign Manager
Erica Chan
96331943
ericachan@hongkongcan.org

Related Posts

1. Chief Executive’s repeated assurances about clean air seem to be HOT AIR
2. Polluted air Christmas “gift” presented to Donald Tsang
3. Weasel words from Donald Tsang on new air quality objectives for HK