This panel discussion intended to raise the question as to how far the industry is away from commercial uptake of renewable energy on a substantial scale in order to reduce marine emission to the minimum. Tûranor PlanetSolar is in fact an extreme example: using 100% solar energy – it was specially architected to maximise panel surface area, but still has to follow the Equator for sufficient sunlight and requires constant weather monitoring.

As Captain Erwann le Rouzic stressed many times during the discussion, the solar boat’s round-the-world tour is intended more as a science experiment to encourage engineers and industry to “dig deeper” and be more innovative, because “the technology [to incorporate solar technology in shipping mobility] is already there”

The industry can, and certainly is, looking at furthering this technology’s feasibility. For example, as professor Josie Close from HKCityU’s School of Energy and Environment pointed out from the floor, there is a lot of research being done in China at the moment on advancing PV cells; Vessels using a hybrid of clean fuel and solar/wind power was also talked about during the discussion as a realistic way forward.

However, whilst there is an encouraging amount of research going on and the success of Tûranor PlanetSolar shows an optimistic path, many vessels operating in Hong Kong’s water – especially smaller local ones – are still polluting our air and harming our health by using dirty fuel. Renewable energy may not be ready for large-scale uptake, but simply switching to cleaner fuel does not require any additional technology.

In terms of policies regulating marine emissions, Hong Kong is seeing a very unique situation where the government has done very little, and the industry actually had to take voluntary measures, such as initiating the Fair Winds Charter in the beginning of this year. Even when sustainability technology is being developed and industry can be self-regulatory, the government still needs to play a vital role – for example in negotiating a low-emission zone in the Pearl River Delta region – if the area’s air quality is to see significant improvement.

Related Posts

1. The future of solar mobility and clean air
2. Legco Recap: The Sub-committee on Improving Air Quality meeting, 27 July, 2010
3. Legco: Environmental Affairs Panel meeting on Pilot Green Transport Fund

Role and responsibilities:

- Working with an engineer designer
- Be responsible for basic circuit and microcontrol development

Requirements / Qualification:

- University student (gradate or undergraduate) in electronic engineering field
- Ability to communicate in English
- Good designer
- Knowledge in the below:
* microcontrol
* calibration
* analog circuit
* arduino

Location

Possibly Wan Chai (tbc)

Application

Please email Miss Man at info@hongkongcan.org before 15^th August, 2011

Related Posts

1. The future of solar mobility and clean air

Related Posts

1. Year-on-year (YOY) API comparisons for September, October and November in 2009 and 2010
2. Polluted air Christmas “gift” presented to Donald Tsang
3. Pilot Green Fund, Outrageous CNNGo Blog Post & Happy Holidays

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.

Related Posts

1. Hong Kong air pollution hits unprecedented levels
2. Hong Kong Air Pollution ‘Very High’ on Light Wind
3. LegCo unanimously passes Motion to Improve Air Quality laying groundwork for tougher government initiatives on Hong Kong air pollution

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

Related Posts

1. Clean Air Network unites with transport sector to jointly urge the Hong Kong Government to increase subsidies to retire old diesel vehicles
2. Green scheme for old trucks stalls
3. SCMP covers launch of CAN

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.

Related Posts

1. WHY the Government’s subsidy to encourage early replacement of HK’s dirtiest vehicles failed
2. Clean Air Network unites with transport sector to jointly urge the Hong Kong Government to increase subsidies to retire old diesel vehicles
3. A subsidy to drive off old, polluting vehicles

Pilot Green Transport Fund

91.      To encourage the transport sector to test out green and low-carbon transport technology, I propose to set up a $300 million Pilot Green Transport Fund for application by the industry, initially by the public transport operators. I hope that this Fund will encourage the industry to introduce more innovative green technologies, such as the use of buses, public light buses, taxis, and ferries that employ green technologies, and help nurture the budding of green technology in Hong Kong.

92.      The use of low-emission and energy saving transport will not only help improve roadside air quality, but also reduce carbon emissions and promote a low-carbon economy. I hope that the transport industry will actively try out innovative green technologies, contributing to better air quality and the health of people living in Hong Kong.

CAN: There is very little detail in this proposal. But the amount of money set aside is a pittance considering that a single bus costs $4.5 million. In short, the program SOUNDS great, but there’s nothing behind it. For the sake of comparison, let me contrast this paltry allocation to some other new budget items: Tsang will seek Legco’s approval for HK$730 million to build an annex at Ko Shan Theatre dedicated to Chinese opera, which will consist of a medium-sized theatre and training facilities. Moreover, HK$3 billion will be injected into the Arts and Sport Development Fund. Now, what’s the point of having more art and culture in this city if we’re choking in smog fumes? We make the point that the “Pilot Green Fund” is more of a PR and marketing ploy than anything else.

Phasing Out Old Diesel Commercial Vehicles

93.      In 2007, the Government launched a scheme to subsidise the replacement of the more polluting pre-Euro and Euro I diesel commercial vehicles with newer models producing fewer emissions. The scheme will end this March. To continue to accelerate the phasing out of old diesel commercial vehicles, I will provide a 36-month subsidy scheme for the replacement of Euro II diesel commercial vehicles. The scheme will involve expenditure of about $540 million.

CAN: A few points here, the main one which we’ve made repeatedly –

Carrots without sticks won’t work. Civic Exchange made the point well in its press release of 25 February: “[U]nless the cost of ownership of polluting vehicles is increased, or they are banned, past experience suggests that the take-up rate may be disappointing … Mandatory measures to reduce roadside emissions could include introducing progressively higher licence charges or setting mandatory retirement dates for the most polluting vehicles.”  http://www.civic-exchange.org/eng/press_pressrelease_100225Budget.aspx

The amount of subsidy PER VEHICLE is crucial if it is to constitute a genuine financial incentive to commercial vehicle owners, as well. The failure of the previous subsidy was largely attributable to the low dollar sum per vehicle creditable towards purchases of newer ones. This point is highlighted in our previous critique of the existing subsidy.

http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/2010/02/why-the-governments-subsidy-to-encourage-early-replacement-of-hks-dirtiest-vehicles-failed/

We don’t understand why the subsidy extends to Euro II vehicles only when a substantial number of older, dirtier vehicles will still be on the streets after the expiration of the current replacement scheme? The present subsidy, expiring 31 March 2010, applies to pre-Euro and Euro I vehicles only. Only ¼ of such vehicles were replaced under the current scheme to date, leaving us with almost 40,000 of them still in use. Obviously, the Government is afraid of a repeat of this failure. But that attitude is clearly wrong-headed. Rather, the Government should refine the subsidy for these older vehicles so as to get them off our streets for once and for all instead of excluding them wholesale from the present proposal. After all, the oldest vehicles are always the most dangerous. Thus, it is a major disappointment that the proposed subsidy does not include ALL pre-Euro III vehicles. We have yet another case of form over substance: the Government is clearly more interested in saving face rather than public health.  

94.      I also propose to accelerate the tax deduction for capital expenditure on environment-friendly vehicles. Enterprises can enjoy a 100 per cent profits tax deduction in the first year under the proposal. This will encourage the business sector to purchase more electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles and other environment-friendly commercial vehicles.”

CAN: This measure is very good and will function as a genuine economic inducement to purchase green vehicles.

Related Posts

1. HK Government: Comprehensive list of new environmental budget items including air pollution
2. Legco: Environmental Affairs Panel meeting on Pilot Green Transport Fund
3. LegCo unanimously passes Motion to Improve Air Quality laying groundwork for tougher government initiatives on Hong Kong air pollution

In April 2007, the Government launched a HK$3.2 billion voluntary replacement scheme to encourage owners of the dirtiest commercial diesel vehicles (buses and trucks registered before 1995) to replace them as soon as possible. (The Euro 1 emission standard came into existence in 1995. The latest engine standard is Euro V. Notably, the combined Hong Kong franchised bus fleets contain only 1 retrofitted Euro V standard bus.) Under the scheme, owners are eligible for grants if their new vehicles comply with the latest Euro IV standards, which are up to 30 times less polluting than the older ones.

The scheme expires at the end of next month and is now being called a failure, even by the EPD. “The Environmental Protection Department said it would not extend the scheme because that would be counter to its objective of encouraging owners to replace vehicles early.”

At the end of January, less than 20% of the subsidy was awarded. The Environmental Protection Department had approved 13,798 applications, with 89.2% of those for goods vehicles, 6.9% for non-franchised buses and 3.8% for light buses. Since the inception of the scheme, there are 23% fewer of these vehicles on the road, but 3,000 vehicles would have been eliminated through natural obsolescence anyway. That leaves us with 39,000 of such vehicles still on Hong Kong’s streets. 92 per cent of pre-Euro and Euro I commercial diesel vehicles are goods vehicles.

Lai Kim-tak, chairman of the Medium and Heavy Truck Concern Group, explained why the subsidy scheme failed: “[T]he scheme was not attractive to truck owners because it offered them little financial help to buy a new vehicle. The average grant is HK$43,000, while a Euro IV truck costs between HK$650,000 and HK$800,000. ‘The scheme did not spur our members to replace trucks earlier because the subsidy is small and trucks are so expensive. We buy a new truck when ours no longer work and then we apply for the fund,’ he said. ‘But by that time, with or without the grant, we need to buy a new truck.’”

Dr Alexis Lau Kai-hon, a professor at HKUST, said, “‘Apart from carrots, there should be sticks in government policy,’ he said. The government should give a clear signal that environmental conservation is its priority: ‘Look at the example of the plastic bag levy. Traders opposed it fearing it would harm their business. But the levy is working very well now.’ He suggested the government set up low-emission zones or raise licence fees for dirty old vehicles.”

Last month, the EPD said it would consider compelling owners to scrap their polluting vehicles. But Legco rejected a proposal to increase licence fees for older vehicles last year, due to concerns about the economic downturn.

CAN’s view:

First and foremost, the Hong Kong Government needs to make public health, not the transport constituency, top priority. The lack of stick in the present scheme is tantamount to stating, clean air is optional — not a necessity.

The failure of the present scheme demonstrates the importance of having sticks to accompany carrots, especially when the amount of the subsidy per vehicle is not extremely attractive to vehicle owners.

However, is it fair for vehicle owners to bear almost the full brunt of early replacement when subsidies are as small as those in the present scheme? NO. Rather, there is a strong argument for a larger subsidy per vehicle, regardless of whether early replacement is mandatory or not, IF we believe that clean air is an indispensable public good, for which government must be responsible. Just as bus riders should not have to be the only ones to pay for a cleaner bus fleet, transport companies should not be the only ones to pay for cleaner trucks and buses. ALL stakeholders — especially government — must be be willing to sacrifice if we are to clean up Hong Kong’s air.

Finally, the present scheme would have been vastly more successful had the permissible subsidy per vehicle been twice as much. For a size of subsidy which would be effective, California provides a good example. Their newly introduced hybrid vehicle voucher system stimulates purchase of green commercial vehicles through vouchers. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091222005202&newsLang=en
These vouchers defray the cost of a new hybrid truck or bus by US$10,000-45,000 (HK$80,000-360,000). So, again, if carrots are to be useful, EVEN WITHOUT STICKS, they have to be meaningful financial enticements to would-be purchasers of cleaner vehicles.

Related Posts

1. LegCo Diary: Early replacement of diesel commercial vehicles
2. A subsidy to drive off old, polluting vehicles
3. Clean Air Network unites with transport sector to jointly urge the Hong Kong Government to increase subsidies to retire old diesel vehicles

We launched the clip this Saturday on the video screen in front of Sogo, where it will continue to play all month, in addition to being screened on the large video monitor at Times Square. For full details of the event, check out our earlier blog post.

Related Posts

1. Launch of youth filmmaking project, “Clean Air 1-2-Go!”, by Focus on Film & Clean Air Network a huge success today!
2. Professor Hedley reacts to the Government’s just-launched air pollution video: “As expected, it’s mostly disingenuous bunkum.”
3. SMWHK: “Reel Difference” secondary school film & video competition

Shortly before 3 pm, FoF Artistic Director, Elisa Rossati, CAN campaign manager, Sum Kwong, and celebrity duo, 2R, Race and Roseanne Wong, ascended the podium to congratulate the kids and say a few words about the desperate state of Hong Kong’s air. Roseanne, in particular, drew some pointed comparisons between Singapore, her home town, and Hong Kong.

After the banner-signing and photo-taking in front of Sogo, 60 students and teachers gathered at Times Square restaurant, SML, to meet each other and journalists.

There were a lot of media at today’s event, including Apple Daily, Oriental Daily, TVB and the SCMP, so expect to see coverage in your favorite publication this week.

We will also be posting the FoF clips on the CAN website this week.

CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video,

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US, FOLOW ME http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork http://twitter.com/joanneooi http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Related Posts

1. Vision of citizens’ needs Students work with experts to create film calling for better air quality
2. 'Focus on Film' calls HK students to raise air quality awareness through video making
3. Clean Air Network’s comment on Hong Kong University’s analysis of the Government’s proposed new Air Quality Objectives