Clean Air Network » Letters and Feedback

Email from a Concerned Parent and CAN’s Reply: “Hong Kong Pollution – where to live?”

cleanairnetwork — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:00:11 +0000

Dear Sir/Madam,

My husband and I with our two boys have been living in Hong Kong now for nearly a year.
After visiting the doctor 3 time with Allergic Bronchitis in 2 months my little guy is now really ill and he is constantly coughing.
My doctor very bluntly told me that the only real solution will be to move to another country and I have decided to contact you to get your
opinion on the situation. It would seem that he is being affected by the pollution and that he may have long term respitory problems
if we don’t change the currently situation. We live on Tai Hang Road in Jardine’s Lookout. Many local Chinese people at my work
and at my husband’s work have told us if we just move to Tai Po / Stanely or Clearwater Bay the situation will improve as the air is much
better out to those directions but I very much doubt this. They have also suggested eating honey from NZ and getting a air purifier for our apartment…
I would love to hear your opinion on our situation. Are there places in HK where we can go live where the air will in fact be better ?

Since the initial incidents with my son both my husband and I and my other son have started suffering from all kinds of weird and wonderful
ailments. It is all very strange as we are a young and very healthy family. I am now almost daily suffering from headaches and sinus infections…
I will be taking my son to a lung specialist soon as I would also like to get another medical opinion and I will keep you posted on his verdict.
We are now seriously considering a move to Singapore, eventhough we love Hong Kong it is no use living here and being sick all the time.

I look forward to your expert opinion on whether there are in fact places in HK where we could move to improve the current situation.

Thanks in advance for your time and help. I was so impressed when I came across your website and initiative. Well done !!

Kind Regards
[Name witheld]

——————————————————————————————————-

Dear [Name witheld],

Your complaint is very typical.
In fact, Sai Kung is the cleanest district of 18 in Hong Kong.
I gave two talks to primary 6 year kids on Friday last week and was impressed to find that only a couple had chronic respiratory problems. In comparison, CIS kids, to whom I have spoken at least 4 times this year have a much higher incidence of respiratory problems.
To give you some perspective on the seriousness of the problem, which you have obviously guessed. We are this week announcing the results of a parent survey conducted over these past few months in leading pediatricians’ offices. 31% of parents surveyed said their kids had a CHRONIC cough. This is very damning evidence of how serious the child health impacts are.
I don’t want to be the one who says, move out of Hong Kong, but the child health consequences of living here are evidently very serious.
The good thing is, lungs can recover BEFORE child growth ends at the age of 18.
Regarding the South Side of Hong Kong, the Government does NOT monitor air quality on that side of the island.
All I can say is, avoid polluted roadside situations as much as possible. I suggest you sign up for our air pollution alert service, too, to stay on top of the roadside and other pollution in the city. www.hongkongcan.org/alert

I hope this helps.
Joanne

Vertical farming: Could it mitigate HK’s air pollution?

Joanne Ooi — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:56:52 +0000

Can vertical farming combat air pollution, in addition to being a more efficient way to farm, as the earth’s population reaches 3 billion in 2050?

We asked David Sadoway, PhD Candidate, HKU, to comment on this article, http://bit.ly/bR81er, which sings the praises of vertical farming. Here is his response:

“Vertical farming concepts are very interesting and a great way to
devise strategies for urban greening; in situ restoration ecology and reducing urban heat island and local air pollutants (granite garden as Anne Whitson Spirn called it a while back). Urban design with nature is so much better than design for short term profit maximization only.

I, however, also think for food production it remains crucial to ALSO have a conservation and planning strategy that seriously protects green belts (green lungs), threatened farmland and wetlands.

Because traditional farmlands are far more productive and nutrient rich (from abiotic and biotic soil nutrients) than apartment/rooftop or vertical gardens will likely ever be, and because of complex ecosystem functions which simply cannot be replicated in buildings with a great deal of expense, conservation strategies should not be ignored, otherwise people will argue they can pave over farmlands and build green buildings.

In Hong Kong the incremental loss of the green belt/agriculture
lands/wetlands to highways, roads and ill-conceived developments and speculative land accumulation, not to mention fill and garbage
dumping, etc. is a serious problem, especially in the NT including the
outlying islands.”

So, although vertical urban farming can have many desirable salutary effects on our environment and food chain, it is no substitute for retaining green lungs and can only supplement a complete eco-system.

Hong Kong Gov’s Inaction on Air Pollution

cleanairnetwork — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:23:17 +0000

Social Venture Asia ( Lisa Genasci)

Hong Kong’s air quality is among the world’s worst for a city of comparable income levels. Here, the pollution we breathe negatively affects everyone. Not surprisingly, the poor are disproportionately impacted because they are unable to move out of some of the city’s most congested, polluted areas.

“Lies, damned lies and Hong Kong pollution”

Joanne Ooi — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:32:06 +0000

That’s the title of Jon Marsh’s “Spike” blog post today, an incendiary indictment of Donald Tsang’s “supine, do-nothing, head-up-its arse” handling of Hong Kong’s air pollution. We need MORE commentators like this in Hong Kong, who aren’t afraid to tell the unvarnished truth about our environment and its low ranking among the CE’s priorities. Thank you, Jon! http://hongkong.asiaxpat.com/articles/signature-columns/lies-damned-lies-and-hong-kong-pollution/

Pollution Nuisance on The Peak reported by Sofia

cleanairnetwork — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:18:38 +0000

Hi! I walk up to The Peak almost every day. This constant stream of billowing, black smoke has greeted me every single day for past MONTHS (except Sundays)! The time differs from morning to evening depending on my schedule, but it’s always there. Junction of Severn and Plantation Roads.

How is this acceptable…or accepted?!

I’m particularly crabby about all this because the pollution level is so high today, decided it’s healthier for me NOT to go. I’ll be back up there Saturday regardless as movement and being around nature is as much for mental health as physical health!

Sofia A. Suárez

Feedback from Iris

cleanairnetwork — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:09:23 +0000

..the last 2 days the air was so foul, that it felt worse than what I recall when I lived in Beijing…..seems nobody in government or industry feels this is important enough to address or they feel that it will cost something in the way of lifestyle….but it will cost imensely more in a few years if nothing is done…and the price will be paid by the next generations….

Iris Riesen

No related posts.

Comments from a student of Shatin Junior School

cleanairnetwork — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:09:15 +0000

Dear, CAN im a student at shatin jounior school (SJS) i thought the presentation was a real wake up call i never thought the air pollution in HK was sooo bad soo im taking some action by forwarding messages to everyone i know in hong kong from, Qasim Related Posts Beacon Hill School Prof. Hedley comments on the Govt’s pending [...]

Response to CAN’s position on bus route rationalization – by Fred

cleanairnetwork — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:13:40 +0000

The letter below was received in response to our recent blog post describing our position on bus route rationalization, http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/2010/01/5126/.

Hi,

I read your position paper on the route adjustments, and I would like to urge you to reconsider your position. Morally, I’m a big supporter of CAN, but with respect to your recent position paper, I think your position hurts your end goal of reduced pollution via bus fleet replacement.

This is one man’s view of the bus industry in Hong Kong. I believe that the bus industry is probably highly unprofitable and a burden on its shareholders. There are no fat profits that we can look to grab as a source of replacement of the bus fleet. I would speculate that this lack of profitability probably has to do with the burden of operating a large number of unprofitable routes and frequencies. In the 1990’s the government pressurized China Motor Bus to renew their fleet. China Motor Bus refused to throw good money after bad, and shut down the bus company. Thankfully the government then had alternative parties interested willing to invest in this business. But what about today? What lever does the government have to force the bus companies to fund fleet renewal when those companies refuse, as China Motor Bus did before? Do they have somebody willing to step in and make this investment if the bus companies refuse? I fear the answer is no. Practically speaking, the government is incapable of compelling them to invest. The government is holding no cards here.

The transport department’s paper suggests that there are a large number of unprofitable routes. So who pays for the bus companies to operate these routes? What is the magnitude of the losses incurred in serving these routes. How many Euro 5 buses could we buy if we didn’t have to fund these loss making routes? District councilors won’t allow the routes to be cut. The government wants to keep fares affordable, and thus the bus companies don’t generate sufficient cash from profits to pay for new buses. So the policy by default, is that we have a status quo of too many bus routes, low fares, and old polluting buses, because there isn’t money in the kitty to buy new ones and the government knows that it can’t push to bus companies to modernize given that, commercially speaking, it would be throwing good money after bad. In the background, the government implicitly chooses to tolerate old polluting buses as a necessary cost of having a cheap and plentiful bus service. So who pays for this cheap and plentiful service that the district councilors so dearly wish to defend…..we all pay the price in the form of breathing polluted air, dirtied by all our old busses across all the routes. Cutting routes isn’t about emissions savings on a handful of routes. Its about building a vibrant and commercially viable bus industry that can recoup a huge investment in fleet replacement, and make some modest return on this investment. This is the forest.

From CAN’s recent meeting with the financial secretary we learned that the government will not write a check for new buses without the pain being shared elsewhere. By taking sides with the district councilors, CAN appears to be disregarding what seemed like a pretty firm position laid out by the the FS. The pain has to be shared by everybody, and there needs to be compromise. We can’t accept that district councilors will have sacred routes that can’t be cut, and we should push back against this sense of entitlement. We should also refuse to join the district councilors in vilifying the bus companies as profiteers. .

A pragmatic solution for funding new buses will likely require some mixture of route rationalization, fare increase, direct subsidy from the public purse, and additional, albeit subsidized, capital expenditure by the bus companies. Convince the interested groups that the pain must be shared, work constructively and in partnership with the bus companies, and ask the government to pay for a slice, a bit like they did before when the compensated Hongkong Telecom for giving up their IDD franchise. This sounds to me like a recipe for success.

Hope these comments can influence your thought process and lobbying positions.

Best regards,

Fred Bowers

—————

We are genuinely interested in hearing your feedback! Many of our best ideas come from members of the public. Just as importantly, criticism and recommendations from the public on how we can improve our coverage or commentary can only improve our content. [N.B. The content of these communications is reprinted without correction of grammar, spelling or punctuation.] Send your comments and feedback to info@hongkongcan.org.

Response to CAN’s position on bus route rationalization – by Ken

cleanairnetwork — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:44:11 +0000

The letter below was received in response to our recent blog post describing our position on bus route rationalization, http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/2010/01/5126/

What about electric buses on many routes. Do these talks take into consideration mini buses and tour buses (also old lorries and trucks). The people using buses should not be inconvenienced with rationalization of bus routes or schedules, imagine if all (or a good portion) of those people using buses were instead driving cars. I personally would take to a protest an additional 15 minute wait or taking an out of the way transfer, (BTW: waiting already more than 15 minutes for a bus here in Sai Kung to get to the MTR is already quite common).

Ken Lipofski

—————

We ARE genuinely interested in hearing your feedback! Many of our best ideas come from members of the public. Just as importantly, criticism and recommendations from the public on how we can improve our coverage or commentary can only improve our content. [N.B. The content of these communications is reprinted without correction of grammar, spelling or punctuation.] Send your comments and feedback to info@hongkongcan.org.

Response to CAN’s position on bus route rationalization – by Mary

cleanairnetwork — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:33:52 +0000

Dear CAN,

What about delaying each scheduled departure outside peak hour by ONE minute. This would reduce the number of services but with little impact on the waiting passengers – except for more crowded buses on some routes, many are running far below capacity. This would be fair for everybody.

Also I wee no mention of the most obvious solution to our transport woes – staggered working hours. This would also relieve pressure on restaurants and give longer working hours to hourly paid staff.

Go for it CAN

Mary

—————