Environmental Protection Department has the resources, but not the will.

From 1999 to 2010, there was a large discrepancy between the amount spent on implementing air quality policies and the amount of funds allocated for this specific purpose. During those ten years, the Government earmarked a total of about HK$5.5 billion for clean air measures; however, the actual amount dispensed was less than forty five percent of the allocated amount. This indicates that the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) is not effectively utilizing the funds available to combat air pollution. (See Table 1.) The subsidy scheme to encourage early replacement of pre-Euro and Euro I commercial diesel vehicles was the policy with the smallest amount used (in proportion to the funds allotted), with only nineteen percent of the available funds being paid out. The scheme began in 2007 and ran for eighteen months. During that time, of the 59,000 eligible commercial diesel vehicles, only 16,000 applied for the subsidy. The scheme paid out a total of HK$600 million (out of the HK$3.18 billion available), leaving over HK$2.5 billion dollars untouched.

The low participation rate in the “Early Replacement of Pre-Euro and Euro I Scheme” was due in no small part to the subsidy amount being too low to be an effective incentive. CAN has recommended improvements and alternative options to this scheme, such as increasing the subsidy amount when enacting an incentive scheme to replace old vehicles and implementation of a scrapping subsidy scheme. A scrapping subsidy scheme would allow truck owners to scrap their old vehicles and still receive a subsidy without having to buy a new vehicle, thereby further reducing the number of polluting vehicles on our roads. The “Early Replacement of Euro II Commercial Diesel Vehicles” scheme was launched in July 2010 and has run for 18 months. Data collected from six months ago indicates that the number of applicants was only seven percent of the total number of eligible vehicles and only HK$160 million has been spent. This indicates that the scheme has not been well-received.

The Government does not rank cleaning up Hong Kong’s air as a critical priority

CAN compared the amounts budgeted for projects to improve air quality with other government projects and found that the priority being given to cleaning up the air is rather low, as reflected by the items that were given a similar budget. (See Table 2.) The Government set aside HK$8.7 million to review the most outdated Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), while a study of the engineering feasibility for the potential columbarium development in Tsuen Wan District was allotted HK$11 million; HK$70 million was earmarked for the subsidy scheme to encourage taxis to switch to liquefied petroleum gas, and at the same time, 80 million was given to traveling expenses for government officials and their children; HK$300 million was assigned to the Pilot Green Transport Fund, simultaneously, HK$482 million was reserved for government officials’ home financing allowance. These examples illustrate that, despite reduction of air pollutants being critical to the public’s well-being, the Government has not seen fit to bestow the issue with the standard of attention and resources it deserves.

Hong Kong spends less on cleaning the air than Beijing and Guangzhou

In 2011, of the eighty two different government sectors, the Government spent the majority of their budget on “Miscellaneous Services,” Social Welfare Department,” “Education Bureau,” and the “Food and Health Bureau” (Health Branch), each using approximately twelve percent to twenty percent of the total budget. (See Table 3.) In contrast, from 2000 to 2011, the EPD’s expenditures as a percentage of total government expenditures decreased from 1.3 percent to 0.8 percent. (See Table 4.) During the past decade, government expenditures on measures to improve air quality as a percentage of the total government expenditures went from 0.26 percent in 2000 to 0.18 percent in 2011. This means that less than a quarter of the government’s total spending is being used to clean up Hong Kong’s air. (See Table 5.)

Beijing suffers far higher levels of air pollution than Hong Kong does, however their Government is much more aggressive in tackling the problem. In 2011, the Beijing Government set aside HK$2.1 billion to improve air quality, HK$390 million of which was for vehicle emissions control. In comparison, the Hong Kong Government allotted only HK$559 million for air quality measures. Even Guangzhou seems to have grasped the importance of the issue more strongly than the Hong Kong Government has, with the Guangzhou Government designating HK$860 million for replacement of old polluting vehicles on their roads.

The relationship between investing in air quality policies and air quality improvement is shown by the graph below. (See Figure 6.) Greater government spending on cleaning up the air results in fewer hours of reduced visibility. Greater visibility is an indicator of less air pollution.

Clean Air Network’s General Manager Helen Choy says “Air pollution is a serious public health problem and the Government should pay it more heed. Last year, air pollution caused eight deaths per day, making it more deadly than SARS, swine flu and bird flu. However, the amount spent on improving air quality has only been 45 percent of the total allotted amount, reflecting a severe waste of resources and great inefficiency in tackling our growing air pollution problem. The Government should carefully consider how and where it should be utilizing its funds.”

Click to view the full report, summary report (Chinese only) and news clipping.

Related Posts

1. Clean Air Network’s comment on Hong Kong University’s analysis of the Government’s proposed new Air Quality Objectives
2. LegCo unanimously passes Motion to Improve Air Quality laying groundwork for tougher government initiatives on Hong Kong air pollution
3. Clean Air Network unites with transport sector to jointly urge the Hong Kong Government to increase subsidies to retire old diesel vehicles

Press Release

Hey Hong Kongers, speak up now!

2012 Chief Executive Candidates Environmental Policy Forum 

(January 26th 2012, Hong Kong) Twelve environmental groups jointly issued a formal public announcement inviting the three Chief Executive candidates to an environmental policy forum. Thus far, only Albert Ho and C.Y. Leung have confirmed their attendance. The objective of this forum is to launch a dialogue between the candidates and the public on Hong Kong’s environmental future. The environmental threats currently facing the city affect each and every citizen, therefore, the environmental groups hosting the forum will be collecting questions from the public to present to the candidates to answer. 

A full page ad in a local newspaper will be run inviting the public to express their concerns about four major environmental topics – air quality, waste management, climate change and energy, environmental planning and conservation. Questions can be submitted on or before February 20th via the forum’s website (http://www.greence.hk) and will be consolidated and presented to all the candidates. The public can also raise questions directly at the forum.

 The four main organizing groups, Clean Air Network (CAN), Friends of the Earth (FoE), Greenpeace (GP) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), began approaching Albert Ho, C.Y. Leung and Henry Tang, with regards to their availability for this forum, as early as last November. However, despite expressing initial interest and being provided with a wide range of dates to accommodate their busy schedules, Henry Tang has never given a concrete answer.

 One possible reason for their seeming indifference may be that environmental groups are not eligible to vote. However, as Hong Kong is currently facing environmental threats on multiple fronts, such as air pollution, waste management, and degradation of the city’s ecosystem, this forum is both critical and necessary. A lack of sound environmental management policies will adversely affect residents’ quality of living and weaken Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a world class city.

 Given the nature of this event, it is imperative that the candidates attend. Therefore, by shifting the date of the forum until after the nomination period (February 29th), the hope is that all the candidates will be able to confirm their attendance. The new proposed tentative dates for the forum are March 1st or March 6th.

 A representative for the twelve groups says, “Whether or not the candidates are concerned about Hong Kong’s environmental well-being will be clearly indicated to the public by their presence at, or conversely, by their absence from, the forum.”

 Supporting Organizations

For media coverage, please click here.

For photos of the event, please refer to our Facebook.

Related Posts

1. Don’t be ABSENT from the 2012 Chief Executive Candidates Environmental Policy Forum
2. Chief Executive’s repeated assurances about clean air seem to be HOT AIR
3. CAN’s position paper on the 2011/2012 policy address

If you can’t read this email then please click here.   Don’t be ABSENT from the 2012 Chief Executive Candidates Environmental Policy Forum Twelve environmental groups jointly issued a formal public announcement inviting the three Chief Executive candidates to an environmental policy forum. The objective of this forum is to launch a dialogue between the candidates and the public on Hong Kong’s environmental future so that the candidates can express their sincerity and commitment to protecting our environment.  The four main organizing groups, Clean Air Network (CAN), Friends of the Earth (FoE), Greenpeace (GP) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), conducted a press conference this morning inviting Hong Kong’s seven million people to submit questions to the candidates. A joint manifesto (Chinese only) was also released containing environmental policy suggestions.  Click here to read the press release. A full page ad in a local newspaper will be run inviting the public to express their concerns about four major environmental topics – air quality, waste management, climate change and energy, environmental planning and conservation. Questions can be submitted on or before February 20th via the forum’s website and will be consolidated and presented to all the candidates.  For any enquiries, please email to greenceforum2012@gmail.com. Don’t hesitate. Take this opportunity to speak up! Pass it on! If you enjoy this newsletter, share it with friends so that they can benefit from the latest news about Hong Kong Air Pollution. CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events. Plese visit CAN at http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng Learn more about air pollution: watch and share this video. Follow us: www.twitter.com/cleanairnetwork www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork If you no longer wish to receive this email please unsubscribe

Related Posts

1. 2012 Chief Executive Candidates Environmental Policy Forum
2. Chief Executive’s repeated assurances about clean air seem to be HOT AIR
3. CAN’s position paper on the 2011/2012 policy address

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”