Combating Air Pollution in Hong Kong
Introduction
Air pollution whether indoor or outdoor is an environmental and health risk which remains as a major concern worldwide specifically in mega cities in developing countries. Air pollution contains contaminants in the atmosphere and these dangerous substances could be either in the form of gases or particles. Air pollution has diverse and numerous effects. It can have serious consequences for the health as well as severely affect the natural ecosystems. According to the World Health organization (WHO), a quarter of the world population is exposed to unhealthy concentrations of air pollutants and it can cause serious health damages. An average person inhales about 20, 000 liters of air everyday, exposing to risk of dangerous chemicals in air each time human breathe.[1]
Preserving air quality therefore must be a worldwide initiative. In lieu with this, various governments are adopting various guidelines and implementing several regulations to maintain and sustain air quality as measured by air quality index. How the Hong Kong government commits to prevent air quality deterioration and protect visibility from sources which can possibly cause air pollution is the central of this case study. The focus of this report is on to what extent Hong Kong government responds to air pollution problems. It is the goal of this research to investigate how air pollution is being combated in the region by using the correct level of environment quality approach. This report claims that the Hong Kong government inadequately addresses air pollution.
Theoretical Framework
One of the primary pollution solutions is government intervention hence the question: should societies intervene to correct failures associated with environmental externalities? This study will make use of the correct level of environmental quality approach.[2] Such approach relates that in order for governments to determine the necessary intervention strategies, the optimal level of environmental degradation must be distinguished first. The law of mass balance stipulates that zero level pollution is impossible according to physics. An activity cannot destroy matter in reaction but it can only change form. As such, mass outputs are equals to mass inputs. Therefore, in order to eliminate all air pollution, all production and consumption activities should be eliminated as well.
Government interventions, on the other hand, could be either moral suasion, direct production of environmental quality and pollution prevention. Nonetheless, the two most suitable are command and control regulations and economic incentives.[3] Command and control regulation places constraints on the behavior of household and firms. In general, this was implemented in form of limits on inputs or outputs to consumption/production process. Economic incentives, however, aimed at making self-interest coincide with the social interest. These social interests include pollution taxes/subsidies, marketable pollution permits, performance bonds and liability systems. To illustrate:
Air pollution in Hong Kong and its effect
The Hong Kong government treats air pollution a serious problem in the region as it affects not just the flora and fauna but also the health of the residents. Air pollution across Hong Kong reached its highest level according to official figures although the government insisted that improvements have been made with respect to air quality. There are three major effects of air pollution: poor visibility, health implications and economic impact. Visibility in the region for instance is currently less than 8 kms for almost 30% of the year. Poor visibility had increased compared to the lowest visibility which was recorded at 18% in 2004.[4] Ying Lou stated that the number of days where visibility was less than 8 kms was recorded from 40 in 1997 to 102 in 2005.[5]
This caused major health issues wherein the Hong Kong Medical Association estimated that the degree of air pollution can exacerbate bronchial infections as well as cardio-respiratory deaths.[6] A Civic Exchange report also reveals that at least 10, 000 deaths annually in Hong Kong, Macau and Southern China were caused by the worsening air pollution. Among such morbidity statistics, 1, 600 were residents in Hong Kong due to heart attacks, stroke, pneumonia and other lung diseases. In addition, 1 out of 10 goes to hospital and 1 out of 3 go to clinics, 1 out of 5 suffer from shortness of breath and sore chest and 1 out of 2 suffer coughing, choking and stinging itchy eyes. Such condition results in 6, 800 hospital visits per year because of respiratory problems and with 64, 000 hospital bed-days.[7]
Because of health implications of air pollution, working class is being affected in two ways. First, this was also the reason by residents particularly the working citizens are seriously considering migration to other Asian countries such as Singapore and second, the ability to attract skilled foreign labor is also problematic. As companies are downgraded by several major rating agencies, investors are scared away, hurting Hong Kong’s global competitiveness.[8] A survey conducted by Professor Michael DeGolyer, Director of Baptist University’s Hong Kong Transition Project, discovered that a total of 1.4 million residents are thinking about migrating, most of which are top earners and highly educated workers. His survey also found out that all sectors and segments of Hong Kong society are concerned about air quality and that Hong Kong was regarded as an undesirable location for both locals and prospective international talent to work there.[9]
It was initially thought of that Mainland China’s industry caused much of the pollution mostly because of the increase in the volume of factories across the border. However, it was discovered that local industries and transport were the main contributors in air pollution. Notably, Hong Kong’s power is generated through burning of coal, resulting in emissions of ambient respirable suspended particulate (RSP), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and nitrogen dioxide.[10] The third most polluting electricity generator was the region’s Castle Peak Power Plant. Further, Hong Kong’s roads were considered as one of the crowded in the world which dominates heavy polluting. Diesel commercial vehicles are responsible for 90% of RSPs and 80% of nitrogen oxide.[11] As such, the air quality in Hong Kong is thrice more polluted than that of New York and twice than of London.[12]
Hong Kong government, to respond to the air pollution issues, created the Environmental Protection Department (EDP) toward the achievement of sustainable air quality in the region. One of the main responsibilities is ensuring that air quality objectives for seven widespread pollutants including sulphur dioxide, total suspended particulates, respirable suspended particulates, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants and lead should be reduced.[13] Although the problem remains to be that Hong Kong is not even close to the current WHO standards especially for RSP, specific actions implemented were diesel stations were converted into Ultra-Low Sulphuric Diesel and factory-built LPG taxis. In 2006, indoor smoking was banned including restaurants, workplaces and parks.[14]
EDP also organized the Action Blue Sky Campaign in 2006 with its slogan: “Clean Air for a Cool Hong Kong!” The campaign aims at encouraging the community and the business sector to take part in cleaning-up the air and the people to help improve air quality at a personal level. Such measures include setting air conditioners to 25.5 degrees Celsius, using energy-efficient products, switching-off idling engines and reducing consumptions of products which contains volatile organic compound.[15] The EPD had asked the power companies to accelerate emission reduction projects, increase ultra-low sulfur coal use and use natural gas for power generation. The department will also adapt Euro IV emission standards to newly-registered vehicles soon. Nevertheless, the campaign also emphasizes the role of green groups, councils, local business community and students to promote energy-efficiency and conservation, educate the academia about air pollution and showcase best environmental practices in business and industrial operations which other companies can adapt.[16]
In 2007, the government implemented vehicle idling ban and with fixed penalty of HK0 for those who would violate. Taxi and minibus drivers are the target of the ban. It is illegal therefore for drivers to leave engines running, for taxis to loiter and for minibus to stop longer than necessary to load and unload passengers and to park anywhere other than the designated parking place. Further, it was also proposed that a 100% profit tax deduction for capital expenditure on those companies with machineries that are environmentally-friendly.[17]
Analysis and Discussion
Based on the discussions above, Hong Kong’s combating air pollution means to sustain air quality which affects ecological, health and economic aspects. I should take note that Hong Kong government, although the air quality is lagging behind WHO standards, has clear objectives in place. The problem, on the other hand, is the fact that the air quality objectives have not been updated since 1987 which could mean that if this is the basis of correct level of environmental quality up until now, such action could be unstrategic. Another problem is the fact that Hong Kong government did not meet with all the current objectives. Yet another problem is that the current air pollution objectives did not reflect health implications. Hong Kong government conducted an 18-month review of the objectives whereby EDP even hired a consultant for the review to respond to this.
Because air pollution reduction in itself is economic, what the government did was to impose command and control strategies in two levels personal and industrial. On personal level, consumption and emissions are reduced through targeting unnecessary activities such as smoking and use of environment-friendly products. For businesses, the government advocates emission reduction projects especially for industries that are regarded to be leading causes of air pollution like power companies and transportation industry. Specifically, the latter includes conversion to safe fuel as well as regulating emissions based on standards. In lieu with this, economic incentives include imposition of sanctions to violators and rewards to those who will abide by the regulation.
With this, I argue that the regulations should be stricter on the transportation industry as it affects people more. If the Hong Kong government wanted to address the problem it should also impose command and control on traffic fumes that are produced at the street level. Actual air quality at this would be riskier on the health of the residents, affecting their quality of life. Actual roadside air quality and measured emissions must be a priority for EDP then. In protecting life expectancy of the residents, economic gains could be also achieved because of lower healthcare costs, workforce productivity sustainability and quality of life of residents.
It is commendable that the government is turning into a region-wide initiative to improve air quality by means of educating and building public awareness. Public education and awareness informs the public of their clean air responsibilities and underway initiatives of the local community to improve the air quality. However, it would not be enough for the government to do such, what should be a priority is the effective consultation. In order to achieve public “buy-in”, socially-equitable and easily-understandable air quality and transport plans are also important. An air quality campaign, to be effective, must enhance awareness and influence public attitudes and create a necessary political will to improve air quality.[18]
Conclusion
In sum, it is proven that Hong Kong government’s response to improve air quality in the region is insufficient. First, because, although the government has command and control strategies, the very foundation of its actions is unstrategic and obsolete. Second, although there are specific economic incentives that the government is providing, there are no effective transport plans and there are no effective measures to align emissions on roadside air quality.
References
Air Pollution. (2007). World Health Organization.
Air Quality Objectives. (2006). Environmental Protection Department (EDP).
Bloomberg. (2005). Hong Kong Wheezes as China’s Industrial Economy Belches Smog.
Cheng, J. (2006). Lot of hot air on pollution, claims Tien. The Standard.
Chong, W. (2007). Idle talk sparks heated debate. The Standard.
Common, M. S. & Stagl, S. (2005). Ecological economics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HK Launches Action Blue Sky Campaign. (25 July 2006). Hong Kong SAR Information Services Department.
Hong Kong’s Silent Epidemic. (2005). Environmental News, Globe Communications.
Loh, C. (2007). Hong Kong: How to breathe easier. China Dialogue.
Lou, Y. (2007). Blue skies may cost dolphins dear. The Standard.
Mong, Y. T. (2009). Hong Kong’s Air Quality.
Moy, P. (2007). CLP: World’s No. 3 Polluter. The Standard.
Pesek, W. (2006). Out future up in the air. The Standard.
Policy Guidelines for reducing Vehicle Emissions in Asia: Transport Planning and Traffic Management for Better Air Quality. (2003). Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Wong, A. (2005). Our air is killing us. The Standard.
[1] WHO, 2007.
[2] Common and Stagl, 2005.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Loh, 2007.
[5] Lou, 2007.
[6] Wong, 2005.
[7] Mong, 2009.
[8] Cheng, 2006; Pesek, 2006 and Bllomberg, 2005.
[9] Environmental News, 2009.
[10] Moy, 2007.
[11] Loh, 2007.
[12] Lou, 2007.
[13] EDP, 2006.
[14] Lou, 2007.
[15] Hong Kong SAR Information Services Department, 2006.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Chong, 2007.
[18] Asian Development Bank, 2003.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment