90% of HK's 11 million daily passenger trips are via public transport, making HK a leader in transport modal efficiency.
HK's commercial diesel fleet is responsible for 90% of RSPs (i.e. suspended particulates smaller than 10 micrometers that can penetrate deep into the lungs)
The commercial diesel fleet is estimated to account for 70% of all vehicle distance traveled in HK.
20% of all Singapore's buses (860 of 4353) are Euro IV or above, compared to only less than 1% of HK's buses (53 of 5768)!
Read Civic Exchange's research paper for more facts and a full analysis of the challenge of replacing old franchised buses. www.civic-exchange.org, "Paying for a Cleaner Bus Fleet: How Government Can Break the Log Jam"
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/
The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork
Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/
Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106
Sunday, December 20, 2009
BREAKFAST WITH THE EPD
On Friday, I met with senior officials from the EPD. In brief, there were three takeaways, based on our exchange of notes. Whereas I reported on our campaign's progress, the EPD gave me an update on the status of the Government's 19 abatement initiatives:
1) The Government won't propose a subsidy to enable the passage of its 19-measure abatement package until it receives a "clear signal from the public" that the latter is ready to share some of the cost AND insists on contribution from all stakeholders, including the Government and polluters. Moreover, the EPD hopes that the public will signal its willingness to contribute to ALL aspects of clean-up -- not just buses, but ferries, the power sector, etc. Despite many surveys demonstrating that the public is ready to contribute, provided there is equitable cost-sharing, this message has yet to reach the inner ear of the Government. No doubt the Government prefers to turn a deaf ear until the public's demands become unmistakable, in order to avoid the difficult political task of opening up the treasury's purse. So, it looks like we have our work cut out for us in the next year: whereas before we were focused on putting the issue of air pollution on the radar of the HK public, it's now clear that we have adjust our message in this next phase of our campaign. THE COST OF CLEAN-UP WILL NOT BE FAIR UNLESS BORNE BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT AND POLLUTERS.
2) Regarding the curb of marine emissions in the Pearl River Delta, any joint Emissions Control Area with Guangdong would be subject to approval by the International Maritime Organization. To wit, ECAs in North America and the Baltic have been legislated as a matter of national sovereignty only. Thus, attempts to coordinate with regional environmental or maritime authorities in southern China are besides the point: success will require the buy-in of the Chinese central government.
3) The "leisure and recreational" ferries from HK to Macau are as polluting as the local passenger ferries. The EPD suggested that perhaps we could consider focusing some of our efforts on the clean-up of these services. After all, these passenger trips are "optional" when compared to the commuter services ferrying passengers to and fro work every day. Consequently, these recreational ferry services are not the subject of as much concern or regulation by the Government. Thus, left to their own devices, the HK-Macau ferry services are permitted to set fares, based on commercial factors only. Obvious implication: it is easier to retrofit or phase out old, polluting HK-Macau ferries and pass on the increase in operating expenses to passengers than to do the same to local ferry services. I will contact the EPD later for more information about the state of these leisure ferry craft and the emissions attributable to each service's fleet. But, for now, CAN will remain focused on the primary target of ROADSIDE emissions. In the big scheme of things, roadside emissions are something within the control of Hong Kong, which gravely impact health.
1) The Government won't propose a subsidy to enable the passage of its 19-measure abatement package until it receives a "clear signal from the public" that the latter is ready to share some of the cost AND insists on contribution from all stakeholders, including the Government and polluters. Moreover, the EPD hopes that the public will signal its willingness to contribute to ALL aspects of clean-up -- not just buses, but ferries, the power sector, etc. Despite many surveys demonstrating that the public is ready to contribute, provided there is equitable cost-sharing, this message has yet to reach the inner ear of the Government. No doubt the Government prefers to turn a deaf ear until the public's demands become unmistakable, in order to avoid the difficult political task of opening up the treasury's purse. So, it looks like we have our work cut out for us in the next year: whereas before we were focused on putting the issue of air pollution on the radar of the HK public, it's now clear that we have adjust our message in this next phase of our campaign. THE COST OF CLEAN-UP WILL NOT BE FAIR UNLESS BORNE BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT AND POLLUTERS.
2) Regarding the curb of marine emissions in the Pearl River Delta, any joint Emissions Control Area with Guangdong would be subject to approval by the International Maritime Organization. To wit, ECAs in North America and the Baltic have been legislated as a matter of national sovereignty only. Thus, attempts to coordinate with regional environmental or maritime authorities in southern China are besides the point: success will require the buy-in of the Chinese central government.
3) The "leisure and recreational" ferries from HK to Macau are as polluting as the local passenger ferries. The EPD suggested that perhaps we could consider focusing some of our efforts on the clean-up of these services. After all, these passenger trips are "optional" when compared to the commuter services ferrying passengers to and fro work every day. Consequently, these recreational ferry services are not the subject of as much concern or regulation by the Government. Thus, left to their own devices, the HK-Macau ferry services are permitted to set fares, based on commercial factors only. Obvious implication: it is easier to retrofit or phase out old, polluting HK-Macau ferries and pass on the increase in operating expenses to passengers than to do the same to local ferry services. I will contact the EPD later for more information about the state of these leisure ferry craft and the emissions attributable to each service's fleet. But, for now, CAN will remain focused on the primary target of ROADSIDE emissions. In the big scheme of things, roadside emissions are something within the control of Hong Kong, which gravely impact health.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
HOW TO BECOME A REGISTERED SMOKY VEHICLE SPOTTER
SO many people ask me all the time, how can I become a smoky vehicle spotter? Or how can I report smoky vehicles to the EPD?
On the latter question: you can report smoky vehicles to the epd, but unless you are a REGISTERED spotter, the epd has no obligation to follow up your complaint. So, then, the first question becomes even more relevant.
On the latter question: you can report smoky vehicles to the epd, but unless you are a REGISTERED spotter, the epd has no obligation to follow up your complaint. So, then, the first question becomes even more relevant.
In order to become a spotter, you must attend an official govt training session. There is approximately one four-hour chinese language saturday morning session a month held at the EMSD in kowloon bay. English training is also conducted but much less frequently.
The EPD has told us that it is willing to conduct special classes (in english or chinese) for members of CAN on request, should we have sufficient demand for such sessions.
WHY should YOU become a spotter? Because roadside emissions are the single biggest threat to human health and spotters can make a genuine impact on curbing those emissions. There are approximately 120,000 vehicles in HK. Approximately 1000 registered spotters a year report 10,000 smoky vehicles to the EPD.
I attended the course yesterday and it consisted of the following sections and learnings, roughly --
How Emissions are Formed;
How Smoky Vehicles are Controlled;
The Ordinance;
Number of Emission Testing Notifications Issued by the EPD; Duties of the Spotter;
Vehicle Call-up Procedure;
Cases where No Action Taken; Treatment of Govt Vehicles;
How a Diesel Engine Works;
Causes of Smoky Emissions;
How to Identify Class, Color and Body Type of Vehicle;
How to Complete the Spotter Form Correctly;
Measuring and Judging Smoky Emissions (visual assessment of HSU);
Spotter Test in Live Traffic Conditions.
The HSU assessment training was done outside with a specially rigged diesel truck, the emissions from which can be increased or decreased in HSU. (An HSU is a unit of smokiness.) We watched the truck spew out different levels of emissions in order to practice our eye for violative emissions exceeding 70 HSU. After 30 minutes of such practice, which was pretty unpleasant because you stand next to an old truck emitting blasts of black smoke, we were driven to a spotting location in Wong Tai Sin -- a footbridge over a very busy stretch of highway. (This location can only be termed "Diesel Fumes Central". If it isn't obvious already, asthmatics should NOT undergo smoky vehicle spotter training!) While stationed on the footbridge looking down on fast-moving cars and trucks, our instructor called out vehicle registration numbers so we could practice spotting and get used to completing the fields on the spotting form - registration number, vehicle class, color, smoky/not smoky and body type (optional). After 15 minutes of practice, we took the official "exam" -- spotting 12 vehicles in total. While a "grade" of 100 is required to become a spotter, the main consideration is, NEVER report a marginal case where you are uncertain. In other words, do not tick the "smoky" box on the form unless you are 100% sure that the emissions exceed 70 HSUs. That said, it is practically impossible to flunk the test unless you sleep through the training session!
Although I underwent spotter training in order to give feedback to the EPD on how to streamline the training process (see below), I ended up thoroughly enjoying the training session and came away enriched by the course material and encyclopedic knowledge of our instructor.
Thus, I encourage you, a member of the general public, to become a registered spotter if you want to make a genuine impact on our air quality.
You can either apply directly to the government for a place at the next open training session (a process which can take months)
http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/how_help/report_pollution/spotter_training.html
OR
Send an email to info@hongkongcan.org and we will let you know of upcoming spotter training sessions organized by CAN.
________________
Below is my email to the EPD on how they could potentially shorten the training process to motivate more people to become registered spotters. Who knows whether or if the EPD will take my comments into account to modify or shorten the training process. Thus, I encourage you to go ahead and sign up for training NOW, instead of waiting.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Joanne Ooi (Clean Air Network)" <joanneooican@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:50:36
Subject: Recap and comments re: smoky vehicle spotter training of 12/12/09
First, I want to say that I was very impressed by Mr. Wong's knowledge and manner in today's session. I asked many questions, for which he had immediate very helpful answers. On top of that, he was an engaging and sociable instructor. Indeed, I can even go so far as to say that today's session was not just greatly illuminating but surprisingly fun.
HOWEVER, based on my careful notes and attention to the apportionment between the different learning modules, I would like to make the following observations, which I hope you will find helpful in possibly streamlining the training sessions:
After going through the entire process, it is obvious that there is no substitute for real-time, in-person assessment and classification of real-life smoky emissions and vehicles. It is impossible to simulate this testing and assessment situation online or otherwise. This real-life testing situation moreover engraved in my mind the rule, "when in doubt, do NOT report!"
Prior to the visual assessment of HSUs conducted outside with a real truck's exhaust, however, all the lecture material could have been read (and memorized) in advance by attendees prior to the training session. This information is extremely interesting and valuable. (Without citing the specific titles of each powerpoint slide, I refer to How Emissions are Formed, How Smoky Vehicles are Controlled, The Ordinance, Number of Emission Testing Notifications, Duties of the Spotter, Vehicle Call-up Procedure, Cases where No Action Taken, Treatment of Govt Vehicles, How a Diesel Engine Works, Causes of Smoky Emissions, How to Identify Class, Color and Body Type of Vehicle, and How to Complete the Spotter Form Correctly.) But there is no reason it cannot be summarized in a downloadable pdf and studied by would-be spotters in advance. Regarding the class, color, body type and characteristics of vehicles, which must be mastered by spotters: although it was fun to learn this information in class together, this information can undoubtedly be mastered beforehand, and even tested online through very simple tools and documents.
By putting the first half of the session's teachings online, one could HALVE the training session time. Indeed, the powerpoint for these teachings (the first half's) already exists. (It is the same one which was used by Mr. Wong, today, of course.) Regarding how to identify class, body type and color of vehicles, it would not be difficult to create some simple online materials for the would-be spotter: these could be simple powerpoints of vehicle images with an answer key at the back comprised of correctly completed spotter forms corresponding to the vehicles pictured.
The key, of course, to LESS hand-holding during the live teaching session would be stricter testing at the live, in-person EMSD session in a real-life traffic situation. Obviously, THAT would be the real test of whether the spotter-student had actually mastered the requisite material IN ADVANCE. The current testing situation, due to the variability of traffic conditions, is quite relaxed. Possibly, the EPD could consider slightly more rigorous testing to ensure that students had genuinely mastered the course material, if there was a concern about absorption of the required information prior to the EMSD training sessions.
What the EPD cares about, after all, is the RESULT -- greater accuracy in spotting -- rather than compulsory attendance of a lengthy training session.
That said, however, it would be ideal if spotters had the OPTION of self-learning OR being taught live at the EMSD for the sections I listed above. Spotters who had prepared in advance could attend the second half of the session, while spotters desirous of the classroom teaching experience could attend the entire session, from beginning to end.
A final note --
The current training material and powerpoint could be strengthened in 2 important ways:
1) Greater explanation of how smoky emissions affect human and public health. Indeed, I was surprised to learn today that 10,000 smoky vehicle reports are filed each year! That is a staggering number considering the overall number of diesel vehicles in Hong Kong. The ratio of spotted vehicles (approximately 10,000) to the overall diesel "population" (120,000) means that smoky vehicle spotters (of which only 1000 are active of the total number of 5000 registered spotters) are playing a genuinely significant role in curbing toxic roadside emissions from commercial vehicles.
2) Slightly more emphasis on the importance of the smoky vehicle report -- that it is a binding LEGAL document. You had emphasized this point to me repeatedly at our meeting. This point reinforces the importance of precision and conscientiousness when submitting a report.
CAN is very willing to assist the EPD to streamline the process by helping to compile the necessary materials and lend manpower to this initiative. It is very much in CAN's interests to see more members of the public become smoky vehicle spotters since roadside emissions presently pose the greatest threat to human health.
I hope that my comments will be taken in a constructive spirit. It is CAN's intention to function as the EPD's partner in educating and informing the Hong Kong public about roadside emissions (and their adverse health consequences) and, of course, reducing such emissions.
Sincerely,
Joanne Ooi
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/
The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork
Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/
Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106
Friday, December 11, 2009
THAT WAS FUN!
Despite asphyxiation from all the real-life testing on the curb, EPD's smoky vehicle spotter training was incredibly interesting and informative. Thanks to the encyclopedic knowledge and engaging personality of SM Wong, EPD's Chief Environmental Protection Inspector, who conducted the training, I learned a boatload of new facts, such as:
how a 4-stroke diesel engine actually works; (Despite spending every waking hour of my life branding diesel commercial vehicles the main public health culprit of hk's streets, I finally learned today how those engines work. Today's session also reminded me that CAN needs to explain to the public WHY diesel emissions are dangerous to the human body.);
only 1000 (or less) are active out of HK's 5000 registered spotters;
there are 10,000 reports of smoky vehicles per year, approximately;
there are 120,000 diesel vehicles on the road;
there are 3 remaining diesel-powered taxis in HK;
the police and the EPD jointly conduct about 10 sessions of random observation and testing
per month to monitor smoky vehicles ("netting" between 10-12 smoky offenders approximately per each 2-3 hour session);
the distinguishing characteristic of a "coach" as opposed to a "passenger van" (think, school buses) is a metal bar on the side of the vehicle between the vehicle's axles;
etc,
etc.
In short, what I expected to be a big snooze wasn't at all. Rather, for any resident of Hong Kong with a modicum of curiosity, this is a FUN and STIMULATING activity, which I would recommend highly provided the instructor is as well-informed and sociable as Mr. Wong.
That said, I will be writing a much longer analysis of how the entire training process can be streamlined so more members of the public (less avid than myself) can join the program.
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/
The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork
Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/
Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106
how a 4-stroke diesel engine actually works; (Despite spending every waking hour of my life branding diesel commercial vehicles the main public health culprit of hk's streets, I finally learned today how those engines work. Today's session also reminded me that CAN needs to explain to the public WHY diesel emissions are dangerous to the human body.);
only 1000 (or less) are active out of HK's 5000 registered spotters;
there are 10,000 reports of smoky vehicles per year, approximately;
there are 120,000 diesel vehicles on the road;
there are 3 remaining diesel-powered taxis in HK;
the police and the EPD jointly conduct about 10 sessions of random observation and testing
per month to monitor smoky vehicles ("netting" between 10-12 smoky offenders approximately per each 2-3 hour session);
the distinguishing characteristic of a "coach" as opposed to a "passenger van" (think, school buses) is a metal bar on the side of the vehicle between the vehicle's axles;
etc,
etc.
In short, what I expected to be a big snooze wasn't at all. Rather, for any resident of Hong Kong with a modicum of curiosity, this is a FUN and STIMULATING activity, which I would recommend highly provided the instructor is as well-informed and sociable as Mr. Wong.
That said, I will be writing a much longer analysis of how the entire training process can be streamlined so more members of the public (less avid than myself) can join the program.
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/
The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork
Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/
Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106
SMOKY VEHICLE SPOTTING
I am now waiting at the EMSD in Kowloon Bay to begin smoky vehicle spotter training. A few weeks ago, I requested a meeting with the EPD to discuss WHY it takes 4 hours to train a smoky vehicle spotter.
Since beginning my work at CAN, it has become obvious that the NUMBER ONE thing people want to do when they ask, "How can I get involved?", is report vehicles with filthy tailpipe emissions. Thus, in an effort to get more people involved with the city's air pollution clean-up, it made sense to understand and, even, attempt to streamline the training process with the EPD.
So, today, after a very constructive discussion with the EPD, I am here to undergo training. And, then, write a detailed report with recommendations on HOW the training process can be put online and shortened, so more members of the public will be motivated to enter the program and become registered spotters. To date, there are approximately 5000 registered spotters in HK, but it is important to remember that the govt has conducted this program for 20 years.
Smoky vehicle spotting is also a good way to mobilize public attention on the upcoming introduction of the long-awaited anti-idling ordinance. According to the EPD, they will introduce the bill to Legco before the end of the year. The EPD has asked us to mobilize public support for this bill. Although idling is NOT the same as vehicle spotting, the two offending behaviors are transgressions or negligence by INDIVIDUAL vehicles, resulting in harm to the public. Thus, even if smoky vehicles are not the same as engine idlers, they are unified under the rubric of "Drivers [or companies] who don't give a sh----"
More later -- after I have completed training and, hopefully, passed the test....
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/
The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork
Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/
Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106
Since beginning my work at CAN, it has become obvious that the NUMBER ONE thing people want to do when they ask, "How can I get involved?", is report vehicles with filthy tailpipe emissions. Thus, in an effort to get more people involved with the city's air pollution clean-up, it made sense to understand and, even, attempt to streamline the training process with the EPD.
So, today, after a very constructive discussion with the EPD, I am here to undergo training. And, then, write a detailed report with recommendations on HOW the training process can be put online and shortened, so more members of the public will be motivated to enter the program and become registered spotters. To date, there are approximately 5000 registered spotters in HK, but it is important to remember that the govt has conducted this program for 20 years.
Smoky vehicle spotting is also a good way to mobilize public attention on the upcoming introduction of the long-awaited anti-idling ordinance. According to the EPD, they will introduce the bill to Legco before the end of the year. The EPD has asked us to mobilize public support for this bill. Although idling is NOT the same as vehicle spotting, the two offending behaviors are transgressions or negligence by INDIVIDUAL vehicles, resulting in harm to the public. Thus, even if smoky vehicles are not the same as engine idlers, they are unified under the rubric of "Drivers [or companies] who don't give a sh----"
More later -- after I have completed training and, hopefully, passed the test....
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/
The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork
Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/
Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thank GOD green business is good business!
Let's be perfectly honest, in a money-obsessed city like HK, can there be ANY other reason for business to adopt cleaner technologies?
Take the three examples cited by Jared Diamond in his editorial this week for the IHT -- Walmart, Coke, and Chevron. Main point: being environmental isn't just good PR, but a more efficient way to utilize and extract the dwindling natural resources which are indispensable product and manufacturing inputs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jared%20diamond&st=cse
In short, as the precious natural resources dry up, literally, green business will become the ONLY way to do business in the medium and long term.
It's only once the HK Government internalizes this philosophy that we will see tighter controls imposed on emissions. In this city, the tail wags the dog: in other words, BUSINESS MUST LEAD THE WAY. It's only then that the Government will take heart and follow.
Take the three examples cited by Jared Diamond in his editorial this week for the IHT -- Walmart, Coke, and Chevron. Main point: being environmental isn't just good PR, but a more efficient way to utilize and extract the dwindling natural resources which are indispensable product and manufacturing inputs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jared%20diamond&st=cse
In short, as the precious natural resources dry up, literally, green business will become the ONLY way to do business in the medium and long term.
It's only once the HK Government internalizes this philosophy that we will see tighter controls imposed on emissions. In this city, the tail wags the dog: in other words, BUSINESS MUST LEAD THE WAY. It's only then that the Government will take heart and follow.
Friday, December 4, 2009
CAN'T SLEEP
because there are too many good things happening!
...
i underwent media training at hill & knowlton on friday. what a hoot! the experience proved that i look about as welcoming as the grim reaper. MORE SMILINESS REQUIRED. this has been a life-long problem which, in static photos, i've managed to overcome, but not when a camera is trained on my face. what was much more important though was discovering that our campaign manager, Sum,is fantastic on camera -- engaging, amiable, and articulate, with commitment and passion practically oozing from every pore. for a movement which MUST be spearheaded in chinese, it was a very important corroboration of my early instincts that i would be able to pass the baton to her. alleleuiah! Now if only i could clone 3 more of her....
...
i spoke at Chinese International School yesterday to an enthusiastic, even rapturous, audience of more than 120 14-year olds. bar none, they were the most exuberant youngsters i've met so far in my short NGO career. there was cheering and whistling but also silence and respectful listening. and when i asked for 3 volunteers, i got 15. the highlight was showing them our video, "Breathing not allowed", then watching the videos they'd made about air pollution with sister NGO, focus on film. the whole thing reminded me why i decided to quit my private sector career: my highest use is influencing people's minds.
..
i went straight from cis to ddb, our ad agency, to discuss their proposed concepts for our tv commercial campaign. we decided to do two ads: one will be shocking and visceral -- based on breathing and, well, er, not breathing. the other concept will be much more cinematic, scripted and acted. artistry, ingenuity and originality are even more difficult and, yet, more important, in this area.... we also have to take much more responsibility for our imagery. "what if a 4 year old is watching?" these questions never used to come up when i was photographing completely transparent blouses on bra-less 20 year old models...
...
i'm happy to report that looking back over the past week, we've managed to sign up one of hk's biggest movie stars to front our ad campaign and signed up one of hk's biggest shopping mall developers. 40% of hong kong passes through their malls. ZOUNDS! one of hk's most prominent restauranteurs has also decided to conduct a major PR stunt/campaign for us, details to be hammered out shortly. it's all good in CANland -- at least for the next forty-eight hours, until it starts all over again.
...
now if i could just get back to sleep....
...
i underwent media training at hill & knowlton on friday. what a hoot! the experience proved that i look about as welcoming as the grim reaper. MORE SMILINESS REQUIRED. this has been a life-long problem which, in static photos, i've managed to overcome, but not when a camera is trained on my face. what was much more important though was discovering that our campaign manager, Sum,is fantastic on camera -- engaging, amiable, and articulate, with commitment and passion practically oozing from every pore. for a movement which MUST be spearheaded in chinese, it was a very important corroboration of my early instincts that i would be able to pass the baton to her. alleleuiah! Now if only i could clone 3 more of her....
...
i spoke at Chinese International School yesterday to an enthusiastic, even rapturous, audience of more than 120 14-year olds. bar none, they were the most exuberant youngsters i've met so far in my short NGO career. there was cheering and whistling but also silence and respectful listening. and when i asked for 3 volunteers, i got 15. the highlight was showing them our video, "Breathing not allowed", then watching the videos they'd made about air pollution with sister NGO, focus on film. the whole thing reminded me why i decided to quit my private sector career: my highest use is influencing people's minds.
..
i went straight from cis to ddb, our ad agency, to discuss their proposed concepts for our tv commercial campaign. we decided to do two ads: one will be shocking and visceral -- based on breathing and, well, er, not breathing. the other concept will be much more cinematic, scripted and acted. artistry, ingenuity and originality are even more difficult and, yet, more important, in this area.... we also have to take much more responsibility for our imagery. "what if a 4 year old is watching?" these questions never used to come up when i was photographing completely transparent blouses on bra-less 20 year old models...
...
i'm happy to report that looking back over the past week, we've managed to sign up one of hk's biggest movie stars to front our ad campaign and signed up one of hk's biggest shopping mall developers. 40% of hong kong passes through their malls. ZOUNDS! one of hk's most prominent restauranteurs has also decided to conduct a major PR stunt/campaign for us, details to be hammered out shortly. it's all good in CANland -- at least for the next forty-eight hours, until it starts all over again.
...
now if i could just get back to sleep....
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
yesterday was nothing short of insane.
my day included lunch with one of the world's only masters of wine and ended with the official media dinner for business of design week at the w hotel.
in between,i managed to sandwich in participation at a swire focus group on sustainability, a meeting with the asiapac head of interactive media for intel and speaking at web wednesday. unfortunately, i consumed alcohol at the last three events, accounting for why i woke up at 5 am this morning! luckily, my biggest travail of today will be media training by hill & knowlton.
...
at the swire focus group, which saw representation from wwf, green power, friends of the earth, clear the air and designing hong kong, among other groups, the same point was made again and again: in a city such as hong kong, the tipping point IS the private sector. without corporate leadership and vision, we cannot substantively progress the cause of the environment. all too often, the reticence of business is caused by the mistaken perception that, the interests of the various stakeholders are NOT aligned. but reality and our own advocacy has demonstrated that, in fact, this conflict is illusory, yet one which the government continues to perpetuate. it is a perverse but presumably age-old habit which causes government to assume that environmental regulation is a zero sum question for society -- where business MUST lose out if the environment is to gain? this thinking, so outmoded, no doubt persists from the era of nascent environmentalism (the 1960s) when green business was thought to be an outre conceit of hippies and radicals! of course, the opposite is true and it is the practices of a company such as swire which demonstrate that green business is really the only sensible, profitable business these days if one wants to flourish in today's fiercely competitive global economy where energy efficiency and green values are central building blocks of brand and shareholder value. all that said, it is the civic responsibility of a huge company such as swire to weigh in forcefully on the pros and cons of green business during this crucial time when, for the first time, the government is about to tighten hk's air quality management policy. i was happy to hear that,in fact, swire HAD submitted a statement to the government during the public consultation. now, whether its submission had teeth or not... that's a different matter. one thing is certain though, business, government and green groups are NOT THINKING at cross-purposes when it comes to hk's air quality. on the other hand, the OUTWARD BEHAVIOR of hk business - continued reticence and toadying to the government -- probably belies its actual commitment to sustainable business development. that the government seems to insist on perpetuating the misconception that business interests and the environment are adversarially aligned, obviously reinforces this pernicious dynamic. NGOs can only help to break this impasse. what is genuinely required is true leadership and vision from the companies which are the pillars of hong kong's economy.
....
my day included lunch with one of the world's only masters of wine and ended with the official media dinner for business of design week at the w hotel.
in between,i managed to sandwich in participation at a swire focus group on sustainability, a meeting with the asiapac head of interactive media for intel and speaking at web wednesday. unfortunately, i consumed alcohol at the last three events, accounting for why i woke up at 5 am this morning! luckily, my biggest travail of today will be media training by hill & knowlton.
...
at the swire focus group, which saw representation from wwf, green power, friends of the earth, clear the air and designing hong kong, among other groups, the same point was made again and again: in a city such as hong kong, the tipping point IS the private sector. without corporate leadership and vision, we cannot substantively progress the cause of the environment. all too often, the reticence of business is caused by the mistaken perception that, the interests of the various stakeholders are NOT aligned. but reality and our own advocacy has demonstrated that, in fact, this conflict is illusory, yet one which the government continues to perpetuate. it is a perverse but presumably age-old habit which causes government to assume that environmental regulation is a zero sum question for society -- where business MUST lose out if the environment is to gain? this thinking, so outmoded, no doubt persists from the era of nascent environmentalism (the 1960s) when green business was thought to be an outre conceit of hippies and radicals! of course, the opposite is true and it is the practices of a company such as swire which demonstrate that green business is really the only sensible, profitable business these days if one wants to flourish in today's fiercely competitive global economy where energy efficiency and green values are central building blocks of brand and shareholder value. all that said, it is the civic responsibility of a huge company such as swire to weigh in forcefully on the pros and cons of green business during this crucial time when, for the first time, the government is about to tighten hk's air quality management policy. i was happy to hear that,in fact, swire HAD submitted a statement to the government during the public consultation. now, whether its submission had teeth or not... that's a different matter. one thing is certain though, business, government and green groups are NOT THINKING at cross-purposes when it comes to hk's air quality. on the other hand, the OUTWARD BEHAVIOR of hk business - continued reticence and toadying to the government -- probably belies its actual commitment to sustainable business development. that the government seems to insist on perpetuating the misconception that business interests and the environment are adversarially aligned, obviously reinforces this pernicious dynamic. NGOs can only help to break this impasse. what is genuinely required is true leadership and vision from the companies which are the pillars of hong kong's economy.
....
Sunday, November 29, 2009
DISPARATE BUT CRUCIAL
lots of stuff learned in the last 72 hours... forgive me for the pinball-like concatenation of these observations. but there's no better way to map them out:
friday kicked off civic exchange's transport conference which was actually more of a conference about air pollution and urban planning. professor simon ng's presentation blew my mind with its thoughtful treatment of how society needs to balance considerations of efficiency and mobility against liveability and sustainability. it sounds like a truism to make this point. but so few hong kongers, today, would tolerate spending 5 more minutes getting from point A to B in order to preserve more liveable, green, public space for outdoor enjoyment. as christine loh pointed out, all too often, hong kong people simply don't think improvements in liveability are possible. the resounding implication: we're all too hell-bent on efficiency and speed to consider compromising -- even for the sake of healthier, greener lifestyles for ourselves and our family.
CRUCIALLY, it is NOT true that economic growth cannot be delinked from environmental degradation. cities in northern europe (amsterdam, berlin and copenhagen) have successfully managed to continue to grow gdp while reducing congestion and increasing use of public transport. these examples shine light on a possible way forward for hong kong. as simon pointed out, too many cities are being built for cars, not people. simon's entire presentation will be available on our website soon.
MORE ON THE TRANSPORT CONFERENCE:
in a break-out session themed "structural and systemic obstacles", professor anthony hedley of HKU, one of the WHO's leading advisors on air pollution, unleashed an invective against the deprofessionalization of hk's environmental protection department. since the epd's decisionmakers are politically appointed laypeople-administrators with zero background and scant formation in PUBLIC HEALTH, obviously, it's impossible for them to, say, issue a public advisory warning on air pollution. and that's just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to tony's frustrations. seeing tony give such intense vent to his anger and pesssimism inspired me to film him. so, watch out for a new video from us soon. i plan to film him a week from today.
during the conference, i asked professor alexis lau of hkust to talk to teachers, students and school administrators at a presentation in yuen long organized by a DC member for december. being the unflagging, passionate activist that he is, alexis said, of course, but flagged the crucial importance of crafting a message targeted to the residents of THAT district. since the pollution in yuen long is mostly attributable to pollution coming in from china, we might encounter difficulty persuading yuen long residents to support us because, after all, nothing we do or accomplish can ameliorate their plight : ( 2 months into our grassroots mobilization focused on district councils, it's become obvious that we need to tailor our message to the problems existing in SPECIFIC DISTRICTS. if we're to win over more DC members, we must prove that there is political capital in working withs us on specific issues. thankfully, we have a think tank of experts, in both the law and public health, ready to hand to help us answer district councillors' questions as they arise.
ON FRIDAY:
one of hk's biggest movie stars agreed to star in our tvc campaign and publicly support us in all of our efforts. MORE SOON...
Saturday:
i attended the pollution conference in the morning and met Sarath Guttikunda, an air pollution activist from India. www.urbanemissions.info
he handed me his "primer on air quality management". it's an engagingly illustrated, downright CUTE manual and workbook dispensing the Basics of Air Pollution. [!!LIGHT BULB!!] within an hour, i assigned the task of storyboarding and copywriting a children's workbook to new volunteer, kaitlyn mac, who came to the conference to meet me for the first time.
unfortunately, i was unable to stay for the announcement of HKUST's mobile pollution monitoring van study results. eight newspapers covered the news yesterday and today! disturbingly, the report throws into question the accuracy of the government's monitoring network, with the study results showing actual pollution levels to be 2-4 times higher than those derived from the official monitoring network : (
it's time to quit today -- i have a headache -- from today's pollution, which is so thick you could cut it with a knife!
friday kicked off civic exchange's transport conference which was actually more of a conference about air pollution and urban planning. professor simon ng's presentation blew my mind with its thoughtful treatment of how society needs to balance considerations of efficiency and mobility against liveability and sustainability. it sounds like a truism to make this point. but so few hong kongers, today, would tolerate spending 5 more minutes getting from point A to B in order to preserve more liveable, green, public space for outdoor enjoyment. as christine loh pointed out, all too often, hong kong people simply don't think improvements in liveability are possible. the resounding implication: we're all too hell-bent on efficiency and speed to consider compromising -- even for the sake of healthier, greener lifestyles for ourselves and our family.
CRUCIALLY, it is NOT true that economic growth cannot be delinked from environmental degradation. cities in northern europe (amsterdam, berlin and copenhagen) have successfully managed to continue to grow gdp while reducing congestion and increasing use of public transport. these examples shine light on a possible way forward for hong kong. as simon pointed out, too many cities are being built for cars, not people. simon's entire presentation will be available on our website soon.
MORE ON THE TRANSPORT CONFERENCE:
in a break-out session themed "structural and systemic obstacles", professor anthony hedley of HKU, one of the WHO's leading advisors on air pollution, unleashed an invective against the deprofessionalization of hk's environmental protection department. since the epd's decisionmakers are politically appointed laypeople-administrators with zero background and scant formation in PUBLIC HEALTH, obviously, it's impossible for them to, say, issue a public advisory warning on air pollution. and that's just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to tony's frustrations. seeing tony give such intense vent to his anger and pesssimism inspired me to film him. so, watch out for a new video from us soon. i plan to film him a week from today.
during the conference, i asked professor alexis lau of hkust to talk to teachers, students and school administrators at a presentation in yuen long organized by a DC member for december. being the unflagging, passionate activist that he is, alexis said, of course, but flagged the crucial importance of crafting a message targeted to the residents of THAT district. since the pollution in yuen long is mostly attributable to pollution coming in from china, we might encounter difficulty persuading yuen long residents to support us because, after all, nothing we do or accomplish can ameliorate their plight : ( 2 months into our grassroots mobilization focused on district councils, it's become obvious that we need to tailor our message to the problems existing in SPECIFIC DISTRICTS. if we're to win over more DC members, we must prove that there is political capital in working withs us on specific issues. thankfully, we have a think tank of experts, in both the law and public health, ready to hand to help us answer district councillors' questions as they arise.
ON FRIDAY:
one of hk's biggest movie stars agreed to star in our tvc campaign and publicly support us in all of our efforts. MORE SOON...
Saturday:
i attended the pollution conference in the morning and met Sarath Guttikunda, an air pollution activist from India. www.urbanemissions.info
he handed me his "primer on air quality management". it's an engagingly illustrated, downright CUTE manual and workbook dispensing the Basics of Air Pollution. [!!LIGHT BULB!!] within an hour, i assigned the task of storyboarding and copywriting a children's workbook to new volunteer, kaitlyn mac, who came to the conference to meet me for the first time.
unfortunately, i was unable to stay for the announcement of HKUST's mobile pollution monitoring van study results. eight newspapers covered the news yesterday and today! disturbingly, the report throws into question the accuracy of the government's monitoring network, with the study results showing actual pollution levels to be 2-4 times higher than those derived from the official monitoring network : (
it's time to quit today -- i have a headache -- from today's pollution, which is so thick you could cut it with a knife!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL
A poll conducted by the DAB majority political party this week showed the following results.
N.B. though the survey's 553 respondents were supposedly drawn from a representative sampling of the population, 52.8% of them were 51 years or older. (Does this demographic skewing throw up a red flag?)
Since the survey was in chinese, i have restated the results here:
Do you feel that air pollution has improved in recent years?
Improved (7.2%) Same (40.9%) Worse than before (47.2%) No comment (4.7%)
What aspects of HK's air quality are you the most dissatisfied about?
Lower visibility (24.2%) Roadside emission (58%) Other (11.4%) No comment (6.3%)
Are you willing to pay more higher bus fares and electricity rates if the government implements air pollution reduction measures?
Yes (24.1%) Will consider, depending on amount of increase (53.2%) No (27.8%) No comment (3.6%)
Are you willing to pay 15% more in bus fares to speed up replacement of old buses?
Yes (24.1%) No (57.9%) No comment (18.1%)
Do you support bus route rationalization in your own neighborhood to reduce emissions, even though it might cause you some inconvenience?
Yes (51%) No (27.1%) No comments (21.9%)
***I was shocked to see this survey result since both politicians and bus companies constantly tell us that such measures provoke insurmountable political resistance. One has to ask, of the 553 surveyed, how many actually ride the bus every day? On the other hand, such a result is obviously heartening.
Are you willing to pay 20% more for electricity from natural gas, rather than power plants, in order to reduce air pollution?
Yes (21.5%) No (61.8%) No comment (16.6%)
Do you support Government's proposal to establish low emission zones in Mongkok, Central and Causeway Bay, banning all old commercial vehicles, even though this may result in some inconvenient rerouting to these vehicles?
Yes (32.7%) No (36.5%) No comment (30.7%)
Who do you think should bear the cost of cleaning up air pollution?
The public (2.5%) Business (29.7%) Government (25.3%) All three parties (42.5%)
The poll results corroborate what we have been saying for some time:
Hong Kong people, across the board, are well aware of the deterioration in air quality in recent years. BUT, THEY BELIEVE, RIGHTLY, IN OUR OPINION, THAT THE CONSUMER SHOULD NOT BEAR THE BRUNT OF PAYING FOR CLEAN-UP MEASURES.
Christine Loh, our Chairman, made an excellent point in her most recent editorial, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/2009/11/20/love-it-or-leave-it/
The Government shot itself in the foot by suggesting at the beginning of the public consultation that consumers ALONE would have to shoulder the financial burden of abatement measures. The Government's failure to approach the cost-sharing issue with greater realism has now created NEEDLESS political resistance to their proposal to phase out old buses early. In the minds of the public, ANY solution is acceptable provided there is cost SHARING. There are indeed many ways to skin a cat. Thus, the suggestion that consumers had better "love it or leave it", was needlessly divisive. Thankfully, there is still plenty of time to cobble together a very reasonable cost-sharing proposal that all stakeholders can accept.
N.B. though the survey's 553 respondents were supposedly drawn from a representative sampling of the population, 52.8% of them were 51 years or older. (Does this demographic skewing throw up a red flag?)
Since the survey was in chinese, i have restated the results here:
Do you feel that air pollution has improved in recent years?
Improved (7.2%) Same (40.9%) Worse than before (47.2%) No comment (4.7%)
What aspects of HK's air quality are you the most dissatisfied about?
Lower visibility (24.2%) Roadside emission (58%) Other (11.4%) No comment (6.3%)
Are you willing to pay more higher bus fares and electricity rates if the government implements air pollution reduction measures?
Yes (24.1%) Will consider, depending on amount of increase (53.2%) No (27.8%) No comment (3.6%)
Are you willing to pay 15% more in bus fares to speed up replacement of old buses?
Yes (24.1%) No (57.9%) No comment (18.1%)
Do you support bus route rationalization in your own neighborhood to reduce emissions, even though it might cause you some inconvenience?
Yes (51%) No (27.1%) No comments (21.9%)
***I was shocked to see this survey result since both politicians and bus companies constantly tell us that such measures provoke insurmountable political resistance. One has to ask, of the 553 surveyed, how many actually ride the bus every day? On the other hand, such a result is obviously heartening.
Are you willing to pay 20% more for electricity from natural gas, rather than power plants, in order to reduce air pollution?
Yes (21.5%) No (61.8%) No comment (16.6%)
Do you support Government's proposal to establish low emission zones in Mongkok, Central and Causeway Bay, banning all old commercial vehicles, even though this may result in some inconvenient rerouting to these vehicles?
Yes (32.7%) No (36.5%) No comment (30.7%)
Who do you think should bear the cost of cleaning up air pollution?
The public (2.5%) Business (29.7%) Government (25.3%) All three parties (42.5%)
The poll results corroborate what we have been saying for some time:
Hong Kong people, across the board, are well aware of the deterioration in air quality in recent years. BUT, THEY BELIEVE, RIGHTLY, IN OUR OPINION, THAT THE CONSUMER SHOULD NOT BEAR THE BRUNT OF PAYING FOR CLEAN-UP MEASURES.
Christine Loh, our Chairman, made an excellent point in her most recent editorial, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/2009/11/20/love-it-or-leave-it/
The Government shot itself in the foot by suggesting at the beginning of the public consultation that consumers ALONE would have to shoulder the financial burden of abatement measures. The Government's failure to approach the cost-sharing issue with greater realism has now created NEEDLESS political resistance to their proposal to phase out old buses early. In the minds of the public, ANY solution is acceptable provided there is cost SHARING. There are indeed many ways to skin a cat. Thus, the suggestion that consumers had better "love it or leave it", was needlessly divisive. Thankfully, there is still plenty of time to cobble together a very reasonable cost-sharing proposal that all stakeholders can accept.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
ON BEING A PREACHER (and wearing the right clothes)
last night, i gave a talk at box thai, which was hugely inspiring for me, because it was the first time that i spoke to the general public, instead of a group convened specifically to hear about air pollution.
it was a chance to actually touch the minds of everyone in the audience and to galvanize them into action through the delivery of some simple wake-up call facts -- the same ones printed on the back of my business card - air pollution kills 3 people a day, only 41 days are healthy to breathe, hk is 3x dirtier than ny.
hard to believe but the scmp had sent over a reporter to cover the event for the "cityseen" section. considering my long history as the frontperson of a glamorous international brand, it made me chuckle that our environmental shindig qualified as a "see and be seen" soiree. when you see my dopey pic in the paper, you'll believe that i was distinctly unprepared for the photo opp. then again, it's great that i can show up with converse sneakers and a CAN t-shirt at most bashes these days. tonight, i'm speaking at CIS's climate change forum, wearing argyle-patterned tights, chuck taylors, a mini-kilt and, yup, you guessed it, my CAN tee shirt! i go into some sartorial detail (because this blog post may double as an article on hiphongkong.com, later. i met the founder of that website last night and she's already encouraged her online following to support CAN.).
last night, which i enjoyed vastly, reminded me WHY i left the private sector to head up an NGO. since the beginning, even in law school, i've been a preacher. when i was the creative director of shanghai tang, i was a preacher too -- but in designer clothes of my own making. i wasn't selling clothes, but a cultural patrimony spanning 5000 years. at filligent, i wasn't just flogging face masks, but creating an fmcg consumer brand which could hold its own in any market and prove that a hk company can create durable value in today's cut-throat global economy. whatever journey i have chosen, the compass has always secretly pointed beyond the immediate destination, to a larger, if concealed, personal goal.
at CAN, i can now say, unabashedly, without a hint of delusion or grandiosity, yes, i want to inspire you. finally, i've showed up to the party in the RIGHT clothes....
it was a chance to actually touch the minds of everyone in the audience and to galvanize them into action through the delivery of some simple wake-up call facts -- the same ones printed on the back of my business card - air pollution kills 3 people a day, only 41 days are healthy to breathe, hk is 3x dirtier than ny.
hard to believe but the scmp had sent over a reporter to cover the event for the "cityseen" section. considering my long history as the frontperson of a glamorous international brand, it made me chuckle that our environmental shindig qualified as a "see and be seen" soiree. when you see my dopey pic in the paper, you'll believe that i was distinctly unprepared for the photo opp. then again, it's great that i can show up with converse sneakers and a CAN t-shirt at most bashes these days. tonight, i'm speaking at CIS's climate change forum, wearing argyle-patterned tights, chuck taylors, a mini-kilt and, yup, you guessed it, my CAN tee shirt! i go into some sartorial detail (because this blog post may double as an article on hiphongkong.com, later. i met the founder of that website last night and she's already encouraged her online following to support CAN.).
last night, which i enjoyed vastly, reminded me WHY i left the private sector to head up an NGO. since the beginning, even in law school, i've been a preacher. when i was the creative director of shanghai tang, i was a preacher too -- but in designer clothes of my own making. i wasn't selling clothes, but a cultural patrimony spanning 5000 years. at filligent, i wasn't just flogging face masks, but creating an fmcg consumer brand which could hold its own in any market and prove that a hk company can create durable value in today's cut-throat global economy. whatever journey i have chosen, the compass has always secretly pointed beyond the immediate destination, to a larger, if concealed, personal goal.
at CAN, i can now say, unabashedly, without a hint of delusion or grandiosity, yes, i want to inspire you. finally, i've showed up to the party in the RIGHT clothes....
Monday, November 23, 2009
RESPONDING TO NAYSAYERS....
just after i emailed my friends to share CAN's first animated video, yesterday,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
i received the following skeptical response from one of hk's most famous and vocal opinion leaders.... the entire thread with my response is below. the first email in the thread is at the very bottom.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joanne Ooi
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: If you care about Hong Kong, please watch and share this clip.
To: MAJOR HK OPINION LEADER
dear d,
i'm glad you watched the video.
in answer to your questions:
all the facts stated in the video are drawn from published scientific studies or research conducted by HKU and HKUST. indeed, we work closely with all the leading public health and transport professors at cuhk, hku, and hkust, as a general rule. the fact about how a majority of the time, a majority of the pollution is hk-created is from a study conducted by HKUST. the death toll figures come from the hedley environmental index and are themselves cited as authoritative by the hk government. the fact about how indoor air quality is very similar to outdoor air quality is based on a paper which was submitted by professor tony hedley, hk's leading public health expert advising the WHO on air pollution internationally, to LegCo. we have all the information and sources stated on our website. as you can imagine, providing footnotes in an online video is not feasible or desirable.
the reason clean air network came into existence and why i quit my private sector career this year is because, for the first time in more than 20 years, the government is planning to revise hk's air quality management policy. it means we FINALLY have the precious opportunity to mobilize public opinion and do something about it. by "do something about it", i mean drown out the transport lobby by mobilizing a bigger voice. the centerpiece of our effort is a petition. but, on a broader, more profound basis, we seek to educate society at large about this issue. for that matter, we need to get the issue on the radar of a lot of hk people.
regarding grassroots mobilization, we are systematically signing up and recruiting district council people to conduct street discussion forums, mailbox stuffings and petition sign-ups. So far, we have signed up 40 DC members and 6 LegCo members, including the chairman of legco -- not bad considering that we only began in September and that each outreach requires one-on-one interaction. CAN has also spoken at most of the major hk universities. up one level in society, we have signed up more than 90 NGOs and professional associations. for example, the bar association is sending out our educational and petition flyer this week to their membership. on top of the mobilization pyramid, csl, clsa, tvb, star tv, and mtr are just some of the blue-chip household names supporting us. for example, csl has conducted an sms campaign to 2+ million subscribers, posted e-posters in their retail stores and messaged their employees to support CAN. other supporters are giving us free advertising and offering to message for us.
while all of this is happening, we are in direct communication with the government, edward yau's office, the epd and the transport department. they are well aware of what we are doing and consider us their partner in pushing forward their stated agenda (unveiled in july 09) of tightening hk's air quality objectives and passing a package of 19 abatement measures. according to the government, it plans to finalize the air quality objectives at the end of next year, giving us one year to mobilize the hong kong people.
while we seek to arm the hk government with more ammo, we are pressuring the government at the same time to accelerate the adoption of clean-up measures and enact legislation which is as stringent as possible, but still realistically feasible.
just to let you know, i assumed my full-time post as ceo of CAN on 1 october, but, thanks to the quality of the board, who include christine loh, markus shaw, elaine marden, winston chu and tony ng, we have landed running. there is yet a great distance to go, but i'm confident that we will make an impact.
i hope you will consider supporting us now that i have adduced some corroboration for the statements in the video and articulated our strategy for the next 12 months.
best,
joanne
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM, MAJOR HK OPINION LEADER> wrote:
But how are all your figures supported ? By what and by whom? And what is your definition of 'safe'? And most of all, what do you PROPOSE to do about cleaning up the sir to the extent of it becoming safe, or safer, in which case how much safer?
Surely its only logical that at least these questions are answered before anyone should sign your petition? Otherwise they would be doing so simply on your say-so and point-of-view?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joanne Ooi
To: joanneooihk@gmail.com
Sent: Sun Nov 22 10:41:08 2009
Subject: If you care about Hong Kong, please watch and share this clip...
Dear Friends
If you care about HK's air, please take the time to watch this 2-minute video produced on a shoestring by Clean Air Network. Not a typical, boring, self-validating corporate video, but something that will make you chuckle, recoil and, i hope, REACT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
Seriously, if you care about Hong Kong, SHARE IT -- by email and on facebook.
It's very rare to send such a personal appeal, so I sincerely hope you will take 5 minutes out of your day to watch and SHARE THIS.
Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
i received the following skeptical response from one of hk's most famous and vocal opinion leaders.... the entire thread with my response is below. the first email in the thread is at the very bottom.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joanne Ooi
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: If you care about Hong Kong, please watch and share this clip.
To: MAJOR HK OPINION LEADER
dear d,
i'm glad you watched the video.
in answer to your questions:
all the facts stated in the video are drawn from published scientific studies or research conducted by HKU and HKUST. indeed, we work closely with all the leading public health and transport professors at cuhk, hku, and hkust, as a general rule. the fact about how a majority of the time, a majority of the pollution is hk-created is from a study conducted by HKUST. the death toll figures come from the hedley environmental index and are themselves cited as authoritative by the hk government. the fact about how indoor air quality is very similar to outdoor air quality is based on a paper which was submitted by professor tony hedley, hk's leading public health expert advising the WHO on air pollution internationally, to LegCo. we have all the information and sources stated on our website. as you can imagine, providing footnotes in an online video is not feasible or desirable.
the reason clean air network came into existence and why i quit my private sector career this year is because, for the first time in more than 20 years, the government is planning to revise hk's air quality management policy. it means we FINALLY have the precious opportunity to mobilize public opinion and do something about it. by "do something about it", i mean drown out the transport lobby by mobilizing a bigger voice. the centerpiece of our effort is a petition. but, on a broader, more profound basis, we seek to educate society at large about this issue. for that matter, we need to get the issue on the radar of a lot of hk people.
regarding grassroots mobilization, we are systematically signing up and recruiting district council people to conduct street discussion forums, mailbox stuffings and petition sign-ups. So far, we have signed up 40 DC members and 6 LegCo members, including the chairman of legco -- not bad considering that we only began in September and that each outreach requires one-on-one interaction. CAN has also spoken at most of the major hk universities. up one level in society, we have signed up more than 90 NGOs and professional associations. for example, the bar association is sending out our educational and petition flyer this week to their membership. on top of the mobilization pyramid, csl, clsa, tvb, star tv, and mtr are just some of the blue-chip household names supporting us. for example, csl has conducted an sms campaign to 2+ million subscribers, posted e-posters in their retail stores and messaged their employees to support CAN. other supporters are giving us free advertising and offering to message for us.
while all of this is happening, we are in direct communication with the government, edward yau's office, the epd and the transport department. they are well aware of what we are doing and consider us their partner in pushing forward their stated agenda (unveiled in july 09) of tightening hk's air quality objectives and passing a package of 19 abatement measures. according to the government, it plans to finalize the air quality objectives at the end of next year, giving us one year to mobilize the hong kong people.
while we seek to arm the hk government with more ammo, we are pressuring the government at the same time to accelerate the adoption of clean-up measures and enact legislation which is as stringent as possible, but still realistically feasible.
just to let you know, i assumed my full-time post as ceo of CAN on 1 october, but, thanks to the quality of the board, who include christine loh, markus shaw, elaine marden, winston chu and tony ng, we have landed running. there is yet a great distance to go, but i'm confident that we will make an impact.
i hope you will consider supporting us now that i have adduced some corroboration for the statements in the video and articulated our strategy for the next 12 months.
best,
joanne
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM, MAJOR HK OPINION LEADER> wrote:
But how are all your figures supported ? By what and by whom? And what is your definition of 'safe'? And most of all, what do you PROPOSE to do about cleaning up the sir to the extent of it becoming safe, or safer, in which case how much safer?
Surely its only logical that at least these questions are answered before anyone should sign your petition? Otherwise they would be doing so simply on your say-so and point-of-view?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joanne Ooi
To: joanneooihk@gmail.com
Sent: Sun Nov 22 10:41:08 2009
Subject: If you care about Hong Kong, please watch and share this clip...
Dear Friends
If you care about HK's air, please take the time to watch this 2-minute video produced on a shoestring by Clean Air Network. Not a typical, boring, self-validating corporate video, but something that will make you chuckle, recoil and, i hope, REACT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
Seriously, if you care about Hong Kong, SHARE IT -- by email and on facebook.
It's very rare to send such a personal appeal, so I sincerely hope you will take 5 minutes out of your day to watch and SHARE THIS.
Thank you
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
AIR POLLUTION IS VERY MUCH ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE
NOTES FROM THE GRASSROOTS: THE DOUBLE BURDEN OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE NEW TERRITORIES
Some comments from a DC member in the New Territories --
"On solving the air pollution problem, many people in the New Territories believe that the government and Legco have favored the interests of people living in city districts (mostly wealthy people) over the interests of those living in the New Territories. The government built and Legco supported the government offices, Legco building, public infrastructure and all commercial activities to be concentrated oin only Central or other city districts. This forces people living in the New Territories to travel all the way from the New Territories to Central (or other city districts) to look for jobs, eventually increasing the demand for buses running on the road. It has never been the wish of people in the New Territories to travel all the way to Central to work, but instead they have to bear the costs of cleaning up air pollution. Whether cutting short bus routes or increasing bus fares, it is the grassroots living in the New Territories who have to pay to clean up air pollution in Central. One way to reduce air pollution is better city planning, not just replacement of old buses. If the government could relocate some offices or public infrastructures from city districts to the New Territories, this could provide job opportunities to people in the New Territories, allow them to stay in the NT and, consequently, reduce the demand for buses.
Another point: The view of Victoria Harbour means nothing for the grassroots in the New Territories. Many of them can't even afford to travel to Central."
i share this letter with you because it gives genuine insight into WHY sometimes the grassroots finds it hard to support air pollution clean-up measures: THESE MEASURES (BUS-RELATED) FALL DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THEM - who have already been penalized by the great distance they must travel to work.
what it means for CAN is that we must find political approaches which acknowledge and,if possible, REDRESS these inequities. SPECIFICALLY, bus companies, NOT bus riders should bear MUCH more of the cost of cleaning up air pollution. NOT the average bus rider.
whether it is EFFICIENT for business centers to be established throughout the NT is, of course, another question entirely -- one which i'm not qualified to comment on. ditto for the question of whether the long commute distance from the NT is reflected in rents and real estate prices in those areas. rather, the point of today's blog is to shed light on the POLITICAL obstacles our movement confronts.
Some comments from a DC member in the New Territories --
"On solving the air pollution problem, many people in the New Territories believe that the government and Legco have favored the interests of people living in city districts (mostly wealthy people) over the interests of those living in the New Territories. The government built and Legco supported the government offices, Legco building, public infrastructure and all commercial activities to be concentrated oin only Central or other city districts. This forces people living in the New Territories to travel all the way from the New Territories to Central (or other city districts) to look for jobs, eventually increasing the demand for buses running on the road. It has never been the wish of people in the New Territories to travel all the way to Central to work, but instead they have to bear the costs of cleaning up air pollution. Whether cutting short bus routes or increasing bus fares, it is the grassroots living in the New Territories who have to pay to clean up air pollution in Central. One way to reduce air pollution is better city planning, not just replacement of old buses. If the government could relocate some offices or public infrastructures from city districts to the New Territories, this could provide job opportunities to people in the New Territories, allow them to stay in the NT and, consequently, reduce the demand for buses.
Another point: The view of Victoria Harbour means nothing for the grassroots in the New Territories. Many of them can't even afford to travel to Central."
i share this letter with you because it gives genuine insight into WHY sometimes the grassroots finds it hard to support air pollution clean-up measures: THESE MEASURES (BUS-RELATED) FALL DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THEM - who have already been penalized by the great distance they must travel to work.
what it means for CAN is that we must find political approaches which acknowledge and,if possible, REDRESS these inequities. SPECIFICALLY, bus companies, NOT bus riders should bear MUCH more of the cost of cleaning up air pollution. NOT the average bus rider.
whether it is EFFICIENT for business centers to be established throughout the NT is, of course, another question entirely -- one which i'm not qualified to comment on. ditto for the question of whether the long commute distance from the NT is reflected in rents and real estate prices in those areas. rather, the point of today's blog is to shed light on the POLITICAL obstacles our movement confronts.
Monday, November 16, 2009
thick fuels, thick minds
i just attended a breakfast about marine pollution sponsored by amcham this morning. to quickly sketch the backdrop of the issue: marine fuel is several THOUSAND TIMES higher in sulphur content than vehicle diesel. to quote one of the lead participants, arthur bowring, the head of the hk shipowners association: marine fuel is so viscous that if you turned the jar of bunker fuel he keeps in his office upside down, the fuel wouldn't actually move. basically, it's about as thick as asphalt!
bowring said it many times over and over: we want to clean up, but we need a level playing field. a level playing field means coordinated PRD legislation of green harbour measures which would not exceed the international MARPOL regime. (standards tighter than MARPOL, the international maritime regime which covers ship pollution of all sorts, would necessitate additional capital expenditures and technical difficulties such as fuel switching and extra fuel tanks, beyond those considered internationally reasonable). Moreover, a fair playing field would assume the ready availability of cleaner fuel - a state of affairs which does not yet exist - with no penalty if such fuel was not available despite shipowners' best efforts.
apparently, bowring has sought meetings with the government for a long time, in order to convey the support of the shipowners association for more aggressive marine abatement measures. but it's only today that, for the first time, they've had the chance to meet face to face -- thanks to representation from the EPD at today's breakfast. WOW. that means that, to date, the hk govt has been trying to protect the interests of a constituency which didn't want its interests protected -- at least not like this. i hope arthur will convey his support for a stronger SO2 AQO in his upcoming conversation with the EPD, since the main thing holding the latter back has been been perceived resistance from the shipping industry to stricter sulphur standards.
besides learning that marine fuel is the absolute dregs of the oil refinement process accounting for its cement-like viscosity, there were some other interesting takeaways from today --
oil refiners don't want to make higher value distillates (cleaner fuels) because it's convenient and cost-effective for them to continue dumping the dross (marine bunker fuel) into the shipping industry.
the creation of distillate results in substantially greater carbon emissions than the burning of marine bunker fuel, but it's easier for several hundred refiners to scrub their emissions than 100,000 ships to implement scrubbing technology.
to date, no single technology has been able to remove all the contaminants in fuel. rather seawater scrubbers are required to remove SO2 and PM, whereas selective catalytic reduction technology is required to reduce NOx. while both these technologies can effectively filter out 80-90% of contaminants, both come with major technical challenges. in the case of sea water scrubbers, the process results in solid contaminant waste which must then be safely disposed of. in other words, seawater scrubbing merely displaces the problem, converting air pollutants into toxic solid matter. regarding scr, ships must carry large amount of urea and the process must take place at very high temperatures.
in singapore, apparently, scientists have successfully conducted preliminary trials of a new sound wave technology which reduces the ph of emissions, successfully eliminating ALL contaminants, and reducing them into a form of calcium carbonate. ZOUNDS! if it works, it will be revolutionary. (sounds too good to be true, but, then again, i previously worked at a company which successfully eliminated carcinogens from cigarette smoke without affecting the cigarette-smoking experience.)
amcham gets a big gold star for organizing today's breakfast: it went a long way towards improving communication between the shipping industry and the government while bringing us (comparative) neophytes up to speed on 360 degrees of this incredibly complex issue.
bowring said it many times over and over: we want to clean up, but we need a level playing field. a level playing field means coordinated PRD legislation of green harbour measures which would not exceed the international MARPOL regime. (standards tighter than MARPOL, the international maritime regime which covers ship pollution of all sorts, would necessitate additional capital expenditures and technical difficulties such as fuel switching and extra fuel tanks, beyond those considered internationally reasonable). Moreover, a fair playing field would assume the ready availability of cleaner fuel - a state of affairs which does not yet exist - with no penalty if such fuel was not available despite shipowners' best efforts.
apparently, bowring has sought meetings with the government for a long time, in order to convey the support of the shipowners association for more aggressive marine abatement measures. but it's only today that, for the first time, they've had the chance to meet face to face -- thanks to representation from the EPD at today's breakfast. WOW. that means that, to date, the hk govt has been trying to protect the interests of a constituency which didn't want its interests protected -- at least not like this. i hope arthur will convey his support for a stronger SO2 AQO in his upcoming conversation with the EPD, since the main thing holding the latter back has been been perceived resistance from the shipping industry to stricter sulphur standards.
besides learning that marine fuel is the absolute dregs of the oil refinement process accounting for its cement-like viscosity, there were some other interesting takeaways from today --
oil refiners don't want to make higher value distillates (cleaner fuels) because it's convenient and cost-effective for them to continue dumping the dross (marine bunker fuel) into the shipping industry.
the creation of distillate results in substantially greater carbon emissions than the burning of marine bunker fuel, but it's easier for several hundred refiners to scrub their emissions than 100,000 ships to implement scrubbing technology.
to date, no single technology has been able to remove all the contaminants in fuel. rather seawater scrubbers are required to remove SO2 and PM, whereas selective catalytic reduction technology is required to reduce NOx. while both these technologies can effectively filter out 80-90% of contaminants, both come with major technical challenges. in the case of sea water scrubbers, the process results in solid contaminant waste which must then be safely disposed of. in other words, seawater scrubbing merely displaces the problem, converting air pollutants into toxic solid matter. regarding scr, ships must carry large amount of urea and the process must take place at very high temperatures.
in singapore, apparently, scientists have successfully conducted preliminary trials of a new sound wave technology which reduces the ph of emissions, successfully eliminating ALL contaminants, and reducing them into a form of calcium carbonate. ZOUNDS! if it works, it will be revolutionary. (sounds too good to be true, but, then again, i previously worked at a company which successfully eliminated carcinogens from cigarette smoke without affecting the cigarette-smoking experience.)
amcham gets a big gold star for organizing today's breakfast: it went a long way towards improving communication between the shipping industry and the government while bringing us (comparative) neophytes up to speed on 360 degrees of this incredibly complex issue.
the pros and cons of impecunious marketing
today was a crucial day in our campaign. our pro bono partners, ddb and hill & knowlton, came over to advise us on how to move our chess pieces around the board. (ddb is one of the world's top advertising agencies, whereas hill & knowlton is one of the world's top pr agencies.) now, mind you, it's those chess pieces i've been creating from dust, spit, and sweat since i came on board on 1 october. by "chess pieces", i mean the advertisements, celebrities, visuals, viral content, pr events and media contacts which, taken together, form a campaign. the primary challenge, until now, had been knocking on ceos' and suppliers' doors with a begging bowl, asking for free everything, from advice to programming. but, now, armed with a sufficient number of chess pieces -- at least for the next six months - it was time to decide, how should we move them? in what order? and how do we actually WIN the game? after 20 minutes of head-knocking between 12 people, we figured it all out. ha! now whether, 6 months from now, the public will congratulate us for having crafted a truly coherent and compelling tour de force of marketing which influences hong kong society and, in the process, the government, is for you guys to witness and judge for yourselves : ) one thing's for sure though: this is DEFINITELY the most ambitious, kaleidoscopic campaign i've ever undertaken -- what with moving parts which whizz and whir over at least 3 media platforms at any single time. in the lingo of my past private sector life, i'm trying to be walmart and louis vuitton at the same time, seducing everyone from the man on the street to the titan of industry. the trade-off for taking on such a promethean task is the chance to take crazy, unprecedented, artistic risks, with the excuse that, hey, i have no choice anyway, because my budget is zero. and, therefore, my ingenuity has to flourish in direct, inverse proportion.
....
that said, i can't wait to launch our first animated video tomorrow. i'm on tenterhooks for several reasons: it took us THREE MONTHS to make it. in my entire 10-year career, very very few projects have taken three months of serious concentrated effort. on the other hand, i can't really take credit for this film. it's actually jessica louie, the artist, whose genius and hard work are showcased in it. all i did was crack the whip and alternately gasp with admiration, shock and frustration from time to time. next, this film takes a lot of risks: it dares to genuinely shock the viewer with gut-wrenching representations of what air pollution can do to the human body (against an original score of absurdly ironic music). finally, i want this clip to become viral so badly that i can't believe i just admitted that. but, then, NOTHING can make something viral unless it's just plain damn good. i asked my friend, jimmy wales, the founder of wikipedia, to look at it this morning. he said, "i really want to sign the f!@#$&*(% petition after seeing that, but where's the call to action? you gotta knock people over the head with that." so, for the umpteenth time, i asked victor pena, our saint-like post-production guy, to make another change to the film. if i've learned something from social media, it's that every single tiny visual cue or omission counts -- sometimes fatally -- and that it's impossible to resuscitate a missed opportunity. you really only get ONE chance to hook someone's eyeballs in the online world - let alone ask them to do something. having no money and no chances, i can't very well chance it with an imperfect product. so, here's to keeping all body parts crossed until YOU watch it -- and, hopefully, share it : )
....
that said, i can't wait to launch our first animated video tomorrow. i'm on tenterhooks for several reasons: it took us THREE MONTHS to make it. in my entire 10-year career, very very few projects have taken three months of serious concentrated effort. on the other hand, i can't really take credit for this film. it's actually jessica louie, the artist, whose genius and hard work are showcased in it. all i did was crack the whip and alternately gasp with admiration, shock and frustration from time to time. next, this film takes a lot of risks: it dares to genuinely shock the viewer with gut-wrenching representations of what air pollution can do to the human body (against an original score of absurdly ironic music). finally, i want this clip to become viral so badly that i can't believe i just admitted that. but, then, NOTHING can make something viral unless it's just plain damn good. i asked my friend, jimmy wales, the founder of wikipedia, to look at it this morning. he said, "i really want to sign the f!@#$&*(% petition after seeing that, but where's the call to action? you gotta knock people over the head with that." so, for the umpteenth time, i asked victor pena, our saint-like post-production guy, to make another change to the film. if i've learned something from social media, it's that every single tiny visual cue or omission counts -- sometimes fatally -- and that it's impossible to resuscitate a missed opportunity. you really only get ONE chance to hook someone's eyeballs in the online world - let alone ask them to do something. having no money and no chances, i can't very well chance it with an imperfect product. so, here's to keeping all body parts crossed until YOU watch it -- and, hopefully, share it : )
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Gallup wallops HK in just-announced Potential Net Migration Index
in a poll of 66 nations, hk came out 65th in an index just published by gallup polls. the only country to do worse was iraq!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124193/Potential-Net-Migration-Change-Developed-Nations.aspx
the main reasons for hk's abysmal ranking, among sri lanka, trinidad & tobago and mexico: overcrowding, traffic congestion and AIR POLLUTION.
tellingly, singapore was number one. it's worth noting that, to date, singapore is the only asian country with a congestion charging scheme. the congestion charging scheme relieves the city of traffic congestion and its toxic concomitant - air pollution.
even if hk's poor gallup showing is not fully warranted, it's still a painful smack in the face for the current administration.
...
i attended donald tsang's presentation to the HK general business chamber two weeks ago. his remarks focused on how the govt intends to support revitalization and encourage innovation in our economy through various investment and conservation schemes. but, what is the point of entrepreneurial ingenuity and vigor, when commerce unfolds against the backdrop of hk's benighted skies? his remarks will ring hollow and his initiatives remain academic unless he can also provide the minimimum requirements for healthy living, so crucial to the flourishing -- indeed, survival -- of its residents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124193/Potential-Net-Migration-Change-Developed-Nations.aspx
the main reasons for hk's abysmal ranking, among sri lanka, trinidad & tobago and mexico: overcrowding, traffic congestion and AIR POLLUTION.
tellingly, singapore was number one. it's worth noting that, to date, singapore is the only asian country with a congestion charging scheme. the congestion charging scheme relieves the city of traffic congestion and its toxic concomitant - air pollution.
even if hk's poor gallup showing is not fully warranted, it's still a painful smack in the face for the current administration.
...
i attended donald tsang's presentation to the HK general business chamber two weeks ago. his remarks focused on how the govt intends to support revitalization and encourage innovation in our economy through various investment and conservation schemes. but, what is the point of entrepreneurial ingenuity and vigor, when commerce unfolds against the backdrop of hk's benighted skies? his remarks will ring hollow and his initiatives remain academic unless he can also provide the minimimum requirements for healthy living, so crucial to the flourishing -- indeed, survival -- of its residents.
Friday, November 13, 2009
don't be deceived by the cool weather!
i still haven't managed to blog from my bkberry yet. waiting for the right, long cab ride. so, this is yet another backward-looking post...
...
yesterday, one of hk's top movie stars wrote me that he wants to do "anything he can" to help CAN! that kind of made my day. other news: we will be holding an online sticker competition for kids sponsored by the SCMP Young Post in December; CUHK students will help us to do a sign-up on campus for three days next week; our first GUY started working at the office yesterday. HALLELEUIA!
...
i attended a dinner with a bunch of hedge fund and finance guys (all possible donors) last night and met claire nouvian, too. she is one of the world's leading advocates of shark rescue. wow, marine conservation is so utterly arcane and thankless, as an ngo field. i got a palpable sense of that when i casually listened in from time to time on her conversation. thank GOD air pollution is so easy to explain and relate to.
...
the weather's turned cold. it "feels clean" because we're not sweating buckets 24-7, but, in fact, we're now settling into the 6-month pollution trough brought in by seasonal winds from guangdong : ( really, you can't win in hong kong: the cleanest month, august, is the least tolerable from the standpoint of temperature. the most dangerous month, typically january or february, gives you a false sense of security. it's common for kids to develop an allergic cough during these winter months. my own son, sam, 10 years old, usually does. it's one of the main reasons i got involved with this issue.
...
yesterday, one of hk's top movie stars wrote me that he wants to do "anything he can" to help CAN! that kind of made my day. other news: we will be holding an online sticker competition for kids sponsored by the SCMP Young Post in December; CUHK students will help us to do a sign-up on campus for three days next week; our first GUY started working at the office yesterday. HALLELEUIA!
...
i attended a dinner with a bunch of hedge fund and finance guys (all possible donors) last night and met claire nouvian, too. she is one of the world's leading advocates of shark rescue. wow, marine conservation is so utterly arcane and thankless, as an ngo field. i got a palpable sense of that when i casually listened in from time to time on her conversation. thank GOD air pollution is so easy to explain and relate to.
...
the weather's turned cold. it "feels clean" because we're not sweating buckets 24-7, but, in fact, we're now settling into the 6-month pollution trough brought in by seasonal winds from guangdong : ( really, you can't win in hong kong: the cleanest month, august, is the least tolerable from the standpoint of temperature. the most dangerous month, typically january or february, gives you a false sense of security. it's common for kids to develop an allergic cough during these winter months. my own son, sam, 10 years old, usually does. it's one of the main reasons i got involved with this issue.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
pollution is always on everyone's mind - even in black tie
a few interesting moments to report from tonight's illustrious inaugural session of coutts' women in asia awards at the four seasons hotel. i found it hard to believe that, literally, i knew 7 of the 9 nominees tonight, making it a banner day for both friendship and "girl power", to borrow a term from one of the winners' acceptance speech.
Claire Hsu, winner of the Rising Star award, who ascended the podium first during the evening, closed her remarks by saying, "I hope that someone's going to do something about the air pollution." The fact that Claire is pregnant reinforced the unexpected pointedness of the remark.
Then, Christine Loh, our chairman (of CAN, i mean) won the award for the "Woman who has made a difference". it was of course somewhat of a bummer that sally lo, of the hk cancer fund, had to lose, as a result : ( but, in my heart, i felt that christine's victory was more than just. she then exhorted coutts to send some of that private banking money "our way" (to ALL those women in hk making a difference to society and the environment.) in closing, christine mentioned air pollution -- again -- like claire.
the two of them were a real 1-2 punch for our cause, actually! after all, there were two Exco members in the room, plus numerous tycoons and titans of industry.
i decided it was a good moment to remind my good friend, esther heer, of coutts north asia, of the importance of supporting CAN by including a flyer from us in their annual diary mail-out this year. but she poured cold water on my hopes by telling me that "the committee" was not ready to support this initiative because it might offend some clients : ( it just goes to show the difficulties of promoting such an issue in HONG KONG. honestly, i could NEVER imagine such a cause meeting resistance in any developed democratic nation. i may very well ask the winners of tonight's three awards to write to coutts tomorrow -- to underscore the importance of championing this cause publicly. WHO CAN POSSIBLY FEAR A BACKLASH FROM SUPPORTING CLEAN AIR? it makes one wonder what kind of society we actually live in -- i suppose it goes to show that some people continue to believe that clean air is not a necessity -- but a luxury. for shame....
Claire Hsu, winner of the Rising Star award, who ascended the podium first during the evening, closed her remarks by saying, "I hope that someone's going to do something about the air pollution." The fact that Claire is pregnant reinforced the unexpected pointedness of the remark.
Then, Christine Loh, our chairman (of CAN, i mean) won the award for the "Woman who has made a difference". it was of course somewhat of a bummer that sally lo, of the hk cancer fund, had to lose, as a result : ( but, in my heart, i felt that christine's victory was more than just. she then exhorted coutts to send some of that private banking money "our way" (to ALL those women in hk making a difference to society and the environment.) in closing, christine mentioned air pollution -- again -- like claire.
the two of them were a real 1-2 punch for our cause, actually! after all, there were two Exco members in the room, plus numerous tycoons and titans of industry.
i decided it was a good moment to remind my good friend, esther heer, of coutts north asia, of the importance of supporting CAN by including a flyer from us in their annual diary mail-out this year. but she poured cold water on my hopes by telling me that "the committee" was not ready to support this initiative because it might offend some clients : ( it just goes to show the difficulties of promoting such an issue in HONG KONG. honestly, i could NEVER imagine such a cause meeting resistance in any developed democratic nation. i may very well ask the winners of tonight's three awards to write to coutts tomorrow -- to underscore the importance of championing this cause publicly. WHO CAN POSSIBLY FEAR A BACKLASH FROM SUPPORTING CLEAN AIR? it makes one wonder what kind of society we actually live in -- i suppose it goes to show that some people continue to believe that clean air is not a necessity -- but a luxury. for shame....
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
couldn't believe that LSE enviro-expert, Gwyn Prins, said, THERE'S NO GLOBAL WARMING, last night!
i just hooked up blogger.com to my blackberry so i hope this will be my last backward looking post.
...
yesterday, i moderated a media lunch for intelligence squared, the cultural debating franchise, about climate change, meaning that i had to get up to speed on this profound topic in the few days preceding the event -- no small feat, considering that the speakers were gwyn prins, the lse professor who wrote "time to ditch kyoto", a nature magazine article, which has become among the most downloaded on the internet re: climate change, eric bettelheim, forestry and carbon trading expert and sunita narain, the "al gore of india". the lunch was spirited and combative, with professor prins, believe it or not, making the jaw-dropping assertion that there is no demonstrable link between dramatically increased co2 emissions and temperature increase in the earth's atmosphere. three weeks ago, the bbc announced this new research finding! he made this point to similar shocking effect at the evening debate. it's his view, well-reasoned if heretic, that, if there's no actual warming, then, the entire multilateral decisionmaking process of kyoto and copenhagen has no underlying raison d'etre or functional, let alone moral, purpose. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
the bbc announcement, aptly entitled, "what happened to global warming?" merely confirmed prins' view that there has never been any demonstrable climactic change since, after all, "climates change. that's what they do."
...
on the CAN front, which is the reason you're reading this blog : ), we've been having a banner week, signing up the chairman of LegCo, Tsang Yuk Shing, and enlisting the support of DC members in Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long and Wong Tai Sin.
Here are some notes from our community outreach manager:
"'sharing of the costs of cleaning up the air pollution' is the number one concern for most DC members of all political parties. In Yuen Long, the independent DC members blast the gov't public consultation paper for only asking the public to bear the costs. In Wong Tai Sin 10 DAB members have drafted a letter to the EPD demanding the gov't and the bus companies and powerplants to bear the costs as well and a timeline for implementation of those 19 measures to reduce emissions. One Liberal Party DC member (same party as Miriam Lau) said that his party understands that the Transport industry definitely has to bear some costs but the transport industry will not agree to bear too much cost. His party suggests that the gov't should provide some tax exemption or other measures to bring down the costs of the transport industry. They are still collecting public opinion on the cost sharing issue and conducting research on the best way to reduce emission from buses and trucks. However, the Liberal Party is definitely defending the interests of the transport industry. They are not willing to shorten the length of the usage of a bus because this will not be economical to the bus companies. In fact, they are suggesting to use some filter equipment to filter the emissions from buses and trucks instead of replacing bus fleet.
Another thing to be noted is that we have been receiving feedback from DC members saying that the objective of our campaign is too vague. For example, Tsang Yuk Shing asked about our stance on the cost sharing issue. When I replied to him we are open to any options and our only objective is to clean up air pollution, he questioned the effectiveness of such a vague goal. Some other DC members have raised the same point.
We need to have our own stance otherwise people don't know what we want the government to do. It is too vague just to say we want clean air. We are campaigning for a social cause and we definitely have to have a stance on policy."
We've just completed a zoomerang survey on precisely this issue. 500 people responded, so we will tabulate responses on this particular question and come up with a policy position in a few weeks. one thing is obvious already, though, IT WOULD BE SOCIALLY INEQUITABLE IF THE BUS COMPANIES WERE PERMITTED TO GET OFF SCOTT FREE WHILE BUS RIDERS AND THE PUBLIC PURSE HAD TO PAY!
thats CAN's baseline position!
...
yesterday, i moderated a media lunch for intelligence squared, the cultural debating franchise, about climate change, meaning that i had to get up to speed on this profound topic in the few days preceding the event -- no small feat, considering that the speakers were gwyn prins, the lse professor who wrote "time to ditch kyoto", a nature magazine article, which has become among the most downloaded on the internet re: climate change, eric bettelheim, forestry and carbon trading expert and sunita narain, the "al gore of india". the lunch was spirited and combative, with professor prins, believe it or not, making the jaw-dropping assertion that there is no demonstrable link between dramatically increased co2 emissions and temperature increase in the earth's atmosphere. three weeks ago, the bbc announced this new research finding! he made this point to similar shocking effect at the evening debate. it's his view, well-reasoned if heretic, that, if there's no actual warming, then, the entire multilateral decisionmaking process of kyoto and copenhagen has no underlying raison d'etre or functional, let alone moral, purpose. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
the bbc announcement, aptly entitled, "what happened to global warming?" merely confirmed prins' view that there has never been any demonstrable climactic change since, after all, "climates change. that's what they do."
...
on the CAN front, which is the reason you're reading this blog : ), we've been having a banner week, signing up the chairman of LegCo, Tsang Yuk Shing, and enlisting the support of DC members in Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long and Wong Tai Sin.
Here are some notes from our community outreach manager:
"'sharing of the costs of cleaning up the air pollution' is the number one concern for most DC members of all political parties. In Yuen Long, the independent DC members blast the gov't public consultation paper for only asking the public to bear the costs. In Wong Tai Sin 10 DAB members have drafted a letter to the EPD demanding the gov't and the bus companies and powerplants to bear the costs as well and a timeline for implementation of those 19 measures to reduce emissions. One Liberal Party DC member (same party as Miriam Lau) said that his party understands that the Transport industry definitely has to bear some costs but the transport industry will not agree to bear too much cost. His party suggests that the gov't should provide some tax exemption or other measures to bring down the costs of the transport industry. They are still collecting public opinion on the cost sharing issue and conducting research on the best way to reduce emission from buses and trucks. However, the Liberal Party is definitely defending the interests of the transport industry. They are not willing to shorten the length of the usage of a bus because this will not be economical to the bus companies. In fact, they are suggesting to use some filter equipment to filter the emissions from buses and trucks instead of replacing bus fleet.
Another thing to be noted is that we have been receiving feedback from DC members saying that the objective of our campaign is too vague. For example, Tsang Yuk Shing asked about our stance on the cost sharing issue. When I replied to him we are open to any options and our only objective is to clean up air pollution, he questioned the effectiveness of such a vague goal. Some other DC members have raised the same point.
We need to have our own stance otherwise people don't know what we want the government to do. It is too vague just to say we want clean air. We are campaigning for a social cause and we definitely have to have a stance on policy."
We've just completed a zoomerang survey on precisely this issue. 500 people responded, so we will tabulate responses on this particular question and come up with a policy position in a few weeks. one thing is obvious already, though, IT WOULD BE SOCIALLY INEQUITABLE IF THE BUS COMPANIES WERE PERMITTED TO GET OFF SCOTT FREE WHILE BUS RIDERS AND THE PUBLIC PURSE HAD TO PAY!
thats CAN's baseline position!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
launching this blog....
today marks my first day blogging for clean air network, http://www.hongkongcan.org/, considering that we're building what i hope will become the premier cause-related social media marketing platform in hong kong, it's become obvious that a personal, idiosyncratic voice can only help build the audience. our facebook group, at 7000 pax, http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/cleanairnetwork?ref=ts
is becoming a major force, but it does tend to be a bit dry and corporatized because of size limitations. i'm going to use my blog to give a bit more flavor to what CAN is doing, replete with personal observations.
....
last week, i attended blogfest asia, http://www.blogfest.asia/, and was touched by the green bloggers i spoke alongside: two of them were involved with the spontaneous creation of SMM platforms which replaced the official media in taiwan and the philippines as sources of emergency information for millions of people during the recent typhoon catastrophes. it was such an honor to even sit next to such people. being an SMM neophyte and blog-virgin, i learned a lot from just listening to their ppt presentations! when it comes to SMM, it pays to have humility and ask those, "duh, what's that?" questions. i also met a bunch of charles mok's (young) friends who, to my surprise and delight, were enthusiastic about helping me spread the word about air pollution on facebook, plurk, internet radio, all over. it's at times like those that my core belief in the power of the individual is rejuvenated. so many hong kongers are cynical and disaffected when it comes to issues falling outside their personal obsessions. aside from the blogging, blogfest was inspiring because everyone in that room was a champion of democracy and believes in the power of the lone individual. it's another reason i started blogging today.
...
today, i have to moderate a climate change lunch for intelligence squared asia, http://www.intelligencesquared.asia/, with 4 of the world's top environmentalists, sunita narain, eric bettelheim, gwyn prins and christine loh. i'm not an expert on climate change, only air pollution, so i've had to get up to speed in the past two days. thank GOD for wikipedia! and, even then, i'm hanging on to the topic by my fingernails. on the other hand, i let my friend press me into service for this lunch precisely because i wanted to (be forced to) read more about this crucial topic. for that matter, it's the same reason i decided to become ceo of CAN -- it forces me to master air pollution, smm, ngo politics and everything in between - all on the fly.
...
i have no idea if i'm going to blog every day, but i'm certainly going to try.
is becoming a major force, but it does tend to be a bit dry and corporatized because of size limitations. i'm going to use my blog to give a bit more flavor to what CAN is doing, replete with personal observations.
....
last week, i attended blogfest asia, http://www.blogfest.asia/, and was touched by the green bloggers i spoke alongside: two of them were involved with the spontaneous creation of SMM platforms which replaced the official media in taiwan and the philippines as sources of emergency information for millions of people during the recent typhoon catastrophes. it was such an honor to even sit next to such people. being an SMM neophyte and blog-virgin, i learned a lot from just listening to their ppt presentations! when it comes to SMM, it pays to have humility and ask those, "duh, what's that?" questions. i also met a bunch of charles mok's (young) friends who, to my surprise and delight, were enthusiastic about helping me spread the word about air pollution on facebook, plurk, internet radio, all over. it's at times like those that my core belief in the power of the individual is rejuvenated. so many hong kongers are cynical and disaffected when it comes to issues falling outside their personal obsessions. aside from the blogging, blogfest was inspiring because everyone in that room was a champion of democracy and believes in the power of the lone individual. it's another reason i started blogging today.
...
today, i have to moderate a climate change lunch for intelligence squared asia, http://www.intelligencesquared.asia/, with 4 of the world's top environmentalists, sunita narain, eric bettelheim, gwyn prins and christine loh. i'm not an expert on climate change, only air pollution, so i've had to get up to speed in the past two days. thank GOD for wikipedia! and, even then, i'm hanging on to the topic by my fingernails. on the other hand, i let my friend press me into service for this lunch precisely because i wanted to (be forced to) read more about this crucial topic. for that matter, it's the same reason i decided to become ceo of CAN -- it forces me to master air pollution, smm, ngo politics and everything in between - all on the fly.
...
i have no idea if i'm going to blog every day, but i'm certainly going to try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
