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!
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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)
