Yesterday's New York Times' Green Inc. article redeems that paper's previous coverage of Hong Kong's air pollution problem. The article previous to yesterday's was, to our view, one-sided and irresponsible because, by reprinting verbatim the comments of an official EPD spokesperson without remarks from any other concerned parties, readers were given the impression that Hong Kong's air pollution is not THAT bad. Of course, you can imagine that, considering the stature and authority of the NY Times, we considered such an article downright dangerous. Anyway, we were hugely relieved to see the RIGHT FACTS about Hong Kong air pollution published yesterday. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ TODAY'S NY TIMES ARTICLE PLUS THE ARTICLE WHICH TRIGGERED IT.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/author/reenita-malhotra-hora/
Below, too, is our original full rebuttal of Eva Wong's statement to the NY Times, from which they chose today's quotes. After reading it, you will understand why we found the EPD's statements so grossly disingenuous --
"My first reaction to the EPD's response is that the entire thing is, by definition, a load of bunkum because their responses are based on defending the numerous exceedances of the HK API which permits levels far in excess of those recommended by the WHO. The WHO Air Quality Guidelines were expressly formulated to protect public health. In their statement accompanying the announcement of the latest guideline revision (2006), the WHO made it clear that adverse impacts to human health are being found at ever lower levels of air pollution and that, in the case of respirable particles, for example, there are no levels below which harm to human health has not been found. Thus, in the medical-scientific community, these guidelines are considered the minimum acceptable standards for protecting public health. Even then, the WHO does not consider the observance of the AQGs as some sort of magic shield against harm to human health.
Hong Kong's present Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) severely lag the WHO's Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs). Whereas HK's 24-hour AQO for SO2 is 350 micrograms per cubic meter, the WHO AQG is 20; HK's PM10 AQO(24-hour) is 180 while the WHO's AQG is 50. The annual average guideline for NO2 is 80 in HK and 40 under the WHO.
Hong Kong's current AQOs have not been revised since 1987. Obviously, epidemiological and community medicine research on the health impacts of air pollution have evolved considerably since then. The present regime is sadly outdated.Regarding the EPD's citation of other countries' standards as a benchmark against which to judge Hong Kong's, I have three points to make. First, in the case of air pollution and protecting public health, comparison between nations is less important than assessment of standards based on the latest medical research. By these standards, the present AQOs permit 1100 avoidable deaths per year.Second, let's compare the actual air quality of other cities against HK's. In 2006, Hong Kong's air was 3x more polluted than New York's and 1.7x dirtier than Singapore's. Third, when it comes to fighting air pollution, the attitude of the Hong Kong Government bears no resemblance to, say, America's. Obama has granted broad remit to the EPA to tighten air quality standards during his term. Just this past month, the EPA has proposed a tougher standard for ozone as well as significant limitations on emissions from large marine vessels which will have far-reaching health and economic benefits for the American people, despite their short-term cost of several billion dollars. The EPA's proposals were no doubt based on a recognition of the latest scientific and medical research and made in spite of opposition from vested interests in the business community.
As for reductions in roadside emissions cited by the EPD spokesperson, over the period of 1997-2008, according to Professor AJ Hedley, one of the world's leading air pollution experts, the cumulative reduction for PM was only 12.3%. Roadside levels during this period were about 3.5 times above the WHO-recommended levels. At that rate, PM would not diminish to acceptable levels before 2040.
Regarding the EPD's answer to the question, Is it true that the air pollution in Hong Kong is already so consistently dangerous that the threshold for severe harm to human health is exceeded almost every day? Note that the EPD spokesperson did not actually answer this question. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is "YES"! Remember that it is roadside emissions which impact human health the most. One ton of PM or NOx being emitted at face-level is obviously much more concentrated than the same amount being emitted 100 feet up in the air by a coal-fired power plant. The recently unveiled HKUST study showed dangerously high levels of streetside emissions in all 6 of the districts surveyed, with actual levels between 2-3 times the WHO AQGs. Even by the Government's own very lax standards, roadside pollution violated the API danger level of 100 in Central district 1 of every 8 days. Note that Hong Kong only measures roadside pollution in 3 of its 18 districts! The HKUST study found that the highest level of roadside pollution was in a district without any official government roadside monitoring station -- Wanchai.Regarding the EPD's attempt to downplay Hong Kong's toxic levels of roadside emissions by judging their level against an annual average, the harms of air pollution do not vary in a direct linear relationship to the level of pollutants. Exceedances over a certain level, such as the WHO AQGs, trigger a disproportionate increase in adverse health effects."
Showing posts with label clean air network. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clean air network. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
BLOG: THOMAS FRIEDMAN, HK'S CARBON FOOTPRINT & BUMPING INTO EDWARD YAU
***CO2 emissions and climate change ARE integrally related to energy use and transport emissions. HOWEVER, they are not inherently harmful to health. thus, as a rule, CO2 emissions are NOT treated as an air pollutant governed by HK's Air Pollution Control Ordinance and neither should they be, since the dominating principle of the APCO should be the protection of public health from the immediate, direct, adverse health impacts of air pollution. HOWEVER, from time to time, I may mention CO2 emissions because it's of interest to CAN's environmentally minded audience.
today, i was lucky enough to be invited to the inauguration of HK University of Science and Technology's NEW Division of Environment. BRAVO! thomas friedman, the brilliant american author and commentator, was invited to give the inaugural speech. edward yau, secretary of the environment, was also there to preside over the inauguration of the school.
the main course was friedman's abbreviated exposition of his seminal book, hot, flat and crowded, which states the case for why a green technology revolution is 1) good business; 2) indispensable to saving human civilization and 3) necessarily predicated on visionary government leadership -- the sort made impossible by a broken, sclerotic, pork-barreling democracy such as the US'. (i am a huge fan and brought my personal copy for his signing. i'm not someone who typically falls into the category of "fan", but i couldn't help myself in this extremely rare case : )) the main point of friedman's book is to point out the severe deficiencies of american political-environmental leadership resulting from its hamstrung political structure (something he terms a "one-party democracy"), while shining light on the path forward (price signals which afford investors in clean technology a stable predictable economic environment within which to recoup their investments over the medium- to long-term, family planning, a mentality of conservation, etc.)
the failure of leadership we see in the HK government, to date, is largely the result of our stillborn hybrid political system which defeats most notions of political accountability. whereas american legislation, such as the recent health bill, is customarily riddled with obvious instances of chit-trading, the end result is the same: policies and laws which are toothless and hardly up to their originally intended purpose. as edward yau aptly pointed out, only "huge public pressure" will bring green changes to our city. it would be, after all, a laughable pipe dream to believe that we could rely on the vision and courage of donald tsang! so my work is cut out for me!
....
at the end, there was a rather dry panel discussion. but it was relieved by some interesting factoids adduced by edward yau about hong kong's carbon footprint. in hk, 63% of all carbon emissions come from buildings, whereas 16% (only) come from vehicles. for comparison, those numbers are 40% and 30% respectively in the US. the comparatively low proportion of emissions attributable to vehicles in HK is due to the (literally)unrivaled efficiency of HK's public transport system which is responsible for 90% of all passenger trips. another fact: there are 500,000 "cars" in hk and 40,000 buildings according to yau. while i'm very proud of hk's public transport efficiency, i am appalled by the dirtiness of the comparatively few diesel vehicles hk has: 100,000 are causing the life-threatening levels of roadside pollution we experience almost every day! anyway, for more on that, you can read my blog post entitled "beware of red herrings" from a few days back.
...
at the end, i chatted with yau, who told me that the new air quality numbers for hk would be coming out shortly. he was pleased to report that the 2009 numbers showed some improvement over 2008. i'm glad he mentioned it so we can prepare the refutation NOW for what will undoubtedly be a self-congratulating press release about these figures. not to launch into a full court press rebuttal now, but it's crazy to take solace from such numbers when a recent study demonstrated extremely dangerous levels of roadside pollution one out of every 8 days in highly trafficked districts and emissions levels consistently 2-3 times those metered at official govt monitoring stations. i also asked yau about the engine idling ordinance and the timing of its introduction. he told me "i'm still working on some back room stuff" but apparently it should be introduced soon. i asked him to give us a head's up so we can mobilize public opinion to assist the ordinance's passage in legco this year. on that, boy oh boy, do we have some interesting stuff planned! just watch this space!
---
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
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/
today, i was lucky enough to be invited to the inauguration of HK University of Science and Technology's NEW Division of Environment. BRAVO! thomas friedman, the brilliant american author and commentator, was invited to give the inaugural speech. edward yau, secretary of the environment, was also there to preside over the inauguration of the school.
the main course was friedman's abbreviated exposition of his seminal book, hot, flat and crowded, which states the case for why a green technology revolution is 1) good business; 2) indispensable to saving human civilization and 3) necessarily predicated on visionary government leadership -- the sort made impossible by a broken, sclerotic, pork-barreling democracy such as the US'. (i am a huge fan and brought my personal copy for his signing. i'm not someone who typically falls into the category of "fan", but i couldn't help myself in this extremely rare case : )) the main point of friedman's book is to point out the severe deficiencies of american political-environmental leadership resulting from its hamstrung political structure (something he terms a "one-party democracy"), while shining light on the path forward (price signals which afford investors in clean technology a stable predictable economic environment within which to recoup their investments over the medium- to long-term, family planning, a mentality of conservation, etc.)
the failure of leadership we see in the HK government, to date, is largely the result of our stillborn hybrid political system which defeats most notions of political accountability. whereas american legislation, such as the recent health bill, is customarily riddled with obvious instances of chit-trading, the end result is the same: policies and laws which are toothless and hardly up to their originally intended purpose. as edward yau aptly pointed out, only "huge public pressure" will bring green changes to our city. it would be, after all, a laughable pipe dream to believe that we could rely on the vision and courage of donald tsang! so my work is cut out for me!
....
at the end, there was a rather dry panel discussion. but it was relieved by some interesting factoids adduced by edward yau about hong kong's carbon footprint. in hk, 63% of all carbon emissions come from buildings, whereas 16% (only) come from vehicles. for comparison, those numbers are 40% and 30% respectively in the US. the comparatively low proportion of emissions attributable to vehicles in HK is due to the (literally)unrivaled efficiency of HK's public transport system which is responsible for 90% of all passenger trips. another fact: there are 500,000 "cars" in hk and 40,000 buildings according to yau. while i'm very proud of hk's public transport efficiency, i am appalled by the dirtiness of the comparatively few diesel vehicles hk has: 100,000 are causing the life-threatening levels of roadside pollution we experience almost every day! anyway, for more on that, you can read my blog post entitled "beware of red herrings" from a few days back.
...
at the end, i chatted with yau, who told me that the new air quality numbers for hk would be coming out shortly. he was pleased to report that the 2009 numbers showed some improvement over 2008. i'm glad he mentioned it so we can prepare the refutation NOW for what will undoubtedly be a self-congratulating press release about these figures. not to launch into a full court press rebuttal now, but it's crazy to take solace from such numbers when a recent study demonstrated extremely dangerous levels of roadside pollution one out of every 8 days in highly trafficked districts and emissions levels consistently 2-3 times those metered at official govt monitoring stations. i also asked yau about the engine idling ordinance and the timing of its introduction. he told me "i'm still working on some back room stuff" but apparently it should be introduced soon. i asked him to give us a head's up so we can mobilize public opinion to assist the ordinance's passage in legco this year. on that, boy oh boy, do we have some interesting stuff planned! just watch this space!
---
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
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/
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)
