To clean up air pollution, should we be doing more of the same - that is, taking an incremental approach - or making a change in direction? Going down the same path but doing more is fine if the course is right. After all, we cannot do everything in one fell swoop. But if the steering is off, then a directional adjustment is needed.
According to results of a survey released on Monday, the majority of 81,000 Hong Kong respondents would be willing to pay more for transport in return for cleaner air. This should surprise no one; poor air quality has bothered Hongkongers for many years.
The issue is: which things does the government want people to pay more for? Let's take roadside air pollution as a point of discussion. It is not only appallingly high, but has become almost a normal condition. If the public paid more for public transport, would that improve roadside air quality?
Would higher transport costs go towards subsidies to build more rail lines? Or to encourage operators of buses and light buses to replace old vehicles earlier with less-polluting models? How would commercial trucks be dealt with, since they spew out the highest amount of polluting emissions?
Taxis and many light buses have already converted to LPG; new vehicles must have Euro-IV-standard engines; and only ultra-low-sulfur diesel is available. But those measures have not been nearly enough to clean up roadside air pollution. Thus, doing more of the same - pushing new vehicles to have Euro-V-standard engines, and using even cleaner fuels when they become available - will not make much difference if Hong Kong's old vehicles are not replaced.
How can we make owners replace their vehicles? The government has already announced a public subsidy scheme - the 'carrot'. But there's no 'stick' unless owners are given a deadline, in the near future, for replacing the most polluting vehicles.