So, a healthy environment is just an 'aspirational goal'. At least, this is what a new government paper tells us. While the administration accepts that the World Health Organisation's air-quality guidelines are the 'most authoritative' to minimise the risk of air pollution to public health, our political leaders do not actually see them as goals to be attained. This is dangerous thinking.
Does the government believe Hong Kong can ever reach the WHO's standards and, if so, how and when? What does it need to do to make large improvements to our air quality?
We all know that we cannot get there in one day, or even a year, but when can the community look forward to a much healthier environment with better air quality? Just how high a priority does our government give such an aspiration?
Just imagine if our government were to declare that its goal was to achieve the WHO standards within a decade and spelled out the policy changes needed to do so. Such a plan for change would become a powerful instrument to galvanise public support and bring on side vested interests in the power and transport sectors.
Yes, it will cost money, but the government would have done its homework to show the multiple benefits that arise from a healthier community, technological advances and a more pleasant city. Like elsewhere in the world where this has happened, the community wins all around.
Cleaning up the air is good for the economy, good for tourism and good for a city's reputation because its people are healthier. It's that simple. Alas, the government still resists this way of seeing its duty. Officials say the WHO standards have not been adopted anywhere in full. That is true. In some cases, there are jurisdictions where some aspects of the standards are tighter than what the WHO requires, such as with sulfur dioxide in Europe.
Another reason is that the new WHO guidelines were only put forward in 2006 and governments are mulling them over. But they are clearly already having an effect around the world. It has even made our officials hot and bothered. The government must contend with the tighter standards because they reflect the state of health science. There is no argument that they are the 'most authoritative'. The issue is what we do with them.