Time we realised only laws can clear the air ...
All sorts of schemes have been put forward over the years to improve Hong Kong's air quality. Apart from a handful of rules on clean vehicle fuel, they've been voluntary, relying on education, incentives and goodwill to reduce pollution levels. With roadside conditions in the busiest districts worsening and skies still grey on many days, the drawbacks to this approach are apparent. It's time to end faith in self-regulation and put laws in place.
Our government seems to see legislating for clean air as problematic. Minimal market interference is its overarching guideline for policymaking. It also doesn't want to fall into greater community disfavour. Environment Secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah is well aware of what is needed to make air healthier, yet is equally mindful that whatever solutions are offered should have low financial and social impacts. That's why volunteerism is turned to time and again. It's why the majority of our electricity is still produced by burning coal and oil rather than natural gas, ships and ferries use highly polluting bunker oil, tens of thousands of old diesel trucks and buses are still on our roads and vehicles are allowed to remain parked with engines idling. There are more private cars than ever; building roads, bridges and tunnels for them remains a cornerstone of the government's development strategy. Unsurprisingly, we're seeing little improvement in air quality and, by some measures, such as the volume of fine pollutant particles produced by diesel engines, it's worsening at the roadside level.
But inconsequential, inadequate measures lead to irresponsibility. Sometimes it is driven by a hunger for profit, sometimes by ignorance. We need to be sensitive to small businesses, but with most of the commercial vehicles on our roads owned by big corporations there's a point where sensitivity becomes undue generosity. Clean air is necessary for our health and livelihood - no matter the cost, it goes before all else.
There are, of course, people and companies who are highly responsible. The Danish shipping firm Maersk Line has decided all its vessels will use low-sulphur fuel oil when at anchor and berthed at Kwai Chung container port. It is the first company to voluntarily make the change in Asia and has to be commended for the decision. Switching from heavy fuel oil for Hong Kong trips will cost about US$1 million a year, but the benefits will be considerable: sulphur dioxide emissions from its ships will be drop by 80 per cent and particulate counts will be lower. Standard Chartered Bank is behind a campaign to encourage companies and drivers to take their vehicles off the streets one day a month. The bank and green groups hope that at least 45 companies and more than 400,000 private owners will join. If so, carbon emissions will fall by a minimum of 660 tonnes. It is a starting point: as welcome as the effort is, it will have a negligible long-term impact.
These initiatives show the right spirit, but they are not the solution. Individuals will make scant difference to our air and skies. If there is to be improvement, we all have to be working together. That will require legislation that gives no wiggle room and imposes meaningful penalties on offenders. As increasing numbers of governments have decreed, vessels using our waters must use low-sulphur fuel. Electronic road pricing, not volunteerism, should regulate traffic. Old, polluting vehicles have to be outlawed. Our power companies should cut back on the use of coal. These are the practices we need; they'll only come about with laws.
