Ask an obvious question and you can expect an obvious answer. The nine raised by the Environment Bureau in its consultation document on climate change will probably draw only one response: yes, we don't want weather conditions to worsen, so will gladly support carbon emission targets. But getting that predetermined response does not really push us forward on the pressing matter of ridding our streets and skies of air pollution.
Environment secretary Edward Yau Tang-wah thinks otherwise. Nuclear power, electric and hybrid vehicles and green buildings are mentioned among ways of bringing down carbon emissions by between one-fifth and one-third of 2005 levels by 2020. He speaks of companies and people joining hands to make it happen. That will be a tall order given the lack of specifics in the consultation paper.
And yet the way forward seems plain. As the document points out, 67 per cent of carbon emissions come from our two power plants and 18 per cent from transport. With more than half of our electricity being produced by burning highly polluting coal, old diesel buses and trucks behind poor roadside air quality readings, ships and ferries in our waters using bunker oil and recycling schemes rudimentary, it does not seem like this is rocket science - or nuclear science. We need laws, rules and regulations. The government does not wholly see it this way. It has mostly opted for volunteerism driven by incentives and business opportunities. The message is that no one will be out of pocket. Instead, we will get blue skies and healthy air again by schemes that provide jobs and economic growth. By pulling together, we will all benefit.
There is nothing guaranteed about such an approach. While the three-month consultation speaks of targets, the penalties for not meeting them are not made clear. The logic is that companies and individuals will have smaller electricity bills by using technology and resources better. That, in turn, means power stations will burn less coal, while gradually switching to natural gas and nuclear energy. Electric and biofuel vehicles will one day replace diesel ones; how and when is not specified. Changes are already under way, of course. Corporate responsibility is forcing our power companies to shift their fuel mix towards natural gas. The government has proposed fuel caps for 2015 that, if approved by lawmakers, should be easily attainable. Consultants are helping firms make significant savings with environmentally friendly lighting and cooling systems. Increasing numbers of us are doing the right thing.
And so we should. Research has shown air pollution is behind at least 800 premature deaths and 8,000 hospital admissions each year. It drives away tourists, students, investors, innovators, skilled workers and, most damaging of all, residents. Such a threat should be treated with the utmost concern - something that still does not seem to be happening. Yau and others in the government push legislation only as a last resort. While the difficulties of passing laws cannot be underestimated, letting the problem persist and even worsen is not a model of the kind of leadership that we need.
Temperatures are rising, but whether climatic extremes like storms are the product of global warming, and how much of that is caused by carbon emissions remains a topic of debate. Regardless, developed economies have an obligation to do their best to lower levels. In Hong Kong's case, we have the added incentive that by doing so, our air will become cleaner. Laws are the best way to make this happen.