Green groups have expressed disappointment at the government's document for air-quality objectives, saying it fails to provide useful data, lay down a clear timetable or offer cross-boundary solutions to the problem.
'I don't think the public would get sufficient data from the document to make an informed decision and forge a consensus,' said Edwin Lau Che-feng, director of Friends of the Earth.
The estimated costs for some measures were based on many assumptions, and might not reflect the real cost, he said. And while the list contained overall costs for certain measures, individuals such as car owners had no idea how much it would cost to replace their vehicles.
He was surprised to find nothing on cross-boundary co-operation to address regional pollution, which the document attributed as a reason to forgo more aggressive objectives.
Mike Kilburn, of Civic Exchange, was also disappointed and doubted the proposals would lead to any improvement. He said they failed to take into account the real health costs of air pollution when calculating the costs of the proposals. 'There is also no timeline offered and that means there is no accountability.'