Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority recently released the results of its climate risk stress test for the banking sector, as rising sea levels imperil mortgaged properties. The test, conducted on 27 banks in January 2021, asked them, among other things, to assess the physical risk to buildings in their lending portfolio, such as from typhoons and floods. Based on climate projections, banks calculated that their one-year expected credit loss on property-related lending could surge to HK$17.3 billion (US$2.2 billion) by the middle of the 21st century, from HK$0.7 billion. Despite the enormous risks, the HKMA concluded that the city’s banking sector remained resilient with strong capital buffers . We have serious reservations about the assessment results. For starters, the impact of rising sea levels on market perception of property prices was not taken into account, which could mean that credit losses were severely underestimated. Also, the HKMA did not release the list of buildings at risk, making it impossible for third-party auditors to verify the results. Finally, the HKMA, in preparing its report, did not appear to be talking to the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), which is planning climate mitigation measures for the city. Last May, the CEDD released a feasibility study on measures to address coastal hazards. It identified 26 low-lying residential coastal areas as being at higher risk from rising sea levels. Notably, the CEDD report used the medium greenhouse gas emissions scenario described by the UN climate change panel while the HKMA report used the high emissions scenario. In response to our enquiries, the CEDD said the medium-level assumption was made to “avoid implementation of large-scale mitigation measures prematurely”. Given the high stakes, neither the HKMA nor the CEDD is the appropriate authority to decide how to predict the risks of climate disaster and protect Hong Kong residents and their properties. The Office of the Chief Executive should form a steering committee on climate preparedness to review the work of both the HKMA and CEDD, and formulate the most suitable policies to protect the community. Tsoi Hang-ki, Wong Hui-shun and Wong Ki-chi, Kowloon Tong Make sure litterbugs don’t get away with it I refer to “Hong Kong weighs doubling of fines for littering and similar offences to HK$3,000 in bid to boost deterrence” ( December 7 ). While increasing the fines may serve as a deterrent, more effort should be put into enforcement. The Environment and Ecology Bureau proposes doubling the fine for offences including littering to HK$3,000 (US$380), in light of poor hygiene in public spaces. An increase in penalties for shopfront extensions and illegal dumping of construction waste to HK$6,000 is also being considered. I welcome the proposal. It is not uncommon to see solid waste piling up in public places. According to the authorities, the number of fixed-penalty tickets for “obstruction in public places” increased sharply from 7,600 in 2019 to to 14,900 in 2021. There is an urgent need to strengthen the deterrent. Yet, enforcement remains the key. There is no point in doubling the penalty if the offenders are going to get away. I call on the government to strengthen law enforcement, including the use of surveillance cameras to monitor hygiene black spots and ensure police have enough evidence to charge violators. Gu Cheak-kai, Sha Tin
