The sounds of the bell that rung in the New Year, January 1, may still reverberate in many shopping malls and department stores. But many companies and organizations have already started carrying out their plans for the New Year in the year's first working week. Commentators and critics have been sifting through a number of issues from a long list of possibilities.

I believe that, in 2012, Hong Kong's leaders should pay greater attention to the city’s environmental standards, especially in terms of air quality. Many reports in the media have already called for more attention to the environment in the past, almost to the point at which gripes about pollution have become a cliche. As an issue that can have a huge impact on the health of millions and the overall social development of the city, this topic cannot be over-emphasized.

The scale of pollution across the border is well-known, as is the growing backlash against it. People on the mainland have been fervently urging the authorities to include in daily air quality reports PM 2.5 (a finer particle, whose diameter is less than 2.5 microns and is easily inhaled. Accumulation of the particle can cause health problems). However, some in Hong Kong may be surprised (and distressed) to learn that they often suffer through air pollution similar to that of the mainland.

According to the Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong's roadside pollution levels last year were the worst ever. Days with pollution levels exceeding 100 (where at least one pollutant exceeded the safety level) occurred more than 20 percent of the time in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Nitrogen dioxide was recorded at a historically high level, and is often cited as the major cause behind worsening air quality. A study by “Clear the Air” has revealed the astonishing fact that the intensity of nitrogen dioxide in Hong Kong is the second worst amongst all 31 major Chinese cities.

The government’s response to this latest environmental revelation offers nothing new, apart from the usual evasion. According to the Environment Bureau, the main causes of Hong Kong's less than satisfactory air quality were rare climate phenomena such as decreased rainfall, and increased formation of photochemical smog (blamed on increased sunshine). If the government maintains its evasive attitude towards enforcing stricter standards, the cost to our quality of life and economy could be prohibitively high.

The current air quality standard in Hong Kong was formally introduced in 1987 under the “Air Pollution Control Ordinance”. However, despite years of implementation and public consultation, the ordinance has not been revamped or amended. Its standards for safety make Hong Kong uncompetitive in terms of air quality, especially when compared with other developed economies.

Japan, with its very limited land and high population density, is a good point of comparison in terms of environmental policies. The standard for air quality in Japan is much higher than Hong Kong’s: while Japan views a level of sulfur dioxide above 105 micrograms per cubic meter as dangerous, Hong Kong only views a level higher than 350 micrograms unsafe. Japan’s safety standard for fine particles (pm 10) is almost twice as strict as Hong Kong's. Even worse is Hong Kong’s lack of a standard for measuring pm 2.5, commonly monitored in other developed economies.

This neglect has likely had serious repercussions for the overall health of Hong Kong, vis-a-vis the developed world. The respiratory illnesses that arise from pollution are preventable ailments whose reduction would save much in terms of health costs, let alone productive hours lost due to ill health.

But if that is not enough for action, then the realization that Hong Kong's failure to enact stricter environmental standards is beginning to dissuade some foreigners, who bring much needed talent and wealth to Hong Kong, from taking positions here. Hong Kong's air pollution puts it at a disadvantage to other cities in the market for international talent.

Throughout China’s economic development, when the mainland had yet to achieve the economic results of today, people in Hong Kong used to feel some contempt for the mainland’s lack of material affluence. When the mainland's economic vigor began to exceed Hong Kong’s, the same people focused on the high economic costs of the mainland’s development. Hong Kong people could still feel condescension towards the mainlanders’ “ignorance” of sustainability. Mainlanders seemed to be regarded as “primitive economic animals” who would accept any costs so long as growth increased.

However, if people on the mainland are working to set an even stricter environmental standard than Hong Kong, what prestige, or moral superiority, can the people in Hong Kong justifiably retain?


Published 11.1.2012
China Daily

The author is former Secretary for Home Affairs of the Hong Kong SAR Government.