Clean Air Network (Joanne Ooi)

New Post: Replacing old buses, rather than route rationalization, is the key to cleaning up roadside emissions

2010-01-23T17:42:00.000-08:00

CAN attended Friday’s Legco meeting between the Environmental and Transport Panels regarding the Transport Department’s proposal to rationalize bus routes in order to reduce air pollution. The objective of Friday’s meeting was to permit LegCo members to air their views on the proposal.

Here’s a recap of what was said by the 11 LegCo members who spoke today:

Every LegCo member with the exception of Miriam Lau (Transport Constituency) made the point that it was unacceptable for service and routes to be cut unless bus passengers were given SIGNIFICANT incentives to accept the resulting inconvenience. By “significant”, Kam Na Wai cited an example which suggested that an average fare concession of 25% would be reasonable if a bus rider was forced to make a transfer and wait an additional 15 minutes because of changes resulting from rationalization. By the same reasoning, any fare increase would be “totally unacceptable”, said Wong Kwok-Hing. The plight of the grassroots bus passenger was underscored by Wong and Andrew Cheng Kar-Foo. The former pointed out that these bus riders, who customarily spend hours every day commuting, were loath to give up point-to-point service because it would deprive them of, say, their ability to nap during the trip.

Considering the uncertain benefits and checkered results of the last set of rationalizations which took place from 2004-2009, Kam Na Wai pointed out that we should not overemphasize the gains to be made through rationalization. Rather, we should keep our eye firmly on the more effective method of reducing air pollution, early replacement of old buses.

As expected, several LegCo members emphasized the crucial importance of getting District Councils on board in advance of suggesting route or service reductions. Since the 1990s, District Councils have been the single greatest obstacle to bus route rationalization. In keeping with their raison d’etre, DCs fiercely protect the interests of their constituents. However as Cyd Ho Sau-lan pointed out, reductions should not be across the board but more finely tuned, with different districts requiring different approaches at different hours of the day. For that matter, Albert Chan Wai-Yip criticized the Government for not doing its homework, blasting the customary DC briefing paper on route rationalization as hopelessly inadequate because it fails to detail the specific proposals for each district. In an interesting twist of the argument, which reflects her base of support (i.e., the bus companies), Miriam Lau of the Transport Constituency said it would be good if districts tried to compete against each other for environmental benefits based on differential rationalization plans. Presumably, the implication of her suggestion (or, rather, hope) was that District Councillors might be motivated to approve greater cuts in service if they could show constituents that their district had netted more environmental benefits than other districts. Lau is LegCo’s greatest champion of rationalization, of course, since unnecessary excess bus capacity is economically inefficient for bus companies. “We have been fighting for greater efficiency for ten years,” she declared.

In contrast to Lau’s comments championing the cause of the bus companies, Gary Chan Hak-Kan asked, “Why is it the public who is always asked to pay? Why aren’t the bus companies being asked to pay?” Similarly, Cyd Ho commented, “The Transport Department’s LegCo paper seems like it’s been written by the bus companies.”

Well, to be perfectly honest, YES, it DOES seem that way! By the way, here is the actual paper, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/english/panels/ea/papers/eatp0122cb1-916-1-e.pdf

Since the issue of bus route rationalization is arguably THE most controversial measure in the Government’s proposed package of 19 air pollution abatement measures, it is crucial to state CAN’s position clearly:

First, let’s not lose the forest for the trees: Kam Na Wai was totally correct to point out that the Government’s last rationalization effort was "unsuccessful". Thus, it remains imperative to clean up the bus fleet through the mandatory early replacement of buses. (At the close of the meeting, the Chairman of the Environment Panel requested more information about the exact environmental benefits of phasing out the oldest, most polluting buses. The Transport Department and EPD are slated to report back in May 2010. At that time, the two departments will also submit detailed proposals for each district, providing full information about affected routes, costs, suggested concessions and environmental benefits.) Bus route rationalization APPEARS to be the lowest hanging fruit, because it doesn’t require bus companies to incur capital investments, but, based on past experience, it’s obvious that bus route rationalization is arduous and uncertain. At best, rationalization, even if gets done within 5 years, will net marginal benefits.

Next, we agree that the bus rider – ESPECIALLY the grassroots bus rider – must NOT be asked to bear the price of rationalization through higher bus fares. Remember, air pollution is a social justice issue, with the adverse health impacts of air pollution falling disproportionately on the members of society who can least afford medical care or relocation already. Small increases in bus fares for this group can have dramatic, adverse consequences on their livelihood. Moreover, it is true that this bus rider is already penalized by having to spend hours per day commuting. Grassroots bus riders SHOULD be fairly compensated through concessionary fares or free bus service for accepting the inconvenience of rationalization. A fair concession would be something along the lines mentioned by Kam Na Wai, 15-25%.

At the same time, we do support the Transport Department’s rationalization of routes duplicative of railway service and routes in the most highly trafficked areas.

At the end of the day, CAN will focus its efforts on those measures which will result in the most health benefit to the public. Thus, we will continue to strongly emphasize early replacement of old buses over bus route rationalization. While we do support a reduction in buses on those corridors blighted with the most roadside emissions, we consider widespread rationalization to be somewhat beside the point. If confronted with the choice, we would be willing to dispense with rationalization entirely if we could have cleaner buses on Hong Kong’s roads. We would make that choice any day. And we continue to believe that this is the RIGHT and best choice for the Hong Kong people.

Below is a list of the LegCo members who spoke at Friday’s meeting. Where they made some interesting additional remarks, I included them next to their name:

Name: WONG Kwok-hing
Functional/Geographic: NT West
Political affiliation: FTU
Rationalization resulting in ANY increase of fares will not be tolerated; it will be impossible to "steamroll" DCs on this.

Name: Andrew CHENG Kar-foo
Functional/Geographic: NT East
Political affiliation: Democratic Party
A long time proponent of sectional fares -- fares payable according to distance/stops -- he talked about why especially now they would prevent wasted bus capacity.

Name: KAM Nai-wai
Functional/Geographic: HK Island
Political affiliation: Democratic Party

Name: LI Fung-ying
Functional/Geographic: Labour
Political affiliation: HKFLU
What about bus drivers? During the last round of rationalization, 300 buses (and jobs) were lost. Any rationalization plan must study the consequences on the labor force.

Name: WONG Yung-kan
Functional/Geographic: Agriculture and Fisheries
Political affiliation: DAB
She made the point that, as more and more people move to the New Territories, there will be more, not less, demand for point-to-point service. It is the vehicles which are the problem, rather than the service. (We agree, of course!)

Name: Miriam LAU Kin-yee
Functional/Geographic: Transport
Political affiliation: Liberal Party
Besides her remarks above, she repeatedly emphasized the importance of knowing the specific environmental benefits to each district.

Name: CHAN Hak-kan
Functional/Geographic: NT East
Political affiliation: DAB
He brought up examples of successful Public Transport Interchange schemes, which illustrated how to successfully encourage hub & spoke transfers. The best way, free bus service on the "spoke", to the final destination, after transfer at the hub.

Name: Cyd HO Sau-lan
Functional/Geographic: HK Isalnd
Political affiliation: Civic Act-up
In the proposal, no thought has been given to the issue of parking: if buses' frequency is cut, that means a lot of them will have to wait somewhere between trips. That requires an allocation of public space, which the TD hasn't factored into their plan.

Name: CHAN Kin-por
Functional/Geographic: Insurance
Political affiliation: NA
Perhaps minibuses can replace service where routes truncated.

Name: Albert CHAN Wai-yip
Functional/Geographic: NT West
Political affiliation: League of Social Democrats

Name: IP Wai-ming
Functional/Geographic: Labour
Political affiliation: HKFTU
"Let's not forget the drivers."

__________________
CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Blog: NY Times arights their slipshod coverage of HK air pollution in latest Green Inc. article. Hooray!

2010-01-20T20:14:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's New York Times' Green Inc. article redeems that paper's previous coverage of Hong Kong's air pollution problem. The article previous to yesterday's was, to our view, one-sided and irresponsible because, by reprinting verbatim the comments of an official EPD spokesperson without remarks from any other concerned parties, readers were given the impression that Hong Kong's air pollution is not THAT bad. Of course, you can imagine that, considering the stature and authority of the NY Times, we considered such an article downright dangerous. Anyway, we were hugely relieved to see the RIGHT FACTS about Hong Kong air pollution published yesterday. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ TODAY'S NY TIMES ARTICLE PLUS THE ARTICLE WHICH TRIGGERED IT.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/author/reenita-malhotra-hora/

Below, too, is our original full rebuttal of Eva Wong's statement to the NY Times, from which they chose today's quotes. After reading it, you will understand why we found the EPD's statements so grossly disingenuous --

"My first reaction to the EPD's response is that the entire thing is, by definition, a load of bunkum because their responses are based on defending the numerous exceedances of the HK API which permits levels far in excess of those recommended by the WHO. The WHO Air Quality Guidelines were expressly formulated to protect public health. In their statement accompanying the announcement of the latest guideline revision (2006), the WHO made it clear that adverse impacts to human health are being found at ever lower levels of air pollution and that, in the case of respirable particles, for example, there are no levels below which harm to human health has not been found. Thus, in the medical-scientific community, these guidelines are considered the minimum acceptable standards for protecting public health. Even then, the WHO does not consider the observance of the AQGs as some sort of magic shield against harm to human health.

Hong Kong's present Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) severely lag the WHO's Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs). Whereas HK's 24-hour AQO for SO2 is 350 micrograms per cubic meter, the WHO AQG is 20; HK's PM10 AQO(24-hour) is 180 while the WHO's AQG is 50. The annual average guideline for NO2 is 80 in HK and 40 under the WHO.

Hong Kong's current AQOs have not been revised since 1987. Obviously, epidemiological and community medicine research on the health impacts of air pollution have evolved considerably since then. The present regime is sadly outdated.Regarding the EPD's citation of other countries' standards as a benchmark against which to judge Hong Kong's, I have three points to make. First, in the case of air pollution and protecting public health, comparison between nations is less important than assessment of standards based on the latest medical research. By these standards, the present AQOs permit 1100 avoidable deaths per year.Second, let's compare the actual air quality of other cities against HK's. In 2006, Hong Kong's air was 3x more polluted than New York's and 1.7x dirtier than Singapore's. Third, when it comes to fighting air pollution, the attitude of the Hong Kong Government bears no resemblance to, say, America's. Obama has granted broad remit to the EPA to tighten air quality standards during his term. Just this past month, the EPA has proposed a tougher standard for ozone as well as significant limitations on emissions from large marine vessels which will have far-reaching health and economic benefits for the American people, despite their short-term cost of several billion dollars. The EPA's proposals were no doubt based on a recognition of the latest scientific and medical research and made in spite of opposition from vested interests in the business community.

As for reductions in roadside emissions cited by the EPD spokesperson, over the period of 1997-2008, according to Professor AJ Hedley, one of the world's leading air pollution experts, the cumulative reduction for PM was only 12.3%. Roadside levels during this period were about 3.5 times above the WHO-recommended levels. At that rate, PM would not diminish to acceptable levels before 2040.

Regarding the EPD's answer to the question, Is it true that the air pollution in Hong Kong is already so consistently dangerous that the threshold for severe harm to human health is exceeded almost every day? Note that the EPD spokesperson did not actually answer this question. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is "YES"! Remember that it is roadside emissions which impact human health the most. One ton of PM or NOx being emitted at face-level is obviously much more concentrated than the same amount being emitted 100 feet up in the air by a coal-fired power plant. The recently unveiled HKUST study showed dangerously high levels of streetside emissions in all 6 of the districts surveyed, with actual levels between 2-3 times the WHO AQGs. Even by the Government's own very lax standards, roadside pollution violated the API danger level of 100 in Central district 1 of every 8 days. Note that Hong Kong only measures roadside pollution in 3 of its 18 districts! The HKUST study found that the highest level of roadside pollution was in a district without any official government roadside monitoring station -- Wanchai.Regarding the EPD's attempt to downplay Hong Kong's toxic levels of roadside emissions by judging their level against an annual average, the harms of air pollution do not vary in a direct linear relationship to the level of pollutants. Exceedances over a certain level, such as the WHO AQGs, trigger a disproportionate increase in adverse health effects."

Fighting for what is right: the relationship between the environment & democracy (free speech)

2010-01-17T04:55:00.001-08:00

Our grassroots movement seeks to transform the relationship between the citizen and the government to one where a clean safe environment becomes an entitlement, NOT a luxury. It is the duty of a govt to provide this indispensable public good to its citizens. Indeed, protecting public health is deemed one of the major justifications for the existence of any government, however elected, formed or appointed.

On the role of democracy, civic engagement, and free speech, and how these values relate to clean air: the people of Hong Kong need to speak out if we are to claim what properly belongs to us. Again, why else would people submit to government and agree to the pact of civil society (taxes and obedience to the law) if the government is not going to provide even those basic necessities universally deemed indispensable to human livelihood, i.e., safe food, clean water and CLEAN AIR?

CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US, FOLOW ME
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://twitter.com/joanneooi
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

BLOG: SHOCKED BY NY TIMES REPRINT OF OFFICIAL EPD STATEMENT ABOUT HK'S AIR

2010-01-15T02:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the NY Times published a Q&A about air pollution, interviewing an Environmental Protection Department spokesperson. We were shocked that the EPD's statements were reprinted without any additional research, qualification or comment from air experts or community leaders in Hong Kong. The NY Times' blog post was tantamount to reissuing under the banner of good journalism an official press release from a stakeholder with very obvious vested interests in spinning a certain story, i.e., Hong Kong's air is safe. Below is the link to the dubious article --

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/qa-hong-kongs-air-pollution-problem/

In the words of an emininent public health scientist, reacting to the NY Times article this morning:
"This makes me feel seriously unwell. What a ghastly,cynical,disingenuous, misleading pack of nonsense. However, quite skillful I suppose to be able to navigate a swamp with such coyly crafted responses."

You can expect us to issue an official response soon enough....
_________
CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US, FOLLOW ME
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://twitter.com/joanneooi
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

BLOG: GOVT'S FOCUS ON MONITORING GENERAL, INSTEAD OF ROADSIDE, AIR QUALITY SHOWS THAT PRIORITIES ARE UPSIDE DOWN

2010-01-12T23:06:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the news that Hong Kong's roadside pollution reached life-threatening levels in 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gE0Vya-Hwgdo2D2YLPT0skOGy1Gg, DAB LegCo member Chan Hak-kan rightly posed the question to the EPD, will the EPD consider installing more roadside monitors? No, was the answer from Kitty Poon Kit, the EPD's spokesperson. Apparently, the Government feels that the current monitoring network is sufficient.

But a quick analysis of results derived from HKUST's recent mobile air pollution monitoring study shows that the roadside pollution in Wanchai was actually the worst in HK, even though the Government monitoring stations are located in only Central, Causeway Bay and Mongkok. The Government's justification for not needing additional monitors is that these three monitors are sufficiently accurate proxies for roadside monitoring at other highly trafficked locations all over Hong Kong. The case of Wanchai obviously challenges the prudence of this assumption. Furthermore, the HKUST study showed big variations between different streets in the same district and between different districts.

http://hongkongcan.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Mapresult.pdf

What's more disturbing, however, in the big picture, is the fact that the Government's monitoring network -- 11 of 14 stations measuring ambient air quality, rather than roadside emissions -- is predicated on their outdated concern about overall pollutant tonnage, rather than adverse impacts to human health. OBVIOUSLY, it's the spumes of diesel particles blowing in a person's face, on the street, which affect human health the most. One ton of PM emitted by a coal-fired power plant 30 meters above ground is obviously going to be a lot less damaging to human beings than the same weight of emissions beging emitted at street level.

The mentality which dominated 20 years ago is no longer relevant or useful to the public health crisis we are confronting today. If a resident of Hong Kong needs to know the pollution reading on any given day, it is the ROADSIDE reading which is highly relevant and useful -- NOT an ambient reading! In the same vein, Government should be formulating air quality management policy based on COMPREHENSIVE readings of ROADSIDE pollution throughout Hong Kong. When it comes to human health, these are the MAIN readings which count. And, lest anyone have failed to read the newspaper recently, roadside pollution is, at best, the same, if not deteriorating.

(For the sake of argument, let's assume the 3 roadside monitors ARE a decent proxy for all of HK's roadside pollution, the fact that there are only 3 compared to 11 general monitors STILL points to the outmoded policy and mentality which led to the building of such a network in the first place. Unfortunately, the mentality which led to the building of the monitoring network is the same one proposing public policy today.)

Thus, the locations of the official monitors should actually be inverted if the Government wants to live up to its stated intention of protecting public health.
_____________
CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US, FOLLOW ME
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://twitter.com/joanneooi
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

BLOG: "Conserving Central": a slap in the face to HK's people

2010-01-10T00:11:00.001-08:00

I just walked by the HK Govt's display at IFC on the same level as the footbridge, describing its plans to preserve some of Central's most historic architectural landmarks. This initiative was the centerpiece of Donald Tsang's policy address in 2009. While such a project is laudable and important if HK is to retain some of its unique historic character, it is ironically short-sighted.
The apparent purpose of such an initiative is to make HK a more attractive city -- literally. But the emphasis on optics is misplaced when one of the very pillars of our daily urban existence has crumbled. Of course, I refer to our air quality. Along with safe food and clean water, can there be a more universally important precondition to living in a society, ostensibly governed by leaders who seek to protect and advance the health and livelihood of residents? That said, spending money on buildings instead of people is actually a sort of slap in the face of the HK people!
No doubt "Conserving Central" is the centerpiece of Donald's effort to boost HK's standing among world cities. But fewer media and opinion leaders around the world take note of the paucity of historic buildings than our city's appalling air pollution. Thus, even if we do manage to upgrade the aesthetics of our urban center, will it upgrade our standing in the world? Of course not! Let's not forget that HK occupied the lower ranks of Gallup's recent Net Migration Index, with the likes of Iraq, Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago. Respondents explained that our low ranking was the result of air pollution, traffic congestion and overcrowding.
"Conserving Central" is obviously a politically easy and facile way to demonstrate Tsang's leadership. After all, virtually all the affected buildings belong to the Govt itself, thereby sidestepping issues of vested private sector interests. But it is just a bandaid on the gaping wound of HK's environment.
When it comes to fiscal and policymaking priorities for HK, "Conserving Central" should be dessert, not the main course!
CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US, FOLOW ME
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://twitter.com/joanneooi
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

THE FRUITS OF NON-CONFRONTATION

2010-01-08T07:40:00.000-08:00

Today, we had an excellent meeting with the vice-chairman of the Central/Western district council. Much to my surprise, he suggested that CAN do a project with the District Council. Not only was this music to my ears, but totally unprecedented because, customarily, we work with individual district councillors, rather than the full councils, due to political divisions and, frankly, an absence of interest in environmental affairs. It is hard enough to find one councillor in each district who is supportive of environmental concerns, let alone the support, cooperation and endorsement of an entire DC! Importantly, he repeated several times that his willingness to work with us, as opposed to other NGOs in the past who had approached the council on the same issue, was was largely based on the fact that our stance and approach were non-confrontational. Today's meeting is significant vindication of our decision NOT to antagonize the Government. I continue to believe that it is NOT necessary to protest or demonstrate -- at least not until we complete our mass media campaign, which will commence in February and continue through the end of March. We will see if peaceful, coordinated efforts, intended to give MORE ammo to the Govt, are sufficient to bring public opinion to a tipping point. We must remain dynamic and open to new ideas and political realities as each new day of campaigning unfolds...
CAN is the #1 resource for health, news, policy about air pollution with a special focus on Hong Kong policy and events.

Learn more about air pollution: watch and SHARE this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

Please sign the Petition for Clean Air, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

FOLLOW US, FOLOW ME
http://twitter.com/cleanairnetwork
http://twitter.com/joanneooi
http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

BLOG: THOMAS FRIEDMAN, HK'S CARBON FOOTPRINT & BUMPING INTO EDWARD YAU

2010-01-07T04:39:00.001-08:00

***CO2 emissions and climate change ARE integrally related to energy use and transport emissions. HOWEVER, they are not inherently harmful to health. thus, as a rule, CO2 emissions are NOT treated as an air pollutant governed by HK's Air Pollution Control Ordinance and neither should they be, since the dominating principle of the APCO should be the protection of public health from the immediate, direct, adverse health impacts of air pollution. HOWEVER, from time to time, I may mention CO2 emissions because it's of interest to CAN's environmentally minded audience.

today, i was lucky enough to be invited to the inauguration of HK University of Science and Technology's NEW Division of Environment. BRAVO! thomas friedman, the brilliant american author and commentator, was invited to give the inaugural speech. edward yau, secretary of the environment, was also there to preside over the inauguration of the school.

the main course was friedman's abbreviated exposition of his seminal book, hot, flat and crowded, which states the case for why a green technology revolution is 1) good business; 2) indispensable to saving human civilization and 3) necessarily predicated on visionary government leadership -- the sort made impossible by a broken, sclerotic, pork-barreling democracy such as the US'. (i am a huge fan and brought my personal copy for his signing. i'm not someone who typically falls into the category of "fan", but i couldn't help myself in this extremely rare case : )) the main point of friedman's book is to point out the severe deficiencies of american political-environmental leadership resulting from its hamstrung political structure (something he terms a "one-party democracy"), while shining light on the path forward (price signals which afford investors in clean technology a stable predictable economic environment within which to recoup their investments over the medium- to long-term, family planning, a mentality of conservation, etc.)

the failure of leadership we see in the HK government, to date, is largely the result of our stillborn hybrid political system which defeats most notions of political accountability. whereas american legislation, such as the recent health bill, is customarily riddled with obvious instances of chit-trading, the end result is the same: policies and laws which are toothless and hardly up to their originally intended purpose. as edward yau aptly pointed out, only "huge public pressure" will bring green changes to our city. it would be, after all, a laughable pipe dream to believe that we could rely on the vision and courage of donald tsang! so my work is cut out for me!
....
at the end, there was a rather dry panel discussion. but it was relieved by some interesting factoids adduced by edward yau about hong kong's carbon footprint. in hk, 63% of all carbon emissions come from buildings, whereas 16% (only) come from vehicles. for comparison, those numbers are 40% and 30% respectively in the US. the comparatively low proportion of emissions attributable to vehicles in HK is due to the (literally)unrivaled efficiency of HK's public transport system which is responsible for 90% of all passenger trips. another fact: there are 500,000 "cars" in hk and 40,000 buildings according to yau. while i'm very proud of hk's public transport efficiency, i am appalled by the dirtiness of the comparatively few diesel vehicles hk has: 100,000 are causing the life-threatening levels of roadside pollution we experience almost every day! anyway, for more on that, you can read my blog post entitled "beware of red herrings" from a few days back.
...
at the end, i chatted with yau, who told me that the new air quality numbers for hk would be coming out shortly. he was pleased to report that the 2009 numbers showed some improvement over 2008. i'm glad he mentioned it so we can prepare the refutation NOW for what will undoubtedly be a self-congratulating press release about these figures. not to launch into a full court press rebuttal now, but it's crazy to take solace from such numbers when a recent study demonstrated extremely dangerous levels of roadside pollution one out of every 8 days in highly trafficked districts and emissions levels consistently 2-3 times those metered at official govt monitoring stations. i also asked yau about the engine idling ordinance and the timing of its introduction. he told me "i'm still working on some back room stuff" but apparently it should be introduced soon. i asked him to give us a head's up so we can mobilize public opinion to assist the ordinance's passage in legco this year. on that, boy oh boy, do we have some interesting stuff planned! just watch this space!

---
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN
US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

HOW I GOT HERE

2010-01-06T16:13:00.000-08:00

Please describe your career path?
The trajectory of my career can only be likened to a pinball game. How did you get into your profession? I never imagined I would work at an NGO. But, as with most of my career, I ended up at CAN through a combination of serendipity and an enduring desire to influence people's minds. Over the years, I have built up quite a rolodex and a solid bully pulpit. It seemed like a waste of my skill set, credibility and relationships to just keep on selling "stuff". It's obvious that there is a dearth of zealous, committed, able people in the NGO world, especially in HK, where most people think you're crazy if you leave your well-paid private sector job to head up an NGO.

Have there been any low times?
Besides the constant ribbing of jokes like, "Look outside. You haven't cleaned it up yet," NO! Honestly, I've never been happier in my entire life. I'm one of those people who never gets depressed. EVER. Also, 95% of the individuals and corporations we've approached have supported Clean Air Network. How can I complain or feel low?

Were you always ambitious?
Being too ambitious is probably my greatest character defect. The frisson of achievement or recognition lasts a maximum of 24 hours. Then, it's back to the grindstone, because I'm never satisfied. I also take an eagle's-eye assessment of my career every few months to determine if it all makes sense in terms of trajectory, learning and gratification.

Could you have imagined doing this job when you started?
NEVER. Being the daughter of two Chinese immigrant doctors growing up in the Midwest, I was trained to desire a career that was obvious, prosaic and remunerative. Even I myself am frequently surprised by the twists and turns of my career.

What do you like best about what you are doing now?
I love educating and inspiring people. That's always been my forte. At heart, I'm a preacher. I also love communicating with younger people, because they're still idealistic -- like me. At an NGO, you can give your idealism full rein. How many situations, let alone job situations, permit you to do that -- without apology or compunction?

What are your greatest challenges?
Waking up every day and believing that I can make a difference to a problem which so difficult and enormous.

What are your future aspirations?
I never give conscious thought to this issue. It is my innate tendency to seek bigger, more daring challenges. But, to answer your question, in the short term, to use social media to enable greater civic engagement and democratic participation in Hong Kong society -- inspired, of course, by the weathervane issue of air pollution. Since it's an issue that virtually everyone agrees on, it's easy way for first-timers to get involved in civil society and engage - with each other, with Government. Another reason I got involved with this issue and cause is because I think it takes someone from the private sector to demonstrate that this is NOT an issue confined to treehuggers or radicals.

How have you been able to balance your career and your life?I'm not a balanced person. Full stop. When I'm not talking about air pollution, I'm reading up on it -- or social media. I can't do Stairmaster without my Blackberry and at least 2 newspapers. I'm obsessed with productivity and efficiency. I don't really care about balance. Trying to become balanced would be like trying to withdraw from heroin. At the same time, I do have some new rules in my life: for example, at least 10 hours per week with my 10-year old son with NO devices. With me, it can't work unless there are very strict rules and concrete guideposts. That's the most "balance" I can do.

What do you consider to be your greatest achievement?
In terms of career, I haven't done anything I was proud of for more than 24 hours. I'm referring to a specific achievement. But I'm a good mom. Actually, being a good parent is incredibly difficult because it's not something you can decide you're going to master. It's not really within your control to a large extent. Parenting is not subject to the same rules of achievement as all the other projects and goals in my life.

What would you change if you were to have your time again?
Honestly, I wish I cared more about money, because, then, I'd have some -- and that could be a cushion which could afford me more freedom and flexibility. I was also recently thinking that I should have had some sort of career in media -- as a talking head. Finally, I would have learned Chinese instead of French when I was growing up. This is probably the biggest regret of my life -- that, despite studying Mandarin for many years, I still cannot speak it fluently -- indeed, far from it.

What is the most useful lesson you have learned?
That, as a general rule, never be overprepared. It's an utter waste of time. For that matter, barring a few exceptional situations (like a board meeting or a major photo shoot), I strongly prefer to do things at the last minute. it's a personal style which isn't for everybody, but it's a very efficient way to get enormous amounts of stuff done.

What do you like to do in your free time?
If not sleeping, then, some form of learning. "Free" time means I can enrich my mind with activities which fall outside the remit of my professional responsibilities. These days, I'm catching up on all the bit.ly's in my twitter stream!

The above is excerpted from an upcoming interview.

JOANNE OOI IS THE CEO OF CLEAN AIR NETWORK, THE FASTEST-GROWING ENVIRONMENTAL NGO IN HONG KONG AND THE BIGGEST SINGLE-ISSUE NGO FOCUSED ON HONG KONG AIR POLLUTION. www.hongkongcan.org. Prior to heading CAN, Joanne was the Chief Marketing Officer of Filligent, the biotech company, and the Creative Director of Shanghai Tang, the Chinese luxury brand owned by the Richemont Group.

HK PARKING SURVEY (FOR CAR OWNERS)

2010-01-05T02:14:00.000-08:00

Parking policy directly affects traffic congestion and urban planning, all of which impact public health. For example, free (reliable) street parking can result in undesirable outcomes like greater traffic congestion and more drivers in a city. Similarly, the parking behavior of private vehicle owners can determine whether an open space or multi-story enclosed parking lot is built, affecting traffic flows and even dispersion of air pollutants ("the wall effect"). Recognizing that YOUR parking behavior could affect public policymaking about parking, PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO COMPLETE THIS ONLINE SURVEY FROM CIVIC EXCHANGE, OUR SISTER NGO -- http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGUwcEdRendDZzZGSjhTaF9HVkZoUHc6MA
Thank you!

WATCH OUT FOR GOVT RED HERRINGS!

2010-01-03T19:10:00.000-08:00

The leading article on the front page of today's SCMP screams, "Air quality good above street level for all of 2009: ROADSIDE POLLUTION A BIGGER LIFE THREAT". I have highlighted the most important sections of the original article below, WITH SOME IMPORTANT CAVEATS IN BLUE CAPS.

TO BEGIN, THE TITLE STATEMENT, "AIR QUALITY GOOD ABOVE STREET LEVEL FOR ALL OF 2009", IS A WILDLY MISLEADING STATEMENT. ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL (AS OPPOSED TO ROADSIDE) MONITORING STATIONS DID NOT CONSISTENTLY SHOW API READINGS IN EXCESS OF 100 DURING 2009, HK'S API IS SEVERELY OUTDATED (1987) AND PERMITS EMISSIONS LEVELS 2-4 TIMES GREATER THAN THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (AIR QUALITY GUIDELINES). THUS, API READINGS BELOW THE HK GOVT'S DANGER LEVEL OF 100 DO NOT MEAN THAT THE GENERAL POLLUTION LEVEL IS ACCEPTABLE.

Roadside air pollution in Central hit life-threatening levels on an average of one in every eight days last year, while the number of very high pollution days on Mong Kok streets has increased 37-fold over the past five years, analysis by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) has found.
But above street level, the air quality was good throughout last year. The 11 rooftop general monitoring stations recorded no days of very high pollution - when the air pollution index exceeds 100 and when people with heart and respiratory conditions are advised to avoid areas with heavy traffic.

Academics said the stark difference meant that the severe roadside pollution was a result of traffic emissions.

THE DRAMATIC AND SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENCE IN READINGS BETWEEN THE ROADSIDE AND AMBIENT STATIONS MEANS THAT THE ROADSIDE IS THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM AND THAT OUR FOCUS ON OUTMODED HIGHLY POLLUTING COMMERCIAL DIESEL VEHICLES IS WELL WARRANTED. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, THERE IS MUCH WE CAN DO AS A CITY TO IMPROVE THE EMISSIONS (ROADSIDE VEHICLES) WHICH ARE AFFECTING OUR HEALTH THE MOST. THE PUBLIC WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT THE EPD'S EXPLANATION THAT "CHINA IS TO BLAME".

The Environmental Protection Department attributed more days of very high pollution to unfavourable weather conditions last year, adding that there was a drop in the annual average concentration of major pollutants in the past decade.

THIS STUDY POINTS, IRREFUTABLY, TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WEATHER PATTERNS ARE NOT THE MAIN CULPRIT. WE HOPE THAT, INSTEAD OF CONTINUING DOWN THE PATH OF DISINGENUOUS BLANKET DENIAL, THE GOVT WILL USE THIS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AS POLITICAL AMMO TO DEVISE A SOLUTION SPECIFICALLY TARGETED AT TRANSPORT EMISSIONS.

But the explanation drew criticism from academics who said it was unsatisfactory that the government was blaming pollution on the weather. They criticised the administration for relying too much on an annual drop in pollution concentrations, while failing to consider air pollution as a public health issue. An increase in very high pollution days meant people were exposed to a greater danger to their health more often.
When the weather played a part in local air pollution, the government should take that into account when drawing up measures to deal with persistent air pollution rather than simply blaming the weather conditions, they said.
The Post analysis, based on air pollution index records provided by the Environmental Protection Department, found that roadside monitoring station in Central last year registered 44 days of very high pollution, at an average of once every eight days. This compared with 39 days in 2008 and 13 days in 2005.
The Mong Kok station recorded 37 such days last year, compared with one five years ago. In Causeway Bay, the figure was 25 days, up fivefold from 2005. Central has recorded the most days of very high roadside pollution in the past five years.
A monthly breakdown of the data shows the three roadside stations recorded the highest number of very high pollution days in October, with both Mong Kok and Central having 11 and Causeway Bay eight.
The department said air pollution index readings reaching life-threatening levels were usually recorded under unfavourable weather conditions last year.
It said the number of days Mong Kok recorded very high pollution levels fluctuated over the years. Before one such day was recorded in 2005, 38 days had been recorded in the year before. It said changes in pollutant concentration readings were more reliable than the index to assess air quality trends.
The department's data showed that roadside concentrations of respirable suspended particulates fell 33 percent, nitrogen oxides 31 per cent and sulphur dioxide fell 48 per cent in the past decade.
However, the concentration of nitrogen dioxide, a major pollutant contributing to ground-level pollution, rose 11 per cent during the same period.
Professor Chan Chak-keung, acting head of the environment division at the University of Science and Technology, said the frequent occurrences of very high pollution in Central were alarming.
With air quality better above ground, he attributed roadside pollution to heavy traffic rather than regional pollution.
Roadside pollution was also linked to poor dispersal of pollutants, caused by urban design favouring high-rises, which might result in a wall effect, he said.
Angus Wong Chun-yin, a senior campaign officer with environmental group WWF, said that when there was no drastic change in traffic flow in the areas affected, more days of very high pollution might be due to the number of old vehicles on the streets.
He said the government should consider the worst-case scenario. "People should not be asked to wear masks in the streets whenever pollution is high because of the weather. The air should be good to breathe anytime."
Professor Anthony Hedley, head of community medicine at the University of Hong Kong, said the department failed to see air pollution from a public health point of view.
Such a high number of very high pollution days posed a very serious threat to the health of young people, the elderly and the sick who faced a greater risk of heart and lung problems and strokes, he said.

LAST WEEK, A U.S. STUDY SHOWED THAT 12 MONTHS OF EXPOSURE TO HIGH POLLUTION CAN DOUBLE SENIORS' RISK OF CONTRACTING PNEUMONIA, ONE OF THE LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH AMONG THE ELDERLY. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/mu-apl122109.php

Hedley called on the government to enforce a law requiring people to comply with policy, such as replacing smoky vehicles. Everything the government was doing was based on voluntary involvement and it was not working, he said. "We must take immediate action to make environmental policy mandatory."

Chan said in the long term the government should aim to deal with air pollution on a 24-hour basis, rather than on an annual one.

ANOTHER RED HERRING ALWAYS CITED BY THE GOVT: WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ANNUAL LEVELS OF EMISSION TONNAGE HAVE FALLEN IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, ROADSIDE LEVELS HAVE REMAINED THE SAME, WORSENED OR DIMINISHED SO LITTLE THAT THERE WILL BE NO APPRECIABLE IMPROVEMENT IN THE NEAR TO MEDIUM TERM. PROFESSOR TONY HEDLEY'S SUBMISSION TO LEGCO RE: CHILD HEALTH GIVES AN EXCELLENT SNAPSHOT (SEE PAGE 3) OF ROADSIDE EMISSIONS AND THEIR TRAJECTORIES FROM 1997 TO 2008. http://www.hongkongcan.org/eng/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Legco_air-pllution-and-child-health.pdf

He said to achieve this the administration should work on urban planning. He also called for more collaboration between the Environmental Protection Department and the Transport Department to deal with traffic pollution.

CONSIDERING THAT THE MAIN FOCUS OF EMISSIONS CLEAN-UP IS TRANSPORT, SUCH COORDINATION SEEMS INDISPENSABLE. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE INTERESTS OF THESE TWO DEPARTMENTS ARE OPPPOSED. FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE THE EPD SEEKS EARLY RETIREMENT OF OLD BUSES, THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT WANTS TO KEEP BUS FARES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

According to the Hedley Environmental Index, developed by the professor and other academics, air pollution led to 831 premature deaths, 63,424 hospital bed days and a HK$1.88 billion financial loss.
A department spokesman said it would continue to encourage vehicle owners to voluntarily replace pre-Euro and Euro I diesel commercial vehicles with Euro IV models through a HK$3.2 billion one-off grant scheme to improve roadside air quality.
Since the introduction of the scheme in 2004, it has received 13,050 applications. There are still 39,100 such vehicles on the road.

GOING BACK TO HEDLEY'S POINT ABOVE, IN THE ARTICLE, "We must take immediate action to make environmental policy mandatory", WE CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF STICKS TO ACCOMPANY CARROTS. THE GOVT'S SUBSIDY SCHEME ENABLING EARLY REPLACEMENT OF OLD DIESEL VEHICLES HAS BEEN A RESOUNDING FAILURE WITH TOO FEW VEHICLE OWNERS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SUBSIDY. A CARROT ALONE IS A JOKE! IN A RECENT MEETING WITH THE EPD, THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING HIGHER LICENSE RENEWAL FEES FOR OLDER VEHICLES, BUT THE PENALIZING INCREMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS "JUST A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS". PER THE EPD, SUCH DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT WOULD APPARENTLY "SEND THE RIGHT SIGNAL". BUT, HONESTLY, SUCH A DE MINIMIS PENALTY IS LAUGHABLE.

The department had proposed in a review of air quality objectives cutting bus trips in non-peak hours by 10 per cent to improve roadside air quality, but no timetable has been set. The public consultation on the review ended in November.
In 2002, the department set a 2010 target to cut emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, respirable suspended particulates and volatile organic compounds in the Pearl River Delta region by 40 per cent, 20 cent, 55 per cent and 55 per cent, respectively, from 1997 levels. By 2008, emission levels of the pollutants, except sulphur dioxide, had already or almost met the reduction target.

Fast Facts about HK's commercial diesel fleet (buses & trucks)

2009-12-20T16:57:00.000-08:00

90% of HK's 11 million daily passenger trips are via public transport, making HK a leader in transport modal efficiency.

HK's commercial diesel fleet is responsible for 90% of RSPs (i.e. suspended particulates smaller than 10 micrometers that can penetrate deep into the lungs)

The commercial diesel fleet is estimated to account for 70% of all vehicle distance traveled in HK.

20% of all Singapore's buses (860 of 4353) are Euro IV or above, compared to only less than 1% of HK's buses (53 of 5768)!

Read Civic Exchange's research paper for more facts and a full analysis of the challenge of replacing old franchised buses. www.civic-exchange.org, "Paying for a Cleaner Bus Fleet: How Government Can Break the Log Jam"
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106

BREAKFAST WITH THE EPD

2009-12-20T02:48:00.000-08:00

On Friday, I met with senior officials from the EPD. In brief, there were three takeaways, based on our exchange of notes. Whereas I reported on our campaign's progress, the EPD gave me an update on the status of the Government's 19 abatement initiatives:
1) The Government won't propose a subsidy to enable the passage of its 19-measure abatement package until it receives a "clear signal from the public" that the latter is ready to share some of the cost AND insists on contribution from all stakeholders, including the Government and polluters. Moreover, the EPD hopes that the public will signal its willingness to contribute to ALL aspects of clean-up -- not just buses, but ferries, the power sector, etc. Despite many surveys demonstrating that the public is ready to contribute, provided there is equitable cost-sharing, this message has yet to reach the inner ear of the Government. No doubt the Government prefers to turn a deaf ear until the public's demands become unmistakable, in order to avoid the difficult political task of opening up the treasury's purse. So, it looks like we have our work cut out for us in the next year: whereas before we were focused on putting the issue of air pollution on the radar of the HK public, it's now clear that we have adjust our message in this next phase of our campaign. THE COST OF CLEAN-UP WILL NOT BE FAIR UNLESS BORNE BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT AND POLLUTERS.
2) Regarding the curb of marine emissions in the Pearl River Delta, any joint Emissions Control Area with Guangdong would be subject to approval by the International Maritime Organization. To wit, ECAs in North America and the Baltic have been legislated as a matter of national sovereignty only. Thus, attempts to coordinate with regional environmental or maritime authorities in southern China are besides the point: success will require the buy-in of the Chinese central government.
3) The "leisure and recreational" ferries from HK to Macau are as polluting as the local passenger ferries. The EPD suggested that perhaps we could consider focusing some of our efforts on the clean-up of these services. After all, these passenger trips are "optional" when compared to the commuter services ferrying passengers to and fro work every day. Consequently, these recreational ferry services are not the subject of as much concern or regulation by the Government. Thus, left to their own devices, the HK-Macau ferry services are permitted to set fares, based on commercial factors only. Obvious implication: it is easier to retrofit or phase out old, polluting HK-Macau ferries and pass on the increase in operating expenses to passengers than to do the same to local ferry services. I will contact the EPD later for more information about the state of these leisure ferry craft and the emissions attributable to each service's fleet. But, for now, CAN will remain focused on the primary target of ROADSIDE emissions. In the big scheme of things, roadside emissions are something within the control of Hong Kong, which gravely impact health.

HOW TO BECOME A REGISTERED SMOKY VEHICLE SPOTTER

2009-12-13T02:06:00.001-08:00

SO many people ask me all the time, how can I become a smoky vehicle spotter? Or how can I report smoky vehicles to the EPD?
On the latter question: you can report smoky vehicles to the epd, but unless you are a REGISTERED spotter, the epd has no obligation to follow up your complaint. So, then, the first question becomes even more relevant.

In order to become a spotter, you must attend an official govt training session. There is approximately one four-hour chinese language saturday morning session a month held at the EMSD in kowloon bay. English training is also conducted but much less frequently.

The EPD has told us that it is willing to conduct special classes (in english or chinese) for members of CAN on request, should we have sufficient demand for such sessions.

WHY should YOU become a spotter? Because roadside emissions are the single biggest threat to human health and spotters can make a genuine impact on curbing those emissions. There are approximately 120,000 vehicles in HK. Approximately 1000 registered spotters a year report 10,000 smoky vehicles to the EPD.
I attended the course yesterday and it consisted of the following sections and learnings, roughly --
How Emissions are Formed;
How Smoky Vehicles are Controlled;
The Ordinance;
Number of Emission Testing Notifications Issued by the EPD; Duties of the Spotter;
Vehicle Call-up Procedure;
Cases where No Action Taken; Treatment of Govt Vehicles;
How a Diesel Engine Works;
Causes of Smoky Emissions;
How to Identify Class, Color and Body Type of Vehicle;
How to Complete the Spotter Form Correctly;
Measuring and Judging Smoky Emissions (visual assessment of HSU);
Spotter Test in Live Traffic Conditions.

The HSU assessment training was done outside with a specially rigged diesel truck, the emissions from which can be increased or decreased in HSU. (An HSU is a unit of smokiness.) We watched the truck spew out different levels of emissions in order to practice our eye for violative emissions exceeding 70 HSU. After 30 minutes of such practice, which was pretty unpleasant because you stand next to an old truck emitting blasts of black smoke, we were driven to a spotting location in Wong Tai Sin -- a footbridge over a very busy stretch of highway. (This location can only be termed "Diesel Fumes Central". If it isn't obvious already, asthmatics should NOT undergo smoky vehicle spotter training!) While stationed on the footbridge looking down on fast-moving cars and trucks, our instructor called out vehicle registration numbers so we could practice spotting and get used to completing the fields on the spotting form - registration number, vehicle class, color, smoky/not smoky and body type (optional). After 15 minutes of practice, we took the official "exam" -- spotting 12 vehicles in total. While a "grade" of 100 is required to become a spotter, the main consideration is, NEVER report a marginal case where you are uncertain. In other words, do not tick the "smoky" box on the form unless you are 100% sure that the emissions exceed 70 HSUs. That said, it is practically impossible to flunk the test unless you sleep through the training session!

Although I underwent spotter training in order to give feedback to the EPD on how to streamline the training process (see below), I ended up thoroughly enjoying the training session and came away enriched by the course material and encyclopedic knowledge of our instructor.

Thus, I encourage you, a member of the general public, to become a registered spotter if you want to make a genuine impact on our air quality.

You can either apply directly to the government for a place at the next open training session (a process which can take months)

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/how_help/report_pollution/spotter_training.html

Send an email to info@hongkongcan.org and we will let you know of upcoming spotter training sessions organized by CAN.
________________
Below is my email to the EPD on how they could potentially shorten the training process to motivate more people to become registered spotters. Who knows whether or if the EPD will take my comments into account to modify or shorten the training process. Thus, I encourage you to go ahead and sign up for training NOW, instead of waiting.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Joanne Ooi (Clean Air Network)" <joanneooican@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:50:36
Subject: Recap and comments re: smoky vehicle spotter training of 12/12/09

First, I want to say that I was very impressed by Mr. Wong's knowledge and manner in today's session. I asked many questions, for which he had immediate very helpful answers. On top of that, he was an engaging and sociable instructor. Indeed, I can even go so far as to say that today's session was not just greatly illuminating but surprisingly fun.
HOWEVER, based on my careful notes and attention to the apportionment between the different learning modules, I would like to make the following observations, which I hope you will find helpful in possibly streamlining the training sessions:

After going through the entire process, it is obvious that there is no substitute for real-time, in-person assessment and classification of real-life smoky emissions and vehicles. It is impossible to simulate this testing and assessment situation online or otherwise. This real-life testing situation moreover engraved in my mind the rule, "when in doubt, do NOT report!"

Prior to the visual assessment of HSUs conducted outside with a real truck's exhaust, however, all the lecture material could have been read (and memorized) in advance by attendees prior to the training session. This information is extremely interesting and valuable. (Without citing the specific titles of each powerpoint slide, I refer to How Emissions are Formed, How Smoky Vehicles are Controlled, The Ordinance, Number of Emission Testing Notifications, Duties of the Spotter, Vehicle Call-up Procedure, Cases where No Action Taken, Treatment of Govt Vehicles, How a Diesel Engine Works, Causes of Smoky Emissions, How to Identify Class, Color and Body Type of Vehicle, and How to Complete the Spotter Form Correctly.) But there is no reason it cannot be summarized in a downloadable pdf and studied by would-be spotters in advance. Regarding the class, color, body type and characteristics of vehicles, which must be mastered by spotters: although it was fun to learn this information in class together, this information can undoubtedly be mastered beforehand, and even tested online through very simple tools and documents.

By putting the first half of the session's teachings online, one could HALVE the training session time. Indeed, the powerpoint for these teachings (the first half's) already exists. (It is the same one which was used by Mr. Wong, today, of course.) Regarding how to identify class, body type and color of vehicles, it would not be difficult to create some simple online materials for the would-be spotter: these could be simple powerpoints of vehicle images with an answer key at the back comprised of correctly completed spotter forms corresponding to the vehicles pictured.

The key, of course, to LESS hand-holding during the live teaching session would be stricter testing at the live, in-person EMSD session in a real-life traffic situation. Obviously, THAT would be the real test of whether the spotter-student had actually mastered the requisite material IN ADVANCE. The current testing situation, due to the variability of traffic conditions, is quite relaxed. Possibly, the EPD could consider slightly more rigorous testing to ensure that students had genuinely mastered the course material, if there was a concern about absorption of the required information prior to the EMSD training sessions.

What the EPD cares about, after all, is the RESULT -- greater accuracy in spotting -- rather than compulsory attendance of a lengthy training session.

That said, however, it would be ideal if spotters had the OPTION of self-learning OR being taught live at the EMSD for the sections I listed above. Spotters who had prepared in advance could attend the second half of the session, while spotters desirous of the classroom teaching experience could attend the entire session, from beginning to end.

A final note --
The current training material and powerpoint could be strengthened in 2 important ways:
1) Greater explanation of how smoky emissions affect human and public health. Indeed, I was surprised to learn today that 10,000 smoky vehicle reports are filed each year! That is a staggering number considering the overall number of diesel vehicles in Hong Kong. The ratio of spotted vehicles (approximately 10,000) to the overall diesel "population" (120,000) means that smoky vehicle spotters (of which only 1000 are active of the total number of 5000 registered spotters) are playing a genuinely significant role in curbing toxic roadside emissions from commercial vehicles.
2) Slightly more emphasis on the importance of the smoky vehicle report -- that it is a binding LEGAL document. You had emphasized this point to me repeatedly at our meeting. This point reinforces the importance of precision and conscientiousness when submitting a report.

CAN is very willing to assist the EPD to streamline the process by helping to compile the necessary materials and lend manpower to this initiative. It is very much in CAN's interests to see more members of the public become smoky vehicle spotters since roadside emissions presently pose the greatest threat to human health.

I hope that my comments will be taken in a constructive spirit. It is CAN's intention to function as the EPD's partner in educating and informing the Hong Kong public about roadside emissions (and their adverse health consequences) and, of course, reducing such emissions.

Sincerely,
Joanne Ooi
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106

THAT WAS FUN!

2009-12-11T21:29:00.001-08:00

Despite asphyxiation from all the real-life testing on the curb, EPD's smoky vehicle spotter training was incredibly interesting and informative. Thanks to the encyclopedic knowledge and engaging personality of SM Wong, EPD's Chief Environmental Protection Inspector, who conducted the training, I learned a boatload of new facts, such as:
how a 4-stroke diesel engine actually works; (Despite spending every waking hour of my life branding diesel commercial vehicles the main public health culprit of hk's streets, I finally learned today how those engines work. Today's session also reminded me that CAN needs to explain to the public WHY diesel emissions are dangerous to the human body.);
only 1000 (or less) are active out of HK's 5000 registered spotters;
there are 10,000 reports of smoky vehicles per year, approximately;
there are 120,000 diesel vehicles on the road;
there are 3 remaining diesel-powered taxis in HK;
the police and the EPD jointly conduct about 10 sessions of random observation and testing
per month to monitor smoky vehicles ("netting" between 10-12 smoky offenders approximately per each 2-3 hour session);
the distinguishing characteristic of a "coach" as opposed to a "passenger van" (think, school buses) is a metal bar on the side of the vehicle between the vehicle's axles;
etc,
etc.

In short, what I expected to be a big snooze wasn't at all. Rather, for any resident of Hong Kong with a modicum of curiosity, this is a FUN and STIMULATING activity, which I would recommend highly provided the instructor is as well-informed and sociable as Mr. Wong.

That said, I will be writing a much longer analysis of how the entire training process can be streamlined so more members of the public (less avid than myself) can join the program.
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106

SMOKY VEHICLE SPOTTING

2009-12-11T17:22:00.000-08:00

I am now waiting at the EMSD in Kowloon Bay to begin smoky vehicle spotter training. A few weeks ago, I requested a meeting with the EPD to discuss WHY it takes 4 hours to train a smoky vehicle spotter.
Since beginning my work at CAN, it has become obvious that the NUMBER ONE thing people want to do when they ask, "How can I get involved?", is report vehicles with filthy tailpipe emissions. Thus, in an effort to get more people involved with the city's air pollution clean-up, it made sense to understand and, even, attempt to streamline the training process with the EPD.
So, today, after a very constructive discussion with the EPD, I am here to undergo training. And, then, write a detailed report with recommendations on HOW the training process can be put online and shortened, so more members of the public will be motivated to enter the program and become registered spotters. To date, there are approximately 5000 registered spotters in HK, but it is important to remember that the govt has conducted this program for 20 years.
Smoky vehicle spotting is also a good way to mobilize public attention on the upcoming introduction of the long-awaited anti-idling ordinance. According to the EPD, they will introduce the bill to Legco before the end of the year. The EPD has asked us to mobilize public support for this bill. Although idling is NOT the same as vehicle spotting, the two offending behaviors are transgressions or negligence by INDIVIDUAL vehicles, resulting in harm to the public. Thus, even if smoky vehicles are not the same as engine idlers, they are unified under the rubric of "Drivers [or companies] who don't give a sh----"
More later -- after I have completed training and, hopefully, passed the test....
If you care about Hong Kong, please WATCH this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw

What I REALLY think, http://cleanairnetwork.blogspot.com/

The #1 resource for health, news, policy about HK air pollution. JOIN US at www.facebook.com/cleanairnetwork

Have you signed the Petition for Clean Air?
http://hongkongcan.org/eng/

Joanne Ooi
CEO
Clean Air Network
Shui On Centre, 6-8 Harbour Road
Room 1008, Wanchai, Hong Kong
Telephone 3971 0106

Thank GOD green business is good business!

2009-12-09T01:38:00.000-08:00

Let's be perfectly honest, in a money-obsessed city like HK, can there be ANY other reason for business to adopt cleaner technologies?
Take the three examples cited by Jared Diamond in his editorial this week for the IHT -- Walmart, Coke, and Chevron. Main point: being environmental isn't just good PR, but a more efficient way to utilize and extract the dwindling natural resources which are indispensable product and manufacturing inputs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jared%20diamond&st=cse
In short, as the precious natural resources dry up, literally, green business will become the ONLY way to do business in the medium and long term.
It's only once the HK Government internalizes this philosophy that we will see tighter controls imposed on emissions. In this city, the tail wags the dog: in other words, BUSINESS MUST LEAD THE WAY. It's only then that the Government will take heart and follow.

CAN'T SLEEP

2009-12-04T13:42:00.001-08:00

because there are too many good things happening!
...
i underwent media training at hill & knowlton on friday. what a hoot! the experience proved that i look about as welcoming as the grim reaper. MORE SMILINESS REQUIRED. this has been a life-long problem which, in static photos, i've managed to overcome, but not when a camera is trained on my face. what was much more important though was discovering that our campaign manager, Sum,is fantastic on camera -- engaging, amiable, and articulate, with commitment and passion practically oozing from every pore. for a movement which MUST be spearheaded in chinese, it was a very important corroboration of my early instincts that i would be able to pass the baton to her. alleleuiah! Now if only i could clone 3 more of her....
...
i spoke at Chinese International School yesterday to an enthusiastic, even rapturous, audience of more than 120 14-year olds. bar none, they were the most exuberant youngsters i've met so far in my short NGO career. there was cheering and whistling but also silence and respectful listening. and when i asked for 3 volunteers, i got 15. the highlight was showing them our video, "Breathing not allowed", then watching the videos they'd made about air pollution with sister NGO, focus on film. the whole thing reminded me why i decided to quit my private sector career: my highest use is influencing people's minds.
..
i went straight from cis to ddb, our ad agency, to discuss their proposed concepts for our tv commercial campaign. we decided to do two ads: one will be shocking and visceral -- based on breathing and, well, er, not breathing. the other concept will be much more cinematic, scripted and acted. artistry, ingenuity and originality are even more difficult and, yet, more important, in this area.... we also have to take much more responsibility for our imagery. "what if a 4 year old is watching?" these questions never used to come up when i was photographing completely transparent blouses on bra-less 20 year old models...
...
i'm happy to report that looking back over the past week, we've managed to sign up one of hk's biggest movie stars to front our ad campaign and signed up one of hk's biggest shopping mall developers. 40% of hong kong passes through their malls. ZOUNDS! one of hk's most prominent restauranteurs has also decided to conduct a major PR stunt/campaign for us, details to be hammered out shortly. it's all good in CANland -- at least for the next forty-eight hours, until it starts all over again.
...
now if i could just get back to sleep....

COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN

2009-12-02T14:42:00.001-08:00

yesterday was nothing short of insane.
my day included lunch with one of the world's only masters of wine and ended with the official media dinner for business of design week at the w hotel.
in between,i managed to sandwich in participation at a swire focus group on sustainability, a meeting with the asiapac head of interactive media for intel and speaking at web wednesday. unfortunately, i consumed alcohol at the last three events, accounting for why i woke up at 5 am this morning! luckily, my biggest travail of today will be media training by hill & knowlton.
...
at the swire focus group, which saw representation from wwf, green power, friends of the earth, clear the air and designing hong kong, among other groups, the same point was made again and again: in a city such as hong kong, the tipping point IS the private sector. without corporate leadership and vision, we cannot substantively progress the cause of the environment. all too often, the reticence of business is caused by the mistaken perception that, the interests of the various stakeholders are NOT aligned. but reality and our own advocacy has demonstrated that, in fact, this conflict is illusory, yet one which the government continues to perpetuate. it is a perverse but presumably age-old habit which causes government to assume that environmental regulation is a zero sum question for society -- where business MUST lose out if the environment is to gain? this thinking, so outmoded, no doubt persists from the era of nascent environmentalism (the 1960s) when green business was thought to be an outre conceit of hippies and radicals! of course, the opposite is true and it is the practices of a company such as swire which demonstrate that green business is really the only sensible, profitable business these days if one wants to flourish in today's fiercely competitive global economy where energy efficiency and green values are central building blocks of brand and shareholder value. all that said, it is the civic responsibility of a huge company such as swire to weigh in forcefully on the pros and cons of green business during this crucial time when, for the first time, the government is about to tighten hk's air quality management policy. i was happy to hear that,in fact, swire HAD submitted a statement to the government during the public consultation. now, whether its submission had teeth or not... that's a different matter. one thing is certain though, business, government and green groups are NOT THINKING at cross-purposes when it comes to hk's air quality. on the other hand, the OUTWARD BEHAVIOR of hk business - continued reticence and toadying to the government -- probably belies its actual commitment to sustainable business development. that the government seems to insist on perpetuating the misconception that business interests and the environment are adversarially aligned, obviously reinforces this pernicious dynamic. NGOs can only help to break this impasse. what is genuinely required is true leadership and vision from the companies which are the pillars of hong kong's economy.
....

DISPARATE BUT CRUCIAL

2009-11-29T20:20:00.000-08:00

lots of stuff learned in the last 72 hours... forgive me for the pinball-like concatenation of these observations. but there's no better way to map them out:
friday kicked off civic exchange's transport conference which was actually more of a conference about air pollution and urban planning. professor simon ng's presentation blew my mind with its thoughtful treatment of how society needs to balance considerations of efficiency and mobility against liveability and sustainability. it sounds like a truism to make this point. but so few hong kongers, today, would tolerate spending 5 more minutes getting from point A to B in order to preserve more liveable, green, public space for outdoor enjoyment. as christine loh pointed out, all too often, hong kong people simply don't think improvements in liveability are possible. the resounding implication: we're all too hell-bent on efficiency and speed to consider compromising -- even for the sake of healthier, greener lifestyles for ourselves and our family.

CRUCIALLY, it is NOT true that economic growth cannot be delinked from environmental degradation. cities in northern europe (amsterdam, berlin and copenhagen) have successfully managed to continue to grow gdp while reducing congestion and increasing use of public transport. these examples shine light on a possible way forward for hong kong. as simon pointed out, too many cities are being built for cars, not people. simon's entire presentation will be available on our website soon.

MORE ON THE TRANSPORT CONFERENCE:
in a break-out session themed "structural and systemic obstacles", professor anthony hedley of HKU, one of the WHO's leading advisors on air pollution, unleashed an invective against the deprofessionalization of hk's environmental protection department. since the epd's decisionmakers are politically appointed laypeople-administrators with zero background and scant formation in PUBLIC HEALTH, obviously, it's impossible for them to, say, issue a public advisory warning on air pollution. and that's just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to tony's frustrations. seeing tony give such intense vent to his anger and pesssimism inspired me to film him. so, watch out for a new video from us soon. i plan to film him a week from today.

during the conference, i asked professor alexis lau of hkust to talk to teachers, students and school administrators at a presentation in yuen long organized by a DC member for december. being the unflagging, passionate activist that he is, alexis said, of course, but flagged the crucial importance of crafting a message targeted to the residents of THAT district. since the pollution in yuen long is mostly attributable to pollution coming in from china, we might encounter difficulty persuading yuen long residents to support us because, after all, nothing we do or accomplish can ameliorate their plight : ( 2 months into our grassroots mobilization focused on district councils, it's become obvious that we need to tailor our message to the problems existing in SPECIFIC DISTRICTS. if we're to win over more DC members, we must prove that there is political capital in working withs us on specific issues. thankfully, we have a think tank of experts, in both the law and public health, ready to hand to help us answer district councillors' questions as they arise.

ON FRIDAY:
one of hk's biggest movie stars agreed to star in our tvc campaign and publicly support us in all of our efforts. MORE SOON...

Saturday:
i attended the pollution conference in the morning and met Sarath Guttikunda, an air pollution activist from India. www.urbanemissions.info
he handed me his "primer on air quality management". it's an engagingly illustrated, downright CUTE manual and workbook dispensing the Basics of Air Pollution. [!!LIGHT BULB!!] within an hour, i assigned the task of storyboarding and copywriting a children's workbook to new volunteer, kaitlyn mac, who came to the conference to meet me for the first time.
unfortunately, i was unable to stay for the announcement of HKUST's mobile pollution monitoring van study results. eight newspapers covered the news yesterday and today! disturbingly, the report throws into question the accuracy of the government's monitoring network, with the study results showing actual pollution levels to be 2-4 times higher than those derived from the official monitoring network : (

it's time to quit today -- i have a headache -- from today's pollution, which is so thick you could cut it with a knife!

THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL

2009-11-26T01:51:00.000-08:00

A poll conducted by the DAB majority political party this week showed the following results.

N.B. though the survey's 553 respondents were supposedly drawn from a representative sampling of the population, 52.8% of them were 51 years or older. (Does this demographic skewing throw up a red flag?)

Since the survey was in chinese, i have restated the results here:

Do you feel that air pollution has improved in recent years?
Improved (7.2%) Same (40.9%) Worse than before (47.2%) No comment (4.7%)

What aspects of HK's air quality are you the most dissatisfied about?
Lower visibility (24.2%) Roadside emission (58%) Other (11.4%) No comment (6.3%)

Are you willing to pay more higher bus fares and electricity rates if the government implements air pollution reduction measures?
Yes (24.1%) Will consider, depending on amount of increase (53.2%) No (27.8%) No comment (3.6%)

Are you willing to pay 15% more in bus fares to speed up replacement of old buses?
Yes (24.1%) No (57.9%) No comment (18.1%)

Do you support bus route rationalization in your own neighborhood to reduce emissions, even though it might cause you some inconvenience?
Yes (51%) No (27.1%) No comments (21.9%)
***I was shocked to see this survey result since both politicians and bus companies constantly tell us that such measures provoke insurmountable political resistance. One has to ask, of the 553 surveyed, how many actually ride the bus every day? On the other hand, such a result is obviously heartening.

Are you willing to pay 20% more for electricity from natural gas, rather than power plants, in order to reduce air pollution?
Yes (21.5%) No (61.8%) No comment (16.6%)

Do you support Government's proposal to establish low emission zones in Mongkok, Central and Causeway Bay, banning all old commercial vehicles, even though this may result in some inconvenient rerouting to these vehicles?
Yes (32.7%) No (36.5%) No comment (30.7%)

Who do you think should bear the cost of cleaning up air pollution?
The public (2.5%) Business (29.7%) Government (25.3%) All three parties (42.5%)

The poll results corroborate what we have been saying for some time:
Hong Kong people, across the board, are well aware of the deterioration in air quality in recent years. BUT, THEY BELIEVE, RIGHTLY, IN OUR OPINION, THAT THE CONSUMER SHOULD NOT BEAR THE BRUNT OF PAYING FOR CLEAN-UP MEASURES.

Christine Loh, our Chairman, made an excellent point in her most recent editorial, http://hongkongcan.org/eng/2009/11/20/love-it-or-leave-it/
The Government shot itself in the foot by suggesting at the beginning of the public consultation that consumers ALONE would have to shoulder the financial burden of abatement measures. The Government's failure to approach the cost-sharing issue with greater realism has now created NEEDLESS political resistance to their proposal to phase out old buses early. In the minds of the public, ANY solution is acceptable provided there is cost SHARING. There are indeed many ways to skin a cat. Thus, the suggestion that consumers had better "love it or leave it", was needlessly divisive. Thankfully, there is still plenty of time to cobble together a very reasonable cost-sharing proposal that all stakeholders can accept.

ON BEING A PREACHER (and wearing the right clothes)

2009-11-24T18:22:00.000-08:00

last night, i gave a talk at box thai, which was hugely inspiring for me, because it was the first time that i spoke to the general public, instead of a group convened specifically to hear about air pollution.
it was a chance to actually touch the minds of everyone in the audience and to galvanize them into action through the delivery of some simple wake-up call facts -- the same ones printed on the back of my business card - air pollution kills 3 people a day, only 41 days are healthy to breathe, hk is 3x dirtier than ny.
hard to believe but the scmp had sent over a reporter to cover the event for the "cityseen" section. considering my long history as the frontperson of a glamorous international brand, it made me chuckle that our environmental shindig qualified as a "see and be seen" soiree. when you see my dopey pic in the paper, you'll believe that i was distinctly unprepared for the photo opp. then again, it's great that i can show up with converse sneakers and a CAN t-shirt at most bashes these days. tonight, i'm speaking at CIS's climate change forum, wearing argyle-patterned tights, chuck taylors, a mini-kilt and, yup, you guessed it, my CAN tee shirt! i go into some sartorial detail (because this blog post may double as an article on hiphongkong.com, later. i met the founder of that website last night and she's already encouraged her online following to support CAN.).
last night, which i enjoyed vastly, reminded me WHY i left the private sector to head up an NGO. since the beginning, even in law school, i've been a preacher. when i was the creative director of shanghai tang, i was a preacher too -- but in designer clothes of my own making. i wasn't selling clothes, but a cultural patrimony spanning 5000 years. at filligent, i wasn't just flogging face masks, but creating an fmcg consumer brand which could hold its own in any market and prove that a hk company can create durable value in today's cut-throat global economy. whatever journey i have chosen, the compass has always secretly pointed beyond the immediate destination, to a larger, if concealed, personal goal.
at CAN, i can now say, unabashedly, without a hint of delusion or grandiosity, yes, i want to inspire you. finally, i've showed up to the party in the RIGHT clothes....

RESPONDING TO NAYSAYERS....

2009-11-23T05:15:00.000-08:00

just after i emailed my friends to share CAN's first animated video, yesterday,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
i received the following skeptical response from one of hk's most famous and vocal opinion leaders.... the entire thread with my response is below. the first email in the thread is at the very bottom.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joanne Ooi
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: If you care about Hong Kong, please watch and share this clip.
To: MAJOR HK OPINION LEADER

dear d,
i'm glad you watched the video.
in answer to your questions:
all the facts stated in the video are drawn from published scientific studies or research conducted by HKU and HKUST. indeed, we work closely with all the leading public health and transport professors at cuhk, hku, and hkust, as a general rule. the fact about how a majority of the time, a majority of the pollution is hk-created is from a study conducted by HKUST. the death toll figures come from the hedley environmental index and are themselves cited as authoritative by the hk government. the fact about how indoor air quality is very similar to outdoor air quality is based on a paper which was submitted by professor tony hedley, hk's leading public health expert advising the WHO on air pollution internationally, to LegCo. we have all the information and sources stated on our website. as you can imagine, providing footnotes in an online video is not feasible or desirable.
the reason clean air network came into existence and why i quit my private sector career this year is because, for the first time in more than 20 years, the government is planning to revise hk's air quality management policy. it means we FINALLY have the precious opportunity to mobilize public opinion and do something about it. by "do something about it", i mean drown out the transport lobby by mobilizing a bigger voice. the centerpiece of our effort is a petition. but, on a broader, more profound basis, we seek to educate society at large about this issue. for that matter, we need to get the issue on the radar of a lot of hk people.
regarding grassroots mobilization, we are systematically signing up and recruiting district council people to conduct street discussion forums, mailbox stuffings and petition sign-ups. So far, we have signed up 40 DC members and 6 LegCo members, including the chairman of legco -- not bad considering that we only began in September and that each outreach requires one-on-one interaction. CAN has also spoken at most of the major hk universities. up one level in society, we have signed up more than 90 NGOs and professional associations. for example, the bar association is sending out our educational and petition flyer this week to their membership. on top of the mobilization pyramid, csl, clsa, tvb, star tv, and mtr are just some of the blue-chip household names supporting us. for example, csl has conducted an sms campaign to 2+ million subscribers, posted e-posters in their retail stores and messaged their employees to support CAN. other supporters are giving us free advertising and offering to message for us.
while all of this is happening, we are in direct communication with the government, edward yau's office, the epd and the transport department. they are well aware of what we are doing and consider us their partner in pushing forward their stated agenda (unveiled in july 09) of tightening hk's air quality objectives and passing a package of 19 abatement measures. according to the government, it plans to finalize the air quality objectives at the end of next year, giving us one year to mobilize the hong kong people.
while we seek to arm the hk government with more ammo, we are pressuring the government at the same time to accelerate the adoption of clean-up measures and enact legislation which is as stringent as possible, but still realistically feasible.
just to let you know, i assumed my full-time post as ceo of CAN on 1 october, but, thanks to the quality of the board, who include christine loh, markus shaw, elaine marden, winston chu and tony ng, we have landed running. there is yet a great distance to go, but i'm confident that we will make an impact.
i hope you will consider supporting us now that i have adduced some corroboration for the statements in the video and articulated our strategy for the next 12 months.
best,
joanne

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM, MAJOR HK OPINION LEADER> wrote:

But how are all your figures supported ? By what and by whom? And what is your definition of 'safe'? And most of all, what do you PROPOSE to do about cleaning up the sir to the extent of it becoming safe, or safer, in which case how much safer?
Surely its only logical that at least these questions are answered before anyone should sign your petition? Otherwise they would be doing so simply on your say-so and point-of-view?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joanne Ooi
To: joanneooihk@gmail.com
Sent: Sun Nov 22 10:41:08 2009
Subject: If you care about Hong Kong, please watch and share this clip...

Dear Friends
If you care about HK's air, please take the time to watch this 2-minute video produced on a shoestring by Clean Air Network. Not a typical, boring, self-validating corporate video, but something that will make you chuckle, recoil and, i hope, REACT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE_QaOjOHzw
Seriously, if you care about Hong Kong, SHARE IT -- by email and on facebook.
It's very rare to send such a personal appeal, so I sincerely hope you will take 5 minutes out of your day to watch and SHARE THIS.
Thank you

AIR POLLUTION IS VERY MUCH ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE

2009-11-18T16:31:00.001-08:00

NOTES FROM THE GRASSROOTS: THE DOUBLE BURDEN OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE NEW TERRITORIES

Some comments from a DC member in the New Territories --

"On solving the air pollution problem, many people in the New Territories believe that the government and Legco have favored the interests of people living in city districts (mostly wealthy people) over the interests of those living in the New Territories. The government built and Legco supported the government offices, Legco building, public infrastructure and all commercial activities to be concentrated oin only Central or other city districts. This forces people living in the New Territories to travel all the way from the New Territories to Central (or other city districts) to look for jobs, eventually increasing the demand for buses running on the road. It has never been the wish of people in the New Territories to travel all the way to Central to work, but instead they have to bear the costs of cleaning up air pollution. Whether cutting short bus routes or increasing bus fares, it is the grassroots living in the New Territories who have to pay to clean up air pollution in Central. One way to reduce air pollution is better city planning, not just replacement of old buses. If the government could relocate some offices or public infrastructures from city districts to the New Territories, this could provide job opportunities to people in the New Territories, allow them to stay in the NT and, consequently, reduce the demand for buses.

Another point: The view of Victoria Harbour means nothing for the grassroots in the New Territories. Many of them can't even afford to travel to Central."

i share this letter with you because it gives genuine insight into WHY sometimes the grassroots finds it hard to support air pollution clean-up measures: THESE MEASURES (BUS-RELATED) FALL DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THEM - who have already been penalized by the great distance they must travel to work.

what it means for CAN is that we must find political approaches which acknowledge and,if possible, REDRESS these inequities. SPECIFICALLY, bus companies, NOT bus riders should bear MUCH more of the cost of cleaning up air pollution. NOT the average bus rider.

whether it is EFFICIENT for business centers to be established throughout the NT is, of course, another question entirely -- one which i'm not qualified to comment on. ditto for the question of whether the long commute distance from the NT is reflected in rents and real estate prices in those areas. rather, the point of today's blog is to shed light on the POLITICAL obstacles our movement confronts.

thick fuels, thick minds

2009-11-16T18:02:00.000-08:00

i just attended a breakfast about marine pollution sponsored by amcham this morning. to quickly sketch the backdrop of the issue: marine fuel is several THOUSAND TIMES higher in sulphur content than vehicle diesel. to quote one of the lead participants, arthur bowring, the head of the hk shipowners association: marine fuel is so viscous that if you turned the jar of bunker fuel he keeps in his office upside down, the fuel wouldn't actually move. basically, it's about as thick as asphalt!
bowring said it many times over and over: we want to clean up, but we need a level playing field. a level playing field means coordinated PRD legislation of green harbour measures which would not exceed the international MARPOL regime. (standards tighter than MARPOL, the international maritime regime which covers ship pollution of all sorts, would necessitate additional capital expenditures and technical difficulties such as fuel switching and extra fuel tanks, beyond those considered internationally reasonable). Moreover, a fair playing field would assume the ready availability of cleaner fuel - a state of affairs which does not yet exist - with no penalty if such fuel was not available despite shipowners' best efforts.

apparently, bowring has sought meetings with the government for a long time, in order to convey the support of the shipowners association for more aggressive marine abatement measures. but it's only today that, for the first time, they've had the chance to meet face to face -- thanks to representation from the EPD at today's breakfast. WOW. that means that, to date, the hk govt has been trying to protect the interests of a constituency which didn't want its interests protected -- at least not like this. i hope arthur will convey his support for a stronger SO2 AQO in his upcoming conversation with the EPD, since the main thing holding the latter back has been been perceived resistance from the shipping industry to stricter sulphur standards.
besides learning that marine fuel is the absolute dregs of the oil refinement process accounting for its cement-like viscosity, there were some other interesting takeaways from today --
oil refiners don't want to make higher value distillates (cleaner fuels) because it's convenient and cost-effective for them to continue dumping the dross (marine bunker fuel) into the shipping industry.
the creation of distillate results in substantially greater carbon emissions than the burning of marine bunker fuel, but it's easier for several hundred refiners to scrub their emissions than 100,000 ships to implement scrubbing technology.
to date, no single technology has been able to remove all the contaminants in fuel. rather seawater scrubbers are required to remove SO2 and PM, whereas selective catalytic reduction technology is required to reduce NOx. while both these technologies can effectively filter out 80-90% of contaminants, both come with major technical challenges. in the case of sea water scrubbers, the process results in solid contaminant waste which must then be safely disposed of. in other words, seawater scrubbing merely displaces the problem, converting air pollutants into toxic solid matter. regarding scr, ships must carry large amount of urea and the process must take place at very high temperatures.
in singapore, apparently, scientists have successfully conducted preliminary trials of a new sound wave technology which reduces the ph of emissions, successfully eliminating ALL contaminants, and reducing them into a form of calcium carbonate. ZOUNDS! if it works, it will be revolutionary. (sounds too good to be true, but, then again, i previously worked at a company which successfully eliminated carcinogens from cigarette smoke without affecting the cigarette-smoking experience.)
amcham gets a big gold star for organizing today's breakfast: it went a long way towards improving communication between the shipping industry and the government while bringing us (comparative) neophytes up to speed on 360 degrees of this incredibly complex issue.