香港長期遭受空氣污染

[匿名的]

Is Hong Kong too complacent regarding air pollution? Will pollution levels be tolerated in the interests of economic necessity or are its health impacts currently too ‘trivial’ or distant to warrant any July 1st demonstrations in Central?

I am currently conducting a foresight study, looking 15 years into the future to 2020 and investigating people’s sentiments with regard to their future careers and livelihood in Hong Kong. One aspect of that is the effect that pollution may have on their views, particularly with regard to the SAR Government’s commitment to policies in response to it and its plans for further development, something that will undoubtedly magnify the impacts.

[馬丁博士]

Hi Jerry:

I think HK people are concerned, but with this a chronic problem, and deaths not real spectacular and in public eye (and, I think, air pollution rarely if ever proven to be cause of illness/death), seems no great impetus to get on street.

Much of govt probably is pretty complacent; not much public pressure re pollution, but pressure for development. Then, a lot of pollution here is cross-border, and that’s tougher – leaders very focused on development, and even though there seems to be appreciation that pollution is severe and a problem, actually doing hard stuff to tackle it maybe seen as even tougher.

I’ve been here 18 years, seen much talk but little action re air pollution. (Seemed a plus when tougher emission levels caused many factories to close in Tsuen Wan area – but then, factories popped up over border, essentially unregulated [regulations are there, but who bothers about such trivia?])

Also a plus to have LPG for taxis, light buses.
But look at the obstacles placed before trolley buses, which Citybus keen on. And still the love of highways (by, gasp!, dept responsible for highways) – like the silly road being built over Stonecutters; harbour reclamation being – we’re told – driven by need to improve highway system, while electronic road pricing etc languish. Bah!

馬丁

Post edited by: Martin, at: 2005/04/22 11:22

[馬丁博士]

Hong Kong Wheezes as China’s Industrial Economy Belches Smog is title of an item from Bloomberg. Plenty of info and quotes, including:

引用：

“It’s an absolute scandal,” said Anthony Hedley, chairman of the department of community medicine at the University of Hong Kong. “Hong Kong is going backward in terms of pollution. The government has been non-interventionist to the point of being really negligent.”

引用：

On average Hong Kong experiences low visibility every five days, according to a CLSA report in April. Good air quality days fell to 35 percent last year compared with 45 percent in 2001, it said. Singapore is by far the cleanest city in Asia in terms of air quality, while Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei all enjoy better air than Hong Kong, the report said.

引用：

Falling air quality in Hong Kong will affect the health of the city’s residents long into the future, said Professor Tai Hing Lam, head of the department of community medicine at the University of Hong Kong. “If air pollution affects our people at a young age, then we may see something more disastrous in the coming years,” said Lam. “Pollution is becoming a major problem in Hong Kong.” The city’s attractiveness as a travel destination is also under threat, according to industry officials such as Mark Lettenbichler, chairman of the Hong Kong Hotels Association, and Selina Chow, chairman of the Hong Kong Tourism Board. “It should be the government’s number one priority,” Chow said.

[匏名]

你好
自 10 月 23 日星期日下午 1 點以來，政府尚未發布任何空氣污染數據。有人知道為什麼嗎？

和平

[馬丁博士]

Bizarre; just checked at: http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/eindex.php – and still blank since around 7pm on Sunday. Hopefully just temporary glitch. There’s no note on EPD website. Sunday China Morning Post – sadly unlinkable – led with big story on air pollution yesterday, inc criticisms of govt for not measuring the smaller particulates, which recent research eslewhere has shown to be more dangerous than previously thought, especially impacted children. Showed how our air pollution would be consistently way over European Union Standards. Suggested breathing here is roughly equivalant to smoking eight cigarettes a day. Govt has anti-smoking adverts. Maybe soon should also have adverts saying, "Warning: Breathing Can Damage Your Health". Google News search for air pollution particulates yields items inc re air pollution linked to increased risk of heart attack and lower sperm quality; also news item titled Heat dangers forgotten in the battle against air pollution – saying some deaths thought to be due to ozone were really because of heat. People over 65 most at risks; and heat related deaths even in UK.

[馬丁博士]

Hong Kong Marathon just held – and led to some bad publicity for Hong Kong, highlighting local air pollution.
By no means first time air pollution here has been focus of media attention; still, can but hope it will help nudge authorities towards more action, less talk.

Excerpts from Reuters item, here on Boston Globe 地點：

引用：

HONG KONG (Reuters) – Twenty-two people were taken to hospital, two in critical condition, after taking part in Hong Kong’s biggest marathon as the territory was hit by the worst air pollution in months, the government said on Monday.

A record 40,000 people took part in Sunday’s Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon and many complained of the thick smog which obscured the Tsing Ma Bridge, a key landmark along the route.

Of the two runners who were critically ill, one collapsed near the finish in Wanchai, an area where the air pollution index (API) soared to nearly 150, the highest level since September 2005. The other collapsed not far from the Tsing Ma Bridge.
… an expert in Hong Kong urged people not to underestimate the effects of bad air during strenuous exercise.
“Pollution may have been the cause because of the high level of suspended particulates. For people with a history of asthma, polluted air can cause tightness in the chest,” said medical doctor Lo Winglok.
“It is not surprising at all that these people could suffer from cardiac or respiratory related problems,” he said.
However, Choi Kin, president of the Hong Kong Medical Association, said the condition of the two men was more likely to be linked to their level of fitness rather than air quality.
…
Hong Kong’s air quality has deteriorated badly in recent years. On many days of the year, the former British colony handed back to China in 1997 is shrouded in smog and people can hardly see across the famous Victoria Harbour.
Environmentalists blame the air pollution on emissions from vehicles in the territory and factories in southern China.
…

Two runners critically ill after HK marathon

Just checking air pollution indices – which are being published, and High; even at Tap Mun, out in Tolo Harbour in eastern New Territories: so, seems we’re in regional, Pearl River Delta pollution.
[and govt wants to build major highway from Zhuhai and lots of associated infrastructure…]

Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/02/14 01:18

[匏名]

So we have now had 2 major events that have highlighted Hong Kong as being a polluted city -the opening of Disneyland and now the Marathon. How many more international exposes will we need to get this government to start being more proactive. Rumour has it there is supposed to be some Airshow taking place next year – i hope it does not involve low level aerial stunt flying, or they might find themselves wrapped up in the cables of 360.
Saying that I was busy running and filming up the IFC tower on Sat, and in all my years I have never seen such an apocolyptic view and orange glowing sun first thing in the morning..it was truly sad, ugly and not the Hong Kong I used to know…

[匏名]

回到我原來的帖子，日出的圖像可以從twoifcmounteverestchallenge dot com下載[現在已失效？ – 馬丁]

[馬丁博士]

新華社關於香港空氣污染的文章：

引用：

香港素以海港風光、青山藍天聞名，但現在卻被濃重的霧霾所取代，不僅讓這座城市窒息，也讓色彩褪為壓抑的灰色。

香港環境保護署週二表示，2月份共記錄了23起污染定罪，其中超過一半是根據《空氣污染管制條例》而定罪的。

據環保組織地球之友稱，作為遊客對城市第一印象的香港國際機場，去年的低能見度天數創歷史新高。而市中心地區的晴天數就更少了。

汽車、發電廠的排放以及珠江三角洲的污染物被認為是造成城市空氣質量不佳的主要原因。

香港中文大學和香港肺臟基金會發表的一項調查顯示，2003年，70歲以上的老年人中有30%因空氣質量不佳而抱怨呼吸系統問題，而1991年這一比例為4.9%。這一比例在12年內上升了6倍。

呼吸系統專家呼籲政府立即採取措施控制空氣污染，包括在2007年之前在所有餐飲服務中禁止吸煙，這是香港長期拖延的無菸夢想中最困難的部分。

更有專家擔心，嚴重的空氣污染不僅會損害市民的健康，還會損害作為香港重要收入來源的旅遊業的形象。

地球之友表示，3月8日至10日期間採訪了129名導遊，其中一半受訪者將香港的空氣質量評為嚴重或非常嚴重，近40%的受訪者表示遊客曾抱怨空氣污染。

香港環境保護署發言人周一表示，政府決心與鄰近的廣東省合作，實現排放目標。

香港特別行政區和廣東省政府同意到2010年分別減少二氧化硫（SO2）、氮氧化物（NOx）、可吸入懸浮顆粒物（RSP）和揮發性有機化合物（VOC）的排放量，分別減少40%、20%、55%和55%。

對於香港空氣污染的最大來源——發電，環保署已要求電力公司加快減排工程，增加超低硫煤炭的使用，並儘可能使用天然氣發電。

同時，本月在餐飲服務業開展大規模的禁煙教育活動，以期達到2007年全港所有餐飲場所全面禁煙的目標。

該部門還計劃採取其他措施來爭取更好的空氣，例如對新註冊的車輛引入歐四排放標準。

窒息的香港為改善空氣而奮鬥

[馬丁博士]

Friends of the Earth has an online petition, imploring local power companies to clean up emissions (and do more than just bombard us with adverts showing blue skies – let’s see some actual blue skies!)

Not sure if there’s cut-off date.

English: http://www.foe.org.hk/Ealert/energy/energy_eng.asp

Chinese: http://www.foe.org.hk/Ealert/energy/energy.asp

[匏名]

Thank you for your email regarding indoor air quality and respirable
suspended particulates (RSP).

The indoor air quality objective for RSP is less than 180ug/m3 for a 8-hour
average while the air quality objective of RSP for ambient air is 180
ug/m3 for a 24-hour average. The averaging time for both objectives are
different and so direct comparison between them may not be appropriate.

In fact, our IAQ objectives are comparable to similar standards of other
countries, nevertheless we will continue to keep in view of the latest
development in the area and update the IAQ objectives when necessary.

Thank you again for your suggestions and support for improving indoor air
quality.

問候，

Chris CHEUNG
Environmental Protection Department

To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: E(06/0247) Comments on EPD’s IAQ Website Advice to the Public

http://www.iaq.gov.hk/cert/doc/CertGuide-eng.pdf
IAQ Objectives for Offices and Public Places

Respirable Suspended Particulates
“Good Class” <180 micrograms per m3 per 8 hour average
Nitrogen Dioxide
“Good Class” <150 micrograms per m3 per 8 hour average
Carbon Monoxide
“Good Class” <10,000 micrograms per m3 per 8 hour average

http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/envir_standards/files/apgn8e.pdf
Technical Memorandum for Specifying Air Quality Objectives for Hong Kong.

The concentration of respirable suspended particulates in air having a
nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less averaged over any 24
hour period SHALL NOT EXCEED 180 micrograms per cubic meter MORE THAN ONCE
PER YEAR.

The concentration of nitrogen dioxide in air averaged over any 24 hour
period SHALL NOT EXCEED 150 micrograms per cubic meter MORE THAN ONCE PER
YEAR.

The concentration of carbon monoxide in air averaged over any 24 hour
period SHALL NOT EXCEED 10,000 micrograms per cubic meter MORE THAN ONCE
PER YEAR.

Dear Sir
I refer to your reply to my ETS query below.

Firstly ETS has respirable suspended particulates of 2.5 micrometers, far
smaller than the 10 micrometers used as the guideline in EPD publications.
Nose hairs cannot filter PM2.5 so the particulates are sucked deep into the
lungs. Indeed California has now designated ETS as an Outdoor toxic air
pollutant on the same level as diesel emissions.
Secondly your advice to the 85% of non smoker majority of Hong Kong people
to avoid workplaces and places of entertainment which are ETS sources is
of course an impossibility under current laws that need immediate
rectification and enforcement.

Please now refer to the above IAQ information which is posted on your
網站。
It seems that the EPD deems an office or indoor public place (such as a
hospital) with the IAQ Objectives listed above is worthy of a ‘Good Class’
IAQ Certificate.
Meanwhile the above Outdoor Air Quality Objectives also listed on the site
contradict the IAQ Objectives.

For reference:
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/air/air_quality_monitoring/air_pollutants/airborne_particulates/
” Air quality goal
Inhalable particles (those with diameter less than 10µm) are commonly
understood to pose the greatest risk to human health. There have been
extensive studies into the health effects of different levels of particles
and pollution mixes. However, no studies have yet determined a threshold
value for long-term or short-term exposure below which no adverse health
effects are observed. The national 24-hour exposure standard for PM10 in
the Air NEPM is 50 µg/m3. This is the same as the EPP(Air) goal for annual
average PM10 concentrations. The EPA monitors PM10 in south-east
Queensland, Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay and Townsville. The annual PM10
average in these areas for 2001 were below the EPP(Air) goal (see below).
See what the current PM10 concentrations are at the EPA’s monitoring
stations throughout Queensland. “

Respirable Suspended Particulates – why is there a major discrepancy
between the indoor and outdoor air quality descriptions? Indoor air RSP
levels are defined as ” Good Class” at 180 ugm/m3. However outdoor the
air pollution levels are defined as high and to occur ‘not more than once a
year’ at these levels. Since they are both a part of the same department
namely the EPD, why is there no consistency regarding
description of air quality between the indoor and outdoor air ? Does the
EPD really regard high levels of air pollution as “Good Class” air
indoors?

[馬丁博士]

引用：

By Victor Mallet in Hong Kong
Published: April 3 2006

Hong Kong’s ranking as a desirable place to live for expatriate employees has fallen sharply as a result of worsening air pollution, according to the latest survey of the world’s cities from ECA International, which sells advice to employers on living conditions and hardship allowances.

For Asian expatriates, Hong Kong fell to 32nd place in the 2005-06 rankings from 20th in 2004-05, entirely because of air pollution and rising health risks, including the dangers of bird flu to humans.
…
Hong Kong’s pollution, most of it blown in from the factories, vehicles and power stations of the neighbouring Chinese province of Guangdong, has worsened steadily but its authorities have been slow to respond and been reluctant to confront their counterparts in Guangdong and Beijing. Some western expatriates have moved from Hong Kong to Singapore or returned to their home countries, citing air pollution as one of the factors that persuaded them to leave.

Mr Quane said that for Asian expatriates Hong Kong’s decline this year had pushed the city from the top category, where ECA says no hardship allowance is needed, to Category B, for which companies should consider paying such an allowance.

Air pollution is given 20 out of a total of 330 points in the ranking system (with the highest score being the worst). Hong Kong’s air pollution score is 14, compared with two for Singapore….

Hong Kong’s air pollution cuts its appeal

[馬丁博士]

Time Asia just reporting that Seoul is cleaning its air; but at the same time, Hong Kong’s air pollution is getting worse.

引用：

By Bryan Walsh | Hong Kong
VANISHING: Hong Kong is often shrouded in heavy smog

…Hong Kong has lost its sky. The city is frequently cloaked in a noxious smog, and many days the only place you can see a clear shot of the famously picturesque skyline is in ads for luxury apartments. Urban esthetics aside, the damage to Hong Kong residents’ lungs may be worse. “The only safe conclusion is that [air pollution] is having a very serious adverse effect on the health of people of all ages,” says Dr. Anthony Hedley, chairman of the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Hong Kong. Here’s the only good news: air pollution has become so severe and so unremitting that Hong Kongers are fed up—and may finally be ready to force their leaders to act.

… The answers are out there: the government’s Council for Sustainable Development last week released a number of smart anti-pollution proposals, such as restricting vehicle use on high-pollution days, imposing an energy tax during periods of peak power use, and asking electricity producers to use only clean coal or low-polluting natural gas by 2010. While those ideas could have a major impact, many experts doubt whether Hong Kong’s entrenched bureaucracy has the imagination or the will to implement them—and to confront a challenge that crosses borders and barriers.
…
“We’ve done the easy things, like getting diesel vehicles on low-sulfur fuels,” says Bill Barron, a visiting professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “But the more fundamental changes still need to be made”—such as extending the city’s underdeveloped rail network.

At least the Hong Kong government has the authority to make those changes, if it chooses. There’s far less it can do about the estimated 80% of its air pollution that floats across the border from the mainland factories, power plants and highways of Guangdong province, where environmental regulations and enforcement are more lax.
…
A consensus is growing that Hong Kong businessmen who have grown rich polluting the Pearl River Delta should help clean up the mess. “In the past, they thought that the dirty fields, the dirty air and the dirty water resulting from the factories would not be their problems,” said Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang last month. “These things come back to haunt us. You breathe in that air in Hong Kong and you drink that water in Hong Kong.”
…
The business community is also increasingly worried that pollution will make Hong Kong fall behind in the arms race for top foreign workers. Last month human-resources consultancy ECA International dropped Hong Kong 12 spots to No. 32 on its annual list of the most livable cities for Asian expatriates, chiefly on the basis of air pollution. (Singapore was No. 1.) Headhunters are already grappling with this competitive threat. Aaron Stewart, director of the Hong Kong division of recruitment firm Pelham International, tells of a client who accepted an $800,000-a-year offer to move from the U.S. to Hong Kong, only to drop out at the last minute because his wife feared the effect the city’s air pollution would have on their two asthmatic children. “The majority of people spend a lot of time thinking about it,” he says. “There’s no denying the pollution.”
…

Let There Be Light
While Seoul cleans up, air pollution in Hong Kong only worsens. Will the government act

[馬丁博士]

Clear the Air/Asiaexpat petition, requesting govt take immediate action on air pollution:

http://hongkong.asiaxpat.com/petition/

[馬丁博士]

引用：

Chester Yung Taking stronger policy measures to improve air quality could help to avoid the deaths of 1,600 people in Hong Kong, a survey has found. The study "Air Pollution: costs and paths to a solution – Understanding the connection between visibility, air pollution and health cost, in pursuit of accountability, environmental justice and health protection" concluded that air pollution causes discomfort and illness in children and adults, increased use of health care at all levels of the health- care system and premature deaths. Findings were released Thursday by the study’s authors from the Department of Community Medicine at Hong Kong University, the Department of Community and Family Medicine at Chinese University, the Institute for the Environment at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology along with think-tank Civic Exchange. Researchers said air quality improvements could bring benefits of more than HK$20 billion a year. In addition, 64,000 hospital "bed days" and 6.8 million family doctor visits could be avoided, findings show. "If it was an infectious disease, there would be a crisis," professor Anthony Hedley from Hong Kong University’s School of Public Health said. "This is a medical emergency." … The study says Hong Kong has poor visibility 45 percent of the time. The city is worse than Los Angeles, London, New York and Paris in terms of respirable suspended particulate air pollution levels. Researchers counted the number of medical "events" – hospital admissions, doctor consultations or deaths – on a daily basis over a period, and looked at the numbers besides data on the amount of pollutants in the air. They estimated that HK$1.5 billion could be saved per year in tangible health-care costs, HK$500 million could be saved in productivity lost due to pollution-related illness and HK$19 billion in intangible costs, including the value of lost lives and the willingness to pay to avoid illness. … Chinese University professor Wong Tze-wai said that Hong Kong’s air quality objectives were based on the 1987 World Health Organization Air Quality Guidelines for Europe and have not been revised since. "They are clearly outdated and offer no protection to the health of Hong Kong’s citizens," Wong said. …

Deadly cost of air pollution You can/could download the report from June 2006 listings at: 公民交流

[作者]

文章