Letter to the Editor of SCMP - Response to an article on air quality
|
Letter to the Editor of SCMP - Response to an article on air quality
We would like to clarify a few points raised in LAI SEE (October 26, November 1, 2 and 3) on air quality.
Improving air quality sits at the heart of Government’s environment policy. We are finalizing our proposal for updating the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs).
AQOs provide not only air quality yardsticks, but also a set of statutory standards to be achieved as soon as reasonably practicable. They are also the legal benchmarks for assessing the air quality impacts of major projects. It is imperative for us to identify the necessary improvement measures and draw up a realistic plan for updating the AQOs.
The AQO Review has proposed a host of measures for attaining the new AQOs. Many of them, e.g., revamping the fuel mix for electricity generation and rationalizing bus routes, are both controversial and complicated. We need to work with the stakeholders to map out the best way for taking them forward.
Meanwhile, we continue to introduce new improvement measures supported by the community. We have further tightened the emission caps of power plants, enacted the law against idling vehicles, provided incentives to replace polluting vehicles, embarked on a trial of retrofitting selective catalytic reduction devices on franchised buses, set up pilot Low Emission Zones, set up a Pilot Green Transport Fund to encourage green innovative technologies and subsidised trials on hybrid and electric buses. We would also strengthen the control of petrol and LPG vehicles and propose to raise the quality of marine fuels.
LAI SEE’s article of November 3 accused us the use of outdated equipment for measuring air quality. In fact, the equipment and procedures being deployed in our monitoring network fully meet the requirements of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Also, the HKUST’s project on air pollution diffusion within traffic streams cannot compare directly with those measurements of EPD’s stations, which are more representative of the air pollution exposure of the public.
As for environmental impacts assessments (EIA), the EPD has been considering all EIA reports in accordance with the statutory requirements. The air quality impacts are assessed using sophisticated computer models comparable to those of advanced countries. All EIA reports are critically examined and the comments by the public and the Advisory Council on the Environment fully considered before deciding whether to grant approval. There has not been any change of practices or standards in approving EIA reports after the merge of the EPD and the Environment Bureau.
Pang Sik Wing
Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Air Policy)
Environmental Protection Department
|
|
   |