QuoteSmog sinks Hong Kong's famous skyline
Hong Kong chokes in smog AFP by Polly Hui Polly Hui – Wed Dec 16, 2:56 am ET
HONG KONG (AFP) – On top of Victoria Peak in Hong Kong, groups of tourists find themselves staring down at an apocalyptic vision of a towering city shrouded in a menacing grey smog.
The haze blurs one of the world's most famous skylines and veils the ships dotting the harbour, disappointing visitors who made the trip to the Peak for a glimpse of what can be a spectacular panorama.
When a scene like this was captured on the cover of the Hong Kong edition of the "Lonely Planet" travel guide in 2002, shocked and embarrassed policymakers claimed the image did not truly reflect the southern Chinese city.
But a hazy sky has become an inescapable part of life for Hong Kong's population of seven million.
Statistics from the Hong Kong Observatory show that the annual number of hours of "reduced visibility" jumped from 295 in 1988 to 1,100 in 2008.
The term refers to visibility of less than eight kilometres (five miles) in the absence of fog, mist or rain.
"Blue skies are very rare in Hong Kong today," Professor Anthony Hedley of the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Hong Kong told AFP.
"There are very few days in which our air quality meets the safety guidelines promulgated by the World Health Organisation."
The haze in Hong Kong is formed by a combination of particles and gases generated by power plants, ships, vehicles and tens of thousands of factories in neighbouring Guangdong province in mainland China, experts say.
"It is a very toxic cocktail. The suspended particulates are so fine that they can penetrate to the very lowest region of our lungs, even cross into our (blood) circulation and damage our arteries as well as the air sacs," Hedley said.
Natural mist or fog was only a tiny component of the haze in times of high humidity, he said.
The problem is particularly acute in a city as densely packed as Hong Kong, as pollutants are often trapped between the buildings.
Although the government has in recent years pledged increased efforts to clean the air, critics say it is not aggressive enough.
"At this rate we are going, it's going to be 50 years before we get clean air," Hedley said.
The professor and a team at the university launched the Hedley Environmental Index last year to provide real-time measurements of the health and financial impacts of air pollution in Hong Kong.
The index showed that between January and mid-December this year health care and lost productivity related to air pollution illnesses had cost the city about 1.8 billion Hong Kong dollars (231 million US).
The team estimated that a total of 5.9 million doctor visits and 793 premature deaths were related to air pollution over the same period.
Hedley said he had found a direct correlation between visibility and health in his latest research.
His findings, due to be released within a few months, will allow anybody to estimate the number of expected air pollution-related deaths based on the visibility level on that day.
Meanwhile, another group of environmental scientists is travelling to all 18 districts of the city in a van to measure daily roadside pollution levels. One of their objectives is to compare their data with those collected by the government's roadside air quality measuring stations.
Chak Chan, acting head of the environment division at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and leader of the project, said the levels of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide they recorded in Central -- the city's business hub -- were often two or three times higher than the government figures.
"We believe our measurements can more accurately reflect the roadside situation because ours is a mobile measuring device and theirs are mounted at fixed spots," Chan told AFP.
A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Department said air pollution was a regional problem.
"Reduced visibility is part of the regional air pollution problems in the Pearl River Delta region," he said in a statement to AFP.
However, a study conducted by the Civic Exchange think-tank showed that Hong Kong's own emissions -- not those from the factories in mainland China -- are the dominant sources of air pollution, affecting the city 53 percent of the time.
Although the government in 2006 imposed a requirement for newly-registered vehicles to meet European vehicle emission standards, Civic Exchange found that 99 percent of the 6,000 franchised buses are below the Euro IV standard.
Christine Loh, chief executive of Civic Exchange, warned that dirty air is now driving away the people who are instrumental to the success of the city.
"The biggest shocker of all was that our surveys showed that half a million Hong Kong people -- usually in the professional classes -- are planning to leave because of air pollution," she said.
Hedley urged Hong Kong people to pressure the government to take faster and more aggressive action.
"My advice to Hong Kong people is to write to the chief executive and tell him we want clean air now," he said. "We are all paying a heavy cost for it."
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
Tell your PLA overlords in Copenhagen to stop being dicks and do something about it.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
It is sad, and the diminishing view from The Peak is something everyone should be aware of to illustrate the problem. I found Macau worse though, and had my first ever asthma attack after a day's sightseeing.
Put a dome over the city
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 17, 2009, 05:28:23 AM
Put a dome over the city
That won't solve the problem, because the source of much of the pollutants is within Hong Kong :(
How very cyberpunk.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 05:53:31 AM
That won't solve the problem, because the source of much of the pollutants is within Hong Kong :(
Much, but the reason air is getting worse while public transport gets better is the nearby factories. HK has the highest public transit use in the world, even if the buses aren't green it's better than millions of private cars like other cities have.
You live in a quasi-communist gangsterocracy. What the fuck do you expect?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2009, 05:05:58 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
Tell your PLA overlords in Copenhagen to stop being dicks and do something about it.
Smog is something of a local phenomenon, and doesn't really relate to what they're trying to do in Copenhagen.
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2009, 06:56:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2009, 05:05:58 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
Tell your PLA overlords in Copenhagen to stop being dicks and do something about it.
Smog is something of a local phenomenon, and doesn't really relate to what they're trying to do in Copenhagen.
Must you always qualify my Chinese-bashing, dammit? :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2009, 07:20:36 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2009, 06:56:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2009, 05:05:58 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
Tell your PLA overlords in Copenhagen to stop being dicks and do something about it.
Smog is something of a local phenomenon, and doesn't really relate to what they're trying to do in Copenhagen.
Must you always qualify my Chinese-bashing, dammit? :mad:
When you say things that are incorrect, I must correct you.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 05:53:31 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 17, 2009, 05:28:23 AM
Put a dome over the city
That won't solve the problem, because the source of much of the pollutants is within Hong Kong :(
Well it won't solve the problem for you...
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 17, 2009, 06:45:28 AM
You live in a quasi-communist gangsterocracy. What the fuck do you expect?
I think the problem is actually that the government is unable/unwilling to take on the population. The sources of pollution are cars, buses, and the power plants. To tackle them means raising the prices of public transport, electricity, and car ownership substantially. They just don't dare to piss people off.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 10:50:08 AM
I think the problem is actually that the government is unable/unwilling to take on the population. The sources of pollution are cars, buses, and the power plants. To tackle them means raising the prices of public transport, electricity, and car ownership substantially. They just don't dare to piss people off.
Reducing the price of public transport is what decreases pollution. There's far less particulates per person when there's 50 people in a bus that one person in a car.
Mono, if you want to breathe the vast plain of Southern Saskatchewan are waiting for you :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 17, 2009, 05:05:58 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
I've been to many different cities in the world. I am hard pressed to find any place that has worse air than ours :weep:
Tell your PLA overlords in Copenhagen to stop being dicks and do something about it.
This.
They have fresh air in British Columbia. Move there. :)
Quote from: Brazen on December 17, 2009, 12:14:38 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 10:50:08 AM
I think the problem is actually that the government is unable/unwilling to take on the population. The sources of pollution are cars, buses, and the power plants. To tackle them means raising the prices of public transport, electricity, and car ownership substantially. They just don't dare to piss people off.
Reducing the price of public transport is what decreases pollution. There's far less particulates per person when there's 50 people in a bus that one person in a car.
In HK, the vast majority of the people already take public transport. The problem is that the buses are 10-20 year old models that emit a lot of pollutants. The bus companies won't/can't replace them with the latest models unless the government let them raise fees. If the government mandates them to replace their buses, they will lose money and stockholders will go to the courts. Reducing fares won't encourage people to stop driving and take the bus.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 17, 2009, 02:23:09 PM
They have fresh air in British Columbia. Move there. :)
Fresh air is what I miss most.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 08:27:08 PMIn HK, the vast majority of the people already take public transport. The problem is that the buses are 10-20 year old models that emit a lot of pollutants. The bus companies won't/can't replace them with the latest models unless the government let them raise fees. If the government mandates them to replace their buses, they will lose money and stockholders will go to the courts. Reducing fares won't encourage people to stop driving and take the bus.
:huh: Wouldn't they lose in courts? Mandating certain emission standards seems to be a perfectly valid government competence to me. At least in the Western world.
By the way, there are now busses that have fuel cell electrical engines emitting nothing but water vapour and driving completely silent. Hong Kong with its huge population density would be perfect for that.
Quote from: Zanza on December 18, 2009, 02:10:28 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on December 17, 2009, 08:27:08 PMIn HK, the vast majority of the people already take public transport. The problem is that the buses are 10-20 year old models that emit a lot of pollutants. The bus companies won't/can't replace them with the latest models unless the government let them raise fees. If the government mandates them to replace their buses, they will lose money and stockholders will go to the courts. Reducing fares won't encourage people to stop driving and take the bus.
:huh: Wouldn't they lose in courts? Mandating certain emission standards seems to be a perfectly valid government competence to me. At least in the Western world.
By the way, there are now busses that have fuel cell electrical engines emitting nothing but water vapour and driving completely silent. Hong Kong with its huge population density would be perfect for that.
Bus fares are regulated by the government. If the government mandates tougher emission standards AND refuse to let them raise fares, the bus companies will have grounds to complain.
I thought you guys were arch-capitalists? Why are the bus fares regulated by government? Even our government-owned transport companies raise prices whenever they like to.
Quote from: Zanza on December 18, 2009, 02:57:21 AM
I thought you guys were arch-capitalists? Why are the bus fares regulated by government? Even our government-owned transport companies raise prices whenever they like to.
We fooled you :P
Bus companies are privately-owned for profit entities that are traded on the stock exchange, but they are heavily regulated. They enjoy a monopoly in a given area of the city, but in exchange they must comply with government oversight. The fare levels must be approved by government, the routes are fixed, and the frequency of service is also mandated by government.
Yet another problem is that our bus service is too good. There are far too many routes, far too many bus stops, and far too many half-empty buses on the roads. The government wants to cut them, but every time it tries to do so it creates an uproar from the population.
Quote from: Zanza on December 18, 2009, 02:10:28 AM
:huh: Wouldn't they lose in courts? Mandating certain emission standards seems to be a perfectly valid government competence to me. At least in the Western world.
By the way, there are now busses that have fuel cell electrical engines emitting nothing but water vapour and driving completely silent. Hong Kong with its huge population density would be perfect for that.
Still need power stations to charge them and there's no room for nuclear power stations in HK. LPG is the best thing for public transport and delivery vehicles.