Marine

Updated on Jan 30, 2009 – SCMP

I agree with your correspondent P.A. Crush (Talkback, January 24) that diesel buses and trucks are not the only sources of poisonous gases and particulate matter in roadside air pollution in Hong Kong.

Just look at the high-sulfur fuel being burned by the ocean-going vessels and other ships in our “fragrant” harbour.

The problem of air pollution will only go away with increased public support and increased pressure on the government to make a decision and act.

World Health Organisation air quality standards must be put in place. A polluter-pays policy can then be applied and we will see the results immediately.

A road-pricing scheme has been considered but this means the rich will drive faster to the next traffic jam caused by the remainder blocking the narrow side roads while avoiding the toll roads, and delivery costs will increase to offset the road tolls.

First, government officials should have their cars and drivers taken away from them, and be made to use public transport, to set an example.

A re-evaluation of bus routes could reduce the high number of diesel buses on our streets with shuttle buses operating between major terminuses.

These shuttle buses could serve the most common routes of these buses and it would reduce congestion in most central city areas.

On the subject of increased fares, I believe this is not necessary as buses do not need passengers to make money.

The advertisements covering these buses are more than enough to make them profitable as, empty or not, they are a major source of revenue.

Michael Pieper, Discovery Bay

The following letter was sent to the Director of Environmental Protection by Clear The Air:

Director of Environmental Protection – ENB

24th January 2009

Air Quality Standards Review

Dear Sir,

We are writing to express our NGO’s concern that Hong Kong’s air pollution is damaging local residents’ and visitors’ health and that the Administration’s belated current measures to address the problems remain ineffective whilst simply reporting platitudes.

Hong Kong is an extremely wealthy and developed first world city with ample resources to reduce air pollution , given the will to do so, and yet we know from the Hedley Environmental Index that last year alone 1,155 people died prematurely, there were over 83,000 avoidable hospital bed days, and 7.25 million doctors’ visits which were directly attributable to the toxic effects of local air pollution; this was at a minimum conservative cost of over HK$2.3 billion to society. We also know that for the major part of the year, the major pollution sources were locally generated. Our local power stations in 2007 burned 3 times more coal than they did in 1997 and 40% less gas than in 1999. Their greed is killing people. Perhaps you should suggest Exxon executives come and live here with their children ?

Given this evidence, we call on the Administration to demonstrate its commitment to imminent improvement of public health and reduction of resultant health costs by setting the World Health Organization’s Air Quality Guidelines as the new Air Quality Standards for Hong Kong, and to set out a strategy on how it intends to achieve these Standards. Without gazetted Standards the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle cannot be effective.

In this strategy please address all the major sources of pollution, but please apply particular urgency to reducing emissions from marine vessels and non Euro V diesel on road / off road vehicles. We encourage you to enact large increases in road tax for non Euro V diesel trucks, vans and buses (thereby making these vehicle owners trade up to Euro V) and to insist forthwith on low sulphur bunker fuel use within Hong Kong waters. We appreciate that the emissions from local power stations might soon be reduced following your Department’s belated requirement that flue gas desulphurization equipment is installed as well as Nox burners. In addition the level of the Standards you set MUST therefore require the power companies apply Best Available Current Technology and fuel mix and that includes agglomerators which can catch the lethal PM0.1 ultrafine and PM2.5 heavy metal emissions which the Electrostatic Precipitators cannot currently catch.

We would stress that Air Quality Standards and a clean air strategy that do not lead to rapid improvements in public health cannot be considered an acceptable outcome of the Review and action is required, not further consultation of a public that has already grown tired of this Government’s lack of decisive action.
Yours faithfully,

James Middleton
Chairman Energy Committee

CHRISTINE LOH – SCMP – Jan 15, 2009

It’s curious, but people are not voicing their concern about air pollution to those who can most do something about it. The government needs to adopt the national environmental plan and set a good example. Civic Exchange’s full survey report, titled “Hong Kong’s Silent Epidemic” and carried out by the Hong Kong Transition Project, was released last Saturday. It looked at how the public is reacting to air pollution and public health. It found that people discuss air pollution with family, friends and co-workers but most of them are not taking matters up with the government, legislators and the media.

So why don’t people complain publicly? They say they don’t think it will help. Some say they don’t know how to, while some don’t believe air pollution is affecting them.

Government officials should pay close attention to the report. It reflects badly on them when people say complaining won’t help. These people have lost confidence in the government’s ability to deal with the problem. The administration also has a responsibility to those who don’t know how to complain, or don’t believe they are affected. Hong Kong’s high level of air pollution speaks for itself – officials need to act.

Moreover, the level of dissatisfaction with government efforts is a very high 77 per cent. Past efforts have included switching taxis and minibuses from using diesel to LPG, supplying ultra-low-sulphur diesel, pushing regulation of idling engines, providing subsidies to replace highly polluting commercial lorries, and tightening emission caps for power plants. But despite these, the public remains dissatisfied, even though people have been silent. Pollution levels have not changed much, according to scientific data, and most people don’t feel any different. Those in charge will no doubt argue that Hong Kong will see substantial reductions in power-plant emissions because of the addition of flue gas desulfurisation technology. With the phased commissioning, Hong Kong should see lower emissions later this year. By 2011, 90 per cent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power generation should have been eliminated, and other pollutants significantly reduced. Officials have focused on power plants in their pollution-reduction strategy. They have yet to get to grips with another major polluter – transport. Viewed in this light, power plants are the easy option. There are only two power utilities in the city. Yet, transport involves many operators, on land, sea and in the air. The major public health culprits are diesel-powered road vehicles – vans, buses and lorries – and marine vessels – tugs, barges, ferries and ships of various sizes.

So far, government initiatives have, on the whole, been end-of-pipe solutions, such as switching to cleaner fuels and adding emissions traps. There have been limited efforts to combine them with urban planning and demand-side management tools to reduce the “canyon effect” on streets and create better roadside environments for the public. And hardly anything has been done to combat the pollution from the burning of toxic bunker fuels, by marine vessels, that gets blown to where people live and work.

It has become blindingly obvious that the government needs to change direction. Public health needs to be an explicit regulatory and legislative driver, and government bureaus and departments must integrate their work. There has been a lack of vision and leadership at the very top. Now the legislature has formed a new subcommittee to tackle air pollution, lawmakers can play a much more active role in calling officials to account and pushing for integrated policies. Without this, we have little to look forward to.

There will be those who say it is not the time to push because of the economic situation. The national 11th Five-Year plan would make good reading for them. The plan puts environmental protection on a par with economic growth and recognises that change must involve comprehensive action using legal, economic, technological and administrative measures. There is a national vision – would Hong Kong’s officials like to get on board?

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org

SCMP – Updated on Dec 11, 2008

By reducing the Discovery Bay ferry service, the passenger levels on each boat will be higher, making the system more efficient in terms of the highly polluting marine diesel that is being used.

Look at the cost in diesel used to transport one person from Discovery Bay to Central and compare that with the cost for a bus using zero-sulfur diesel to Sunny Bay and then for the MTR. Therefore I must agree with any reduction in the use of marine diesel.

As to costs, I drive to work and the cost of fuel has increased by more than 30 per cent in the past two years.

Even with the recent decreases the cost is still up. So I agree with the cost increase as well.

Discovery Bay residents should look outside their oyster shell and keep their whining within the confines of their shell. The residents made the choice to live there. If you don’t like it, you can leave.

Please don’t bother us with your problems all the time. Hong Kong is bigger than Discovery Bay.

Terry Greene, Yuen Long

SCMP – Updated on 10 December 2008

Development of a cruise terminal at the old airport at Kai Tak might worsen air quality, says the environmental impact assessment report. The report, released yesterday for public comment, said fuel burned by cruisers berthing at the terminal might become an air-pollution threat to a tourism complex nearby. To mitigate the impact, the report said the government was considering building an onshore power supply.

Kevin Rafferty – SCMP | Updated on Nov 01, 2008

With the whole world heading for financial meltdown, what can possibly get worse? Well, if a group of international experts are correct, the Earth is greedily hurtling towards a crisis far worse than the financial one. We are – the world is – running out of resources. By 2030, we will need two Earths to support the lifestyles we have got used to, that is, if there is anything left after we have consumed or destroyed most of the riches of the planet.

“A more fundamental crisis looms – an ecological credit crunch caused by undervaluing the environmental assets that are the basis of all life and prosperity,” declared James Leape, international director general of WWF, in publishing the “Living Planet Report 2008“. It was prepared in co-operation with the renowned Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network.

The authors estimate that the ecological debt is between US$4 trillion and US$4.5 trillion a year, or double the estimated losses made by the world’s financial institutions as a result of the credit crisis. But who can put a true monetary value on the deforestation, degraded soils, polluted air and water, and declines in the numbers of fish and other species every year? All in all, the Living Planet says that human beings are using 30 per cent more resources than the Earth can replenish each year.

It is a chilling report. But the real surprise is that nothing should be surprising about what it says except the rapid speed of deterioration and the failure to heed the warnings. We are living ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been, seeking instant gratification without thinking of the consequences.

Until the 1960s, most countries lived within their ecological means but, today, three-quarters of the world’s people live in countries that consume more than they can replenish. The report contains information on the “water footprint” of every country and says that 50 nations are already experiencing “moderate to severe water stress on a year-round basis”.

The report calculates that global biocapacity – that is, the area available to produce our resources and capture our emissions, which would keep the Earth’s biosystem in balance – is 2.1 hectares per person. But the actual footprint per person is 2.7 hectares.

The two countries with the biggest ecological footprints are the US and China, each with about 21 per cent of global biocapacity. But there are big differences in the way Americans and Chinese live. If everyone in the world lived as the average American does, we would already need 4.5 planet Earths because US citizens require 9.4 global hectares; average Chinese consumption is 2.1 hectares, so, if everyone lived like an average Chinese, we’d be OK … just.

Consumption and the actual biocapacity of a country, meaning the resources available within that country, are different. The US, China and India all have average footprints greater than their national biocapacity. The US, with its huge land and resources, is consuming 1.8 times its national biocapacity, China 2.3 times and India 2.2 times. In Beijing and New Delhi, alarm bells should be ringing to ask at what price the rising economic growth will be purchased.

The responses of the two major players is discouraging enough to make one despair for the future of the planet.

Being in the US recently, in the run-up to the presidential election, was something of a surreal experience. Here is a country that is in financial crisis, heavily indebted to the tune of US$10.2 trillion and fighting wars on several fronts that are bleeding it of another US$600 billion a year (and that is without counting unfunded little details like social security, Medicare and Medicaid, which would push total debts to a whopping US$60 trillion) and, yet, none of the political contenders dares to give a reality check.

The US is the best country in the world, with the best workers in the world and we are gonna win the war, whatever it takes – that is the message from both contenders.

John McCain and “Sreamin’ Scarah” Palin go further and declare that they won’t allow America to be pushed around by foreigners and won’t permit anyone to commit the mortal sin of increasing taxes.

How in heaven’s name is the existing mess to be paid for, let alone the future? Yahoo.com this week offered five good reasons for buying an SUV, in total denial of anything real except pandering to pampered lifestyles.

The attitude from Beijing is, by these standards, more measured. China has finally admitted that its greenhouse emissions have caught up with those of the US – though most outside experts say that China passed the US last year. But China stubbornly insisted that its emissions will not fall any time soon and it will not allow the battle against emissions to impede its quest for growth. Yet Beijing also offered its solution to the problem, even though it involves transfers of US$300 billion a year from the Group of Seven industrialised countries, or five times total economic aid from all rich countries to all poor countries.

The US and China, and most other countries, should listen to Bill Clinton. Safely out of office and without having to face the daily pressures of his Congress and electorate, he said that there is hardly a major problem of the world that one country can solve on its own.

In these issues of the fragile future of the planet we are all bound together. The exquisite flapping of a butterfly’s wings in the Amazon can cause a tornado in Texas, just as greenhouse gas emissions from China are already spreading across the Pacific to Los Angeles, and plastic bags discarded in North America are turning up in the stomachs of albatrosses on remote Midway Island.

Poor Earth, poor all of us and our children unless we can make our leaders see how fragile are the precious resources of the planet.

Kevin Rafferty is editing a book for the Poznan Climate Change conference, in December, that is supposed to work out a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol

The Australian | October 30, 2008

EMISSIONS of the potent greenhouse gas methane are on the rise again – but this time it’s nothing to do with farting cows.

Scientists have warned climbing methane levels may speed up global warming.

Levels of methane, the second-worst greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, had plateaued but recently started to rise again.

Dr Paul Fraser from the CSIRO said increasing methane levels appeared to be caused by the melting of Arctic ice, which was opening up more wetlands to the sky.

These wetlands are releasing methane.

Cows and sheep, that burp, breathe and fart out methane gas, are a major source of methane emissions, but apparently, are not to blame for the increase.

Dr Fraser said the rise in methane levels was a concern.

“This is not good news for future global warming,” he said.

AFP – Sep 4, 2008

Hong Kong is considering banning fishing trawlers in its waters to save fish stocks, a report said Thursday. The drastic proposal comes as annual catches were estimated to be 30 percent above sustainable levels, the South China Morning Post said, citing a consultation paper from the Food and Health bureau.

“Most Hong Kong waters are fish spawning and nursery grounds,” said the consultation document, which will be released by the bureau’s committee on sustainable fisheries next week.

“The indiscriminate trawling activity will lead to catches of infant fish that lack… economic value and seriously disrupt reproduction capacity.”

Under the proposals, the government could buy out some of the 550 fishing trawlers operating in Hong Kong waters.

Environmental groups have long said that of all methods used, trawling has the most damaging effect on the seabed and fish stocks.

The document said annual production of fish in local waters has reached 26,700 tonnes, 30 percent above the maximum sustainable yield set by a recent study on sustainable fishing, the Post said.

The proposal is likely to draw opposition from the beleaguered fishing industry, which provides 12,000 jobs in Hong Kong.

Fishermen have been plagued by a string of problems including marine pollution from China, soaring oil prices, ageing operators, and mounting calls to protect international fish stocks.

Financial help and retraining could be offered to the affected fishermen, with the hope that they could turn to the leisure fishing business or fish farming, the report said.

Other suggestions in the paper included limiting new entrants and capping the number of fishing vessels, the English-language newspaper reported.

A spokesman for the department said the report was not yet available to the public.

The Economic Times – 25 Aug, 2008, 0000 hrs IST, AGENCIES

Dirty smoke from ships cruising at sea and while running engines in port in order to generate electricity affects the air quality of coastal cities like Houston, according to researchers belonging to University of California. Scientists from the University of California at San Diego report that the impact of dirty smoke from ships burning high-sulfur fuel can be substantial, on some days accounting for nearly one-half of the fine, sulfur-rich particulate matter in the air known to be hazardous to human health.

Until now, air quality experts have been unable to quantify the specific contribution of ship smoke to the air pollution of coastal cities.

“Ships are really unregulated when it comes to air pollution standards. What we found was a surprise, because no one expected that the contribution from ships of solid sulfur-rich particles called primary sulfate would be so high,” said Mark Thiemens, dean of the division of physical sciences and a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the university at San Diego.

Primary sulfate, or SO4, is produced when ships burn a cheap, sulfur-rich fuel called “bunker oil.” Although more sulphur is typically found in other particles produced by ships, SO4 particulates are particularly harmful to humans because they are especially fine microscopic particles that can remain in the lungs. The tiny particles can also travel long distances.

The scientists developed a chemical fingerprinting technique that distinguished ship smoke primary sulfate from the tailpipe emissions of trucks, cars and other sources.

These techniques should help regulators in other states and countries monitor the impact of ships off their coasts as new restrictions on bunker oil burning by ships are implemented, the researchers said. International rules requiring clean-burning ship fuels are set to take effect in 2015.

“Because a large part of the world’s population live in major cities with shipping ports – such as Houston, New York City, San Francisco, Hong Kong and Singapore – and global shipping is expected to increase in the decades to come, this should help policy makers around the world make more informed decisions about improving the health of their citizens,” Mr Thiemens said.

ScienceDaily (Aug. 20, 2008) —

Ah, nothing like breathing clean coastal air, right? Think again.

Chemists at UC San Diego have measured for the first time the impact that dirty smoke from ships cruising at sea and generating electricity in port can have on the air quality of coastal cities.

The scientists report in this week’s early online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the impact of dirty smoke from ships burning high-sulfur fuel can be substantial, on some days accounting for nearly one-half of the fine, sulfur-rich particulate matter in the air known to be hazardous to human health.

Their results have particular significance for the state of California, which will require, beginning next July, that all tankers, cargo and cruise ships sailing into a California port switch to more expensive, cleaner-burning fuels when they come within 24 miles of the coast. Similar international rules requiring clean-burning ship fuels are set to take effect in 2015.

While those regulations are intended to minimize the potential hazards dirty ship smoke may pose to human health and the environment—which some researchers have estimated may be responsible for as many as 60,000 deaths worldwide and a cost to the U.S. economy of $500 million a year—no one knows the actual impact of ship smoke. The reason is that air quality experts have been unable to quantify the specific contribution of ship smoke to the air pollution of coastal cities—until now.

“This is the first study that shows the contribution of ships to fine particulates in the atmosphere,” said Mark Thiemens, Dean of the Division of Physical Sciences and a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UCSD who headed the research team. “Ships are really unregulated when it comes to air pollution standards. What we wanted to find out was the contribution of ships to the air pollution in San Diego. And what we found was a surprise, because no one expected that the contribution from ships of solid sulfur-rich particles called primary sulfate would be so high.”

Primary sulfate, or SO4, is produced when ships burn a cheap, sulfur-rich fuel called “bunker oil.” Most of the sulfur emitted by ships burning bunker oil is released as sulfur dioxide, or SO2, a gaseous pollutant which is eventually converted to sulfate in the atmosphere. But although SO4 may be a smaller component in ship emissons, the scientists say, these primary sulfate particulates are particularly harmful to humans, because they are especially fine microscopic particles, less than 1.5 microns or millionth of a meter in size. As a result, they can travel extremely long distances because they stay in the atmosphere for longer periods and, unlike bigger dust grains and particles that are removed by the body when breathed, remain in the lungs.

“The importance of primary sulfate is usually ignored in assessments of the impact of ship emissions on air quality because less than 7 percent of all sulfur emitted by ships is found in primary sulfate particles,” said Gerardo Dominguez, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSD and the first author of the paper. “But our results suggest that this component of ship emissions is important and should not be ignored in the future. Knowing how much sulfate from ships is in the air will also allow us to better understand what happens to the other 93 percent of sulfur emitted by ships.”

Working with Thiemens, Dominguez developed a chemical fingerprinting technique that allowed the scientists to distinguish primary sulfate from ship smoke from the tailpipe emissions of trucks, cars and other sources. This was done using an oxygen-isotope technique developed by Thiemens that allows scientists to determine the signature of sulfate molecules made in the atmosphere. The researchers discovered that primary sulfates from ship engines incorporated molecular oxygen (the type we breathe in to live) and are easily distinguished from primary sulfates from car and truck diesel emissions.

Sampling air at the end of the pier at the UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, the scientists found that the smoke from ships contributed as much as 44 percent of the sulfate found in fine particulate matter in the atmosphere of coastal California. On the days when the proportion of ship sulfate approached one-half of the fine particulate matter, the scientists determined from wind direction and speed calculations that ships burning high sulfur fuel in the Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego ports were a major influence.

“We found that in San Diego, the Port of Los Angeles can be a significant influence on air quality because these fine particulates can travel so far,” said Dominguez.

The researchers said the chemical fingerprinting techniques they developed in their study for ship primary sulfur emissions should assist the California Air Resources Board as well as regulators in other states and countries monitor the impacts of ships off their coasts as new restrictions on bunker oil burning by ships are implemented.

“This will tell us whether California’s new regulation requiring cleaner burning fuel 24 miles off the coast is having the effect it’s intended to have,” said Thiemens. “And because a large part of the world’s population live in major cities with shipping ports—such as New York City, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Houston, and Singapore—and global shipping is expected to increase in the decades to come, this should help policy makers around the world make more informed decisions about improving the health of their citizens.”

Other UCSD researchers involved in the study were chemist Terri Jackson, graduate student Lauren Brothers and undergraduate students Burton Barnett and Bryan Nguyen. The research project was financed by grants from the California Air Resources Board, the Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, and the UC Office of the President.