Hong Kong environment
October 27th 1999 07:01
"Hong Kong, unlike Singapore, never had a mandate for eternity. As a borrowed place in borrowed time, it evoked about as much protective instinct as a hotel room"
I lived in Hong Kong for 16 years until 2007. In 1998 and 1999 I wrote a series of political and social commentaries for a quirky institutional newsletter - quirky in that it was intended to be as much contentious, offbeat and humorous as it was informative. I was working as an editor, and I wrote the articles under the pseudonym Red Inque. I post them here for anyone interested in a look at life in Asia at the time, and in Hong Kong just after its return to Chinese sovereignty.
The only place where you can wake up in the morning and hear the birds coughing in the trees. -- Joe Frisco (of Hollywood)
Gunk mail
Red Inque got a call last week from a head hunter who, in a long and fruitful conversation, offered an insight into Hong Kong’s pollution problems. The expatriate Brit and his partner had set up their personnel business in Hong Kong, but had moved to Singapore when the partner’s bronchial system had proved incapable of handling the SAR’s less than prophylactic milieu. This was just before the Indonesian bush fires rained ash and dust on Singapore, which was a bit unfortunate.
Back in Hong Kong, we have a government which proclaims commitment to cleaning up the environment, but which draws howls of derision every time it announces another inadequate initiative.
Hong Kong is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. It is, along with the likes of Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, Sydney and San Francisco, one of the great water cities. When visitors come to town, we take them proudly up to The Peak and, standing there high above the Fragrant Harbour, explain that the view would be breathtaking were it not for the smoggy haze.
Some would argue that the haze is not always caused by nasties in the air. Hong Kong, it is true, has a natural seasonal haze, caused in spring by cool water and warm air and in autumn by warm water and cooling air, which can so thoroughly obscure a view that Somerset Maugham was moved to record the phenomenon after a visit in the 1920s.
Others would argue that there never really was a problem until Hong Kong manufacturing started moving over the border into China. This started in the late 1970s when China began opening its doors, and turned into a tidal wave in the late 1980s. China, let it be known, has anti-pollution laws as tough as any. What it doesn’t have is effective policing thereof. So when it comes to Hong Kong’s poor air quality, much of it is being produced across the border by Hong Kong’s own.
Yet others will argue that no-one has given a damn about pollution in Hong Kong since the first British trading ships arrived here and started throwing slops overboard. There was never any profit in it. Hong Kong, unlike Singapore, never had a mandate for eternity. As a borrowed place in borrowed time, it evoked about as much protective instinct as a hotel room.
But now the hotel rooms are too empty too often for profitability and slowly, surely, those in the political and corporate corridors of power are beginning to listen to arguments which include concepts such as eco-tourism.
The SAR government’s Web site is big on environmentalist rhetoric, if a little short on action. It says all new taxis must run on LPG from the end of next year, but there is no timeframe mentioned for converting the vast existing collection of diesel belchers. Hong Kong’s double-decker bus fleet may be newish but is nevertheless potently malodorous. The Web site mentions that some have now been fitted with catalytic converters but that, whatever it means, hasn’t made Red Inque’s walk to the pub any more agreeable.
What the Web page does tell you is that the government is aware of the situation. “Air pollution is a threat to the health of every citizen,” it admits. “Acute respiratory and cardiovascular disease linked to air pollution is already costing Hong Kong $3.8 billion a year in medical expenses and lost productivity.
“Air pollution is a threat to Hong Kong's economy. Poor visibility and a reputation for poor air quality are a disincentive to tourism and to companies establishing or maintaining their operations in Hong Kong.”
For those of our readers interested in a social perspective of the diesel engine, the following is also illuminating: “The extremely high density of built-up areas and the unusually high reliance on diesel vehicles in Hong Kong are unique.
“Thirty per cent of Hong Kong's vehicles have diesel engines, compared with 19% in Japan, 17% in Singapore and 10% in the UK. Our diesel vehicles account for 70% of all vehicle kilometres travelled each year.”
A broad warning came yesterday morning from that stentorian Asian thunderer, The South China Morning Post, which opened its leader column with the following paragraph, “Regardless of which aspect of the economy is under discussion, the conclusions are always the same: without a clean-up of the environment, Hong Kong’s prospects for recovery are weak.”
This blowing of a smog horn is rather stretching reality, but it is the sort of message which may make Hong Kong’s polluters think twice in future before emptying their slops into our harbour.
| 36 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
