Pending approval from the legislature and environment advisers this year, the new set of air quality objectives for 2025 are expected to come into effect next year.Issue 1
Undersecretary for Development Liu Chun-san said in February the construction for the Lantau Tomorrow Vision will not start until it has been confirmed that the project will not have detrimental effects on the environment.
His statement failed to impress environmentalists, including members of the Save Lantau Alliance, who said the work would damage the marine ecosystem. “[Reclamation] is not environmentally friendly in the first place, how can it be more environmentally friendly?” one said.
Also, there are criticisms that a new set of proposed five-year air quality objectives running up to 2025 may have been pitched overly conservatively to make it easier for major future projects to meet them, according to Hong Kong environmental group Clean Air Network.
HK government is just “playing a numbers game” with our city's air quality goals
Senior community relations manager Loong Tsz-wai believed the unambitious targets were pushed to make it easier for future developments such as the government’s proposed Lantau Tomorrow Vision to pass their environmental impact assessment.
According to the Environmental Protection Department’s air quality predictions for 2025, annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the proposed reclamation area would be about 40 to 60 micrograms per cubic metre. This would fail to meet the 2025 objectives.
A department spokesman said the Lantau plan would have to conduct and pass its environmental impact assessment study. The plan would have to comply with the air quality objectives (AQOs) “at the time of the decision”. The development was exempted from having to meet the updated and tightened AQOs for 2015 in its environmental impact assessment. It instead followed the much looser 1987 standard.
Loong cited this as another example of air policy being “manipulated” for the sake of development. “What is the point of the AQO then? Is it still a legally binding standard?” Loong added.
Controversially, the review makes no proposed changes to other problem pollutants such as ozone and respirable suspended particulates (PM10), deeming any such tweaks to be unrealistic, PM10 and ozone concentrations have increased significantly over the last three years and already fail to meet their current targets.
But Professor Steve Yim Hung-lam, an air pollution expert at Chinese University and member of the government’s Air Quality Objective Review Working Group, said this was justified. “Annual averages are determined by long-term trends in emissions, but limits are exceeded easily during weather events, like before typhoons, which are beyond anyone’s control,” he said.
Edited by Nicole Moraleda
Question prompts:
Are the environmentalists’ concerns valid? Why or why not?
Where should the government draw the line between urban development and environmental sustainability? Explain your answer.