Blog: NY Times arights their slipshod coverage of HK air pollution in latest Green Inc. article. Hooray!

Yesterday's New York Times' Green Inc. article redeems that paper's previous coverage of Hong Kong's air pollution problem. The article previous to yesterday's was, to our view, one-sided and irresponsible because, by reprinting verbatim the comments of an official EPD spokesperson without remarks from any other concerned parties, readers were given the impression that Hong Kong's air pollution is not THAT bad. Of course, you can imagine that, considering the stature and authority of the NY Times, we considered such an article downright dangerous. Anyway, we were hugely relieved to see the RIGHT FACTS about Hong Kong air pollution published yesterday. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ TODAY'S NY TIMES ARTICLE PLUS THE ARTICLE WHICH TRIGGERED IT.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/author/reenita-malhotra-hora/

Below, too, is our original full rebuttal of Eva Wong's statement to the NY Times, from which they chose today's quotes. After reading it, you will understand why we found the EPD's statements so grossly disingenuous --

"My first reaction to the EPD's response is that the entire thing is, by definition, a load of bunkum because their responses are based on defending the numerous exceedances of the HK API which permits levels far in excess of those recommended by the WHO. The WHO Air Quality Guidelines were expressly formulated to protect public health. In their statement accompanying the announcement of the latest guideline revision (2006), the WHO made it clear that adverse impacts to human health are being found at ever lower levels of air pollution and that, in the case of respirable particles, for example, there are no levels below which harm to human health has not been found. Thus, in the medical-scientific community, these guidelines are considered the minimum acceptable standards for protecting public health. Even then, the WHO does not consider the observance of the AQGs as some sort of magic shield against harm to human health.

Hong Kong's present Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) severely lag the WHO's Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs). Whereas HK's 24-hour AQO for SO2 is 350 micrograms per cubic meter, the WHO AQG is 20; HK's PM10 AQO(24-hour) is 180 while the WHO's AQG is 50. The annual average guideline for NO2 is 80 in HK and 40 under the WHO.

Hong Kong's current AQOs have not been revised since 1987. Obviously, epidemiological and community medicine research on the health impacts of air pollution have evolved considerably since then. The present regime is sadly outdated.Regarding the EPD's citation of other countries' standards as a benchmark against which to judge Hong Kong's, I have three points to make. First, in the case of air pollution and protecting public health, comparison between nations is less important than assessment of standards based on the latest medical research. By these standards, the present AQOs permit 1100 avoidable deaths per year.Second, let's compare the actual air quality of other cities against HK's. In 2006, Hong Kong's air was 3x more polluted than New York's and 1.7x dirtier than Singapore's. Third, when it comes to fighting air pollution, the attitude of the Hong Kong Government bears no resemblance to, say, America's. Obama has granted broad remit to the EPA to tighten air quality standards during his term. Just this past month, the EPA has proposed a tougher standard for ozone as well as significant limitations on emissions from large marine vessels which will have far-reaching health and economic benefits for the American people, despite their short-term cost of several billion dollars. The EPA's proposals were no doubt based on a recognition of the latest scientific and medical research and made in spite of opposition from vested interests in the business community.

As for reductions in roadside emissions cited by the EPD spokesperson, over the period of 1997-2008, according to Professor AJ Hedley, one of the world's leading air pollution experts, the cumulative reduction for PM was only 12.3%. Roadside levels during this period were about 3.5 times above the WHO-recommended levels. At that rate, PM would not diminish to acceptable levels before 2040.

Regarding the EPD's answer to the question, Is it true that the air pollution in Hong Kong is already so consistently dangerous that the threshold for severe harm to human health is exceeded almost every day? Note that the EPD spokesperson did not actually answer this question. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is "YES"! Remember that it is roadside emissions which impact human health the most. One ton of PM or NOx being emitted at face-level is obviously much more concentrated than the same amount being emitted 100 feet up in the air by a coal-fired power plant. The recently unveiled HKUST study showed dangerously high levels of streetside emissions in all 6 of the districts surveyed, with actual levels between 2-3 times the WHO AQGs. Even by the Government's own very lax standards, roadside pollution violated the API danger level of 100 in Central district 1 of every 8 days. Note that Hong Kong only measures roadside pollution in 3 of its 18 districts! The HKUST study found that the highest level of roadside pollution was in a district without any official government roadside monitoring station -- Wanchai.Regarding the EPD's attempt to downplay Hong Kong's toxic levels of roadside emissions by judging their level against an annual average, the harms of air pollution do not vary in a direct linear relationship to the level of pollutants. Exceedances over a certain level, such as the WHO AQGs, trigger a disproportionate increase in adverse health effects."