Hong Kong air quality benchmarks too lax - group
The officially acceptable level of air quality in polluted Hong Kong is far too low, environmentalists warned on Thursday, urging the government to adopt more stringent standards.
Many days of the year, Hong Kong is shrouded in smog and people can hardly see across the famous Victoria Harbour. The government and environmentalists blame the air pollution on emissions from vehicles here and factories in southern China.
The government-set acceptable air quality standards are less stringent than those of the European Union and many of the city’s neighbours such as mainland China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, global environmental group Greenpeace told a news conference.
Group campaigner Sze-chung Chow said Hong Kong’s standards, which guide the calculation of local readings of air pollution, meant that daily estimations of air quality were inaccurate.
“The inaccurate API (air pollution index) hides the extent of the problem and blocks the urgent action needed to begin to solve it,” he said.
“The government must stop lying about our air quality for the sake of Hong Kong’s international image - what about the people that live here, don’t they matter?” Chow urged.
“The government is jeopardising the health of the people.”
The acceptable level of respirable suspended particulates in Hong Kong is 3.6 times the EU standard, sulphur dioxide is 2.3 to 2.8 times, and nitrogen dioxide is double, Chow said.
“Greenpeace urges the government to review and adopt stricter AQO (air quality objectives), redefining the API so that it serves as a real air quality reference for the public to rely on,” he added.
A survey commissioned by Greenpeace this month showed most people thought the official API was inaccurate and air pollution in Hong Kong was serious and getting worse. Most respondents also urged the government to tighten its air quality standards.
Chow said Greenpeace would adopt the standards of the World Health Organisation and EU to compile daily API readings from March 1 to try to reflect the true situation.
Revision date: July 6, 2011
Last revised: by Jorge P. Ribeiro, MD