Motion Debate on Vigorously reducing air pollution

Madam President, many motions debates in a number of meetings of the legislature of late were rather controversial and Members also held diverse views. I am glad to see that this topic on reducing air pollution has aroused a great deal of interest among Members of various parties and the overwhelming majority of the opinions expressed, including the contents of the amendments, are all supportive and a consensus has also been reached with me.

Madam President, although the air quality in Hong Kong now has significantly improved since the ’90s, we also notice that due to a greater need to develop the economy in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) area, the air quality over there has deteriorated, which caused corresponding deterioration of the situation have in Hong Kong. This is readily perceptible. For example, as of November, at the roadside monitoring station in Central, 766 hours of "very high" level of pollution were recorded, and in October alone, 228 hours of "very high" level of pollution were recorded. The 228 hours recorded in October already exceeded the 226 hours recorded in the full year of 2003. From this, it can be seen how much the air pollution problem has deteriorated within one year.

Furthermore, we also found that this situation in Hong Kong had drawn the attention of overseas media and even our international image has been affected. For example, unknown to me when I proposed the motion and by sheer coincidence, the Time magazine published a picture of Hong Kong on the cover of its 13 December issue. That was only two days ago. The Time magazine used "Bad Air Days" as the title and the cover featured a photograph of Hong Kong taken for this purpose. We can see that the international community has also noticed the air pollution problem in Hong Kong.

A recent survey conducted by the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce also found that although the business sector is optimistic about the Hong Kong economy, a lot of people (as high as 81.2%) are dissatisfied with the pollution problem and the percentage is much higher than that in the past. We believe that since foreign businesses have expressed such concern, it is imperative for the Hong Kong Government to strengthen its co-operation in environmental protection with governments in the PRD Region, otherwise, not only will foreign businesses be discouraged from investing in Hong Kong, they will also be discouraged from investing in the PRD Region. We do not wish to see a situation in which our air quality problem makes foreign businesses choose to invest in Shanghai (that is, in the Yangtze Delta) rather than in the PRD Region.

On the impact on the general public, Members can see that I have asked the Government in an oral question on 1 December about the losses society sustained as a result of air pollution. My question was most direct, that is, how much money had been spent. Secretary Dr Sarah LIAO also gave me an answer, saying that according to the assessment conducted in 2000, the economic losses (including hospital charges) resulting from such diseases as respiratory and heart diseases stood at $1.7 billion annually. That was the estimate for 2000. I believe that if a calculation is done based on the air quality of last year and that of this year, in particular, given the far worse situation this year, the money spent in this area will be even higher. Prevention is of course better than cure. Therefore, the incidence of health problems should be prevented as far as possible. This is always better than to wait until problems and symptoms have emerged and then seek treatment.

Madam President, in view of the serious air pollution problem, I have made 10 proposals in my motion today. The first four are related to Guangdong Province. I will focus on these four proposals and discuss how in our opinion we can proceed with them.

It is evident in the information provided to us by the Government recently that about 80% of the air pollution in Hong Kong originates in the Mainland. As to the remaining 20%, the Hong Kong Electric Company Limited (HEC) and the CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (CLP) accounted for over 30% of it and another 30% is created by the Hong Kong public and the sources include our motor vehicles and a handful of factories. It can be seen from this that the bulk of the problem has to do with Guangdong Province and the PRD.

Of the several proposals, the first point that I wish to raise is achieving the emission reduction targets at an earlier date. Although we began to discuss with Guangdong Province as early as 1999 about how much pollution could be reduced by 2010, and I do not wish to dwell on the detailed breakdowns, we can see that given the drastic aggravation of the air pollution problem, we have the grounds and the need to achieve the emission reduction targets earlier than planned. First, we believe it is indeed necessary for us to step up co-operation with Guangdong Province to tighten the emission standards for factories, power stations, vehicles, and so on. Although we are aware that the Mainland has established a so-called three-tier system for air quality, we also notice that their enforcement is slack. Of course, in this connection, we can only conduct exchanges and discussions with them, in the hope that they can step up enforcement. Otherwise, it will be difficult for Hong Kong and even the PRD Region to solve the air pollution problem.

In addition, we also notice that in recent years, since the economic development in Guangdong Province is very good and there is a spike in electricity consumption, even some of the so-called "xiao huo dian", that is, small power stations, which had been shut down or were about to shut down, were also re-commissioned. Most of them use coal as fuel and the air has become more polluted as a result. Moreover, a lot of illegal power stations also continue to operate because electricity supply in China is actually inadequate.

Madam President, the second point I wish to raise is that we believe the emission standards and monitoring systems of the two places should be standardized, that is, it is not possible for us to mind our own business and they theirs. Let me show Members this Time magazine, which has a very apt heading which reads, "One country, One Sky" in English. It did not occur to me that one can put it this way. It means in terms of air pollution, we are in fact living in the same country and under the same sky. This photograph shows how the situation is like in the area around the PRD and I believe the Secretary must also have a chance to look at it.

It is impossible to solve the problem if we merely look at the problem in Hong Kong. The standards adopted in the PRD in this regard are different from ours because the economic development there is not as advanced as ours. For example, the sulphur content in the diesel we use is very low, whereas the sulphur content of the diesel used on the Mainland, given their economic situation, is extremely high. Of course, we understand the background, however, we also hope that Guangdong Province can co-operate with our Government as far as possible, if not, when the fumes spewed by their motor vehicles are blown to Hong Kong, it is useless no matter how good the quality of our diesel is.

Besides, since the two places are collaborating in the preparation of a handbook and the establishment of a monitoring network, I hope the measures can be implemented as soon as possible and the same code of practice can be adopted for implementation, that is, it is not advisable for us to use our own code and they theirs. Otherwise, this will not help solve the problem.

Thirdly, I wish to talk about the emissions trading pilot scheme. The Secretary has spoken to us about this scheme before. However, when she initially mentioned this scheme, we in the Liberal Party expressed some reservations because we were not sure if it would be feasible. If this scheme is implemented, it will involve using the money of taxpayers in Hong Kong to engage in trading with the Mainland and pay the Mainland to solve its problems. In the long run, no amount of money will be enough for this purpose. There are tens of millions of people living in the PRD Region and they have so many power stations there. It is possible that when their vehicles use better quality diesel, we also have to pay for it. This will not do. However, we now think that in view of the present circumstances and the seriousness of the air pollution, the Government may as well give it a try. If it can be done, then we can proceed. The Mainland has already given its approval and its policy is to support the incorporation of Guangdong Province and Hong Kong as test points of the emissions trading scheme. Of course, the Government has said that it could propose the details for discussion only in three years’ time, however, I still hope that the Government can disclose the details as soon as possible.

The fourth point that I wish to raise is that I found many factory owners in Hong Kong had established factories in the PRD. I learned from the information of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries that 63 000 Hong Kong factories were involved in manufacturing on the Mainland. Of these, 59 000 have already established factories and installed facilities and 53 000 of them are located in Guangdong Province. Of course, after the investments have been made on the Mainland, the machinery will depreciate. In view of the state of pollution in Hong Kong and the fact that the pollution generated by the factories established by Hong Kong factory owners in the PRD is the pollution that we are subjected to, we propose that consideration be given to whether it is possible to allow factory owners to enjoy tax relief in Hong Kong for air pollution control facilities purchased. In the past, only factory owners installing such facilities in Hong Kong were entitled to tax relief on depreciation. However, if it can be proven that the equipment is installed by factory owners in their factories in the PRD, is it also possible for Hong Kong to offer tax relief to them as well? Such a move will encourage more Hong Kong factory owners to invest in less polluting machinery on the Mainland (for example, in factories in the PRD). I hope the Government can consider this.

Madam President, I notice that apart from the Mainland, there are also a number of major sources of pollution in Hong Kong, for example, power stations and motor vehicles. Of course, I also have to praise the two power companies because as they have pointed out, in the 12 years from 1990 to 2002, although our electricity consumption had increased 60%, the pollution was reduced by 45%. This indicates that they have been doing a good job and they should be given a pat on the back. We also notice that scrubbers, that is, desulphurization devices, can also bring improvements to the situation. In particular, if the HEC which provides service to Hong Kong Island can install additional desulphurization devices, the situation will be even better. There is hardly any need to mention the CLP, which has not installed any desulphurization device on the Kowloon side. However, the CLP claimed that as far as its ways of power generation are concerned, one third of its electricity is generated by means of nuclear energy, one third with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and only the remaining one third uses coal. Therefore, its problem is not as serious as that of the HEC. However, I hope the two power companies can do even better. I also noticed that they had asked who would pay the bill for installing the desulphurization devices. Can the electricity tariffs be increased? If the figures on this aspect can be transparent, then it will be up to the public to consider if they will be allowed to increase the tariffs or whether, in view of the handsome profits they are making, it would be possible to make the improvements without increasing the tariffs. I think what matters most is to ameliorate air pollution and discuss the money issues later since, judging from the present circumstances, even if the tariffs are increased, the rate will be limited.

On vehicles, at present, taxis and minibuses running on LPG are being used and the result has been very good. If the scheme can be extended to the 40 000 light goods vehicle throughout Hong Kong, we believe this will also be helpful to improving the situation. Madam President, other Members of the Liberal Party will elaborate in greater detail the actual situation relating to the transport industry, Hong Kong-owned factories and power companies later.

Concerning the amendments proposed by other Honourable colleagues, Madam President, I am aware of the procedures and that later, I will have five minutes to respond, so I am not going to dwell on them in detail now. I only want to add one point. From the angle of the sustainable development of society as a whole, there is a host of things that we have to deal with and one very important matter is the air quality. Apart from the opinions of foreign businesses, we also notice that if the business sector in Hong Kong think that they will encounter undesirable conditions of this nature in making investments in Hong Kong, they will move away and invest in other places on the Mainland. This will be unfair to the general public in Hong Kong, in particular people at the grass-roots level or "wage earners" who cannot leave Hong Kong whenever they please. No matter what factions or parties people belong to, be it rich people, professionals, people at the grass-roots level, they all breathe the same air in Hong Kong. Therefore, for our own sake and for the overall economic development in Hong Kong, as well as the health of all members of the public, we hope that the Government, apart from attaching importance to this issue itself, will also discuss this matter as actively as possible with Guangdong Province, since we are living under "one country, one sky", and this is particularly the case in the PRD area, where we really look up to the same sky. Thank you, Madam President.