by John Herbert, HKSDF Chair, 22 January 2008
Another day, another Sustainable Development conference, this time Swedish style. Hosted at the Exhibition centre in Wan Chai the conference heard various presentations regarding SD experiences from Sweden, particularly waste management, air and water.
The presentations from emanate speakers will be made available on the internet in due course, and I'll add those links to this page.
So have we learnt of have any plug and play solutions for Hong Kong and PRD (Pearl River Delta)? No, but that is expected, however what was more interesting is their inclusive engagement process.
Unlike our system, all the various stakeholders were actually invited to table for debate, including NGO's. I say unlike our system, because the highest levels of our government in Hong Kong dare not invite NGO's or listen to conflicting views they might possibly clash with the "we know it all" stance.
And on the mainland, NGO's are treated with equal contempt and suspicion. The Hong Kong government preferred weapon is the consultation paper, a neat device that allows government to control the agenda, and offer a limited selection of checkbox choices for pubic consumption, skirting around the real issues.
I'll repeat it again for those who haven't heard my mantra, there is no silver bullet solution period. By that I mean there is no single solution only a comprehensive basket of measure will make an impact.
Hong Kong public is destined to suffer endlessly as a result of the government and it's inability to learn. Sure our legislators, at great expense, trek to all corners of the planet to look and learn, however that doesn't help those who don't wish to listen. It seems there is a strong fear of failure, the government cannot fail, or be seen to have failed therefore best that we do nothing.
Experience from other countries indicates that if we only consider
issues one by one we will fail. For example, in the USA it is
acknowledged that their emission programme was initially too narrow and
they missed the big picture.
Another recent Hong Kong example can be found in the July 2007 air quality
consultation paper Clean Air - Clear Choices [1], even before reader can adequately grasp
the issue, the option for road pricing is listed in
the table of contents? Of
course, subtle steering of the issue conveniently overlooks other
options, the government is still seeking that elusive silver bullet
where none exist.
In this case, there are several viable and feasible measures that can be introduced to reduce roadside pollution, yes is road pricing an option, but is it the only solution? Of course not.
I am not buying what the government is selling, I suggest you don't either. A more effective method to lower roadside pollution would be to change the fuel. All modern diesel vehicles will burn biodiesel fuel without modifying the engine.
If we set aside the renewable fuel argument for a moment, biodiesel burns cleaner that every petroleum based fuel, and that would instantly cut the most harmful output - the particulates from the roadside, and as a result lower hospital admissions.
For many years, all the diesel fuel in France sold at the pump has 5% biodiesel, it is compulsory, and drivers from other European countries that refuel in France every year burn this cleaner diesel fuel without incident. A few years ago if you talked to any diesel generator manufacturer, and happened to mention biodiesel you would be met with a blank stare. Not so today, most generators are pre-certified to burn diesel or biodiesel due to customer demand.
This is hardly rocket science, its a simple fact, a fact that other countries have rapidly learned and adopted yet our government continues to ignore.
1. http://www.susdev.org.hk/file/SDU_IR_e.pdf