|
1. CA welcomes the
long-delayed proposal. The issue of banning idling engine has been
discussed in the community for the last 7 years and even with the
continuous efforts of NGOs to call upon voluntary actions of vehicle
operators, there has been little progress in reducing exhaust
emissions from idling engines.
2. The main problems
of emissions of idling vehicles are the health implications to
people who are exposed to roadside environment, in particular to
those who work long periods by the roadside daily, for example, the
newspaper sellers. The special topographical and form of urban
environment of Hong Kong aggravate the health impact of idling
vehicles. The tower building blocks by the roadside hinder the
dispersion of the vehicle exhaust emissions which accumulate to
unacceptable concentration levels (i.e., exceeding the air quality
objectives). Compounded with high pedestrian flows in the urban
areas of Hong Kong, the scale of threat to human health becomes
acute.
3. It has been well researched and documented that exhaust emissions
from vehicles are toxic and carcinogenic. Long term exposure to
these emissions have a much higher charge of contracting breathing
illnesses and even lung and other related cancers. While Government
spends billions of dollars on providing medical care to combat these
illnesses, CA is of an opinion that prevention is always better than
cure. Any possibility to curb vehicle emissions should then be
sought.
4. Idling vehicles with running engines usually support the
air-conditioning while the drivers and passengers are waiting in the
vehicles and thus provide comfortable in-cabinet cool environments
which can be easily enjoyed in the nearby shops, malls and
restaurants in Hong Kong. Thus most of the time, it is unnecessary.
5. As pointed out in the consultation paper, Hong Kong is not the
first one seeking measures to ban idling vehicles with running
engines; many cities in the US, UK, Canada, Japan and Singapore have
already had similar measures. In implementing this measure, these
cities allow exemptions to certain types of vehicles in very special
circumstances; nonetheless, providing cooling comfort is never an
excuse for exemption.
6. CA agrees to provide exemption to vehicles of disciplinary
forces, other emergency vehicles and vehicles which have their
engines idling for genuine operational needs. No exemptions should
be granted to other types of vehicles, in particular to commercial
vehicles which simply keep the engines running for air-conditioning.
The technology to keep an air conditioner running on battery power
while the engine is off is already commercially available and
applied in hybrid car models such as the Toyota Prius. Legislation
to ban idling engines will quickly be followed with alternative and
commercially viable solutions for powering air conditioners
including refits of vehicles already in operation.
7. Government should however consider provide more shaded parking
spaces. Planting more trees at taxi and PLB stands is certainly a
good practice to cool down the temperature in these places in the
summer.
8. CA strongly supports the overall control framework as laid out in
paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the consultation paper. The exemptions
provided in paragraph 6.2 are reasonable and adequate. There should
have no residual power of exemption. The ban should be applied
throughout the territory in all times, including summer.
9. CA does not object to providing a grace period of 3 months for
help drivers to get used to the new statutory requirement after the
enactment of the relevant legislation.
10. For protecting the health of Hong Kong people, CA earnestly
urges the Legislative Council to endorse this legislation as soon as
possible.
11. Whilst we strongly support the early enactment and enforcement
of this legislation, we would stress that banning idling vehicles is
only one - and quite a small one - of the many efforts that is
required to tackle pollution. To have the legislation passed is only
one small part towards discharging their duties as government and
lawmakers towards a better environment for Hong Kong. We continue to
have high expectation of both the government and the legislature in
taking drastic but much-needed actions to curb air pollution. |
