The politics of pollution

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/27/opinion/edbowring.php


The politics of pollution
Philip Bowring / International Herald TribunePublished: November 27, 2006

HONG KONG: Progress - or lack of it - in combating pollution speaks volumes about the effectiveness of government in Asia.

Take Hong Kong, which is supposedly well run, advanced and rich. Even Merrill Lynch is now warning that the city is losing business as international companies flinch from subjecting senior employees and their families to the health hazards of this often smog-enveloped city.

A complacent administration makes green noises but does little. It blames mainland factories or suggests that other cities in China are far worse. But a look from the surrounding hills down on the center of Hong Kong shows how much of the pollution in the center is home-generated.

Hong Kong must compete not just with Chinese cities but with much cleaner places - from Tokyo to Sydney to Singapore - yet it subscribes to outdated pollution standards and the chief executive suggests that particulates are not bad for your health.

Why the inaction by an administration that claims to be decisive? It is partly the inertia of a bureaucracy unwilling to admit its own failings. But more important are the links between the administration and the business interests that resist effective action. These are the businessmen who dominate the political structure and provide the chief executive with much of his political support. Their companies offer highly paid cushy jobs to retiring senior officials.

So the power companies carry on maximizing profits by burning coal. The bus and trucking companies continue to use diesel, the ferry and shipping companies continue to belch black smoke into the crowded harbor. Business and bureaucratic interests press for more highways in the heart of the city. A relatively poor Guangdong is now doing more than Hong Kong to reduce emissions.

The bottom line of Hong Kong's situation is that the chief executive is beholden to Beijing when it comes to politics, and on other matters, to a local elite. There is a direct connection between the lack of representative government and inertia in fighting pollution.

A barrage of public complaints is met with words not deeds. The contrast between Hong Kong and advanced East Asia cities such as Seoul and Tokyo is stunning. Even impoverished Dhaka, Bangladesh, has done more to cut urban air pollution.

Indonesia's problems are very different, but again the triumph of money over the environment is evident in the fires that are said to have contributed 10 percent to the global emissions total this year. The smoke has disrupted life in Malaysia and Singapore as well as large parts of Indonesia.

Indonesia may be democratic but public interests are more often than not sidelined in favor of commercial ones, especially in remote areas. Even in crowded Java, a recent catastrophic mud flow showed that environmental and rural concerns are given scant regard by a politically well-connected oil explorer.

That the fires recur annually despite promises from Jakarta is testimony to the weakness of administration everywhere, but especially in the more remote regions. In some areas, the generally desirable decentralization of power from Jakarta has led to increased corruption and lawlessness.

Clearing for the benefit of forest- based industries never completely stopped but more recently the boom in biodiesel has led to a surge in clearing for oil palm, the most cost-effective source of this supposedly green fuel. Forest products have also seen a price boom.

No one would accuse clean and green Singapore of lacking the means as well as will to put public interest before private profit. But neither Singapore nor Malaysia should complain too much about the smoke given that the forest and plantation interests that are the ultimate beneficiaries of many of the fires are based there, not in Indonesia. Malaysian forest and plantation companies have, at best, mixed environmental records.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have shown sufficient combination of popular pressure and administrative ability to make major strides in cleaning up cities and industries. But can China, whose cities now suffer the worst pollution in the world?

It will indeed be perhaps the biggest test for the Communist Party since reform began 25 years ago. Can the government justify its continued grip on power by showing as much determination to halt environmental degradation and the resulting health problems as in suppressing dissent? Or will the commercial interests of local power holders - the local party bosses who also sit on boards - cancel out orders from Beijing based on the alarming findings of the central government's experts?

If the little rich kid, Hong Kong, is so loath to put public health above private profit, what hope is there for the mainland? Can the central government show that it is in control? Or will the public eventually rebel against the notion that private profit and even job creation are more important than health?

HK businesses told to cough up for pollution

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP296880.htm

HK businesses told to cough up for pollution
27 Nov 2006 09:54:46 GMT
Source: Reuters


HONG KONG, Nov 27 (Reuters) - A top Hong Kong business leader hit out at companies in the territory on Monday for not taking responsibility for the pollution they are causing in the city.

U.S. investment bank Merrill Lynch issued a scathing report on Hong Kong last week, saying the bad air could negatively impact the property sector and was scaring off skilled global talent.

"Companies that are creating the pollution -- they should resolve their own problems," David Eldon, the head of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and a former Asia Chairman of HSBC Holdings PLC, said at a "Business for Clean Air" conference in the city.

"Why should the Hong Kong taxpayer put their own money into helping some company that's been making a lot of money already. This is a business issue, business needs to deal with it," he added.

Hong Kong's pollution is largely caused by coal-fired power stations, but huge amounts of smog-inducing particulates are blown across the border from southern China, where thousands of Hong Kong-owned factories now operate.

Many manufacturers have paid lip service to Hong Kong's deteriorating air quality, but have argued the costs of going green would erode their competitiveness and even lead to factory closures.

A voluntary "Clean Air Charter" for businesses launched last year to cut emissions and improve polluter disclosure has so far drawn 500 signatories, a response Eldon described as "pretty bad" with some major industrialists among the absentees.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang, who signed the government up to the "Clean Air Charter" at the conference, acknowledged the scale of the problem.

"Our air quality is not acceptable and we're acting to fix it."

But Tsang said the problem should be kept "in perspective" and wasn't as bad as it seemed.

He also debunked perceptions that Hong Kong's economy was losing out to cleaner places like Singapore, saying the city remained an attractive destination for foreign direct investment and companies.

The Price of Pollution

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501061204-1563005,00.html

The Price of Pollution
Hong Kong's worsening air quality is driving down analyst estimates for real estate companies?and could start driving residents away

By PETER RITTER


Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006
Hong Kong residents are accustomed to seeing their city's famous skyline shrouded by smog. Now the haze could be casting a pall on the city's business climate as well. Last week, investment bank Merrill Lynch downgraded three of the city's biggest property companies, warning in a separate report that pollution could dampen demand for real estate and blunt the city's economic edge. "If we get to the point where it's so noxious you can't live here, people will start walking out the door," says Merrill Lynch strategist Spencer White.
For now, Hong Kong's economy is thriving, with GDP predicted to grow by an impressive 6.5% this year. But concern is mounting that the city's pollution woes are ruining its attraction as a place to live and work. One fear is that multinational firms that have made Hong Kong their Asian base will increasingly decamp for cleaner locales?particularly Singapore, dubbed the best city for Asian expatriates in a recent quality-of-life survey by human-resources consultant ECA International. Hong Kong dropped from 20th to 32nd in the study, largely due to pollution.

The Council for Sustainable Development, a government advisory panel, recently proposed a thorough review of Hong Kong's clean-air standards, as well as cleanup measures costing up to $3.5 billion. But there's relatively little the city can do about its greatest environmental scourge: an estimated 80% of its air pollution drifts in from mainland China's Guangdong province. "You can clean up your own backyard," White says, "but there's still this enormous problem across the river."

Still, Hong Kong's skies at least remain brighter than those of some Chinese cities. Last week, Beijing was forced to close highways and delay flights in and out of its airports due to a choking, opaque haze, while its air-pollution index reached 414 out of a possible 500?a level even Chinese authorities described as "hazardous." By comparison, Hong Kong's troubles seemed almost enviable.

With reporting by Simon Elegant
From the Dec. 04, 2006 issue of TIME Asia magazine