地球之友就《香港國際機場2030規劃大綱》之回應

就《香港國際機場2030規劃大綱》之回應
(English version follows the Chinese verison )


(2011年6月) 機場管理局計劃花費上億元擴建跑道。然而，局方在未能交待擴建項目究竟會帶來多大的環境衝擊下，要求大家在三個月內表態選擇擴建方案，香港地球之友認為機管局「心中只有經濟效益，目中卻無環保」，並且「漠視東涌、屯門超過70萬人口的健康及環境福祉」。

香港地球之友發言人解釋，政府及機管局傾向興建第三條跑道，計劃一旦落實，未來航機排放的空氣污染物，可較現時增加五成；加上港珠澳大橋項目帶來大量的重型柴油車車流量，累積的空氣污染物肯定增加。本會發言人強調，「東涌人口會由現在的10萬人，大幅增加至未來的22萬人，面對污染空氣的威脅，東涌居民將首當其衝。」



對於機管局指新跑道只會導致部分地區的空氣質素和噪音出現輕微超標。本會質疑就空氣部分，這個評估只是依據現時的「空氣質素指標」進行。然而，這個指標早已過時，特首亦承諾今年內會更新，所以無法反映真像。以飛機排放最多的污染物氮氧化物為例，機管局倘用上更新的空氣質素指標，超標情況未許樂觀。

香港地球之友2005向559位東涌居民進行空氣質素的問卷調查，(詳情見：http://www.foe.org.hk/welcome/gettc.asp?language=tc&id_path=1,%207,%2028,%20150,%202924,%202925 ) 當時有63% (352人) 的受訪居民表示區內空氣惡劣，44% 指有家庭成員患上哮喘、支氣管炎、或鼻敏感等呼吸道疾病；超過五成 (53.9%，301人) 受訪者更認為，區內空氣品質若持續敗壞，樓價將受壓下挫；約25% (139人) 被訪者的家人更因為空氣質素的困擾，想過搬離東涌。

包括香港地球之友等環保團體共二十多人，今日傍晚出席了機管局的簡報會。團體基本上一致認為機管理提供的資料不足，無法評價局方建議。

簡報會上，機管局表示原來未有就擴建項目進行對「氣候變化」、「公眾健康」等方面的評估，本會對此感到失望，促請當局跟進。

本會稱，港府近年一直提倡粵港融合，但在擴建新機場上，機管局卻未有提出粵港機場分工合作的效益利弊評估，市民根本無法評估是否有更省錢、又可減少污染的方案。

本會促請機管局及政府尊重公眾的知情權，諮詢期內，應跟進以下事項：

一、 機管局應公開整合區內機場可能性及效益利弊的評估資料，而非局限於現時兩選一的狹隘格局；

二、 機管局應同時提出對「氣候變化」、「空氣質素」、「噪音」、「海洋生態」及「健康風險」等方面的影響評估資料，而非僅僅在經濟效益及客貨量中間作出抉擇；

三、 機管局應提出連同港珠澳大橋、焚化爐等區內大型基建項目的累積性環境影響的資料，讓各界能掌握工程帶來的實際環境及健康風險；


四、 香港政府應盡早更新「空氣質素指標」(AQO)，避免機管局沿用不合時宜的指標進行環境影響評估，無法保障公眾健康。



Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) Master Plan 2030
Full of Hot Air



(June 2011)Tens of millions of dollars have been earmarked by the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) for runway expansion. The public is given only three months to consider the expansion plan with the absence of some very essential environmental impact assessments. Friends of the Earth (HK) regards the expansion plan by the AA as compromising the health of 700,000 residents in Tung Chung and Tuen Mun and disregarding the ecology of the region.

A FoE (HK) spokesperson said they believe that a third runway would create 50% more airplane generated air pollutants as a result of heavier air traffic, adding to the filth belching out tailpipes of the diesel vehicles plying the Hong Kong -Zhuhai - Macau Bridge. The spokesperson said, “Tung Chung¡¦s current population of 100,000 is forecast to grow to 220,000 in the future. Tung Chung residents will be gasping for clean air with the completion of the bridge and the runway.”

The AA said the new runway would only have a regional impact on air quality and noise, slightly over the statutory limit. FoE (HK) deems it inappropriate for the AA to use the archaic Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) as a yardstick for measuring air quality. If the Chief Executive honours his pledge of renewing existing AQOs this year, it would necessitate a re-evaluation of the impact of the runway on air quality. For instance, nitrogen oxides from airplane emissions may reach worrying levels when new AQOs are adopted.

FoE (HK)’s survey in 2005 found 63% of 559 Tung Chung residents rate the local air quality as bad. Up to 44% of residents have family members suffering from respiratory illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, and allergic rhinitis. More than half of the respondents (53.9%, 301 residents) said the worsening air would drive their property price downwards. About 25% of the interviewed (139 residents) were considering moving out of Tung Chung because of the worry about poor air quality. (Survey Results: http://www.foe.org.hk/welcome/geten.asp?id_path=1,%207,%2028,%20150,%202924,%202925 )
More than 20 people from various green groups including FoE (HK) attended the briefing by the Airport Authority today and unanimously found the information provided by the AA not sufficient for making an informed judgment.

FoE (HK) is disappointed to find that the AA failed to include evaluations on climate change and public health impacts in its expansion plan. Such serious oversight needs to be addressed.
The government’s hyperbole on regional integration of Guangdong and Hong Kong is conveniently sidestepped on the runway expansion agenda. FoE (HK) would welcome the synergy zest to be applied here for a more cost-saving and environmental friendly solution with greater collaboration among regional airports.

FoE (HK) exhorts the AA and the government to uphold the public¡¦s right to know and attend to the following during the consultation:

1) The AA should provide information on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a regional airport collaboration as an alternative;

2) The AA should conduct assessments on climate change, air quality, noise, marine ecology and health impacts of the expansion plan rather than the just estimates on economic benefits and traffic volume;

3) The AA should provide information on the cumulative environmental effects of major infrastructure projects in the area including Hong Kong ¡V Zhuhai ¡V Macau Bridge and incinerator projects, so as to give the public a full picture for deliberation;

4) The government should renew Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) as soon as possible so the AA can make their assessments in terms of AQOs that safeguard public health.