I consider the Airport Authority to be a long-time environmental leader in the Hong Kong business community. Moreover, I take my hat off to the AA for holding a consultation almost twenty years in advance of the proposed expansion of the HKIA.
Ostensibly, the AA wants the public to make an informed decision between options 1 and 2, i.e., no third runway and adding a third runway, respectively, and seeks to supply the public with sufficient information on which to base such a decision.
In regard to air quality, as of now, crucial information on which to base such a decision is not available. Specifically, the public needs to know the following in order to form an opinion on which course is best:
Existing background pollution levels at the airport;
Pollution footprint of Option 1;
Pollution footprint of Option 2;
The difference between the previous two items.
Based on the AA's recent discussions with environmental groups including Clean Air Network, it seems quite clear that the AA is in possession in all of these computations - at least preliminary ones -- already.
That being the case, the AA could actually take its proactive consultative process one step further and offer up this crucial information BEFORE the EIA process. Revealing more rather than less about, say, air quality, would be a very constructive, positive development in the dialogue between business and environmentalists, which would PERMANENTLY UP the bar on the level of civic discourse in our city. That would be a durable contribution to Hong Kong's environmental movement and would be hugely welcomed by those of us who understand that environmental progress in Hong Kong can never occur without the active participation and championing of it by pillars of the Hong Kong business community. AA is obviously one of those pillars and its cues could set the tone for future engagement between business, government and environmentalists.
Environmentalists will continue to clamour for more information about health IN ADVANCE of the project. The AA should give it to us in a forthright manner rather than subject itself to continuing accusations of obstructionism and concealment. The AA publicly offering up the information about health would furthermore enshrine the principle that HEALTH IMPACTS SHOULD BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS conducted in advance of greenlighting any major infrastructure project in Hong Kong. THAT alone would constitute a major step in the right direction for Hong Kongers' nascent concern about environmental health. (I want to state here that, as of now, Clean Air Network has no official position on whether option 1 or 2 is more desirable, for the simple reason that the information I've listed above has not yet been made available. I would also want to know the corresponding economic benefit of both options, with those benefits measured in an objectively reasonable way.)
Rest assured that we have no interest in obstructing the construction of new infrastructure which can vouchsafe's Hong Kong's future economic prosperity. Our interest is in the bigger picture -- in encouraging business and government to pursue RESPONSIBLE growth through increased transparency and wider adoption of sustainable practices. The AA has already taken major strides in both directions. We encourage it continue down that path -- with even more decisive leadership -- of the sort which can help us mainstream issues such as clean air.
Sincerely,
Joanne Ooi
CEO, Clean Air Network
沒有留言:
發佈留言