compare_c1c4 by Civic Exchange

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles 給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗 Marcos Van Rafelghem 溫富錦 Rob Modini August 2007 2007年8月

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

Marcos Van Rafelghem Rob Modini August 2007

English

Contents Foreword

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 Introduction

2 London

2.1 City Overview

2.2 Evolution of Air Pollution Control in London

2.3 Current Characteristics of Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Air Pollution

2.4 Air Quality Policies in London

2.5 Special Features

2.5.1 The Congestion Charging Scheme

2.5.2 The Low Emission Zone

2.6 Lessons from London

3 Los Angeles

3.1 City Overview

3.2 Evolution of Air Pollution Control in Los Angeles

3.3 Current Characteristics of Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Air Pollution

3.4 Air Quality Policies in Los Angeles

3.5 Special Feature: The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan

3.6 Lessons from Los Angeles

4 Conclusion

Appendix I - Main Air Quality Policies Implemented in London

Appendix II - International air quality standards

Appendix III - The London Air Quality Network (LAQN)

Appendix IV - Main Air Quality Policies Implemented in Los Angeles

Foreword The good news is there are solutions to Hong Kongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s air pollution problems. Other cities and regions have had to face not dissimilar challenges. We have found it useful to reflect on how large cities around the world have dealt with managing air quality and what lessons Hong Kong can learn from them. This report looks at the experience of London and Los Angeles. The lessons are clear. The HKSAR Government must adopt more comprehensive and stricter air quality management policies. Hong Kong cannot get away from tightening its Air Quality Objectives so that they can truly protect public health. With what we have today, our standards are in fact a licence to pollute locally. Moreover, Hong Kong must collaborate with Guangdong to deal with regional pollution. We must work much harder to clean-up local emissions and find innovative ways to work with the Mainland. While cross-boundary challenges are harder to deal with, Hong Kong is not alone in having to address such problems. We hope Hong Kong can take heart from the experience of others so that we redouble our efforts to clean-up. We are grateful to our researchers Marcos Van Rafelghem and Rob Modini for their work and the clarity with which they presented the London and Los Angeles case studies. We want to thank the many experts, including our cofounder Lisa Hopkinson, who provided information, perspective and excellent advice. We need to thank Michele Weldon for managing every aspect of this project; and Simon Ng for his assistance in reading the Chinese text to ensure accuracy. As usual, our design partners, Mirror Productions, have done an excellent job on report design. Christine Loh Chief Executive Officer August 2007

Civic Exchange is a non-profit organisation that helps to improve policy and decision-making through research and analysis. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Civic Exchange.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Acknowledgements Barron, Bill Fuller, Gary (London Air Quality Network) Hopkinson, Lisa Kanter, Bob (Port of Long Beach) Kwan, Stephanie Lee, Chi Pang Lui, Wing Man Miguel, Antonio Ng, Betty Ng, Simon Pros Plus International Slanina, Sjaak Trumbull, Kate Weldon, Michele Uebergang, Kylie

Executive Summary Air pollution has become the most serious environmental problem for Hong Kong, affecting not only public health but also the city’s ability to attract and retain foreign investments. There is an urgent need to devise and implement a comprehensive air quality action plan to improve Hong Kong’s air quality. This comparative research analyses air quality management (AQM) issues in two jurisdictions which are world-leaders in fighting air pollution: London and Los Angeles. It has two core objectives. Firstly, to provide standards against which Hong Kong’s air quality problem and policies can be assessed. Secondly, to identify solutions implemented in other jurisdictions that can be successfully adapted to Hong Kong to improve air quality. As such, this research focuses on two main questions: how do we compare with other world-cities, and what can we learn from them. London and Los Angeles benefit from a well developed AQM infrastructure, which is based on integrated planning and significant financial resources devoted to improving air quality. While London’s AQM strategy is more inclined towards promoting energy efficiency and demand management programmes, Los Angeles’ strategy shows greater reliance on technological solutions to abate emissions. Compared with these two cities, Hong Kong’s air quality policies set far less stringent targets which, in turn, result in worsening pollutant emission trends. Air Quality and Policy Indicators in London, Los

London

Los Angeles

Hong Kong

Yes

2007

2003

1987

125 μg/m3

105μg/m3

350μg/m3

NO2 (annual)

40 μg/m3

100μg/m3

80μg/m3

PM10 (annual)

40 μg/m3

20μg/m3

55μg/m3

12μg/m3

100 μg/m3

123

Angeles and Hong Kong Air Quality Standards / Objectives Legally binding? Year of last update SO2 (24hr)

PM2.5 O3 (8 hour running mean) Number of AQ monitoring stations in the city

Lessons from London The Hong Kong government should adopt more comprehensive and stricter air quality policies. London’s actions to improve air quality are multifaceted, stringent and in some cases innovative. Conversely, Hong Kong has so far failed to tackle the problem comprehensively and achieve air quality improvements. The need for a multi-angle strategy is even more acute because Hong Kong’s air quality is affected by a wider diversity of pollution sources that do not affect London (i.e. power plants and shipping) and because Hong Kong’s lack of a broader legal framework dealing with certain aspects of air pollution (i.e. United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) air quality policies). It also lags London in the strictness of air quality policies implemented. While London’s air quality objectives set healthbased targets that are regularly updated, Hong Kong’s air quality objectives set dangerously low targets that have not been updated since 1987. These outdated targets are used to determine the Air Pollution Index and ultimately misleads the public about the actual air quality situation in Hong Kong.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

Air Pollution Trends in London, Los Angeles and Hong Kong SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Hong Kong

100

HKAQO (annual)

70 60 50 40 30 WHO (2006) 24hr avg.

20 10

90 Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10

London

80 70 HKAQO (annual)

60 50 40 30

WHO 2006 (annual)

20 10 0

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1997

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

80 HKAQO (annual)

80 70 60 50

WHO 2006 (annual)

40 30 20 10 0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

1997

1998

OZONE

100

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

English

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

The Hong Kong government should improve its air quality monitoring network. London’s air quality monitoring network currently comprises 123 operative air quality monitoring stations. These stations are split into 5 different categories specifying the placement and sampling height of stations within each. In contrast, Hong Kong’s 14 monitoring stations split into only 2 categories (general and roadside). The greater number of stations and station types in London allows the air quality monitoring network to provide a better, more precise picture of the air quality situation, and facilitates the development of more efficient actions to improve air quality. The Hong Kong government should implement measures such as a Congestion Charging Scheme and a Low Emission Zone to reduce emissions from road transport. The Congestion Charging Scheme in London proved highly successful in reducing traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, and raising transport revenues that are being applied to create more sustainable modes of transport for London. Given Hong Kong’s high vehicle density, the impossibility to keep expanding roads due to space constraints, and the existing high levels of road-side air pollution, traffic reductions policies are much needed. London’s proposed Low Emission Zone, in turn, would constitute a major step towards reducing emissions from the most individually polluting vehicles and improving air quality in London. These two measures could help bring into effect the ‘polluter pays principle’ and reduce road vehicle emissions in Hong Kong. Hong Kong needs greater political leadership. The leadership of London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone has been a key factor in the city’s actions to reduce air pollution. This leadership is illustrated by initiatives such as the Congestion Charging Scheme which was taken forward in spite of fierce opposition by certain sectors and ultimately became a highly successful policy. The Mayor of London has also been active in lobbying the national government for more stringent environmental standards to be applied at national and EU levels. Hong Kong is in need of similar examples. Solutions to cross-border pollution coming from the Pear River Delta region can only be reached through political cooperation between the Guangdong and local authorities. Similarly, necessary changes to Hong Kong’s transport and energy policies will also require a high degree of political leadership.

The Hong Kong government should openly recognise the seriousness of Hong Kong’s air pollution problem and the risks posed by that problem to public health. Attitudes of London’s public authorities to air pollution in that city differ from those expressed by Hong Kong officials regarding Hong Kong’s air pollution problem. In the former case, authorities tend to emphasise the seriousness of air pollution in their cities as a justification to set tough environmental measures. In the case of Hong Kong, the government has often intended to convey the idea that air pollution is not a major threat to the community. Further, while the inextricable link between air pollution and public health is regularly referred to by London’s authorities and stated in their clean air policies, the Hong Kong government has so far downplayed that link. A change in the Hong Kong government’s attitude towards the raising problem of Hong Kong’s air pollution is needed to address the problem effectively and implement adequate solutions.

Lessons from Los Angeles The Hong Kong government should introduce more stringent air quality objectives and set emission standards in order to curb growing pollutant emissions trends. The Los Angeles (LA) region managed to improve critical levels of air pollution suffered during the 1970s and 1980s through the introduction of tough policies, which in some cases were fiercely opposed by businesses or specific industries. After these regulations were in place, market-based approaches started to be introduced. Based on LA and California’s experience, the Hong Kong government should not be afraid of introducing more stringent air quality objectives as well as tightened emission standards for different mobile and stationary emission sources. The Hong Kong and Guangdong governments should examine the possibility of establishing a cross-border air quality jurisdiction and create a specialised agency responsible for managing air quality in that jurisdiction. There is much to be done by the Hong Kong and the Guangdong governments to tackle regional air pollution jointly and achieve air quality improvements for the PRD region as a whole. Air quality jurisdictions defined along topographic patterns in the State of California may be pointing out a way forward for Hong Kong. Whether Hong Kong and Guangdong governments should establish a joint air quality jurisdiction and create a specialised agency responsible for managing air quality in that jurisdiction should be carefully considered. In any case, strengthening cross-border initiatives should be a key area of action for improving Hong Kong’s air quality. Hong Kong society should be further involved in air quality issues. The historical evolution of air pollution control in LA shows that public pressure can force governments to act decisively and effectively when they are failing to do so. Hong Kong’s experience during 2006 was marked by increased public concern and community involvement regarding the city’s air quality. This trend of active public participation should be furthered by community associations in order to achieve the necessary policy changes and also to encourage the business sector to play a more active part in cleaning up Hong Kong’s air. The Hong Kong government should work with shipping-industry stakeholders to devise and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from port-related activities. The San Pedro Bay Ports (SPBP) Plan case study presented in section 3.5 highlights the importance of implementing an action plan that targets all forms of port-related emissions in co-operation with the main stakeholders of the local shipping industry. Key measures of the SPBP Plan that could be replicated in Hong Kong include establishing a cleaner vessel fuel strategy (which in the case of Hong Kong should be applicable to both ocean-going and river vessels); implementing vessel speed reductions programmes; establishing mandatory emission standards for all the different diesel engines used at the ports; and ensuring the availability and usage of cleaner diesel fuels at the ports.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

The Hong Kong government should be under a statutory obligation to develop a comprehensive air quality action plan comprised in a single legal document. Both Los Angeles and London’s air quality policies are largely comprised in single, comprehensive, statutory legal document (the SCAQMD Plan in LA and the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy in London). Conversely, Hong Kong’s policies are set out in a variety of regulations. London and LA’s approaches present several advantages over Hong Kong’s approach: integrated planning and co-ordinated action is facilitated; air quality initiatives are more thoroughly reviewed by interested individuals and organisations; and AQM information becomes more readily available to the public.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AFV

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

MTR

Mass Transit Railway

API

Air Pollution Index

Nitric Oxide

Air Quality

NO2

Nitrogen Dioxide

AQM

Air Quality Management

NOx

Nitrogen Oxides

AQO

Air Quality Objective

Ozone

AQS

Air Quality Strategy

OGV

Ocean Going Vessel

CAFE

Clean Air for Europe

Particulate matter

CARB

California Air Resources Board

PM2.5

Particulate matter less than 2.5

CCAA

California Clean Air Act

microns in diameter

CCS

Congestion Charging Scheme

PM10

Particulate matter less than 10

CNG

Compressed Natural Gas

microns in diameter

Carbon Monoxide

PRD

Pearl River Delta

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

SCAG

Southern California Association of

DEFRA

Department of Environment, Food and

Governments

Rural Affairs

SCAQMD

South Coast Air Quality Management

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

District

European Union

SECA

Sulphur Emission Control Area

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

SO2

Sulphur Dioxide

HGV

Heavy Goods Vehicle

SoCAB

South Coast Air Basin

Hong Kong

SOx

Sulphur Oxides

Los Angeles

SPBP

San Pedro Bay Ports

LAQM

Local Air Quality Management

United Kingdom

LAQN

London Air Quality Network

United States

LEZ

Low Emission Zone

VOC

Volatile Organic Compound

LGV

Light Goods Vehicle

WHO

World Health Organisation

LPG

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

1 Introduction Air pollution has become the most serious environmental problem for Hong Kong, affecting not only public health but also the city’s ability to attract and retain foreign investments. An increasing number of air pollution incidents in recent years has raised public concern and generated criticisms addressed to the Hong Kong government for its ineffective response to worsening air quality. Improving air quality and the potential ways of achieving such improvement were part of the key issues of debate surrounding the Chief Executive (CE) election which was held in March 2007 and will remain as a top priority for Hong Kong in the near future. In this context, examples of air quality issues in other world-cities have been frequently raised to discuss Hong Kong’s air pollution problem, both by the government, to justify its actions or attenuate the criticisms, and by environmental groups and scholars, to demand a more effective action plan. This comparative research has two core objectives. Firstly, to provide standards against which Hong Kong’s air pollution problem and the responses given to that problem by the government can be assessed. Secondly, to identify solutions implemented in other jurisdictions that can be successfully adapted to Hong Kong to improve air quality. As such, this report focuses on two main questions: how do we compare with other world-cities, and what can we learn from them. London and Los Angeles were chosen as case studies because the two cities have been highly successful in reducing their high levels of air pollution during the past decades in spite of steady economic expansion, and currently, they both continue to implement leading air pollution control regimes. In Hong Kong, air pollution is a problem that arose more recently than in those London and LA, and Hong Kong is still seeking to devise an appropriate action plan to improve its air quality. Thus London and Los Angeles’ past and current efforts to fight air pollution constitute prime examples for Hong Kong to consider. The comparison between London, Los Angeles and Hong Kong are also interesting because the cities are all developed economic hubs which face the challenge of reducing high levels of air pollution while preserving their economic strengths. Further similarities and differences that strengthen or constrain the comparisons are noted in detail in each of the following sections. This report is divided in four chapters including this introduction. The second and third chapters outline information related to London and Los Angeles, respectively. The information on London and LA presented in these two chapters include: a historical overview of air pollution control regimes implemented in the past; an outline of the main characteristics of the air pollution problems in the two cities (i.e. pollutant sources, air quality trends, and climatic and topographic characteristics); a summary of the main air quality policies currently in force; special sections on air pollution control measures that are particularly interesting for Hong Kong; and a summary of lessons from each city that Hong Kong should consider. The fourth chapter presents the report’s conclusions. In addition, the report’s four appendices present more detailed and technical information about air quality policies in London and Los According to a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, 79% of respondents knew of professionals who were thinking of leaving or have already left Hong Kong due to air pollution, and 55% of respondents personally knew of professionals who have declined to come because of the quality of Hong Kong’s environment. See AmCham, Polluted Air Threatens Business Decline in Hong Kong, 27 August 2006 [Online], http://www.amcham.org.hk/content/view/5493/203/. See Donald Tsang Election Office, Election Platform Leaflet, 22 January 2007. In late 2006, CE Donald Tsang delivered a presentation before a business forum in which he argued that while “air quality in Hong Kong is not pristine pure as in some Scandinavian cities or in the North and South Poles”, HK’s air quality level is “comparable with such cities as Tokyo, Seoul, Barcelona and Los Angeles.” CE Donald Tsang concluded that “we have the most environmentally friendly place for people, for executives, for Hong Kong people, to live.” See HK Government Press Release, “CE speaks at Business for Clean Air Joint Conference”, 27 November 2006 [Online], http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200611/27/P200611270129.htm. This presentation generated widespread criticisms by the public and the media. See various letters and media articles appeared in South China Morning Post and The Standard of 28 and 29 November 2006.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Angeles. Information relating to Hong Kong is included throughout the report rather than a separate section, in order to present a more integrated comparison and to minimize redundancy with previous publications that have already reviewed Hong Kong’s air quality data and policies extensively. Lessons drawn by this study point out the need to adopt a more integrated approach towards air quality management (AQM) in Hong Kong and the need to embrace more ambitious air quality goals. Particular air quality measures implemented with success in both London and LA also provide clear examples for Hong Kong to follow. It has to be noted, however, that given the broad research and analytical scope adopted, a number of issues addressed in this report need to be examined in further detail in order to determine their applicability to Hong Kong. We hope, however, this study will constitute a valuable source of comparative information that stimulates further and better informed public discussion, and, ultimately, will contribute to enhance Hong Kong’s air quality policies

See Christine Loh (2006, September). An Air Quality Management Plan for Hong Kong, Civic Exchange, and Civic Exchange (2006, September), Hong Kong’s Air Quality [Online]. http://www.civic-exchange.org/index.php?cat=88.

2 London 2.1 City Overview London is a major international financial centre and international transport hub of critical importance to the United Kingdom (UK) economy. Greater London has a population of 7.4 million which is predicted to increase by 700,000 over the next 15 years. Greater London covers an area of 1,579 square kilometres which makes it one of the world’s largest cities by area. London’s population density is high in the city centre and residential areas within inner London, and low in the suburbs. In the densely populated areas, most of the concentration is achieved with mediumrise buildings. Unlike in Hong Kong, high-rise buildings are fairly rare in London. Several large green areas are located throughout the city. The comparison between London and Hong Kong is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, the two cities face serious air pollution problems. Secondly, both cities share similarities in population size, type of economy, wealth status, and governmental institutions and policies. There are, however, differences in terms of topographic, demographic and pollution source characteristics which will be noted throughout this chapter. On the whole, London’s significant expertise in fighting air pollution developed over many years and its current air quality policies make the city a very interesting example for other jurisdictions that, like Hong Kong, are still seeking to devise adequate air pollution control regimes.

2.2 Evolution of Air Pollution Control in London Air pollution has been an acute problem for London dating back to the 19th century. There have been three distinct strands to the evolution of air pollution control in London over the past 150 years. Pollution control initially addressed the nuisance caused by smoke and the control of industrial processes, moving on more recently to the setting of ambient air quality standards. In the 1850s London was frequently engulfed in thick fog created by industrial and heating emissions causing significant health problems. In response to this, the UK government introduced the Alkali Acts of 1863 and 1874 to reduce air pollution from industrial processes. These Acts implemented the innovative concepts of abatement of emissions, emission limits, and “best practical means” to prevent releases of air pollutants. Indeed, the principle of “best practical means” has remained a cornerstone of industrial air pollution control until today.10 Although the Alkali Acts helped to reduce industrial pollution, domestic fires for heating purposes remained a major cause of

London generated approximately 19% of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2005. See Corporation of London (2005, November). London’s Place in the UK Economy, 2005-6, p. 8 [Online]. http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2CAE66FB-2DD5-41A5-B9168FFC37276059/0/BC_RS_lpuk_0511_FR.pdf References in this report to “London” should be understood as including the whole Greater London area unless otherwise specified. Mayor of London (2002, September). The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, p. V [Online]. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/air_ quality/air_quality_strategy.jsp#highlight (hereinafter “the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy”). Like London, Hong Kong is an international financial centre and transport hub. Hong Kong has a population of 7 million, a GDP of US$178 billion (2005); an area of 1,104 km2 and a density of 6,407/km2. For example, during an extreme fog in December 1873 there were 700 more deaths than would normally have been expected at that time of year. See The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, p. 371. 10 The ‘best practical means’ principle is now referred as “best available techniques’ and applies to large industry. It is defined as “the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicates the practicable suitability of particular techniques for providing the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent, and where that is not practicable, generally to reduce the emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole.” The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, p. 357.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

smoke in the city. During one week in 1952, chronic air pollution caused by domestic coal burning and industrial sources resulted in the premature death of 4,000 people. This event would later become known as the Great London Smog of 1952. The government’s initial response to the event was to deny that it had any responsibility in the matter and the need for further legislation.11 However, the event raised awareness about the harms of air pollution and ultimately led to the passing of the Clean Air Act in 1956 to control smoke nuisance. This subsequent Act allowed local authorities to designate Smoke Control Areas where the use of coal as a domestic fuel was prohibited. This prohibition aroused considerable public discontent because many were resistant to change their domestic heating habits as required by the regulation.12 However, the 1956 Act is now considered an appropriate and highly successful policy for the time.13 The initial impact of the 1956 Clean Air Act was reinforced by the introduction of natural gas as a heating fuel from 1967 onwards, and as a result emissions of smoke and sulphur dioxide continued to fall. A new Clean Air Act in 1968 brought in the requirement for industries burning coal, liquid or gaseous fuels to utilize tall chimneys in order to better disperse emissions. At the time, as a result of these Acts, air pollution in urban areas was dramatically reduced (see Figures 1 and 2) in the following ways: •

Domestic emissions were reduced because of Smoke Control Areas.

•

Electric and gas usage partly replaced the most polluting solid fuels.

•

Cleaner coals that had a lower sulphur content were burnt.

•

The use of tall chimney stacks on power stations and other industrial sources mitigated emissions from them, albeit transferring pollution to other areas and contributing to trans-boundary pollution.

•

Most power stations were relocated to more rural areas.

•

Heavy industrial activity continued to decline in London’s surroundings.

450 400 350 Smoke

Sulphur Dioxide

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Figure 1: Annual average smoke and sulphur dioxide concentrations in London 1950 to 2000 Source: AEA Technology Environment 2002 (microgrammes per cubic metre). 11 Mayor of London (2002, December). 50 Years on – The struggle for air quality in London since the great smog of December 1952, p.13 [Online]. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/docs/50_years_on.pdf 12 Ibid. p.1. 13 Ibid.

600

Petrol Diesel Fuel Electricity

500

Oil House coal Other solid fuels

400

Gas

300

200

100

0 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Figure 2: Energy use in London 1950-2000 Source: Greater London Authority UK’s accession to the European Union (EU) in 1973 also helped to further develop air pollution control measures. Over the last 30 years the EU has passed a number of directives to limit emissions of pollutants from road vehicles, industry and other sources. In addition, the 1996 EU Framework Air Quality Directive on ambient air quality assessment14 and subsequent “daughter directives”15 set health-based air quality limit values for 12 key air pollutants. The EU limit values are being progressively transposed into the national legislation of Member States. In the UK, the limit values are implemented through the national Air Quality Objectives (AQOs). Presently, the UK has introduced legislation to comply with 10 AQOs.16 The UK AQOs were last revised in 2003, while in 2007 new limit values for England were set.17 Compliance with the limit values is mandatory. UK’s objectives and EU limit values are substantially tighter than Hong Kong’s air quality objectives which have not been updated since 1987 and are not mandatory (see Appendix II). Although industrial emissions have been largely controlled as a result of the above policies, the growth in road traffic and increased energy consumption has brought new air pollution problems to London. Currently, London again suffers some of the worst air quality in the UK and the EU. The primary focus of London’s current air quality policies is on reducing road transport emissions and promoting the use of cleaner sources of energy. In addition, air quality improvements are pursued at national and EU levels, mainly through tightened air quality standards, stricter fuel requirements and other policies (see sections 2.4 and 2.5). 14 Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, available at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1996/L/01996L0062-20031120-en.pdf 15 Namely the First (1999), Second (2000), Third (2002) and Fourth (2004) Daughter Directives, available at http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/air/ambient.htm#1 16 These AQOs implement 9 limit values, namely: nitrogen dioxide, nitrous oxides, PM10, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, benzene and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. The UK has also set an additional AQO for 1.3-butadiene even though this is not required by EU legislation. 17 See Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007, at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20070064.htm#32

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

This brief outline of the evolution of air pollution control in London raises a number of questions for Hong Kong to consider. In relation to industrial air pollution, it should be noted that while London has already dealt successfully with industrial pollution sources, Hong Kong still needs to find a solution for air pollution caused by the factories operating in the neighbouring Pearl River Delta (PRD) region. Although the two problems are different because factories in the PRD region do not fall within Hong Kong’s jurisdiction (and therefore Hong Kong has limited powers over them), the specific measures applied by London to solve that problem are worth-analysing. In particular, the following should be considered: (1) whether the relocation of the PRD factories is a viable approach to reduce the impact of industrial emissions on the adjacent population centres such as Hong Kong; (2) how the adoption of cleaner fuels can be stimulated among those factories (they currently use substantial amounts of dirty diesel fuel for power generation); (3) what can be done to induce PRD factories to adopt better environmental standards (i.e. the ‘best practical means’ principle). Moreover, in terms of air quality standards, Hong Kong should follow the EU and the UK’s approaches of setting those standards so as to protect public health (this point is further discussed in section 2.4).

2.3 Current Characteristics of London’s Air Pollution Air Quality and Health Impacts London is the city with the worst air quality in the UK and is amongst the most polluted cities in the EU, particularly for NOx.18 It is estimated that 1,600 accelerated deaths and 1,500 respiratory hospital admissions per year occur in London due to air pollution.19 Similarly, in Hong Kong public health experts have estimated that improvements in visibility20, caused by air pollution, from Hong Kong’s ‘average’ levels to those that are considered ‘good’ would prevent 1,600 deaths per year and save over HK$2 billion in direct health costs and productivity losses, and HK$19.2 billion in intangible costs.21 Main Air Pollutants and their Sources The pollutants of most concern in London are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM), and ozone (O3). Each year there are a large number of breaches across London on the Air Quality Objectives for these pollutants. Other pollutants monitored in London include sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, and lead. Each of these key pollutants has a range of different sources including the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, petrol, diesel, and oil) for road transport, electricity generation, industrial processes, aviation, rail, and shipping. Road transport is the major source of nitrogen dioxide and PM pollution in London accounting for almost half of NOx emissions (major contributor to NO2 concentrations) and emissions of particulate matter less that 10 microns in diameter (see Figure 3). The combustion of gas – mainly used for residential and workplace heating – also contributes significantly to NOx and PM10 emissions. Other sources of NOx and PM10 include regulated industrial processes, rail, and aviation.

18 See European Environment Agency (2006). Air pollution at street level in European cities [Online]. http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_ report_2006_1/en/technical_1_2006.pdf 19 The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, p. v. 20 The loss of visibility is a clear indicator of worsening pollution. 21 Department of Community Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Hong Kong (et al) (2006, June). Air Pollution: Costs and Paths to a Solution, p. 1. [Online]. http://www.civic-exchange.org/publications/2006/VisibilityandHealthE.pdf

1.9%

3.9% 3.9%

12.7% Road transport 8.4%

Gas (commercial-industrial and residential)

21.1% 46.9%

47.4%

Industrial processes Rail, aviation Other

30.1%

47.4%

NOx

PM10

Figure 3: Predicted sources of NOx and PM10 emissions in Greater London in 200522 Source: London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory While road transport is responsible for the majority of PM10 emissions in London, it accounts for only one-third of measured concentrations of the pollutant. The remaining is a result of pollution originating outside of London and transported by winds, secondary particles formed in the atmosphere through the chemical reactions of nitrogen and sulphur-containing gases, dusts re-suspended by traffic on London’s roads, and construction activities. Similarly, PM pollution in Hong Kong is a result of both local (mainly road transport and emissions from power plants) and regional sources including industrial processes located in the Pearl River Delta region. The hourly AQO for nitrogen dioxide is frequently breached across London. In 2005 there were 383 exceedances at one monitoring station alone (Marylebone Road).23 Nearly half the emissions of NOx originate from road transport. Although the AQO for ozone is frequently breached across London, it is considered a regional pollutant caused by photochemical reactions between precursor emissions from the UK and EU. Ozone episodes generally extend over many thousands of square kilometres.24 The concentration of ozone is also largely dependent on weather conditions, with increased concentrations being observed during the summer months when photochemical activity increases. The regional nature of ozone is reflected by the fact that the statutory obligation to achieve the ozone AQO falls on the UK government and not the city of London. Many areas outside London, including rural areas, also fail to meet the ozone AQO. Sometimes high concentrations of pollutants in London result from the long range transport of secondary pollutants in the atmosphere (due to easterly winds) or other meteorological episodes such as winter temperature inversion, summer photochemical episodes and plume grounding.25 Therefore, even if the emission of pollutants is fairly constant, pollutant concentrations in London will vary greatly from day to day or year to year depending on the prevailing weather conditions.

22 Mattai, Julius and Hutchinson, David, (November, 2005), London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory 2002: Report [Online]. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/research/emissions-inventory.jsp 23 National Air Quality Archive website, 2006 [Online]. http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/data_and_statistics_home.php 24 Fuller, Gary W. and Green, David. (2006b). Air Quality in London 2005 and mid 2006-Briefing [Online]. http://www.londonair.org.uk 25 King’s College London. Air pollution in London. London Air Quality Network- Pollution Guide [Online]. http://www.londonair.org.uk/ london/asp/information.asp?view=howbad

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Air Pollution Trends London and Hong Kong both experience poor air quality. It is, however, difficult to make a simplified judgment of which of the two cities experience the worst air pollution. Figure 4 shows an average of annual mean values across a number of monitoring stations in Hong Kong and London for 4 main air pollutants over the years 1997-2005. The Hong Kong values were obtained simply by taking an average over all monitoring stations in Hong Kong.26 The London values are averaged over different monitoring stations for each pollutant with the goal of representing as best as possible the range of pollutant concentrations measured in London. This point needs to be considered because the values obtained will depend on which stations are involved in the average. For example, roadside stations will measure higher concentrations of NO2 and PM10 than general stations. This means the seemingly higher average NO2 concentration in London could simply be a result of the fact that this average was calculated using a higher proportion of roadside stations than the Hong Kong average.27 Other factors that could potentially cause some of the differences between the average values of the two cities are equipment failure,28 monitoring methods29 and sampling heights.30 Nonetheless it can still be concluded that, in general, London experiences higher ozone concentrations while Hong Kong experiences higher PM10 levels. However, perhaps the strongest conclusion from the graphs below (Figure 4) is that, with the exception of ozone, measured pollutant concentrations are decreasing in London while they are remaining relatively constant, if not increasing, in Hong Kong. This suggests London’s pollution control strategies are having positive effects. In particular London SO2 levels have decreased dramatically over the time frame of the comparison to the point where they are now below Hong Kong levels that have increased over the same period. The decrease in SO2 concentrations in London is arguably a result of effective regulation of fuel use and industrial processes.

26 In 1997 HK had 9 monitoring stations (8 general, 1 roadside), in 1998 HK had 12 monitoring stations (9 general, 3 roadside) and from 1999 to 2005 HK had 14 monitoring stations (11 general, 3 roadside). 27 The proportion of roadside sites included in the calculation of London NO2 averages varied over the time frame of the comparison; however for most years it was 50% or higher. This is in comparison to the proportion of roadside sites used in the calculation of the average HK NO2 values which did not get above one-third. 28 Not all data collected at a particular monitoring station is valid. Equipment failure rates as low as 75% have been used in this comparison. 29 In particular, measured PM10 concentrations can vary significantly depending on the measurement technique used. The PM10 measurements used here were all collected using TEOM instruments. 30 HK’s general stations all sample at heights from 11-25m above the ground while all of London’s monitoring stations sample at heights from 2-5m above the ground. For general urban stations this is not likely to cause a great variation in the measurements obtained since most pollutants measured at these stations are not emitted from ground level, as would be the case for example at a roadside station. It is important to note that all HK and London roadside stations sample at heights less than 5m above the ground.

SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Hong Kong

100

HKAQO (annual)

70 60 50 40 30 WHO (2006) 24hr avg.

20 10

90 Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10

London

80 70 HKAQO (annual)

60 50 40 30

WHO 2006 (annual)

20 10 0

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1997

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

80 HKAQO (annual)

80 70 60 50

WHO 2006 (annual)

40 30 20 10 0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

1997

1998

OZONE

100

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figure 4: Air pollution trends in London and Hong Kong31 Sources: London Air Quality Network (London data) and Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (HK data) Air Quality Monitoring A city requires a sophisticated air quality monitoring system to understand the complexities of its air pollution problems, to keep the public informed of any possible health risks, measures to take during pollution episodes (i.e. warnings for asthmatics and elderly), and to allow policy makers to make informed decisions on how to improve air quality. Air pollution comes in many different forms and is emitted from a wide range of sources. Actual concentrations of pollutants in the air will vary greatly from location to location depending on the proximity to emission sources and prevailing weather conditions. London has a widespread network of air quality monitoring stations which are administered by the London Air Quality Network (LAQN). Currently there are a total of 123 active monitoring sites in the LAQN, falling into 5 different categories of monitoring stations.32 London boroughs also contribute to monitoring activities through self-funded stations. The LAQN is managed by the Environmental Research Group at King’s College London and this group regularly publishes research in refereed journals that is conducted using LAQN monitoring data. The group also maintains a very accessible website that provides real time concentrations of all pollutants measured at a particular monitoring station as well as a wide range of statistical and graphical tools for analysis of the LAQN database.33 The LAQN also contains a number of automatic monitoring stations funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as part of the UK wide Automatic Urban Network. Monitored data, descriptive and exceedance statistics of stations in the Automatic Urban Network area as well as forecast air pollution levels for 31 Measurements in ppb were converted to μg/m3 using conversion factors at 20 degrees Celsius and 1013mb (used for reporting UK data to the European Commission). Dashed horizontal lines indicate annual WHO guidelines (short dash) and HK AQOs (long dash). There is no annual sulphur dioxide WHO guideline since the daily standard is so low; this is why the daily value is represented in the sulphur dioxide graph. This must be taken into consideration when comparing it to the trends in the annual mean concentration of sulphur dioxide in London and HK. 32 A summary of the types of monitoring stations in the LAQN is included in Appendix III. 33 See http://www.londonair.org.uk

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

London are accessible via the Internet.34 In contrast, Hong Kong’s air quality monitoring network contains only 14 monitoring stations divided into 2 categories of stations (11 general and 3 roadside). While archive monitored data and exceedance statistics are available on the website, current and forecast air quality levels are only available in the form of an Air Pollution Index (API).35 Unfortunately the Hong Kong API is indexed from Hong Kong’s air quality objectives, which have not been changed since 1987 and are less stringent than WHO standards and the standards applicable to other major cities such as London.36 This means the Hong Kong Air Pollution Index is a misrepresentation of the air quality situation. For example, an API reading of “medium” based on the current Hong Kong AQOs may be classed as “high” if the AQOs were more stringent. Figure 5: Key similarities and differences of London and Hong Kong’s air pollution problems

Similarities

Differences

Regional air pollution problem:

Power plant emissions:

In both cities air quality is affected by the import of pollutants

In Hong Kong, power plants are responsible for a large

from surrounding regions. In Hong Kong this is caused by light

proportion of local SO2 (92%), RSP/PM10 (51%) and NOx

northerly winds carrying pollutants from the PRD, in London

(49%) emissions. In London, estimates for the local emissions

it is caused by easterly winds transporting pollutants from

from power plants are much lower (SO2 17%, PM10 9%,

industrial areas in Europe.

NOx 6% in 2002). This results in lower SO2 levels in London compared to Hong Kong.

Road transport emissions:

Topography:

Both cities have congested roads and large proportions of

Hong Kong has a hilly topography and many high-rise buildings.

emissions of NOx and PM10 come from road transport sources.

These factors restrict air flows (the wall or building downwash

Also both cities have a large proportion of diesel vehicles

effect) preventing effective dispersion of air pollutants and

which are relatively more polluting than petrol vehicles. This

increase the street canyon effect. This increases pollutant

means high concentrations of NOx and PM10 are measured

concentrations at the street level. London has a very flat

next to roads in both cities.

topography and building heights are generally lower. This allows street level pollutants to be dispersed more easily.

Residential energy use:

Weather conditions:

Extreme temperatures in London (cold) and Hong Kong (hot)

The most severe pollution episodes in Hong Kong are observed

increase energy consumption which, in turn, affects the air

when Hong Kong is on the edge of a typhoon, where humidity

quality of both cities. Residential heating has been a serious

is low, wind is light and dispersion is weak. These conditions

problem since the 19th century in London (see section 2.2),

also occur during the Hong Kong spring and autumn. London

while air conditioning is currently the main cause of electricity

is positioned at a higher latitude and severe pollution episodes

consumption in Hong Kong.

are observed in winter when a temperature inversion occurs and pollutants are trapped next to the earth, and during summer when increased solar radiation increases the photochemical production of ozone.

34 See http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php 35 The API provides a scale of 0 to 500 based on levels of RSP, SO2, CO, ozone and NO2. A level of 100 refers to exceedance of any of the short term AQOs for any of these pollutants. 36 London uses a band system to inform the public of air quality levels. This system uses absolute concentration intervals, not an index, to classify the air quality situation as low, moderate, high or very high.

Similarities and Differences of London and Hong Kong’s Air Pollution London and Hong Kong are both affected by road traffic pollution and regional pollution. However, while Hong Kong is severely affected by factors such as topographic characteristics that obstruct pollutants dispersion (i.e. building heights and surrounding mountains), higher population density, and power plant emissions, these factors do not considerably affect London. These differences make air pollution problems in Hong Kong potentially more severe and harder to deal with.

2.4 Air Quality Policies in London This section provides an overview of the main air quality policies applicable to London, including those established by European Union, the UK government, local authorities and the Mayor of London.37 A more comprehensive summary of these policies can be found in Appendix I. London’s AQM Legal Framework London’s air quality policies are largely driven by those of the EU and the UK. The EU has established a number of ambient air quality standards which are legally binding on all EU Member States. The standards established by the EU are progressively transposed into UK laws and are pursued through the National Air Quality Strategy. The Mayor of London has a statutory duty to formulate an air quality strategy setting out measures to achieve in Greater London seven air quality standards established by the National Air Quality Strategy. Similarly, London boroughs are legally required to review air quality in their area, assess their ability to meet government targets, and produce air quality action plans to improve air quality where these targets are not likely to be met. This system, known as Local Air Quality Management (LAQM), facilitates compliance with national and international air quality obligations by placing specific responsibilities and powers on local authorities. Policies at the National and EU Levels The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy fits within two broader legal regimes: UK’s laws (especially the National Air Quality Strategy), and the EU regulations. These two legal regimes establish a wide range of regulations which can be grouped into three main areas: •

Ambient air quality standards. These standards are called “limit values” when established by the EU and called “Air Quality Objectives” when established by the UK. They refer to general concentrations of air pollutants at ground levels to be met by national and local authorities. Member States are legally obliged to meet the limit values by the specified dates (2005 and 2010). If the limit values are exceeded, Member States are required to implement and report on abatement plans, and the EU may also initiate infraction proceedings. The UK has been transposing the limit values into its national legislation and has also introduced more stringent targets for a number of pollutants. London’s Mayor has a statutory duty towards achieving in Greater London seven of the nine objectives established through UK legislation.

•

Emission ceilings. The EU has set national emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia and volatile organic compounds. These have to be achieved by 2010 through EU wide and national measures.38

37 Local government in England and Wales is conducted through local authorities, including a number of local borough councils in London. The Greater London Authority is a unique form of strategic citywide government for London. It is made up of a directly elected Mayor - the Mayor of London - and a separately elected Assembly - the London Assembly. The Mayor leads the preparation of statutory strategies on transport, spatial development, economic development and the environment. 38 See Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Moreover, under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU as a whole must cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 8%, compared with 1990 levels, between 2008 and 2012. In the case of the UK, however, this target is tightened to 12.5% pursuant to an internal agreement amongst EU Member States.39 •

Sectoral emission regulations. There are several EU policies to control emissions from different sources, including vehicles (i.e. Euro I-IV) and non-road machinery, large combustion plants, and industrial processes (i.e. the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive), the use of solvents and solvent-containing products and the sulphur content of liquid fuels.40 These measures are reinforced and complemented by several UK policies.

Policies at the City Level London’s air quality policies are set out in the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy published in 2002 following widespread consultation and revised in 2006. The primary focus of the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy is to reduce pollution from road transport. The Mayor also promotes energy efficiency and the speedier take-up of renewable energies. The aim of this strategy is to improve London’s air quality “to the point where pollution no longer poses a significant risk to human health.”41 •

The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy. Some of the most significant actions implemented as part of this strategy are:42 •

Traffic reduction measures within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and draft London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy), including the London Congestion Charging Scheme (see section 2.5.1) and the proposed Low Emission Zone (see section 2.5.2).

•

Requirements for all buses to meet Euro II standards and to have particulate traps by 2005 and all new

•

Requirements of the London local service permit for coaches made that half of all coaches are now at least

•

Requirements for all taxis to be at least Euro I by 2005, and programmes to ensure 500 conversions per

buses to meet Euro III and to have particulate traps. Euro I. year to LPG. •

Water-diesel emulsion to be used in 25% of HGV fleets (i.e. many depot-based fleets) and 100% of Transport for London buses.

•

Financial incentives to increase the proportion of LPG, CNG, electric, hybrid and retrofitted vehicles.

•

Airside fuel consumption reduced by 30%. 10% of the airside and road transport vehicles at Heathrow to

•

Vehicle permit discounts for environmentally friendly cars.

•

Travel Demand Management programmes covering school, club and work travel achieved considerable car

be alternatively fuelled.

use reductions.43 •

Links with Climate Change Policy. Although not specifically aimed at improving air quality, the Mayor of London

39 See ‘Burden Sharing Agreement’ of 16 June 1998. 40 For further details see Europa – Gateway to the European Union, Questions and Answers on the Thematic Strategy on air pollution, Press Release of 21 September 2005 [Online], http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/ 334&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en#fnB2 41 The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, Foreword. 42 These actions are detailed in The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy. 43 Transport for London, “TfL builds on success of new Sustainable Transport Programmes in the Capital”, Press Release of 16 January 2007 [Online], http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=1061

is also pushing a number of bold initiatives to reduce climate change. A major programme to cut London’s carbon emissions by 60% within 20 years, announced in February 2007, includes £78 million over 3 years for a package of measures aimed at reducing energy consumption in the domestic, commercial, transport and energy sectors.44 Not only will the majority of these measures save money, but the reduction in energy consumption, and hence production, will also result in reduced air pollution. Given that energy production is a major source of air pollution in the PRD, measures to reduce energy consumption would also be a cost-effective way of reducing pollution. Partnership Initiatives The private sector plays an important, complementary role in London’s efforts to reduce air pollution. Businesses and civil society groups are engaged in several partnerships with the government which seek to bring improvements into areas, such as freight movement, energy efficiency, and the promotion of renewable energies.45 Recommended best practices are followed by many businesses in relation to buildings’ energy efficiency, travel plans for their employees that reduce car use, and construction practices that produce less dust. Environmental groups are also very active in London with a number of groups working in cooperation with the London’s Mayor in defining and advocating air quality policies.46The private sector also participates in providing financial incentives for the up-take of new technologies.47 The government, in turn, seeks to engage the private sector through various policies and proposals particularly addressed to businesses and individuals.48 Comparison between Air Quality Policies of London and Hong Kong The chart below compiles selected indicators related to Hong Kong and London’s air quality policies. Although these indicators do not provide a comprehensive picture of the policies implemented in the two cities, they nevertheless illustrate that London has adopted substantially stricter air quality standards than Hong Kong and that, in addition, London’s air quality policies are legally-binding while Hong Kong’s are not. Finally, the air quality monitoring network is significantly more developed in London than in Hong Kong.

44 See the Mayor of London, ”Mayor unveils London Climate Change Action Plan”, Press Release of 27 February 2007, at http://www. london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11011 and the Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/ environment/climate-change/ccap/index.jsp 45 See Hydrogen Partnership, London Sustainable Distribution Partnership, and London Climate Change Partnership in Appendix I, points 2.2, 3.13 and 9.1. 46 For example, Greenpeace co-operates with the Mayor of London in promoting a decentralised energy policy. See Powering London into the 21st Century, Mayor of London and Greenpeace, March 2006 [Online], http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/ FullReport/7474.pdf 47 See for example the Energy Saving Trust, Appendix I, point 8.3. 48 See Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, pp. 277-299.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Figure 6: Selected air quality and policy indicators London

Hong Kong

Yes

Air Quality Standards / Objectives Legally binding? Year of last update SO2 (24hr)

2007

1987

125 μg/m

350μg/m3

NO2 (annual)

40 μg/m3

80μg/m3

PM10 (annual)

40 μg/m3

55μg/m3

100 μg/m3

123

PM2.5 O3 (8 hour running mean) Number of AQ monitoring stations in the city

London benefits from a developed administrative and legal framework for managing air quality. Air quality policies in force in London are the result of co-ordinated and consistent actions among international, national and local authorities. While the EU and the national government determine the broad air quality policy directions (i.e. by setting air quality standards to be achieved, determining fuel requirements, and implementing industrial pollution control schemes), it is the responsibility of local authorities, such as the Mayor of London and London boroughs, to implement specific action plans to improve air quality in their areas and achieve the set targets (i.e. by managing road traffic more effectively and promoting energy efficiency). Hong Kong’s reality differs from the above situation because the city lacks a national or supranational legal framework to guide air quality policy making. However, the idea of implementing different plans at supranational, “national” and local levels is still valid for Hong Kong. This multi-level approach could result in regional objectives and measures to address regional sources in the PRD region; Hong Kong objectives and measures to address local issues; and measures addressed at specific urban areas (i.e. in dense urban areas of Hong Kong Island north and Kowloon there may be different measures than in less populated areas such as Tuen Mun). Moreover, the UK approach of assigning air quality responsibilities to local authorities (the LAQM system) could be a good concept to adopt in Hong Kong in order to promote air quality initiatives across government. For instance, Hong Kong’s district councils could be further engaged in air quality initiatives.49 Another key advantage of the London Mayor’s AQS is the way that all the strategic policies are integrated. The Mayor’s AQS explicitly considers the inter-linkages between air quality and other policy objectives including economic development, energy, waste management, noise, and biodiversity protection. Such integration between different policy objectives is lacking in Hong Kong, particularly in relation to central policies such as transport and energy. The Hong Kong government should address this deficiency by ensuring that its economic, transport, energy and other strategies are in line with the air quality strategy.

49 For example, it has been proposed that Hong Kong district councils could be used to implement initiatives to reduce energy consumption and increase efficiency on a district basis by helping to smooth out transport interchanges, monitor planning tools to reduce ‘street canyon effect’ and promote pedestrian schemes. See Christine Loh, An Air Management Plan for Hong Kong, p. 5.

2.5 Special Features Among the manifold air quality actions implemented in London, we have selected the Congestion Charging Scheme which was implemented in 2003 and the proposed London Low Emission Zone which could become operational in 2008 for detailed discussion. The Congestion Charging Scheme constituted an innovative, controversial and ultimately successful action which, because of its success in reducing traffic and raising revenues, arose significant interest from other cities in the UK and worldwide. The proposed Low Emission Zone is another policy that is innovative and ambitious and has the potential to deliver major improvements in air quality.

2.5.1 The Congestion Charging Scheme Introduction In February 2003, the city of London started charging a fee for driving private automobiles in its central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues to fund transport improvements. The Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) has reduced traffic congestion, improved bus service, and generated substantial revenues. Public acceptance was scarce when the CCS was first implemented, but it has subsequently grown.50 The success of the CCS has led to the UKâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan to implement a scheme of national road tolls or pricing in the next 10 years. Pilot schemes have already been planned for some UK cities (e.g. Manchester, Birmingham) within the next 5 years. In February 2007, the congestion charge zone was extended westwards, nearly doubling the area covered to 40 square kilometres (see Figure 7).

Fig 7: The congestion charging area and the congestion charging area within Greater London 50â&#x20AC;&#x192; See Martin G. Richards, Congestion Charging in London: The Policy and the Politics, (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

How does the programme work? Motorists driving in the CCS area on weekdays between 7:00 am and 6:30 pm are required to pay to £8.51 There are some exemptions to the CCS charge, including motorcycles, licensed taxis, vehicles used by disabled people, some alternative fuel vehicles, buses and emergency vehicles. Area residents receive a 90% discount for this vehicle toll. The fee can be paid via a variety of modes, including retail outlets, payment machines, cellular text messaging or internet, at any time of the day. Monthly and annual permits are available at a discount rate of 15%. Approximately 110,000 motorists a day pay the charge (98,000 individual drivers and 12,000 fleet vehicles), increasingly by mobile phone text message. Monitoring is carried out through a network of video cameras which record the license plate numbers of vehicles and matches them with the paid list. Offenders are sent a £80 fine, which is reduced to £40 if paid within two weeks, and increased to £120 if not paid after a month. The start up and operational costs were high amounting to a projected £600 million from 2000 to 2008. These costs, however, are well compensated by charging and penalty revenues. Since the implementation of the scheme, net revenues have been around £100 million per year, part of which has been used to improve public transport services.52 Benefits After 3 years in place, the CCS has provided the following benefits:53 •

Congestion and traffic reduction. Congestion in the charging zone has reduced by 26% compared to precharging conditions in 2002. Traffic circulating within the charging zone has reduced by 15% with cars down by 33% compared to pre-charging conditions in 2002. Road traffic accidents, as well as delays, within the charging zone have also been substantially reduced. There is no evidence of detrimental traffic effects on roads outside the charging zone resulting from diverting traffic. Overall, traffic on the Inner Ring Road (IRR – the road forming the boundary of the charging zone) increased by only 1.5% after the first year of operation and this percentage has decreased over time.54 Traffic on other orbital roads surrounding the zone has remained relatively neutral compared to pre-charging levels.

•

Travel behaviour. The CCS did not affect the number of people who travel to central area but modified the transport methods they use: 50-60% moved to public transport (mainly buses), 20-30% diverted round zone, and 15-25% implemented other adaptations.55 Large-scale improvements to the bus network were made in 2003 to respond to the increased bus use. While other EU cities are ahead of London, the CCS has achieved a major shift in car use to bus. In 2002, 38% of people used their cars daily in London. In 2006 this was reduced to 19%.56 It has also contributed to the growth in bikes: since 2000 there has been a 72% increase in the use of

51 The charge was initially £5 but was increased to £8 in July 2005. 52 Transport for London (2006, June). Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report [Online]. http://www.tfl.gov.uk, p. 8 (hereinafter “Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report”). 53 Ibid. 54 An independent study commissioned by the Association of London Government (ALG, now known as the London Councils) estimated that traffic of vehicles with four wheels or more on the IRR increased by 3.9% after the first year of operation of the CCS. However traffic in a collar surrounding the charging zone (including the IRR) was found to decrease by approximately 3%. Association of London Government (2004). An Independent Assessment of the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme. [Online]. http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/doc. asp?doc=13026&cat=1798 55 Murray-Clark, Malcolm (Director, Congestion Charging Division). “Tackling Congestion and Vehicle Emissions in London”, presentation at the World Cities Climate Change Summit, 4 October 2005 [Online]. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-summit/ documents.jsp 56 See “Plane speaking” The Guardian, John Vidal, 1 November 2006 [Online]. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/ story/0,,1935908,00.html

bikes on London’s major roads.57 •

Emissions reduction. Less traffic and increased travel speed have reduced emissions of NOx by 8%, PM10 by 6% and CO2 by 16% within the charging zone. A small increase in traffic volume due to traffic diversion has left NOx emissions relatively unchanged and only increased PM10 emissions by 3% in the IRR. This suggests the CCS has not simply had the effect of completely transferring road emissions from one area to another, although it needs to be recognised that some areas have experienced an increase in pollutant emissions due to the scheme. Congestion charging triggered increased bus use but the expected increase in emissions has been mostly offset by the widespread introduction of particle traps to the new and existing bus fleet as well as the introduction of newer technology bus engines. Despite the significant emission reductions from vehicles within the zone, the impact on measured air quality data from ‘congestion charging’ has not been observed. This is because any changes in measured air quality due to the CCS have been minor and masked by other more significant factors affecting measured air quality such as weather patterns and changes in the composition and technology profile of the vehicle fleet.

•

Economic impacts. Congestion charging has had a broadly neutral impact on the economy of central London. Some retail stores have considered themselves harmed by the CCS, but amongst all businesses in the zone there are more supporters than opponents. Indeed, within the zone, the retail sector has increased its share of enterprise and employment since 2003.58 In addition, the CCS net revenues (around £100 million per year) have been spent largely on improved bus services within London.

•

Boost to Alternative Fuelled Vehicles. By providing a discount or exemption for alternative fuelled vehicles, the CCS has proved a boost to the sales and use of these vehicles in London.59 For example, it is predicted that there will be over 6,500 additional hybrid cars on London roads as a result of the congestion charge60, while suppliers of electric cars market them on the basis of savings under the congestion charge.61

Public Response The CCS was the subject of much controversy when it was first proposed by Mayor Ken Livingstone.62 Opposition groups included motorist groups, some labour organisations, and part of the media. Mayor Livingstone’s political opponent for the 2004 election promised to end the programme if elected. Two legal challenges to the proposed scheme were made by the City of Westminster and by 300 residents in Kensington but they were both dismissed.63 Mayor Livingston’s leadership emerged as a key factor to move ahead with the proposal even in light of fierce opposition by some sectors. Soon after its implementation the CCS started to become increasingly accepted, even by some groups which originally opposed the programme and by the business community. The main criticisms that are still made to the CCS include:64 57 See Transport for London, “Successful start to Congestion Charge western extension”, Press Release of 20 February 2007 [Online]. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/metro/article.asp?id=1470 58 Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report, p. 67. 59 Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (2005). UK New Car Registrations by CO2 performance [Online]. http://lib.smmt.co.uk/articles/sharedfolder/Publications/CO2Report%20New.pdf 60 See Green Car Congress, “Honda to Triple Supply of Civic Hybrids in the UK; London Congestion Charge Accelerating Demand for Hybrids”, 19 February 2007 [Online]. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/honda_to_triple.html#more 61 See for example the electric car G-Wiz advertisements at http://www.goingreen.co.uk/ 62 Mayor Ken Livingstone was elected to the position of Mayor of London on 4 May 2000 and re-elected for a second term on 10 June 2004. 63 The City of Westminster alleged procedural irregularities in the scheme’s consultation and approval process. After this claim was rejected by the High Court, the City of Westminster agreed to cooperate in the timely implementation of the scheme. The Kensington residents, in turn, argued that the scheme boundary would increase traffic on Kensington Lane and this traffic increase would severely affect the lives of local residents breaching the right to enjoy their homes conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights. 64 The following criticisms are detailed in Tod Litman (2006, January), London Congestion Pricing – Implications for Other Cities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute [Online]. http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

•

Inadequate charging criteria. The CCS fee does not discriminate the size of vehicle, when it is driven, or where and how much it is driven within the charging zone. It is argued that a fee that takes into account these variables would give motorists an incentive to shift from peak to off-peak periods, avoid the most congested roads, and minimise their mileage.

•

Unfairness. Some argue that road pricing is unfair because it constitutes “double charging,” as motorists already pay registration and fuel taxes, and that it is unfair to lower-income people who must drive into the CCS zone.

•

Cost efficiency. About half of the programme’s revenues are spent on overhead costs (project development, equipment and operations). However, these financial concerns are outweighed by the fact that the CCS has remained highly profitable ever since it was implemented.

•

Peripheral traffic. Traffic on the peripheral roads to the CCS zone has increased slightly. However journey times on them have not increased, in part because traffic signal systems on these roads were adjusted in anticipation of these traffic shifts. The negative consequences of increased traffic on peripheral roads envisioned by some sectors were not realised.65

Implications for Hong Kong London’s Congestion Charging Scheme is an excellent example of an innovative and controversial measure that has been successful in reducing traffic congestion, and raising transport revenue which, in turn, helped to improve bus services. In regards to air quality, the scheme has led to emissions reductions from vehicles but so far there has been no measurable change in air quality data that can be attributed to the scheme. Is congestion charging an appropriate measure for Hong Kong? With over 540,000 licensed vehicles on only 1,955 kilometres of roads, Hong Kong has very high road traffic density. Traffic congestion in Hong Kong reduces the efficiency of our road system and also generates huge external costs in the form of health and environmental damage resulting from vehicular emissions. This congestion problem can be attacked from the supply side by increasing road capacity or through control of demand for the use of existing roads. The continual expansion of the road system in Hong Kong is not a sustainable approach because Hong Kong is a city enclosed by mountains and the sea. With limited road capacity and a growing proportion of car use, there is economic rationale for the introduction of some form of traffic reduction measure as it has been recognised in the past.66 Further, the introduction of a road pricing scheme would force road users to pay for the health and environmental damage they cause and also help to reduce vehicular emissions of dangerous pollutants. The Hong Kong government recognised the need to restrain car traffic since the 1980’s, which was the origin of the high First Registration Tax and MTR investment programme. It needs to be noted, however, that while congestion charging in London reduced emissions of NOx, PM10 and CO2, so far there have not been any measured improvements in London’s air quality caused by the scheme. This has been attributed to a number of factors including the lack of sufficient data to verify any changes in measured air quality caused solely by the scheme, and other more significant factors affecting air quality such as weather patterns and changes in the composition and technology profile of the vehicle fleet.67 Similarly, the regional nature of air pollution in Hong Kong may offset any emission reductions brought on by congestion charging. It should be noted that many of Hong Kong’s vehicular pollution reduction measures over the last 10 years have had success in reducing emissions, but these do not show up in measured improvements in air quality, as demonstrated by the largely static

65 Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report (Boundary case study) pp. 126-146. 66 In 1983 the government initiated the Hong Kong Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) Pilot Project which investigated possible charging technologies and proposed several designs for an ERP scheme but the proposals of this project were ultimately shelved. In 1997 the government commissioned a second study assessing the need and examining the practicability of introducing an ERP scheme in HK but it proposed such a scheme was not needed on HK Island until 2006. 67 Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report, pp. 114-118.

trend in roadside air pollution levels. While congestion charging may not be supported on the grounds of air pollution reduction alone, it is important to consider the introduction of a congestion charging (or other form of road pricing) scheme in Hong Kong not only as an air quality measure but as a component of the overall transport policy and as a revenue stream to fund other policies which can bring air quality improvements. For example, revenues raised through road pricing in Hong Kong could be spent on developing other less polluting forms of transport (i.e. the expansion of the Mass Transit Railway system or improvements to the bus fleet). While Hong Kong’s public transport system, unlike London’s, is self-financing, additional investment in more lines, or cleaner technologies could help to facilitate further reductions in air pollution. In terms of the practical implication of such scheme in Hong Kong, questions regarding the type of charging technology and design of the scheme need to be examined in greater depth.68 Also, the ability of the public transport system (e.g. MTR and buses) to absorb extra passengers needs to be considered (i.e. it needs to be analysed if due to Hong Kong’s ageing bus fleet it is possible that emission reductions from less car use will be offset by increased emissions from the buses). Last but not least, the implementation of the scheme would also require strong leadership and political courage.

2.5.2 The Low Emission Zone Introduction A Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is a geographically defined area within which the circulation of certain polluting vehicles is restricted or deterred for air quality reasons. A LEZ accelerates the turnover of the vehicle fleet or requires operators of older vehicles to fit abatement equipment to their vehicles. Although traffic volumes do not necessarily change, vehicles travelling in an area have lower emissions, and this leads to air quality improvements. The process for establishing a LEZ in Greater London began in 2001 and included several stages.69 Currently, it is estimated that the earliest the LEZ could be operational is early 2008.70 How would the programme work? The LEZ proposed for London is designed to discourage the use of the most individually polluting vehicles in the Greater London area by imposing heavy charges on them. It would reduce the numbers of highly polluting vehicles driving within the Greater London area as well as accelerate the introduction of cleaner vehicles.71 These changes are expected to bring major air quality improvements. The vehicles targeted are diesel-engined heavy good vehicles (HGVs), buses, coaches and heavier light good vehicles

68 The 1997 study of ERP in Hong Kong identified GPS as a suitable technology for charging as its costs were likely to decrease in the future and it could be easily integrated with future Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). The study also preferred a cordon design for the system with a single zone covering the main business area along the north shore of HK Island. 69 In July 2001, a feasibility study to examine methods of reducing traffic emissions in London via one or more Low Emission Zones was commissioned. Phase I of that study concluded that a LEZ was the best approach to help move London closer to achieving its air quality objectives. Phase II, which reported in July 2003, concluded that a London wide LEZ was the most effective option. The latest consultation closed on 2 February 2007 and results are yet to be released. 70 Mayor of London (2006, July). The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Revised following consultation [Online]. http://www.london.gov.uk p. 2. (hereinafter “The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone”). 71 Operators of vehicles not meeting the Low Emission Zone standards could become compliant by fitting pollution-reducing equipment to their older vehicles, by fitting new engines in their vehicles or by buying/leasing a compliant vehicle.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

(LGVs ) and minibuses. Cars are not targeted by LEZ at this stage. The LEZ requires diesel-engined HGVs, buses and coaches to meet or exceed Euro III for PM by 2008 and Euro IV for PM by 2012, and would target heavier LGVs and minibuses from 2010. An additional standard covering ultra-fine particles or PM2.5 could also be included within the LEZ if such a standard is set by the European Commission.72 Operators wishing to bring vehicles into the zone that did not meet the specified emissions standards for the LEZ would be required to pay a daily charge and, if the charge is not paid, proportionate penalties would be imposed. The quantum of the charge and associated penalties would be much higher than those of the Congestion Charging Scheme analysed above.73 Vehicles which meet the proposed emission standards would be able to operate in the LEZ without paying the charge. The LEZ would cover all of Greater London which comprises many of the areas with the highest exceedences to the air quality standards within the UK (i.e. central London, Heathrow and around the main road networks). It would operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is proposed that the LEZ would be enforced using Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras similar to those used for Congestion Charging Scheme. Registration would only be required from vehicles for which emission characteristics could not be determined from available records. The proposed LEZ is not designed to be a revenue generating scheme and the revenues would not offset the costs of implementing and operating the scheme as with the CCS. The estimated cost of the LEZ scheme to Transport for London is between £125 million and £130 million, from development of the scheme until 2015/16.74 Total revenues from 2008 to 2015 would be between £30 million and £50 million and these would contribute towards the operating costs of the scheme. The costs of the LEZ to operators, in turn, are estimated to be around £300 million for the same period.75 It is estimated that some 34% of HGVs and 42% of coaches would not be compliant with the LEZ standard in 2008.76 Benefits The proposed LEZ is an air quality measure that seeks to achieve health and air quality benefits for people who live in, work in and visit London. The main benefits in this regard can be grouped as follows: •

Improve public health. The LEZ would reduce the exposure of people to PM10 and NOx. The reduced emissions would be particularly beneficial for people already suffering from health problems related to existing poor air quality. The LEZ would reduce the number of premature deaths, the number of life years lost, respiratory hospital admissions and the need for medication for adults and children suffering from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The health benefits from the LEZ are likely to be widespread across the Greater London area and outside London.77 The monetary value of health benefits within London from the LEZ is estimated, using the

72 The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone, p. 15. 73 A daily charge of £200 is proposed for non-compliant HGVs, buses and coaches, and of around £100 for non-compliant heavy vans and minibuses. Penalties for non-compliance would be £1000 (reduced to £500 if paid within 14 days) for HGVs, buses and coaches, and £500 (reduced to £250 if paid within 14 days) for heavy LGVs and minibuses. 74 The capital costs are approximately £60 million, which include all development, consultation and implementation costs, and the total operating costs of the scheme from early 2008 to 2015/16 are estimated at between £65 million and £70 million. The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone, p. 26. 75 Ibid. 76 Transport for London (2006, July). Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Report to Mayor Following Consultation with Stakeholders, Businesses, other Organisations and the Public [Online] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emissionzone/pdfdocs/LEZ-RTM-chapters.pdf p. 51 77 The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone, p. 25.

DEFRA methodology, at around £100 million over the period 2008-2015. Benefits outside London are estimated at around £70 million over the same period. Using the EU Clean Air for Europe Methodology, those benefits are estimated at around £160 million within London, and around £100 million outside London.78 •

Facilitate compliance with AQOs. By reducing overall PM10 and NOx emissions emitted in London by dieselengined vehicles, the proposed LEZ would help to reduce the overall area of London that exceeds the AQOs and EU limit values for PM10. Without the proposed LEZ, 100 km2 of Greater London is forecasted to exceed the annual mean PM10 objective of 23 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) in 2008.79 The 2008 LEZ proposals (with a standard of Euro III for PM) would deliver reductions of around 6% in the area of London exceeding the annual PM10 objective, and around 9% reductions in the area exceeding the daily PM10 objective. In 2012, a standard of Euro IV for PM for HGVs, coaches and buses would deliver reductions of around 11% in the area of London exceeding the annual and daily PM10 objectives. Adding heavier LGVs and minibuses to the scheme would reduce the area exceeding the annual and daily PM10 objectives by a further 3%.80

Public Response The LEZ proposal has met significant public support. According to a consultation published by Transport for London, the vast majority of the general public (89%) and most of the stakeholders (60%) supported the proposed LEZ.81 The response from businesses and other organisations was more mixed. An equal proportion of businesses indicated support for (41%) and opposition to (41%) the LEZ proposals, while more of the responses from other organisations opposed (42%) than supported (25%) the proposals.82 The most controversial issues include: •

Economic impacts. Bus, coach and freight operators have opposed the LEZ proposal based on the negative economic impacts the scheme would have on their activities. These impacts would be more acute in relation to small companies as they typically have older vehicles and less capital to modify or change their vehicles. The coach industry and the removal industry argued that since their vehicles have relatively long life cycles it was highly costly for them to renew their fleet at the pace required by the LEZ.83 Operators providing transport services for tourists and school children noted that their services would be affected by the LEZ. There may also be some impact on the second-hand values of non-compliant vehicles, although many of them could be retrofitted with pollution abatement equipment in order to become compliant. Some of these sectors proposed to delay the implementation of the LEZ or to make it less costly for businesses by reducing the charges and fines. On the other hand, the LEZ is expected to have positive economic and employment impacts on the vehicle manufacturing sector, including retrofit equipment manufacturers and fitters. Transport for London reviewed and made several estimations of the potential economic impacts, concluding that these impacts would be relatively small in general and that they would be more than offset by the health and air quality benefits for the entire community.84

•

Vehicles targeted. During the consultation process, it was questioned why certain vehicles (i.e. vans and cars) were not included amongst the vehicles targeted by the LEZ. It was argued that the combined kilometres driven

78 Ibid. 79 Ibid, p. 24. 80 Ibid. pp. 24-25. 81 Transport for London (2006, June). Low Emission Zone Public Consultation Report [Online]. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission-zone/ pdfdocs/LEZ-RTM-Annex-A-Accent.pdf p. 12. 82 Ibid. 83 Draft Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone, Report to the Mayor Following Consultation with Stakeholders, Businesses, other Organisations and the Public, July 2006 [Online]. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission-zone/pdfdocs/ LEZ-RTM-chapters.pdf p. 33 84 Ibid. μg. 51.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

by cars contribute a higher percentage of emissions than other vehicle types and therefore they should be targeted, too. Although Transport for London acknowledged the contribution of cars to air pollution, it decided not to include them within the scope of the LEZ proposals at this stage to avoid negative social and economic impacts. The scope of vehicles targeted by the LEZ will be kept under review. •

Alternatives to the LEZ. Despite the general support for the LEZ, a number of respondents to the consultation conducted by Transport for London preferred other alternative measures to improve air quality, such as further financial incentives for the replacement of polluting vehicles and a banning system instead of a charging one. Others argued that normal vehicle replacement cycles and operators voluntarily reducing emissions would lead to improvements in air quality. Some respondents saw the LEZ as being politically motivated by only targeting businesses while others saw it as a mechanism to raise revenues with little impact on air quality. However, the feasibility studies conducted concluded that none of the alternatives proposed would achieve the benefits of the LEZ at similar or lower costs.85

Implications for Hong Kong The London LEZ proposal has so far passed the tests of technical feasibility and public acceptance and will probably be implemented in the near future. LEZs similar to the one proposed for London have been successfully implemented in the Swedish cities of Gothenburg, Lund, Malmo and Stockholm (since 1996),86 and in Tokyo (since 2003). These experiences raise the question of whether establishing a LEZ is appropriate for Hong Kong as well. Like London, Hong Kong needs to urgently reduce emissions from road vehicles. Indeed, the level of PM in Hong Kong – which is largely a result of vehicle emissions – is much higher than in London (see Figure 4). In addition, Hong Kong has a comparatively old franchise bus fleet and diesel-powered commercial goods vehicular fleet whose replacement by newer vehicles needs to be accelerated. The most polluting vehicles on Hong Kong’s roads today are the vast majority of diesel-burning buses, minibuses, and commercial vehicles. They represent 30% of the total vehicle fleet on the roads in Hong Kong, and contribute about 80% of the roadside air pollution.87 In light of this, there are clear grounds to start evaluating the possibility of introducing a LEZ in Hong Kong. The Government has already implemented a vehicle scrapping scheme – potentially HK$3.2 billion in subsidies for pre-Euro and Euro I commercial vehicle owners to replace their vehicles with Euro IV vehicles. If all 74,000 vehicle owners take up the offer, emissions of respirable suspended particulate and NOx are estimated to be reduced by 18% and 10% respectively.88 The implementation of a LEZ could effectively complement such a scheme by providing further incentive for owners to uμgrade their vehicles. While establishing a LEZ would be a critical step towards reducing street-level air pollution in Hong Kong, a LEZ alone may not necessarily improve Hong Kong’s air quality as a whole due to the influence of other major sources of air pollution (i.e. regional factories, power plants and shipping). As with the Congestion Charging Scheme, a LEZ measure needs to be conceived as a component of a wider air quality policy that targets all relevant sources of air pollution affecting the city. Introducing a LEZ in Hong Kong would require extensive technical studies as well as adequate public consultation.

85 The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone, pp. 11-13. 86 For further details about the Swedish LEZ see Gwyn Jones, Steve Pye, Paul Watkiss (2005). Service Contract for ex-post Evaluation of short-term and Local Measures in the CAFE Context, UK Air Quality Archive [Online]. http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/ cat09/0505171126_CAFE_final_report.pdf 87 Alan Seigrist (October 2006). Air Pollution for Dummies. Clear the Air [Online]. http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/dummies.htm 88 Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (2006), Air Pollution Control Strategies [Online] http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_solutions/strategies_apc.html

Some of the fundamental issues to be elucidated include what vehicles should be targeted in Hong Kong, what is the most appropriate pollution abatement technology available, and what is the most appropriate area in Hong Kong to be designated as a LEZ. It may be possible that, given Hong Kong’s small geographical size, the whole territory can be designated as a LEZ rather than a specified area. This option could save significant costs in terms of technical and administrative infrastructure and boundary-related problems. Finally, it is worth-noting that a LEZ could be operated concurrently with a congestion charging scheme, thus achieving greater emissions reductions and cost efficiency (i.e. by using the same camera network and administrative infrastructure).

2.6 Lessons from London London exhibits a substantially more developed, integrated and comprehensive air quality action plan than Hong Kong. This comprises both the legal and administrative framework for air quality management as well as the specific air quality policies in place today. It needs to be acknowledged, however, that London, unlike Hong Kong, benefits from its location within a nation and a continent which are very active in fighting air pollution. Even so, a review of London’s efforts to improve air quality provides very useful lessons to Hong Kong: a. The Hong Kong government should adopt more comprehensive and stricter air quality policies. London’s actions to improve air quality are multifaceted, stringent and in some cases innovative. Conversely, Hong Kong has so far failed to tackle the problem comprehensively and achieve air quality improvements. The need for a multi-angle strategy is even more acute in the case of Hong Kong because Hong Kong’s air quality is affected by a wider diversity of pollution sources which do not affect London (i.e. power plants, and shipping) and because Hong Kong’s lack of a broader legal framework dealing with certain aspects of air pollution (i.e. UK and EU air quality policies). Hong Kong also lags behind London in terms of the strictness of the air quality policies implemented. While London’s air quality objectives set health-based targets which are regularly updated, Hong Kong’s air quality objectives set dangerously low targets which have not been updated since 1987 and which provide misleading information to the public about the air quality situation because they are used to determine the Air Pollution Index. b. The Hong Kong government should improve its air quality monitoring network. London’s air quality monitoring network currently comprises 123 operative air quality monitoring stations. These stations are split into 5 different categories each specifying the placement and sampling height of stations within that category.89 This is in contrast to Hong Kong’s 14 monitoring stations which are split into only 2 categories. The greater number of stations and station types allows the London air quality monitoring network to provide a better, more precise picture of the air quality situation in that city, and facilitates the development of more efficient actions to improve air quality. c. The Hong Kong government should implement measures such as a Congestion Charging Scheme and a Low Emission Zone to reduce emissions from road transport. The CCS in London proved successful in reducing traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, and raising transport revenues that are being applied to create more sustainable modes of transport for London. Given Hong Kong’s high vehicle density, the impossibility of continued expansion of roads due to space constraints, and the existing high levels of road-side air pollution, traffic reduction policies are much needed. London’s proposed LEZ, in turn, constitutes a major step towards reducing emissions from the most polluting vehicles and improving air quality in Greater London. These two measures could help bring into affect the ‘polluter pays principle’ and reduce road vehicles emissions substantially in Hong Kong.

89 See Appendix III.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

d. Hong Kong needs greater political leadership. The leadership of London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone has been a key factor in the city’s actions to reduce air pollution. This leadership is illustrated by initiatives such as the Congestion Charging Scheme which was taken forward in spite of fierce opposition by certain sectors and ultimately became a highly successful policy. The Mayor of London has also been active in lobbying the national government for more stringent environmental standards to be applied on national and EU levels. Hong Kong is in need of similar political leadership. Solutions to cross-border pollution affecting the PRD region can only be reached through high level political cooperation between Guangdong and Hong Kong authorities. Similarly, necessary changes to Hong Kong’s transport and energy policies will also require a high degree of political leadership. e. The Hong Kong government should openly acknowledge the seriousness of Hong Kong’s air pollution problem and the risks posed by that problem to public health. Attitudes of London’s public authorities to air pollution in that city differ from those expressed by Hong Kong officials regarding Hong Kong’s air pollution problem. London’s authorities tend to emphasise the seriousness of air pollution in their cities as a justification to set tough environmental measures. In the case of Hong Kong, the government has often conveyed the idea that air pollution is not a major threat to the community.90 Further, while the inextricable link between air pollution and public health is regularly referred to by London’s authorities and stated in their clean air policies, the Hong Kong government has so far downplayed that link. A change in the Hong Kong government’s position towards the raising problem of Hong Kong’s air pollution is needed to address the problem effectively and find adequate solutions.

90 See footnote 4.

3 Los Angeles 3.1 City Overview Los Angeles is the second-most populous city in the United States (US). Its economy is driven by international trade, the entertainment industry, aerospace, agriculture, petroleum, fashion and tourism. The city is also the largest manufacturing centre in the US, albeit industrial activity has declined in the last two decades. The contiguous ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together comprise the most significant port in the US and one of the most important ports in the world. Local transport is largely dominated by cars. Indeed, Los Angeles is the most car-populated metropolis in the world with 1.8 registered automobiles per licensed driver. California’s economy is the 7th largest, compared against all nations of the world, and the Los Angeles region is ranked 9th or 10th.91 The State of California is divided, for air quality management purposes, into several air basins and air quality management districts. The City of LA and most of the populated part of LA County are part of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) (see LA’s Legal Framework below). The desert portion of the LA County, which is less significant in terms of AQM because it is subject to less air quality control, lies in the Mojave Desert Air Basin. The problems, developments and policies discussed in the following sections refer not only to the City of LA but to the whole SCAQMD and SoCAB regions unless otherwise specified.92

Santa Barbara County

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

San Bernandino County

Kern County

Mojave Desert Air Basin

South Central Coast Air Basin Ventura County

Los Angeles County

South Coast Air Basin Riverside County

Orange County

San Diego Air Basin

Salton Sea Air Basin Imperial County

San Diego County

Figure 8: The South Coast Air Quality Management District and the South Coast Air Basin Los Angeles’ past and current strive for better air quality provides a number of interesting lessons for Hong Kong. In particular, LA’s current approach to AQM, whereby air quality jurisdictions are defined along topographic patterns instead of legal boundaries, and the city’s efforts to reduce air pollution from port-related activities are particularly interesting for Hong Kong which faces similar cross-border and port-related air pollution problems.

3.2 Evolution of Air Pollution Control in Los Angeles LA’s air pollution started to be recognised as a serious problem in the early 1940s. In 1946, the Los Angeles County

91 Daniel A. Mazmanian (2006, March). Achieving Air Quality: The Los Angeles Experience. University of Southern California. p. 6 [Online]. http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/bedrosian/private/docs/mazmanianairquality.pdf 92 References in this report to “Los Angeles” or “LA” should be understood as including the whole LA region of California unless otherwise specified.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

Board of Supervisors established the first air pollution control district in the US to address the problem of industrial air pollution. In the mid-1950s, California established the first state agency to control vehicle emissions and in 1966 the first vehicle emissions standards in the US. Many of the controls originating in California became the basis for the US federal control programme which began in the 1960s.93 In the 1970s, both state and federal authorities realised that local programmes were not enough to solve a problem that was regional in nature and did not stay within jurisdictional boundaries. Instead of traditional legal jurisdictions defined by county or state limits, air basins defined by geographical boundaries became the basis for regulatory programmes. In 1977, the California Legislature created the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which incorporated and expanded the functions of the air quality agencies of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAQMD was charged with developing plans and programmes for the region to attain federal air quality standards by specified dates. Since its creation, the SCAQMD has lead the way in the US in setting emission standards for gasoline, solvents, oilbased paints, barbecue lighter fluid, and other commercial products, with the result that most have been reformulated or redesigned by their manufacturers to be less polluting.94 These standards were complemented by a shift from burning coal and oil to less polluting natural gas for energy in business, industry, and the electric utilities. Major improvements in the SoCAB’s air quality were achieved through these combined policies (see Figures 9 and 10).

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN SMOG TREND 0.60

250 Days Over 1-Hour Federal Ozone Standard Maximum 1-Hour Ozone Concentration (ppm)

0.40 150 0.30 100 0.20 50

Concentration ppm

0.50

200 Basin-Days Exceeding

0.10

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

0.00 1977

0 1976

English

YEAR

Figure 9: South Coast Basin smog trend Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District

93 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2003). 2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe. SCAQMD, p. 1.5. (hereinafter the “SCAQMD 2003 Plan”) [Online]. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm 94 Daniel A. Mazmanian, p. 14.

OZONE LEVELS 1950-2000 in SC BASIN 80

20 Peak Ozone Level

Millions

Parts per 100 million

Population

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Figure 10: Ozone levels 1950-2000 in South Coast Basin Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District However, at the same time, the region has been rapidly expanding with unprecedented economic growth and dramatic urban sprawl. The population of the SoCAB has more than tripled in size from 4.8 to over 16 million people, and the number of motor vehicles in the region quadrupled from 2.3 to more than 10 million. Similarly, there was comparable growth in the number of trains, ships, and planes entering and leaving the region. Consequently, much of the gains in per person emission reduction achieved were off-set by the region’s growth.95 The situation reached crisis proportion over the SCAQMD’s 1982 Implementation Plan to reduce ozone. The plan did not foresee bringing the region into compliance for at least twenty more years and EPA, which was required to ensure that all state and regional plans met the requirements of Clean Air Act, nevertheless accepted the region’s assessment. In response to this, in 1984, a group of environmentalists96 filed a claim against the EPA and the SCAQMD for promulgating a plan that knowingly failed to provide a realistic strategy for complying with the Clean Air Act. After four years of proceedings, the judge ruled in favour of the environmentalists. It ordered EPA to develop its own implementation plan for the region given the district’s inability to do so. The ruling became the legal backdrop of the renewed efforts and cleanup initiative in the region of the following decade.97 These developments led to the implementation of a very ambitious air quality plan in 1991 by the SCAQMD. The 1991 Plan called for tough new policies and enforcement, and sacrifices by business and industry, the motoring public and all the residents of the basin. It also required the co-operation of all affected local, state, and federal agencies. Business groups fiercely opposed the plan and sought ways of counter-balancing the significant power gained by SCAQMD. Despite the complaints from the business community, the strategy envisioned in the 1991 Plan was materialised and rendered important air quality improvements without substantial harm to the regional economy.

95 Ibid, p. 18. 96 The action was filed by the Coalition for Clean Air, a locally-based environmental group, which was supported by the Sierra Club. 97 Daniel A. Mazmanian, p. 19.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

To complement command-and-control policies, incentives and market-based strategies became increasingly used in the US during the 1980s and 1990s. The 1991 Plan started developing an innovative concept of “marketable permits” which gave rise to the “cap and trade” system to reduce emissions from stationary sources by letting participants buy or sell emission allowances.98 The system was formally implemented in the 1993 Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) Programme which, due to its posterior success, would become an iconic air pollution control action. Additional incentive policies included: credits and rebates for cleaner technologies and low emitting vehicles; fees on car miles driven and on fuel consumption; planting of carbon absorbing and shade trees; credits and rebates for energy efficient houses and businesses; and expansion of the ‘cap-and-trade’ programme for NOx, SOx and VOCs.99 Currently, the LA region still suffers from considerable air pollution, albeit to a much lesser degree than in the past. For that reason, it continues to implement multifaceted air quality actions which target traditional as well emergent air pollution sources (see sections 3.4 and 3.5). This overview of the history of air pollution control in the LA region can be summarised as follows: •

Air quality: During the last 35 years Los Angeles has managed to considerably improve its air quality and meet most state and federal air quality standards, despite the influence of environmentally-adverse factors such as rapid economic and population growth, urban sprawl, and massive car use. Notwithstanding this improvement, the LA region remains the most severely polluted metropolitan region in the US.

•

Air pollution control methods: Air quality improvement was achieved, mainly, through the implementation of tough air quality regulations delivered through duly-empowered state and local agencies. Key regulations include emission standards for different sources; stringent AQ standards; and changes in energy policy whereby coal use was partly replaced by gas and electricity. These command-and-control policies were subsequently complemented by market-based measures.

•

Drivers for change: Air pollution and its impacts on community health have been the key factors around which LA’s air quality governance was developed. Public pressure, expressed through lawsuits and other actions, was a vital ingredient to force authorities to deal with the problem when they were not doing so. The region’s commercial character meant that technological solutions and market-based approaches needed to be found in order to complement the command-and-control policies.

98 The general functioning of a ‘cap and trade’ system is as follows: a central authority sets a limit or cap on the amount of emissions that can be emitted. Those who emit the pollutant are given allowances which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that exceed their allowances must buy credits from those who emit less than their allowances. The more firms that need to buy credits, the higher the price of credits becomes. For a detailed discussion of a potential cap and trade system in Hong Kong see Christine Loh and Roger Raufer (2007, January). The Emissions Game: How markets can help save the planet, CLSA, available at http://www.civic-exchange.org/index.php?cat=98 99 Daniel A. Mazmanian, p. 26.

REGIONAL ECONOMY Decrease in large industrial manufacturing (e.g. aerospace, energy production) Implementation of 24-hour shipping and goods movement Rise of technology, media, and biotech sectors Tecommuting and home shopping

PUBLIC OPINION Strong public demand for a clean environment High willingness to pay for open space, clean environment, environmental health Strong political and civic leadership Several active environmental organizations

ENERGY POLICY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY

Transformation from coal to natural gas for electricity CA Energy Action Plan Commitment to renewable energy (wind, solar) Greenhouse gases reduction and ozone policies CA Fuel Cell Partnership Increase in gasoline prices and international tension

The Federal Clean Air Act and EPA CA Clean Air Act and Air Resources Board CA Air Quality Management District plans and action CA Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan

AIR QUALITY

TRANSPORTATION POLICY Improve goods movement: ships, trains, trucks (the Alameda Corridor) Expension of regional light rail & LA subway Incentives for low emitting vehicles Congestion pricing

URBAN DESIGN Increase in housing density along transportation on corridors (the 2% plan) Demographic changes and new urban living Addressing the jobs-housing nexus

Figure 11: Factors contributing to clean air in Los Angeles

3.3 Current Characteristics of Los Angeles’ Air Pollution Air Quality and Health Impacts The American Lung Association ranked LA-Long Beach-Riverside as the metropolitan area with the worst 24-hour and annual particulate pollution less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and LA-Riverside-Orange County as the metropolitan area with the worst ozone pollution in the entire US.100 According to the SCAQMD, a consistent correlation between elevated ambient air pollution levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the US including the LA region.101 Main Air Pollutants and their Sources The South Coast air basin’s high pollution levels can be partly explained by a combination of meteorological and topological effects. The boundaries to the north and east of the basin are formed by mountains preventing the effective dispersion of air. This topological effect combined with the arid weather conditions (light rainfall, abundant sunshine) promotes the formation of photochemical smog containing ozone, particulates, nitrogen dioxide and 100 American Lung Association (2006). Best and Worst Cities [Online]. http://lungaction.org/reports/sota06_cities.html 101 SCAQMD 2003 Plan, pp. 2.1-2.23.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

carbon monoxide. Obviously ambient pollutant concentrations are also effected by the emission of primary pollutants into the atmosphere from sources within the basin. Between 1980 and 2005, vehicle miles travelled on LA County roads increased dramatically by 75%.102 Consequently, road transport contributed significantly to the emission of pollutants into the LA atmosphere. Figure 12 highlights that in 2005 road transport was responsible for 57% of NOx emissions, which include NO2 and nitric oxide (NO), precursors in the formation of ozone. Road transport is also responsible for emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide and toxic air contaminants. Other mobile sources such as off-road transport and farm equipment (not including trains, aircrafts and ships) are also responsible for a significant amount of NOx, PM and SOx emissions as seen in Figure 12. Similarly to Hong Kong, pollutant emissions related to the combined ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach also contribute significantly to the air quality in LA County. Indeed in 2005, over 50% of SOx emissions and over 10% of NOx emissions resulted from ships and commercial boats. In 2020 it is estimated that emission sources related to the combined ports (ocean-going vessels, harbour craft, trains, trucks, and cargo handling equipment) will contribute 73% of SOx emissions, 24% of NOx emissions and 10% of PM2.5 emissions in the South Coast air basin.103 Another major source of pollutant emissions in LA is particles stirred into the atmosphere from paved and unpaved roads (responsible for 61.9% of PM pollution) and construction and demolition activities. Fuel combustion (for generation of electricity and by the manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, food and commercial sectors), industrial processes and petroleum production also lead to a considerable amount of pollutant emissions in LA County. 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 3.8%

3.8%

8.1% Paved/unpaved

On-road transport

road dust 5%

Other mobile sources

Construction and

Ships and commercial

demolition 16.5%

boats

Industrial processes

61.9%

On-road transport Other mobile sources

16.5%

Fuel combustion Trains and aircraft Other

Other

1.2%

NOx

5% Ships and commercial

5.2%

boats Petroleum production

10.8%

and marketing 51.6%

22.2%

Fuel combustion On-road transport Other mobile sources Industrial processes Other

SOx

Figure 12: 2005 emissions inventory for PM, NOx and SOx in LA County104

102 Cox, Paul, Johnson, Martin and Auyueng, Janelle (2006). The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality: 2006 edition [Online]. http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac06/almanac2006all.pdf 103 SCAQMD (2006). Air Quality Management Plan 2007- Draft [Online]. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/07AQMP.html 104 California Air Resources Board (2006). 2005 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Los Angeles County [Online]. www.arb.ca.gov/app/ emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_DIV-4&F_DD=Y&F_YR=2005&F_SEASON=A&SP=2006&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=19

Air Pollution Trends Examination of the trends in the measured concentrations of criteria pollutants over recent years provides a means of comparing the air quality in LA County and Hong Kong. Figure 13 shows an average of annual mean values across a number of monitoring stations in Hong Kong and LA County for 3 main air pollutants over the years 1997-2005. Again, the dangers of comparing average annual means in different cities need to be stressed. Factors possibly effecting the variations observed in this comparison include the number of stations included in the average, the location of monitoring stations, equipment failure, monitoring methods and sampling heights. While the number of stations used to calculate the average values105 and the monitoring methods106 utilised in the LA stations are known, no information regarding the location, equipment failure rates and sampling heights of the LA monitoring stations can be found. This must be considered when using these trends as a means of comparing the air quality in LA to that in Hong Kong.

SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Hong Kong

100 90

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

LA HKAQO (annual)

60 50 40 30 WHO (2006) 24hr avg.

20 10

70 60 50 WHO 2006 (annual)

40 30 20 10 0

0 1997

HKAQO (annual)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1997

2005

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

PM10 100

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

90 80 70 HKAQO (annual)

60 50 40 30

WHO 2006 (annual)

20 10 0 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figure 13: Air pollution trends in LA and Hong Kong107 Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to conclude that Hong Kong suffers higher concentrations of SO2 than LA County. It appears as if Hong Kong also experiences higher PM10 levels, but it must be stated that this may simply be a result 105 In 1997 Hong Kong had 9 monitoring stations (8 general, 1 roadside), in 1998 it had 12 monitoring stations (9 general, 3 roadside) and from 1999 to 2005 it had 14 monitoring stations (11 general, 3 roadside). Anywhere from 4 to 16 monitoring stations were used to calculate the average LA values. 106 In particular, measured PM10 concentrations can vary significantly depending on the measurement technique used. The Hong Kong PM10 measurements used here were all collected using TEOM instruments. However the LA values were calculated either by the gravimetric or beta attenuation method. There is evidence to suggest that TEOM measurements are systematically less than gravimetric measurements and gravimetric measurements are systematically less than beta attenuation measurements. For further information see Bureau Veritas (2006). UK Equivalence Program for Monitoring of Particulate Matter [Online]: www.airquality.co.uk.) 107 Source: Hong Kong Environmental Department (HKEPD) and SCAQMD. Measurements in ppb were converted to μg/m3 using conversion factors at 25 degrees Celcius and 1013mb. Dashed horizontal lines indicate annual WHO guidelines (short dash) and HK AQOs (long dash). There is no annual sulphur dioxide WHO guideline since the daily standard is so low; this is why the daily value is represented in the sulphur dioxide graph. This must be taken into consideration when comparing it to the trends in the annual mean concentration of sulphur dioxide in LA and HK.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

of the location of LA’s monitoring stations. More or less stations may be situated next to roads; this is unknown yet it is a major factor effecting measured PM10 concentration. However, another solid conclusion that can be made from these trends is that NO2 and PM10 concentration have, on average, been decreasing in LA County over the years between 1997 and 2005 as shown in Figure 13. Similarities and Differences between LA and Hong Kong’s Air Pollution Los Angeles and Hong Kong are both affected by topographic characteristics that prevent effective dispersion of pollutants emitted within the cities. The two cities also suffer from significant air pollution generated by port activities. In terms of differences, while Hong Kong is more affected than LA by the street-canyon effect and by cross-border pollution, LA suffers from more significant levels of road-transport pollution caused by its massive car fleet. Figure 14: Key similarities and differences between air pollution problems in of LA and Hong Kong

Similarities

Differences

Topography:

Building heights- the street canyon effect:

Both LA and Hong Kong are bounded by mountains. This

Hong Kong contains numerous high-rise buildings that create

prevents the effective dispersion of pollutants emitted within

a street canyon effect trapping any pollutants emitted (e.g. by

the cities.

cars) within the canyon. The greater LA area does not contain as many high-rise buildings and therefore does not experience as great a street canyon effect.

Shipping emissions:

Regional air pollution:

LA and Hong Kong both contain major ports. A significant

Ambient pollutant concentrations in Hong Kong are effected

amount of emissions within the two cities results from

by the transport of pollutants emitted across the border in

activities related to the ports (i.e. ocean-going vessels, harbour

Guangdong province. The regional pollution problem is not as

craft, trains, trucks, and cargo handling equipment).

pronounced in LA. Road transport pollution: LA is the most car-populated metropolis in the world and this generates considerable air pollution. Car use in Hong Kong is much less common than in LA.

3.4 Air Quality Policies in Los Angeles This section provides an overview of the main air quality policies in force in the Los Angeles region, including those established by federal, state, regional and local bodies. A more detailed summary of these policies can be found in Appendix IV. Los Angeles’ AQM Legal Framework Air quality policies in force in LA are the result of integrated actions and regulations by federal, state, regional and local authorities. A comprehensive, region-wide system of policy formulation and implementing strategies has evolved to tackle the air pollution problem. Air basins defined by topographic features (instead of legal boundaries) are used to define agencies’ responsibilities and air quality action plans. Each agency or jurisdiction is associated with specific planning and implementation responsibilities.

At the federal level, the US EPA is charged with regulation of 49-state on-road motor vehicle standards; trains, airplanes, and ships; and off-road engines less than 175 horsepower. In addition, the US EPA oversees the development and implementation of air quality plans by state authorities. US EPA must approve the SCAQMD’s clear air plan after it is reviewed and approved by the Air Resources Board. It has authority to impose additional controls on the basin if the regional plan falls short. At the state level, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopts on- and off-road mobile source emission standards, vehicle fuel requirements, and consumer product regulations. The CARB is also responsible for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The California CAA, in turn, serves as the centrepiece of air quality regulations applicable at the state level since it is generally more stringent than the federal CAA. The California CAA includes the following key requirements: apply best available retrofit control technology; reduce non-attainment pollutants and their precursors at a rate of five percent per year, or, if this cannot be done, include all feasible measures and an expeditious implementation schedule; reduce population exposure to non-attainment pollutants according to a prescribed schedule; and, rank control measures by cost-effectiveness and implementation priority. At the regional level, the SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. This area of 10,743 square miles is home to over 16 million people. The SCAQMD is responsible for stationary sources, indirect sources and some mobile sources (i.e. visible emissions from trains and ships) and is the agency in charge of developing the AQM Plan to bring this area into compliance with federal and state clean air standards. At the local level, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a voluntary planning council composed of mayors, city council members and county supervisors from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial counties. SCAG’s strengths are its research and economic and demographic forecasts as well as promoting cooperation with local jurisdictions and sub-regional associations, and facilitating the implementation of strategies. Finally, the City of LA complements the above actions by implementing transport-related policies designed to reduce emissions. Policies at State and Federal Levels Federal and state regulations provide a solid framework for the implementation of air quality policies in the LA region. This includes both direct actions, as well as planning and attainment requirements.108 •

Federal and State Clean Air Acts. The federal CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The California CAA requires that all measures implemented in the district plan include a cost-effectiveness assessment; are technologically feasible; include emission reduction estimations; consider public acceptability and enforceability prospects.

•

Emission standards. CARB and US EPA have primary authority to reduce emissions from on-road mobile sources. Additional sources that are primarily under state and federal jurisdiction include fuels and the fuelling infrastructure, and consumer products. CARB and US EPA seek to control these emission sources mainly through the adoption of emission standards. These standards force industries to produce less polluting vehicle engines, vehicle fuels, and consumer products.

•

CARB’s strategy. The CARB’s strategy for achieving emissions reductions include (a) setting technology to force new engine standards; (b) reducing emissions from the in-use fleet; (c) requiring clean fuels, supporting

108 For further details see Appendix IV, points 4.1 to 4.29.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

alternative fuels, and reducing petroleum dependency; (d) working with US EPA to reduce emissions from federal and state sources; and (e) pursuing long-term advanced technologies measures.109 CARB’s control measures are expected to achieve emission reductions of 33 to 72 tonnes per day of VOC and 23 to 49 tonnes per day of NOx in 2010.110 •

Non-attainment areas. Geographical areas subject to particularly adverse air pollution conditions may be designated as non-attainment areas under the federal and state CAA. There are five non-attainment categories: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The entire SoCAB region is an extreme non-attainment area for ozone. LA County is the only county classified as a serious non-attainment area for carbon monoxide. Special action plans must be developed to bring these areas into compliance with state and federal standards. The California CAA requires that each district demonstrates the overall effectiveness of its air quality programme every three years.

Policies at District Level AQM functions at the district level are mainly carried out by the SCAQMD. Current SCAQMD policies are set out in the agency’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (the Plan). The Plan serves as the blueprint to bring the district into compliance with federal and state clean air standards. •

Stationary and mobile sources. The Plan primarily addresses stationary sources of air pollution (i.e. power plants, refineries, gas stations, etc) by adopting rules to reduce emissions that these sources need to comply with and by providing funding for necessary environmental improvements.111 While mobile sources are mainly addressed at the state and federal levels, the Plan also sets out complementary measures such as driving habits programmes to reduce car use by stimulating ride-sharing, telecommuting, and shifting driving to non-peak hours.112

•

SCAQMD Technology Advancement Plan. This plan focuses on projects for research and development of clean fuels technologies and advanced technologies that may reduce emissions. The plan seeks to discover new applications of clean fuels technologies to on- and off-road vehicles; improve the infrastructure necessary to further promote clean fuels; promote fuel cell vehicles; and promote the use of low- and zero-emission locomotives, gas-to-liquid fuels, emulsified fuels, bio-diesel, and low-sulphur diesel fuels in construction equipment and other off-road uses.113

•

Business assistance. The SCAQMD has initiated several programmes to assist businesses that must comply with the requirements promulgated in the Plan. These programmes include: permit streamlining practices, interaction with small and medium-sized businesses, source education, and compliance assessment. Community and industry-specific workshops are conducted by the SCAQMD to encourage public participation in the policy and rule development process.

109 These five strategies are delivered via the mobile source and fuels measures cited in Appendix IV, point 4. For further details see SCAQMD 2003 Plan, p. 4.21-4.29. 110 SCAQMD 2003 Plan, p. 4.29. 111 A detailed summary of these measures is provided in Appendix IV, point 1.1-1.21. For further details see SCAQMD 2003 Plan, p. 7.21. 112 SCAQMD’s Commuter Programme covers 6,000 companies employing two million people, where employers are required to encourage their workers to car-pool, use public transit, or bicycle to work rather than drive alone in a car. 113 SCAQMD 2003 Plan, p. 7.18.

Policies at City and Local Levels The influence of actions taken by the City of LA on its own is more limited than that of the actions outlined above. However, initiatives at the city level have achieved complementary reductions and have educational value. •

Clean Fuels Policy. The City of LA owns and maintains 2,259 alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and is committed to increasing its fleet of AFVs by 15% each year.114

•

Bike patrols. This policy shifts officers from motor vehicles to bicycles to conduct their daily business thus reducing motor vehicle emissions. It is anticipated that the use of bicycles in patrol applications under the programme will generate a reduction of almost 12.59 tonnes of pollutant over the life of the bicycle.115

•

Various programmes in the City of LA. The City of LA, through Department of Water and Power, runs a number of educational and incentives programmes including: Trees For A Green LA; Energy Efficiency; Green Power; Solar Energy; Recycled Products; and Educational Services.116

Private Sector Initiatives Californian society plays an active role in air pollution matters affecting the region, both by actively demanding solutions to public authorities as well as by undertaking direct initiatives. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have considerable influence over LA’s actions to reduce air pollution.117 Their activities include voicing public concern with environmental quality, publicising the health impacts of air pollution, lobbying legislatures and local officials, and turning to the courts when policy implementation or enforcement is lagging. Other important organisations with respect to air pollution issues are the Coalition for Clean Air and the American Lung Association of California.118 In addition, a number of partnership initiatives have been formed to address particular air quality issues. For example, the Southern California Economic Partnership is non-profit organisation that was established in 1994 with the mission to accelerate the deployment of advanced transportation technologies.119 Together, these groups help to raise and organise support for more stringent environmental policies. Comparison between Air Quality Policies of Los Angeles and Hong Kong The following chart shows that Los Angeles’ air quality standards are substantially more stringent than Hong Kong air quality objectives.

114 For further details see Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Alternative Fuel Vehicles, [Online]. http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/ cms/ladwp000801.jsp 115 See City of Los Angeles website, Bike Patrols Programs, at http:// www.cityofla.org/EAD/EADWEb-AQD/bikepatrols.htm 116 For further details see Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Programs for Green LA, at http://www.ladwp.com/library/ statichtml/homepage_greenla.html 117 Some of the most important NGOs currently operating in LA emerged in periods of particularly high levels of air pollution such as Environmental Defence (1967), Friends of the Earth (1969), the Natural Resources Defence Council (1970), and the League of Conservation Voters (1970). 118 Further details at: http://www.coalitionforcleanair.org and http://www.californialung.org 119 See the Southern California Economic Partnership at: http://www.the-partnership.org/

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Figure 15: Selected air quality and policy indicators Los Angeles

Hong Kong

Yes

Air Quality Standards / Objectives Legally binding? Year of last update

2003

1987

SO2 (24hr)

105 μg/m

350μg/m3

NO2 (annual)

100 μg/m3

80μg/m3

PM10 (annual)

20 μg/m3

55μg/m3

PM2.5

12 μg/m3

137 μg/m3

O3 (8 hour running mean) Number of AQ monitoring stations in the city

3.5 Special Feature: The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Introduction The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach (the Ports) together are the largest containerised shipping ports in the US and the third largest worldwide. While the Ports’ activities have become a key economic growth driver, they also brought major air pollution problems to the region. To address these problems, the Ports have developed a joint action plan to reduce air pollution caused by shipping and port-related activities: the 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (the SPBP Plan).120 The SPBP Plan is expected to dramatically reduce port-related emissions in a five-year period. The estimated reductions for this period are: PM by 45%, NOx by 47%, and SOx by 52%. Like Los Angeles, Hong Kong is also a marine transport hub which faces the challenge of substantially cleaning up its port operations. Marine emissions in Hong Kong are increasing from year to year and they are particularly harmful to health because they are released at ground level and near to densely populated areas in Kowloon. Local studies have concluded on the major significance of marine sources for Hong Kong’s high levels of SO2 and called for a clean port policy.121 However, marine emissions remain largely unaddressed in Hong Kong as well as other adjacent ports in Mainland China (i.e. Shenzhen Port).122 Therefore, the SPBP Plan constitutes a prime example for Hong Kong to analyse in detail, including the specific ways of reducing marine emissions set out in the SPBP Plan, and the prospects of applying a similar policy jointly with other ports in the region.

120 The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach (2006, November). Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, (hereinafter the “SPBP Plan Technical Report”) [Online]. http://www.polb.com/environment/air_quality/clean_air_action_plan.asp 121 See Kai-Hon Lau, Wai Man Wu, Jimmy C. H. Fung, Ronald C. Henry, and Bill Barron (2005). Significant marine source for SO2 levels in Hong Kong. [Online] http://www.civic-exchange.org/publications/2005/MarineSO2.pdf; and Alexis Lau, Andrew Lo, Joe Gray, Zibing Yuan, and Christine Loh (2007, March). Relative Significance of Local vs. Regional Sources: Hong Kong’s Air Pollution, Civic Exchange, at http://www. civic-exchange.org/publications/2007/airmarch.pdf 122 See Caitlin Gall and Marcos Van Rafelghem (2006, March). Marine Emission Reduction Options for Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta Region, Civic Exchange. http://www.civic-exchange.org/index.php?cat=88

Plan Overview The SPBP Plan was developed and adopted during 2006 by the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. In developing the SPBP Plan, the Ports worked in close coordination with the key air quality agencies of SCAQMD, CARB, and the US EPA. The SPBP Plan links the emissions reduction efforts and visions of the Ports with similar efforts and goals of these regulatory agencies. In this regard, the SPBP Plan builds on control measures previously implemented by the US EPA, CARB and the Ports yet providing a far more aggressive and comprehensive action plan to reduce emissions. 123 It sets out goals, emission reduction measures and budgetary needs for the next five fiscal years (2006/7-2010/1) which will be reviewed and updated annually. The SPBP Plan was developed in response to the growing concerns over the contribution of marine emissions to general air pollution in the region. Marine vessels and portside equipment, which primarily run on diesel fuel, contribute a significant portion of NOx, PM10, greenhouse gas and toxic emissions, particularly in coastal regions and in and around shipping ports. In the SoCAB region, port-related vessels and vehicles account for 12% of the PM, 9% of the NOx and 45% of the SOx.124 A recent study by the CARB concluded that diesel PM emissions from the Ports impact a large area and the associated potential health risks are of significant concern.125 Further, while ozone-forming emissions from most sources are declining over time due to adopted controls, net emissions from marine sources are rising. This trend is aggravated by the fact that containerised cargo moving through the Ports is expected to more than double by 2020.126 The SPBP Plan seeks to reduce emissions from all modes of goods movement existing in the Ports and achieve an appropriate “fair share” by the Ports of necessary pollutant emission reductions. The SPBP Plan is built on three main standards: 1) reduction in health risk,127 2) “fair share” of mass emission reductions of criteria pollutants, and 3) compliance with standards at the Ports air monitoring stations. A key factor for the development of the SPBP Plan was the Ports’ commitment to work together in the implementation of emission reduction strategies to ensure equity and to prevent one port from obtaining a competitive edge through less stringent environmental standards. In the same sense, the Ports have stated their intention that CARB and US EPA will force other ports in California and the US to adopt environmental standards equivalent to those set out by the SPBP Plan. In defining an air quality action plan, the Ports were constrained by their condition of landlord ports which restricted their capacity to directly modify operational standards and adopt policies. The Ports build terminal facilities and lease them to shipping lines and stevedoring companies but do not operate the terminals, ships, yard equipment, trucks or trains that move the cargo. To overcome this constraint, the implementation strategy the SPBP Plan relies on the incorporation of control measures into the lease agreements and other contracts executed with port operators. A number of complementary implementation mechanisms are also outlined in the SPBP Plan. 128 The SPBP Plan will generate major financial costs: a total funding of over US$ 2 billion dollars is estimated for the 123 Several port-related emission sources are subject to regulations in California. CARB’s port-related measures include: (1) low sulphur fuel (0.5% from 2007, and 0.1% from 2010) requirements for marine auxiliary engines within 24 nautical miles of the California coastline, (2) emissions standards for cargo handling equipment and marine propulsion engines and trains; (3) vessel speed reductions programmes; (4) statewide memorandum of understanding between CARB and line haul railroads. For further details see the SPBP Plan Technical Report, p. 3-10. 124 The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach (November 2006). San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Fact Sheet, (hereinafter the SPBP Plan Fact Sheet) [Online]. http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3432 125 California Air Resources Board (2006, April). Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment – Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach [Online]. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf 126 The SPBP Plan Technical Report, p. 1. 127 A cancer risk of 10 in 1,000,000 is accepted. See the SPBP Plan Technical Report, p. 24. 128 These include tariff changes; incentives; voluntary measures; credit trading; capital lease backs; government-backed loan guarantees; third party discount leasing; purchasing; franchises; environmental mitigation fees; recognition programme. See SPBP Plan Technical Report, section 3.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

five year period. Of particular relevance is the financial assistance necessary to fund truck fleet renewals (US$1.8 billion). These costs would be borne by the industries/terminals affected by the Plan’s requirements; by the Ports in developing required infrastructure improvements, funding incentives, and implementing control measures; and by regulatory agencies to fund incentives.129 These expenditures would result in the following air quality benefits. Air Quality Benefits The SPBP Plan is expected to eliminate more than 47% of diesel PM emissions from port-related sources within the next five years and significantly reduce associated health risks. Smog-forming NOx emissions will be reduced by more than 45% and SOx by 52%.130 In five years, diesel PM from all port-related sources would be reduced by a total of 1,200 tonnes per year; NOx emissions by 12,000; and SOx emissions by 8,900.

Base emissions

2,500

2,295

Emissions remaining after the plan

30,000 27,504

2,215

2,185

2,173

26,724

2,163

26,200

26,195

26,119

25,000

2,000

25,342

2,257

20,000

1,500

NOx (tons)

DPM (tons)

1,905 1,519 1,270

1,000

1,038

21,815 18,332

15,000

16,430 14,047

10,000

500

5,000

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

06/07

10/11

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

YEAR

DPM

NOx

SOx

12,000

8,000 7,000

6,753

10,000

5,740

6,000

5,740

6,655

5,000

5,372 4,458

4,000

4,023 3,530

3,000

Redcutions (tons)

8,000

SOx (tons)

English

6,000

4,000

2,000 1,000

2,000

0 06/07

07/08

08/09 YEAR

09/10

10/11

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

Figures 16-19: Plan control measures – remaining DPM, NOx, SOx and reductions Source: Port of Long Beach 2006

129 The detailed total monetary commitments for each funding entity over the next five years are: Port of Los Angeles $177.5 million; Port of Long Beach $240.4 million; SCAQMD (initial commitment) $47 million; and Bond/Impact Fee Funding $1.6 billion. See the SPBP Plan Technical Report, section 7 (budgetary provisions). 130 The SPBP Plan Fact Sheet, p. 1.

Actions to Reduce Air Pollution131 Almost all of the port-related emissions come from five diesel fuelled source categories. These are ships, trucks, cargo-handling equipment, harbour craft and trains. The SPBP Plan outlines control measures to reduce emissions from each of these categories. A brief outline of these control measures is provided below, while a more detailed summary is provided in Appendix IV (point 3). •

Ocean-Going Vessels. All major container cargo and cruise ship terminals at the ports will be equipped with shore-side electricity within five to ten years so that vessels can shut down their diesel-powered engines while at berth. In addition, ships also would be required to reduce their speeds while entering or leaving the harbour region, use low-sulphur fuels (≤0.2%), and employ other emissions reduction measures and technologies.

•

Heavy-Duty Vehicles/Trucks. The SPBP Plan proposes to eliminate dirty diesel trucks from the Ports terminals within five years by requiring them to meet certain emission standards (i.e. EPA 2007 Standards) in order to be allowed to operate within the Ports. In addition, cleaner diesel for trucks will be made available through improvements in the fuelling infrastructure. Around 1,680 trucks (80% of total) would need to be retrofitted or replaced.

•

Cargo Handling Equipment. Within five years all cargo-handling equipment would be replaced or retrofitted to meet or emit at levels below those called for in the toughest US EPA emission standards for new equipment.

•

Harbour Craft. By the second year of the SPBP Plan, all harbour craft home-based at the Ports will meet specific EPA emission standards for harbour craft or achieve equivalent reductions. By the fifth year, all previously repowered harbour craft home-based at the Ports will be retrofitted with the most effective CARB verified NOx and/ or PM emissions reduction technologies. When cleaner engines become available, within five years all harbour craft home-based at the Ports will be re-powered with the new engines.

•

Railroad Locomotives. Within five years all locomotives operating in the Ports will meet the toughest US EPA emission standards for new locomotives, use cleaner diesel fuels and exhaust treatment, and devices that will automatically shut off engines to prevent extensive idling. In addition, all new rail yards must use the cleanest technologies available for locomotives, trucks, and cargo handling equipment within their facilities.

•

Technology Advancement Programme. This is a research programme designed to address and ultimately overcome obstacles that obstruct the utilisation of the cleanest vessels, engines and equipment at the Ports. The programme will incorporate new strategies and technologies into the suite of other control measures implemented by the Plan.

Implications for Hong Kong While the ports of the LA region are taking serious steps to clean up their operations, Hong Kong has not established any control measures to reduce emissions from its port-related activities. This omission is significant because Hong Kong is one of the largest container ports in the world132 and marine emissions significantly contribute to Hong Kong’s air pollution. The SPBP Plan is probably the world’s most comprehensive and ambitious air quality action plan addressed at port-related activities and, as such, it provides several examples that Hong Kong could replicate locally. Devising a clean vessel fuels policy is probably the main action to be taken by Hong Kong to reduce marine emissions, especially given the enormous amount of regional marine traffic. However, California’s approach to enforcing clean fuels requirements (maximum SOx content of 0.2%) through national and state laws would not work for Hong Kong because Hong Kong jurisdictional waters – which is where the requirements would apply – are a much smaller territory 131 The SPBP Plan Technical Report, section 5. 132 See “Ranking of Container Ports in the World” published by the HKSAR Marine Department, available at: http://www.mardep.gov. hk/en/publication/pdf/portstat_2_y_b5.pdf

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

than the Californian coast. Alternatively, Hong Kong has started the process for ratifying the MARPOL Convention133 Annex VI which deals with air pollution from ships. MARPOL Annex VI imposes a limit on the sulphur content of fuels used by ocean going vessels of 4.5%. This is an extremely ineffective limit since the average sulphur content of fuels currently being used is around 3% and, therefore, already lower than the limit to be adopted. However, the ratification of the MARPOL Annex VI is a positive action because such ratification would enable Hong Kong to request, jointly with Mainland China, to the International Maritime Organisation the designation of a Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) in Hong Kong and China’s regional waters. In a SECA, the maximum sulphur content of fuels allowed is 1.5%. Therefore, the ratification of the MARPOL Annex VI should be seen as necessary step towards the declaration of a SECA rather than as a solution in itself. MARPOL Annex VI regulations should be complemented by a fuel policy applicable also to river vessels which are abundant in the region and not covered by these regulations. In any case, it should be noted that the designation of a SECA is a lengthy process and, even once achieved, it would only deal with part of the port-related emissions (i.e. emissions of ocean going vessels). Therefore, more immediate and diverse actions are needed. Vessel speed reduction programmes also appear as a feasible and low-cost option to be adopted in Hong Kong waters. Currently, speed limits imposed by the Hong Kong Marine Department are set comparatively higher than those in other major ports worldwide in order to improve port efficiency without having due regard to the environmental impact of those high limits.134 In relation to the shore-side power SPBP Plan strategy, in Hong Kong a similar strategy would be constrained by the fact that most ships calling at Hong Kong port are not berthed but anchored in the Victoria Bay and assisted by tug boats to unload their cargo. An additional constraint that needs to be evaluated is whether, due to Hong Kong’s partial reliance on coal burning for power generation, benefits achieved through less diesel consumption could be partly offset by increased power plant emissions. Finally, the measures set out in the SPBP Plan aimed at reducing emissions from trucks, cargo handling equipment and harbour crafts also appear appropriate for Hong Kong. These include ensuring the availability and use of low-sulphur-content diesel fuels at the port, setting emissions standards for those sources, promoting the use of emission-abatement equipments, and implementing idling restrictions through technological devises and regulations. In terms of policy-making and implementation implications, the SPBP Ports’ experience shows that the Hong Kong government should engage the shipping industry stakeholders to develop a more technically feasible and costeffective action plan to reduce marine emissions. Hong Kong has a unique corporate involvement in local ports as it is one of the few major international ports in the world to be financed, owned and operated by the private sector.135 Therefore, collaborative efforts are needed to overcome jurisdictional and empowerment constraints. Implementation options used by SPBP Ports which could be viable for Hong Kong as well include lease air quality requirements, voluntary programmes and mandatory regulations. Furthermore, the Hong Kong government should work together with other major ports in the region to ensure a consistent approach toward marine emission control, and to prevent that, as a result of adopting more stringent environmental standards, the Hong Kong Port looses competitiveness and gets “bypassed”. In order to achieve such consistency, the Hong Kong government should work both with port authorities in Mainland China (most notably, with Shenzhen Port authorities) and with the key shipping corporations

133 International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto and its associated Annexes. 134 The Marine Department stated that the speed limits system sought to strike a balance between port efficiency and navigational safety. Marine Department, “New vessel speed limit system to be effective on July 1”, [Online] http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pressrel/ pr2k0629.html 135 The nine container terminals - twenty-four berths in total - at Kwai Chung are owned and operated by five different companies: Hong Kong International Terminals (HIT) owns twelve berths, Modern Terminals owns seven berths, COSCO-HIT owns two berths, DPI Terminals owns one berth, and Asia Container Terminals Ltd owns two berths.

operating in both Hong Kong and neighbouring ports.136

3.6 Lessons from Los Angeles The LA region’s AQM capabilities are underpinned by federal, state and local administrative capacity and policies, and are substantially more developed than Hong Kong’s AQM capability. Key lessons that can be drawn from the above sections include: a. The Hong Kong government should introduce more stringent air quality objectives and set emission standards in order to curb growing pollutant emissions trends. The LA region managed to improve critical levels of air pollution suffered during the 1970s and 1980s through the introduction of tough policies, which in some cases were fiercely opposed by business sectors. Based on LA’s experience, the Hong Kong government should not be afraid of introducing more stringent air quality objectives as well as tightened emission standards for different mobile and stationary emission sources. b. The Hong Kong and Guangdong governments should examine the possibility of establishing a cross-border air quality jurisdiction and create a specialised agency responsible for managing air quality in that jurisdiction. While important co-operative actions among Hong Kong and the Guangdong governments have been taken,137 there is much to be done to tackle regional air pollution jointly and achieve air quality improvements for the whole region. Air quality jurisdictions defined along topographic patterns in the State of California may be pointing out a way forward for Hong Kong. Whether Hong Kong and Guangdong governments should establish a joint air quality jurisdiction and create a specialised agency responsible for managing air quality in that jurisdiction should be carefully considered. In any case, strengthening cross-border initiatives should be a key area of action for improving Hong Kong’s air quality. c. Hong Kong society should be further involved in air quality issues. The historical evolution of air pollution control in LA shows that public pressure can force governments to act decisively and effectively when they are failing to do so. Hong Kong’s experience during 2006 was marked by increased public concern and community involvement regarding the city’s air quality. This trend of active public participation should be furthered by community associations in order to achieve the necessary policy changes and also to force the industry to play a more active part in cleaning up Hong Kong’s air. d. The Hong Kong government should work with shipping-industry stakeholders to devise and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from port-related activities. The SPBP Plan case study presented in section 3.5 highlights the importance of implementing an action plan that targets all forms of port-related emissions in co-operation with the main stakeholders of the local shipping industry. Key measures of the SPBP Plan that could be replicated in Hong Kong include establishing cleaner vessel fuel strategy (which in the case of Hong Kong should be applicable to both ocean-going and river vessels); implementing vessel speed reductions programmes for all ships at the Victoria Harbour; establishing mandatory emission standards for all the different diesel engines used at the ports, and ensuring the availability and usage of cleaner diesel fuels at the ports.

136 The HK container terminal operators HIT, Modern Terminals and DPI Terminals also own container terminals in Mainland China ports. 137 The main joint air quality initiative by the HK Government and the Guangdong Provincial Government is a consensus reached in April 2002 to reduce the emissions of 4 major air pollutants in the region by 2010, using 1997 as the base year. The agreement provides the emissions of SO2, NOx, RSP and VOC to be reduced by 40%, 20%, 55% and 55% respectively, on a best effort basis.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

e. The Hong Kong government should be under a statutory obligation to develop a comprehensive air quality action plan set out in a single legal document. Both Los Angeles and London’s air quality policies are largely comprised in a single, comprehensive, statutory legal document (the SCAQMD Plan and the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy). Conversely, Hong Kong’s policies are set out in a variety of legal instruments. London and LA’s approach presents several advantages over Hong Kong’s approach: integrated planning and co-ordinated action is facilitated; air quality initiatives are more thoroughly reviewed by interested individuals and organisations; and AQM information becomes more readily available.

4 Conclusion London and Los Angeles benefit from a well developed AQM infrastructure, which are based on integrated planning and substantial financial resources devoted to improving air quality. While London’s AQM strategy is more inclined towards promoting energy efficiency and demand management programmes, Los Angeles’ strategy shows greater reliance on technological solutions to abate emissions. Compared with these two cities, Hong Kong’s air quality policies set far less stringent targets which, in turn, result in worsening air quality trends. Furthermore, Hong Kong lacks a comprehensive strategy to improve air quality such as those put in place in London, by the Mayor of London, and in the Los Angeles region, by the SCAQMD. It has to be acknowledged, however, that both London and LA benefit from a strong air quality policy input coming from state, federal and, in the case of London, continental levels which Hong Kong lacks as a result of its particular legal status. Moreover, air pollution seems to be a more significant issue for the London and LA governments than it is for Hong Kong authorities. This may result from stronger public concern over air quality issues in these two western cities. A less defensive and more proactive attitude by the Hong Kong government appears as a necessary precondition for the development of more effective strategies to improve Hong Kong’s air quality. Air Quality and Policy Indicators in London, Los

London

Los Angeles

Hong Kong

Yes

Angeles and Hong Kong Air Quality Standards / Objectives Legally binding? Year of last update SO2 (24hr)

2007

2003

1987

125 μg/m

105μg/m

350μg/m3

NO2 (annual)

40 μg/m3

100μg/m3

80μg/m3

PM10 (annual)

40 μg/m3

20μg/m3

55μg/m3

12μg/m3

100 μg/m3

123

PM2.5 O3 (8 hour running mean) Number of AQ monitoring stations in the city

SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Hong Kong

100

HKAQO (annual)

70 60 50 40 30 WHO (2006) 24hr avg.

20 10

90 Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10

London

80 70 HKAQO (annual)

60 50 40 30

WHO 2006 (annual)

20 10 0

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1997

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

80 HKAQO (annual)

80 70 60 50

WHO 2006 (annual)

40 30 20 10 0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

1997

1998

OZONE

100

Annual Mean Concentration (ug/m3)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Air Pollution Trends in London, Los Angeles and Hong Kong Finally, there are a number of specific lessons based on London and LAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experiences that Hong Kong should consider to redress this worrying situation as outlined in sections 2.6 and 3.6. The main, general recommendation for Hong Kong is to follow London and LAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach of embracing ambitious air quality goals and developing a comprehensive, integrated and correspondingly aggressive action plan to achieve those goals.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Appendix I - Main Air Quality Policies Implemented in London Policy Name / Policy Area

Summary Road Transport

Traffic Control

1.1

Congestion Charging Scheme

Aims to reduce traffic volumes within Central London and inner London and contribute to a reduction of vehicle emissions by imposing a daily fee (ÂŁ8) to vehicles circulating within a designated area.

1.2

Traffic Control Centre

Operates since 2002 and combines both traffic management and control functions. It monitors real-time traffic and provides advance warning of congestion. This facilitates the introduction of measures to reduce congestion and allow smoother traffic flows, thus, reducing vehicle emissions.

1.3

London Low Emission Zone (LEZ)

The Mayor of London, in conjunction with the Association of London Government,

(proposed)

the London Boroughs and central government, is considering establishing a low emission zone (LEZ) covering part of Greater London. Under the LEZ, noncompliant vehicles would have to pay a substantial fee to enter the zone or retrofit their engines to meet EU low emissions standards.

1.4

Street Works Taskforce

It coordinates street works in London to limit the interruption of traffic flows. Through enforcement actions, the taskforce encourages utility companies to complete their works in the shortest time possible, thereby reducing dust and traffic disruptions.

Public road transport

2.1

Non TfL buses

The coach permit sets a standard of at least Euro I vehicles. Pre-Euro vehicles are replaced with later Euro standard vehicles in the proportion that are in the fleet.

2.2

London Sustainable Distribution Partnership

Aims to ensure that distribution, freight and servicing are carried out in the most environmentally-friendly way possible. Partners include business, representative organisations, local authorities and the London Development Agency (LDA).

2.3

2.4

The London Night and Weekend

It places restrictions on the use of road freight vehicles at night and at weekends.

Lorry Control Scheme (1985)

The programme is run by the Association of London Government.

Alternatives to road freight

The Mayor of London supports the progressive transfer of freight from road to rail and water where economical and practicable, and the retention of rail and water freight interchange facilities.

2.5

Smoky Vehicle Hotline

It aims to reduce emissions from heavier road vehicles. Members of the public can report smoky vehicles and the Vehicle Inspectorate carries out the subsequent enforcement action.

2.6

Taxis Euro I

There will be no pre-Euro taxis in London by 2005.

2.7

Taxis LPG conversion

500 LPG vehicles are converted from 2002 each year (industry estimate). The LPG vehicles replace Euro I and Euro II vehicles and are assumed to emit the same NOx and PM10 as a large Euro IV petrol vehicle.

Cleaner vehicles and vehicles fuels

3.1

Clean Road Vehicles Strategy

(1) the Mayor will encourage and promote the benefits of the more rapid adoption of cost effective cleaner engines, technologies and fuels, non-fossil fuels and zero emissions technologies for all road vehicles, concentrating first on the most polluting vehicles. (2) The Mayor will ensure that any vehicles used by or on behalf of the GLA group are as clean as practicable.

3.2

PowerShift

DfT-funded grant programme to part-fund the purchase of new alternativelyfuelled vehicles and convert existing vehicles so that they can use alternative fuels.

3.3

CleanUp

DfT-funded grant programme to part fund retrofitting of diesel vehicles with exhaust after treatment technologies or re-engineering with less polluting engines.

3.4

Best Practice

This is primarily aimed at helping truck fleets and, to a lesser extent, car and van fleets, manage their vehicles more effectively. It also helps organisations implement travel plans.

3.5

New Vehicle PowerShift Fund

A ÂŁ9 million DfT fund, over three years, to support demonstration projects of innovative low-carbon vehicles such as hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

3.6

Green Fuel Challenge Pilots

A programme designed to ensure that road fuel taxation encourages the development of alternative transport fuels.

3.7

Green Technology

A Treasury co-ordinated scheme to offer to companies enhanced capital Challenge allowances for investment in designated green technologies.

3.8

Foresight Vehicle Programme

A DTI-led research programme designed to promote the development in the UK of new vehicle technologies.

3.9

3.10

New and Renewable Energy

A DTI-led research programme designed to promote the development of new

Programme

and renewable Energy Programme energy sources.

Fuel Cell Programme

DTI programme designed to support the development of fuel cells for transport and other applications.

3.11

Sustainable technologies initiative

DTI programme designed to support the development of sustainable technologies in all sectors.

3.12

Motorvate

DfT-backed scheme designed to help companies running car and van fleets cut their fuel costs and reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by choosing more efficient vehicles, managing their vehicle fleets more effectively and reducing business mileage.

3.13

Hydrogen Partnership

The programme was launched in 2002. It promotes collaboration among those working in the industry and others who need to be involved in delivering a hydrogen economy.

3.14

LPG/CNG

LPG: The industry estimates 50,000 LPG vehicles by 2005, and assumes that 20% of these are Euro IV.

3.15

Retrofitting

TransportAction will promote and provide support for the retrofitting of 9,500 vehicles in the UK. Of the vehicles retrofitted in London, 80% are assumed to be fitted to Euro III HGVs, and 10% for Euro I and 10% to Euro III.

3.16

Electric vehicles

Approximately 1000 electric vehicles were funded by TransportAction in 2002 for the UK. This number is expected to grow to 3000 by 2005.

3.17

Hybrid vehicles

There were 935 hybrid vehicles in 2002 (not including Scotland). This number is expected to grow to 2805 by 2005.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

3.18

Motorcycles

The Mayor, through TfL, has set up the London Motorcycle Working Group which works to enhance and extend the provision of parking for motorcycle and mopeds, and explores opportunities to improve road safety, reduce emissions and noise pollution, and provide incentives for motorcycles to use retrofit technology and for cleaner motorcycles.

3.19

The London Clean Fuel Vehicle

The group promotes improvements to the alternative refuelling infrastructure.

Working Group

The group provides recommendations to the Mayor who works with fuel suppliers and other to increase the supply of alternative refuelling sites within London, including for gas fuels and electric vehicles fast charging.

3.20

New additives and technologies

TfL encourages the government and TransportEnergy to investigate additives and devices aimed to reduce NOx, PM10, and CO2. Those found to give cost-effective emissions reductions are promoted through the Greater London Authority.

3.21

Vehicle maintenance and driving style

A vehicle maintenance campaign is carried out by the Vehicle Emissions Testing Working Group. The Mayor also undertakes a campaign to raise awareness of the issue of idling vehicles, especially through the London Tourist Board.

4 4.1

Air Travel and Airports Minimising emissions from air

Emissions reductions are sought through (1) minimising emissions from direct

travel

activities (ie airside vehicles, power plants at the airport and deliveries of goods and services to the airport); (2) improving public transport use to and from the airport; (3) minimising emissions from aircraft; (4) minimising emissions from non-airport related road traffic in the airportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vicinity.

4.2

Environmental impacts of air freight

The UK government will study the opportunities of minimising environmental impacts of air freight through international agreements, national and airportrelated regulations and economic measures.

4.3

Heathrow Area Transport Forum

Engages different stakeholders in minimising the air quality impacts of deliveries at Heathrow.

4.4

International Civil Aviation

These standards govern the emission of smoke, hydrocarbons, CO and NOx

Organisation Standards (Chapters

during aircraft landing and take-off. The standards are implemented by UK

3 and 4)

legislation. At Heathrow all aircraft meet or exceed the Chapter 3. All aircraft sold from 2006 onwards will have to be Chapter 4, but are not expected to significantly improve air pollutant emissions, partly because the aircraft fleet is renovated at a relatively slow pace.

4.5

Control on ground basedemissions from airports

Methods being implemented or explored at London airports include use of low emission ground-access vehicles; conversion to the use of electric ground service equipment; an airside improvement plan to reduce aircraft delays. In addition, the low emission zone which is being proposed for London would include the area around Heathrow and apply to airside vehicles.

4.6

BAA air quality action plan and

BAA owns and operates 7 airports in the UK including Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Heathrow,

strategy

Gatwick, and Stansted. The BAA air quality plan implements a multi-angle approach to reducing air pollution, including reducing ground-based emissions, engaging stakeholders, and developing best practice in relation to air quality management.

4.7

Polluter pays principle

The government conducted a consultation (Future Aviation) where it was stated that the aviation industry should pay for the external costs which it imposes on others. Monies raised through specific taxation would be distributed through the Aviation Environment Funds for each airport.

5 5.1

Rail, Shipping and the Underground Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Air Quality Strategy

Supports the transfer of passengers from car to bus, underground, rail and river; and freight from road to rail and river.

5.2

Train operation

The Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the Mayor of London work together in the promotion of best practice in terms of train operation at stations, and to investigate methods to reduce locomotive emissions occurring both inside and outside stations.

5.3

5.4

Environmental clauses in train

The Mayor of London proposes that The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) includes

operating contracts

environmental clauses in train operating company contracts.

Marine fuels

EC Directive 1999/32/EC set the maximum allowable sulphur content to 1,000 ppm by 1 January 2008. The Mayor proposed the government to revise national legislation to enable the quicker take up of cleaner fuels in London and will work with the Department for Transport to achieve this.

5.5

Underground

The London Underground Limited and TfL are continuing to investigate methods of improving air quality on the system particularly by reducing dust emissions, including PM10.

6 6.1

Industrial and Transboundary Sources of Pollution Integrated Pollution Control (IPC)

This regime applies to Environment Agency regulated processes. These are the major (potentially more polluting) processes and are regulated for their emissions to land, water and air. Examples include large power stations, refineries, and large incineration processes. The regime is progressively improved in line with EU and international obligations.

6.2

Local Air Pollution Control (LAPC)

This regime applies to Local authority (including London borough) regulated processes. These are the smaller processes and are regulated by borough environmental health departments, for their emissions to air. Examples include small boilers, concrete batching plant, and crematoria. The regime is progressively improved in line with EU and international obligations.

6.3

Industrial emissions

In case where emissions from industrial processes contribute to air quality objectives being exceeded, the Mayor will seek reductions in these emissions through the Environment Agency or the London boroughs as appropriate.

7 7.1

Construction The London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy)

Encourages sustainable design and construction and promote energy efficiency and better energy use. The Mayor implements measures to re-use existing building stock in preference to demolition and reconstruction where practicable.

7.2

Codes of Construction Practices

Six London boroughs have developed their own Codes of Construction Practice

at borough level

(CoCPs) or Considerate Contractor Schemes that seek to control pollution and noise emissions from construction sites.

7.3

Construction-related pollution measurements

The Mayor will seek to improve information on emissions from constructionrelated activities and include them in the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory in 2003.

7.4

Dust control and environmental

Obligations imposed through the Code of Construction Practice. The Mayor will

impacts.

build on the work of other organisations to develop construction best practice guidance to encourage the reduction in levels of dust, together with other environmental impacts, from construction-related activities.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

7.5

Waste management

Through the Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy, the Mayor will encourage the London waste authorities to promote composting, which should also help to reduce the number of bonfires.

7.6

Open fires at construction sites

The Clean Air Act 1993 prohibits open fires on construction and demolition sites (the burning of timber may be allowed in certain cases)

8 8.1

Energy Efficiency and Heating Air Quality Strategy (Energy

(1) The Mayor will work with energy supply companies to increase the provision

Policy)

of renewable electricity. (2) The Mayor will encourage efficient local energy generating schemes, particularly combined heat and power and community heating schemes through the Mayor’s Energy Strategy and the Mayor’s London Plan. The Mayor will also encourage the use of gas condensing boilers and low NOx burners in boilers. (3) The Mayor will encourage London boroughs to assess combined heat and power (CHP) proposals using the Customs and Excise ‘Good quality CHP’ index and to ensure that developers demonstrate that opportunities for utilising heat have been fully assessed. (4) The Mayor will encourage the conversion of those large boilers that still use heavy fuel oil in London to lighter fuel oils or gas. The Mayor will encourage, in particular, changing their use to combined heat and power.

8.2

Heating emissions reductions

Reductions are pursued through: (1) adoption of best practice for more energy efficient new buildings; (2) improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings; (3) installation of more energy efficient boilers; (4) improving fuel efficiency; (5) a programme of conversion to cleaner fuels where practicable in existing buildings; (6) using renewable energy technologies such as solar water heating.

8.3

Energy Saving Trust

A non-profit organisation founded by government and private sector. Its goals are to achieve the sustainable use of energy and to cut carbon dioxide emissions. The organisation provides grants and financial incentives for the take up of cleaner fuels and vehicles.

8.4

The London Plan (Spatial

Contains policies that will help reduce the energy-related impacts of new

Development Strategy) (Section

developments.

5F) 9 9.1

Climate Change Initiatives London Climate Change

The aim of the London Climate Change Partnership is to help ensure that

Partnership

London is prepared for its changing climate. It comprises key stakeholders across different sectors of London governance and business.

9.2

London Climate Change Agency

The LCCA is new government agency created to deliver projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from London.

9.3

World Cities Climate Change

Forms part of a long-term international collaboration programme on the

Summit

issue of climate change. Organised by the Mayor of London and attended by representatives of 18 cities worldwide. European Union and UK Related Polices

10 10.1

Air Quality EU Directive on Ambient

Provides a strategic framework for tackling air quality consistently throughout

Air Quality Assessment and

the EU. It implements air quality limit values to be achieved by all EU Member

Management (96/62/EC)

States. The Directive is complemented by a number of daughter directives.

(framework directive)

10.2

EU Council Directive 1999/30/EC

Sets limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen,

(1st daughter directive)

particulate matter and lead in ambient air (amended by Commission Decision 2001/744/EC).

10.3

EU Directive 2000/69/EC (2nd

Sets limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air.

daughter directive) 10.4

EU Directive 2002/3/EC (3rd

Sets limit values relating to ozone in ambient air.

daughter directive) 10.5

10.6

Directive 2004/107/EC of (4th

Sets limit values relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic

daughter directive)

aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air.

EU Clean Air for Europe strategy

To be implemented in the next decade, it will establish consistent standards for all air quality legislation and related initiatives.

10.7

Euro Vehicle Standards

Euro I (1992/3); Euro II (1995/7); Euro III (2000/1); Euro IV (2005/6); and Euro V (2008/9). The Euro Standards require vehicle emissions to be lower than the specified value of the standard. The standards are being incrementally tightened.

10.8

UK The Air Quality Limit Values

Incorporates into national legislation the limit values imposed by EU policies.

Regulations, SI 2315/2001

These regulations place an obligation on the Secretary of State for the Environment to achieve the limit values by the due date.

10.9

UK National Air Quality Strategy

Provides a framework for identifying air quality improvement and protection measures to be undertaken in a co-ordinated and sustainable way, informing regional and local air quality policy. The pollutants targeted are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particles (PM10), sulphur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), carbon monoxide (CO), benzene (C6H6), 1,3-butadiene, ozone (O3) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). It also sets objectives for two pollutants for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems.

10.10

The Environment Act 1995

(1) Establishes the Environment Agency for England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as environmental regulators, with wide ranging powers and responsibilities to protect and manage the environment. (2) Requires the preparation of a national air quality strategy setting air quality standards and objectives for specified pollutants and outlining measures to be taken by local authorities. (3) Requires local authorities to periodically review and assess the quality of air within their area, and inform whether any prescribed air quality standards or objectives are being achieved or are likely to be achieved within the relevant period.

10.11

Air Quality England 2000

(1) Sets out the air quality objectives to be achieved by the end of a determined period for seven priority pollutants. (2) Implements measures to achieve the objectives set out by the National Air Quality Strategy.

10.12

Greater London Act 1999

Requires the Mayor to prepare and publish the “London air quality strategy” containing the Mayor’s air quality proposals and policies.

11 11.1

Climate Change EU Emissions Trading Scheme (Directive 2003/87/EC)

It is the largest multi-country, multi-sector Greenhouse Gas emission trading scheme world-wide. The aim of the EU ETS is to help EU Member States achieve compliance with their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, letting participating companies buy or sell emission allowances to achieve the targets at least cost.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

11.2

UK Emissions Trading Scheme

The UK Emissions Trading Scheme (‘UK ETS’) was a prototype cap-and-trade scheme for the EU ETS.

11.3

The European Emissions Directive 2003/87/EC

The objective of the scheme is to put the EU on a path to compliance with its obligations in the first Kyoto commitment period of 2008-2012, by putting all the necessary legislation and procedures in place for a pre-Kyoto commitment phase of 2005-2007 and effectively implementing the protocol early.

11.4

Large Combustion Plant Directive

This scheme is a cap-and-trade mechanism based on tradable allowances for

(2001/80/EC) (Revised in Feb

NOx, SO2 and dust.

2006) 11.5

The Climate Change Levy

It is a UK tax on the business use of energy that has applied since 01 April 2001.

11.6

Utilities Act 2000 (Renewables

The Renewables Obligation started in April 2002 and is an obligation on licensed

Obligation)

electricity suppliers to provide a specified proportion of electricity from renewable sources. In 2002-2003 suppliers were required to supply 3% of their sales volumes from renewables sources. This will increase to 15.4% for the year of 2015-2016. Suppliers can meet their obligation through producing Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and/or by paying a ‘buy-out’ price. ROCs, like emissions allowances, are tradable instruments.

11.7

EU Directive on Energy

It requires a methodology for assessing the energy performance of buildings and

Performance of Buildings

requires the setting of minimum energy performance standards. It is envisaged

(2002/91/EC)

that by the start of 2009, energy performance certificates will be made available to buyers or tenants when a building is constructed, sold or let.

Appendix II - International air quality standards Pollutant

Sulphur

Averaging time

15mins

dioxide (SO2)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

PM10

Concentration (Îźg/m3) WHO (2006)

Hong Kong

London

California

US Federal

500 (10min

266(c)

mean) 1hr

800(a)

350(d)

655

24hrs

350(b)

125(e)

105

365

Annual

1hr

200

470

24hrs

150(b)

Annual

100

24hrs

180

150

Annual

180

100(g)

137

157

300

(a)

(b)

(f)

(g)

40 (statutory), 23 (nonstatutory objective)

PM2.5

Ozone (O3)

24hrs

Annual

1hr

8hrs

100

240

(a)

a) not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year b) not to be exceeded more than once a year c) not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year d) not to be exceeded more than 24 times a year e) not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year f)

not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year

g) not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year (also there is a non-statutory objective of this daily mean not being exceeded more than 10 times a year)

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

Appendix III - The London Air Quality Network (LAQN) To ensure that the city upholds its national and international obligations regarding air quality the London Air Quality Network (LAQN) was established in 1993. There are currently 30 London boroughs funding monitoring stations to supply air quality measurements to the network. The operation and management of the network is also supported by the Department for Environment and, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and a few sites are supported by Transport for London (TfL) to monitor the impact of the Congestion Charging Scheme. An additional 8 sites are directly operated by DEFRA and the measurements from these sites are included in the LAQN database.138 There are currently a total of 123 active monitoring stations supplying data for the LAQN. Not all pollutants are measured at each monitoring station. Some stations may only measure the concentration of a single pollutant. The monitoring stations are classified into different categories depending on the location of the site. The different types of monitoring stations are listed and described in the following table. Monitoring Site Kerbside

Description Located within 1m from the kerbside with a sampling height

Number of sites (in 2004) 8

of 3m or less Roadside

Located within 1-5m from the kerbside with a sampling

height of 3m or less Urban background

Located to represent conditions in the centre of urban areas;

placed far away from any significant pollutant sources e.g. 25m from the kerbside Suburban

Located to represent conditions in residential suburbs

on the edge of built-up areas; placed far away from any significant pollutant sources e.g. 25m from the kerbside Industrial

Located next to specific industrial sources

138â&#x20AC;&#x192; Fuller, Gary W. and Green, David. (2006b). Air Quality in London 2005 and mid 2006-Briefing [Online]. http://www.londonair.org.uk

Appendix IV - Main Air Quality Policies Implemented in Los Angeles Policy Name / Policy Area

Summary

Emission Reductions

1 1.1

South Coast District Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMP) Policies Further Emission Reductions

Aims to achieve additional VOC emission reductions from

from Architectural Coatings and

architectural coating categories and thinning and clean-up

Cleanup Solvents (VOC) (CTS-07)

solvents through on-going technical evaluation of

8.5 t/d

coating

performance and implementation of low-VOC and/or low-reactive coating or clean-up materials. 1.2

Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings

Seeks additional VOC emission reductions from industrial coatings

& Solvent Operations (VOC) (CTS-

and solvent operations through VOC limits and comprehensive

10)

3 t/d

technical evaluations of clean-up materials, vanishing oils, aerospace hand-wipe cleaning operation, etc.

1.3

Emission Reductions from

Seeks VOC emission reductions from fugitive emission sources,

Fugitive Emission Sources (VOC)

such as refineries, oil and gas production facilities, terminals,

(FUG-05)

2 t/d

chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities through the implementation

facility-specific

and

SCAQMD-approved

compliance plans. 1.4

Emission Reductions from

Applies to all gas flares used at petroleum refineries, sulphur

Petroleum Refinery Flares (SOx)

recovery plants and hydrogen production plants. It aims to

(CMB-07)

2.1 t/d

develop an accurate emissions inventory from flare operations and then to identify the most feasible and cost-effective control strategies available to reduce emissions from refinery flares. Control options include physical modifications and improvements to operation and maintenance procedures to prevent or minimize upset conditions.

1.5

Emission Reductions from

Aims to reduce PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 emissions from petroleum

0.3-0.5/1.6

Petroleum Refinery FCCUs (PM10/

fluid catalytic cracking units through improving the operation of

t/d

NH3) (CMB-09)

electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and cyclones presently installed on the catalytic cracking units, or replacing older equipment with new, more efficient models.

1.6

Promotion of Lighter Color

Provides incentives for voluntary actions to reduce VOC or NOx

Roofing and Road Materials and

by lowering the ambient temperature through the use of lighter

Tree Planting Programs (All

coloured roofing and paving materials.

TBD

Pollutants) (MSC-01) 1.7

Promotion of Catalyst-Surface

Aims to reduce ozone and CO emissions through a regional-scale

Coating Technology Programs (All

use of ozone destroying catalyst coatings.

TBD

Pollutants) (MSC-03) 1.8

Emission Reductions from

Seeks to reduce PM emissions from charbroilers. Particulate

Restaurant Operations (PM10)

emissions result from the fat being entrained when dripping

(PRC-03)

grease flares up.

1-5 t/d

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

1.9

Industrial Process Operations

Proposes to refine the emission inventory and further control

(VOC) (PRC-07)

VOC emissions from miscellaneous chemical processes. Potential

2 t/d

control methods include enhanced inspection and maintenance and other housekeeping work practices to reduce fugitive emissions from material transfer, storage, and processing. 1.10

Emission Reductions from

Potential control options include removal of manure out-of-

Livestock Waste (VOC/NH3)

Basin or processing of manure at controlled composting

(WST-01)

4.8/8.7 t/d

facilities or at anaerobic digesters. VOC and ammonia emission benefits associated with dairy relocations, existing water quality regulations, and control measure WST-01 are estimated to be 4.8 tonnes per day of VOC and 8.7 tonnes per day of ammonia emissions in 2010.

1.11

Emission Reductions from

Potential control options may include forced aeration, enclosures,

Composting (VOC/NH3) (WST-02)

process controls, and add-on controls (e.g. biofilters). Feasible

1.2/1.9 t/d

control options will be evaluated and developed for green waste and food waste composting operations. 1.12

Emission Charges of $5,000 per

The federal Clean Air Act requires that all major stationary sources

Ton of VOC for Stationary Sources

of VOC emissions in an extreme non-attainment area that has

Emitting Over 10 Tonnes per Year

failed to attain the ambient air quality standard for ozone pay a

(VOC) (FSS-04)

TBD

fee as a penalty for such failure. This control measure proposes that if the federal ambient air standards are not met by the year 2010, the District shall impose an emissions fee of $5,000 per ton of VOC, emitted by each major source in excess of 80 percent of the sourcesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; baseline emissions.

1.13

Economic Incentive Programs (All

Aims to enhance regulatory compliance flexibility by providing

Pollutants) (FLX-01)

additional compliance options and thereby lowering compliance

TBD

costs and to incentivise early reductions and advancement of clean technologies through emission credit banking provisions (i.e. RECLAIM program). 1.14

Additional NOx Reductions for RECLAIM (NOx) (CMB-10)

Seeks emission reductions from the NOx Regional Clean Air

3.0 t/d

Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program. Control strategies that can be implemented include reducing ending allocations in 20032006, overlaying source-specific regulations, excluding smaller emitting facilities, and/or bifurcated market for power plants and non-power plants.

1.15

Further PM10 Reductions from

A review of existing Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Best Available Control Measures

Fugitive Dust Sources (PM10)

(BACM) rules is proposed to consider enhancements that

(BCM-07)

would further reduce PM10 emissions from paved and unpaved roads, construction/ demolition and earth-movement activities, disturbed vacant lands, and agricultural sources. Potential District rule enhancements may include: improved compliance test methods, specific short and long-term soil stabilization requirements, construction project signage, and mandatory use of track-out control devices (e.g., access road paving).

TBD

1.16

Further Emission Reductions

Aims to control fugitive dust from area sources within aggregate

from Aggregate and Cement Plant

facilities and cement manufacturing plants. Specific measures

Manufacturing Operations (PM10)

may include pre-application of water prior to material extraction,

(BCM-08)

application of chemical dust suppressants or establishment of a

0.7 t/d

vegetative ground cover to inactive disturbed areas, covering of material conveyors and haul vehicles, and installation of wheel washing systems where haul vehicles exit the site. 1.17

Emission Reductions from

Proposes to further refine the ammonia emissions inventory and

Miscellaneous Ammonia Sources

identify potential control methods or technologies for various

(NH3) (MSC-04)

sources of ammonia emissions such as motor vehicles, poultry

TBD

and other livestock operations, composting operations, and other stationary sources. 1.18

Truck Stop Electrification (NOx)

Requires the mandatory installation of electric systems at truck

(MSC-05)

stops that can provide heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

2.1 t/d

to truck cabs, run appliances inside truck cabs, and on-board truck systems at truck stops in order to eliminate truck idling thereby eliminating the operation of diesel-fuelled engines used by trucks. 1.19

Emission Reductions from Wood-

It aims to refine the emissions inventory, assess available

Burning Fireplaces and Wood

emissions data and air quality impact for burning manufactured

Stoves (PM10) (MSC-06)

logs versus natural wood, consider control approaches (e.g., U.S.

TBD

EPA certified wood stoves or fireplace inserts in new residential or public settings), develop incentive programs to encourage the replacement of old wood burning units, and strengthen public awareness and education programmes. 1.20

Natural Gas Fuel Specifications

This control strategy considers setting an upper limit of the

(NOx) (MSC-07)

heating value of natural gas. Natural gas producers/suppliers

TBD

could achieve the objective of this control strategy by either not supplying hot gas to the District, or by removing higher hydrogen compounds or otherwise reducing the Btu value of the hot gas. 1.21

Further Emission Reductions

Under this control measure, facilities will be required to submit

from Large VOC Sources (VOC)

a plan to outline specific measures which would be implemented

(MSC-08)

to reduce their overall emissions beyond the existing regulations

TBD

and achieve a specified emission reduction target. 1.22

Mitigation Fee Programme for

Proposes to implement a mitigation fee programme which is to be

Federal Sources (All) (FSS-05)

adopted by U.S. EPA and the mitigation fee to be paid by federal

TBD

sources through EPA rulemaking and/or U.S. EPA grants to the District. Federal sources include emission source categories such as aircraft, ocean-going vessels, trains, and pre-empted off-road equipment that are under the jurisdiction of U.S. EPA. 1.23

Further Emission Reductions

Proposes that in the event that the CARB or US EPA does not

from In-Use Off-Road Vehicles

develop aggressive programmes to reduce emissions from in-use

and Equipment (all pollutants)

off-road equipment and vehicle categories (i.e. construction and

(FSS-06)

industrial equipment, recreational vehicles, utility equipment), the District would exercise its authority to develop regulations to retrofit existing engines or accelerate the engine turn-over rate.

TBD

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

1.24

Emission Fee Programme for

Proposes an emissions fee programme for in-use port-related

Port-Related Mobile Sources (All

mobile sources (i.e. ships, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment).

Pollutants) (FSS-07)

TBD

The District will use the monies collected from the programme to implement projects with a focus to achieve emission reductions from in-use on-road and off-road mobile sources.

1.25

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee

The VMT is based on the number of miles a vehicle is driven.

(proposed)

It has the virtue of being a direct and equitable fee, in that all

TBD

automobiles are charged the same amount, per mile, for use of the roadways. Several technologies exist for reading a car’s mileage electronically, thus the system can be designed to be unobtrusive. 2 2.1

Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Policies SCAG Regional Transportation

Transportation plans within the South Coast Air Basin are

Strategy and Control Measures

statutorily required to conform with air quality plans in the region. The region is also required to identify a special class of transportation projects called Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), which are specified in the Federal Clean Air Act.

2.2

2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP):

2.3

The 2001 RTP is the main air quality policy developed and implemented by the SCAG. Its primary objective is to increase

VOC, 7.8

the proportion of trips made using modes other than single

of NOx and

occupancy vehicles. The 2001 RTP comprises several specific

161.8 of

interventions and strategies grouped into the following three

CO by

components:

2010

a. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

Attempt to shift the proportion of work trips made using single

Interventions

occupancy vehicles—the clearly preferred mode of travel within the Southern California region, constituting 90 % of all hometo-work trips—by increasing the share of HOV ridership within the Region. HOV lanes are one example of such projects, where particular segments of heavily used freeways are designated for exclusive use by HOV vehicles, particularly during rush hour traffic.

2.4

15.7 t/d of

b. Transit and Systems Management

Promote the use of transit as a transportation mode and the use

Interventions

of alternative modes of transportation (i.e. bicycle and pedestrian modes) and seek to incentivise increases in the average vehicle occupancy or ridership by facilitating van-pools, smart shuttles, etc. These measures include conventional transit projects (bus, commuter rail, subway and shuttle services), non-motorized transit projects (supporting bicycle and pedestrian movement), and inter-modal facilities (park-and-ride lots, van-pool routes).

2.5

c. Information-based Transportation Interventions

Seek to induce changes in trip behaviour that beneficially influence the congestion and air pollution impacts of travel. One set of strategies attempt to increase the proportion of ride-sharing and car-pooling trips by providing information that makes it easier to match up people travelling to and from particular sets of origin and destination points. Another set of strategies attempts to shift the time-profile of demand by redistributing traffic flows from peak to off-peak hours. Measures implemented include marketing and promoting the use of HOV lanes or rail lines to the general public; educating the public regarding cost, locations, accessibility and services available at Park and Ride lots; promoting vanpool formation and incentive programs; promoting ride-matching services through the Internet and other means of making alternative travel option information more accessible to the general public; and congestion management strategies.

3 3.1

Marine Emissions (San Pedro Bay Ports (SPBP) Clean Air Action Plan) SPBP-HDV1 Performance

Financial incentives will be provided to expedite the fleet

Standards for On-Road Heavy-

transformation to “clean” trucks by replacing and retrofitting

2,095 DPM,

Duty Vehicles

all frequent and semi-frequent container caller ”dirty” trucks

16,273

servicing both ports by the end of 2011. Truck will be required to

NOx, and 6

meet certain standards (i.e. EPA 2007) to be allowed to operate

SOx tonnes

within the ports. The measure would be implemented through

per year

lease requirements, tariff changes, and/or incentives. Estimated

(t/y)

cost: US$1.8 billion during five years. 3.2

SPBP-HDV2 Alternative Fuel

In support of the significant investment in SPBP-HDV1 for

Infrastructure for Heavy-Duty

alternative fuelled trucks, this measure provides for the

Natural Gas Vehicles

development of a refuelling and central maintenance facility, jointly owned by both Ports, and located on Terminal Island. Estimated cost: $4 million during five years.

3.3

SPBP-OGV1 OGV Vessel Speed

The objective of the VSR programme is to reduce NOx emissions

14,625

Reduction (VSR)

from OGVs by slowing their speeds as they approach or depart

NOx tonnes

the Port. A voluntary VSR programme currently exists under

in 5 years

which vessels slow to 12 knots when they are within 20 nm of Point Fermin. This measure establishes a wider VSR zone with an over-water boundary of 40 nm from Point Fermin. Estimated cost: US$ 22.7 million during five years. 3.4

SPBP-OGV2 Reduction of At-

Seeks to ensure the use of shore-power for reducing hotelling

56 DPM,

Berth OGV Emissions

emissions implemented at all major container and cruise

2,430 NOx,

terminals at the Port of Los Angeles within five years and all

and 1,015

container terminals and one crude terminal at the Port of Long

SOx tonnes

Beach within five to ten years. Alternative hotelling emissions

in 5 years

reduction technologies will be applied to vessels that do not fit the shore-power model (i.e. exhaust gas scrubbing and shorepowered dockside electrical pumps for tankers). Estimated cost: US$ 179.1 million during five years.

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

3.5

SPBP-OGV3 OGV Auxiliary Engine

This measure is designed to require the use of lower sulphur

Fuel Standards

distillate fuels in the auxiliary engines of OGVs within 20 nm of

38 NOx,

Point Fermin and while at berth. A fuel standard of â&#x2030;¤0.2% sulphur

and 316

distillate/MGO or equivalent reduction will be required.

13 DPM,

SOx tonnes in 5 years

3.6

SPBP-OGV4 OGV Main Engine

This programme is designed to promote, encourage, and require

641 DPM,

Fuel Standards

the use of lower sulphur fuels in the main propulsion engines of

841 NOx,

OGVs within 20 nm of Point Fermin through 2007 and extended

and 4,613

to 40 nm from Point Fermin with the VSR programme 1st quarter

SOx tonnes

of 2008; as opposed to the current practice of using fuels that

in 5 years

have substantially higher sulphur content. A Main engine fuel standard of â&#x2030;¤0.2% S MGO will be required during arrival and departures at SPBP. 3.7

SPBP-OGV5 OGV Main & Auxiliary

This measure provides for main and auxiliary engine emissions

259 DPM,

Engine Emissions Improvements

reductions that are validated through the Technology Advancement

and 2,592

Program. The goal of this measure is to reduce main and auxiliary

NOx tonnes

engine DPM, NOx, and SOx emissions by 90%. The first engine

in 5 years

emissions reduction technology for this measure will be the use of MAN B&W slide valves for main engines. The measure will be initially implemented through Technology Advancement Program, lease requirements, tariff changes, and incentives. 3.8

SPBP-CHE1 Performance

Measures: beginning 2007, all CHE purchases will meet one of

40 DPM,

Standards for Cargo Handling

the following performance standards: Cleanest available NOx

and 1,323

alternative-fuelled engine, meeting 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM, or cleanest

Nox tonnes

available NOx diesel-fuelled engine, meeting 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM.

in 5 years

Equipment (CHE)

If there are no engines available that meet 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM, then must purchase cleanest available engine and install cleanest VDEC available. By the end of 2010, all yard tractors operating at the SPBP will meet at a minimum the EPA 2007 on-road or Tier IV engine standards. By the end of 2012, all pre-2007onroad or pre Tier IV off-road top picks, forklifts, reach stackers, RTGs, and straddle carriers <750 hp will meet at a minimum the EPA 2007 onroad engine standards or Tier IV off-road engine standards. By end of 2014, all CHE with engines >750 hp will meet at a minimum the EPA Tier IV off-road engine standards. Starting 2007 (until equipment is replaced with Tier IV), all CHE with engines >750 hp will be equipped with the cleanest available VDEC verified by CARB. 3.9

SPBP-HC1 Performance

By the second year of the Clean Air Action Plan, all HC home-

Standards for Harbour Craft

ported at SPBP will meet EPA Tier 2 standards for harbour craft or equivalent reductions. By the fifth year, all previously re-powered HC home-ported at SPBP will be retrofitted with the most effective CARB verified NOx and/or PM emissions reduction technologies. When Tier 3 engines become available, within five years all HC home-based at SPBP will be re-powered with the new engines. All tugs will use shore-power while at their home fleeting location.

3.10

SPBP-RL1 PHL Rail Switch

By 2008, all existing switch engines in the Ports will be replaced

3 DPM,

Engine Modernization

with Tier 2 engines and will use emulsified fuels as available or

163 NOx,

other equivalently clean alternative diesel fuels. Any new switch

and 0.2

engine acquired after the initial replacement must meet EPA

SOx tonnes

Tier 3 standards or a NOx standard of 3 grams/bhp-hr and a

per year

PM standard of 0.0225 g/bhp-hr. All switch engines will have 15-minute idling limit devices installed and operational. Based on successful demonstration of a locomotive DOC or DPF, all of the Tier II engines will be retrofitted preferentially with the DPF, or with the DOC retrofit as a fallback if the DPF trial is not successful. Estimated cost: US$21 million during five years. 3.11

SPBP-RL2 Existing Class 1

Seeks to secure a memorandum of understanding with the Class

Railroad Operations

1 railroads, and use other contractual mechanisms, to reduce

TBD

emissions from their existing operations on Port properties that do not have a CEQA action pending in the next five years (i.e. new or redeveloped rail yard). Measures to be adopted include idling restrictions and cleaner engines and fuels. 3.12

SPBP-RL3 New and Redeveloped

This measure focuses on new and redeveloped rail facilities

Rail Yards

located on Port properties with the goal of incorporating the cleanest locomotive, CHE, and HDVs technologies into their operations. The performance standards for these rail yards include: cleanest available technology for switcher, helper, and long haul locomotives (i.e. electric, diesel-electric hybrids, multiple engine generator sets, DPM and NOx retrofits, alternative fuel, etc.), “Green-container” transport systems; idling shut-off devices; idling exhaust hoods; ULSD or alternative fuels; clean CHE and HDVs.

3.13

Technology Advancement Programme

This programme is an integrated component that will evaluate, demonstrate, and incorporate new strategies and technologies into the suite of control measures, such as those outlined above, that will ultimately result in significant reductions of DPM and criteria pollutants. Demonstrations will include technologies that utilize “green” and renewable energy sources and will seek to define a “Green-Container” transport system. Estimate cost: US$ 15.4 million during five years.

3.14

Infrastructure & Operational

This initiative identifies projects at the San Pedro Bay Ports that

Efficiency Improvements

improve infrastructure and operational efficiencies that also

Initiatives

have an air quality benefit (i.e. Focusing on on-dock versus neardock rail infrastructure; grade separations; OCR/RFID gates at terminals; terminal cargo handling/configuration efficiency improvements). Estimate cost: US$ 5 million during five years.

3.15

POLA – China Shipping

The Port of LA joined environmental and Harbor-area community

Settlement

groups in a settlement agreement that includes a series of environmental programs designed to improve the area’s air quality. All emission reductions resulting from funded projects are retired by the POLA for the benefit of the environment. Estimate cost: US$ 12 million during five years to be funded by China Shipping and the Port of LA.

TBD

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

4 4.1

State and Federal Air Quality Policies CARB’s strategy

CARB’s strategy can be grouped into five approaches: (a) set technology-forcing new engine standards; (b) reduce emissions from the in-use fleet; (c) require clean fuels, support alternative fuels, and reduce petroleum dependency; (d) work with U.S. EPA to reduce emissions from federal and State sources; and (e) pursue long-term advanced technologies measures. These five strategies are pursued via the mobile source and fuels measures detailed in this section.

4.2

LT/MED-DUTY-1 (CARB)

Replace or Uμgrade Emission Control Systems on Existing

0.19 VOC

Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program.

and 0.18 NOx t/d

4.3

LT/MED-DUTY-2 (BAR)

Smog Check Improvements

5.6-5.8 VOC and 8-8.4 NOx t/d

4.4

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-1 (CARB)

Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspections with CommunityBased Inspections

4.5

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-2 (CARB)

Capture and Control Vapours from Gasoline Cargo Tankers

0.01 VOC t/d 4-5 VOC t/d

4.6

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 (CARB)

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Truck/Bus Fleet

1.4-4.5 VOC and 8-11 NOx t/d

4.7

OFF-RD CI-1 (CARB)

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Heavy-Duty Off-

2.3-7.8

Road Equipment Fleet (Compression Ignition Engines)-Retrofit

VOC t/d

Controls 4.8

OFF-RD CI-2 (CARB)

Registration and Inspection Programme for Existing Heavy-Duty

Off-Road Equipment to Detect Excess Emissions (Compression Ignition Engines) 4.9

OFF-RD LSI-1 (CARB)

Set Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Gas Engines

0.8 Nox t/d

(Spark Ignited Engines 25 hp and Greater) 4.10

OFF-RD LSI-2 (CARB)

Clean Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls (Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater)

0.5-1.4 VOC and 1.5-3.5 NOx t/d

4.11

OFF-RD LSI-3 (CARB)

Require Zero-Emission Forklifts Where Feasible – Lift Capacity ≤ 8,000 Pounds

0.3-0.6 VOC and 1.4-2.8 NOx t/d

4.12

SMALL OFF-RD-1 (CARB)

Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld Small Engines

1.9 VOC

and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as

and 0.2

Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and Chainsaws)

NOx t/d

4.13

SMALL OFF-RD-2 (CARB)

Set Lower Emission Standards for New Non-Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Lawnmowers)

6.6-7.7 VOC and 0.6-1.9 NOx t/d

4.14

MARINE-1 (CARB)

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Harbour Craft Fleet

0.1 VOC

– Cleaner Engines and Fuels

and 2.7 NOx t/d

4.15

4.16

MARINE-2 (CARB)

FUEL-1 (CARB)

Pursue Approaches to Reduce Land-Based Emissions at

0.1 VOC

Ports – Alternative Fuels, Cleaner Engines, Retrofit Controls,

and 0.1

Electrification, Education Programs, Operational Controls

NOx t.d

Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to Control Engine

Deposits 4.17

FUEL-2 (CARB)

Set Low-Sulphur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses, Off-

Enabling

Road Equipment, and Stationary Engines 4.18

CONS-1 (CARB)

Set New Consumer Products VOC Limits for 2006

2.3 VOC t/d

4.19

CONS-2(CARB)

Set New Consumer Products VOC Limits for 2008-2010

8.5-15 VOC t/d

4.20

FVR-1 (CARB)

Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapours from Aboveground Storage Tanks

4.21

FVR-2 (CARB)

Recover Fuel Vapours from Gasoline Dispensing at Marinas

0-0.1 VOC t/d 0-0.1 VOC t/d

4.22

FVR-3 (CARB)

Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline Dispenser Hoses

0-0.7 VOC t/d

4.23 4.24

PEST-1 (DPR)

Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy

DISTRICT, STATE, AND FEDERAL

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 182(e)(5) specifically

LONG-TERM CONTROL

authorizes the inclusion of such measures for extreme ozone

STRATEGY

non-attainment areas – these measures are often referred to

(182(e)(5) MEASURES OR

as the “black box.” The size of the black box is based on the

“BLACK BOX”)

difference between the final attainment target (carrying capacity) for each pollutant and the emissions remaining after application of short-term control measures.

5 5.1

City of Los Angeles Policies City of Los Angeles’ No Net

The Taskforce was established to build consensus on an innovative

Increase Task Force

and realistic strategy to achieve ‘No Net Increase’ at the Port of Los Angeles. It includes representatives from regulatory agencies, various community stakeholders, Port customers, Harbour Department staff and environmental experts.

5.2

Bike Patrols for Clean Air

It shifts officers from motor vehicles to bicycles to conduct

Programme

their daily business thus reducing motor vehicle emissions. It is anticipated that the use of bicycles in patrol applications under the Bike Patrols for Clean Air Programme will generate a reduction of almost 12.59 tonnes of pollutant over the life of the bicycle.

Baseline

English

Lessons for Hong Kong: Air Quality Management in London and Los Angeles

English

5.3

Clean Fuels Policy (CF 00-0157)

It helps to implement alternative fuel applications by supporting programmes and regulations that

balance environmental

benefits against operational concerns such as safety, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. As part of this policy, the City Council has decided to use and purchase vehicles which utilize clean fuels and/or electric propulsion; development of vehicle technologies that promote energy efficiency and clean operation; consider retrofit technologies for existing vehicles; promote development of alternative fuel infrastructure. 5.4

Quick Charge L.A. Program

The programme was executed through a partnership between the Department of Water and Power and 29 public agencies and achieved the installation of 200 electric vehicle charging stations.

Trees for a Green LA Programme

The programme is run by the LA Department of Water and Power. Through this programme free shade trees are delivered to LA City residents.

6 6.1

Private sector initiatives Southern California Economic Partnership

The Partnership is a non-profit organisation that seeks to accelerate the deployment of

advanced transportation

technologies throughout Southern California. It organises workshops to discuss implementation barriers and assist in the development of deployment and marketing strategies and promotes educational campaigns. 6.2

Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Technology

It sponsors public-private research and development partnerships

Advancement Office (TAO)

in order to identify and promote low- and zero-emissions technologies for both stationary and mobile sources. The TAO has several programmes through which advanced mobile and stationary source control strategies are funded, researched, and commercialised.

6.3

SCAQMD Clean Fuels Programme â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Technology Advancement Plan

This is a formal plan required by state law to be adopted by the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Governing Board. The Plan focuses on potential projects for research, development, demonstration, and commercialisation of clean fuels technologies and advanced technologies that may reduce emissions and help meet the clean air goals of the District.

中文

目錄序言

鳴謝

行政摘要

縮寫一覽表

1 前言

2 倫敦

2.1 城巿概況

2.2 倫敦空氣污染防治政策的演變

2.3 現時倫敦空氣污染的特點

2.4 倫敦的空氣質素管理政策

2.5 專題討論

2.5.1 交通擠塞收費計畫

2.5.2 低排放區

2.6 師法倫敦

3 洛杉磯

3.1 城市概況

3.3 現時洛杉磯空氣污染的特點

3.4 洛杉磯的空氣質素管理政策

102

3.5 專題討論：聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫

104

3.6 師法洛杉磯

108

4 結論

109

附錄一﹑倫敦已實施的主要空氣質素管理政策

111

附錄二﹑國際空氣質量標準

116

附錄三﹑倫敦空氣質素網絡（LAQN）

117

附錄四、洛杉磯已實施的主要空氣質素管理政策

118

序言我們希望帶給讀者一個好消息：香港的空氣污染問題是可以解決的。事實上，其他城市和地區都曾面對類似的挑戰。因此，反思世界各大城市管理空氣質素的方法和學習他們的寶貴經驗，將能為香港帶來莫大裨益。本報告分別探討了倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗。我們可以從中汲取的教訓是相當清晰的 —— 香港特區政府必須制訂更全面、更嚴格的空氣質素管理政策。香港現行的空氣質素指標寬鬆，實際上為污染者大開綠燈，在本地製造污染。政府再不能逃避收緊香港空氣質素指標的責任，真正保障市民的健康。此外，香港必須與廣東省緊密合作，以便處理區域性空氣污染問題。我們必須作出更大的努力，減少本地的廢氣排放，並尋求創新的方法，與內地並肩作戰。儘管跨境污染較難應付，香港卻不是唯一要面對這種問題的城市。因此，我們衷心希望香港能夠從其他城市的成功經驗中得到啟發，激勵政府加倍努力減少污染。我們謹此感謝溫富錦和 Rob Modini 兩位研究人員的出色工作；他們清楚地向讀者闡述了倫敦和洛杉磯兩個案例。此外，兩位研究人員在研究期間分別得到專家們的協助，其中包括本政策研究所的聯合創辦人何麗莎（Lisa Hopkinson），她為本報告提供資料、提出不同的分析角度和其他寶貴意見，我們謹此致以萬分謝意。最後，我們衷心感謝溫敏萃協調整個研究項目的每個細節；吳家穎審閱報告的中文稿，以確保翻譯無誤；以及 Mirror Productions 一如既往地為思匯的研究報告精心設計版面，效果是無容置疑的。

思匯政策研究所行政總監陸恭蕙 2007年8月

思匯政策研究所是一個非牟利組織，旨在通過研究和分析，幫助政策的改善和決策的制訂。本報告表達的意見屬作者所有，並不代表思匯政策研究所立場。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

鳴謝柏蔚元 Fuller, Gary（倫敦空氣質素網絡）何麗莎 Kanter, Bob（長灘港） Kwan, Stephanie 李志鵬呂穎雯 Miguel, Antonio Ng, Betty 吳家穎專業精英國際有限公司 Slanina, Sjaak Trumbull, Kate 溫敏萃鄔嘉莉

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

行政摘要空氣污染已成為香港最嚴重的環境問題，不但影響公眾健康，也影響香港吸引和保留外國投資者的能力。香港確實有急切的需要策畫和推行一個全面的行動方案，以改善本地的空氣質素。本研究比較分析了倫敦和洛杉磯這兩個市轄區的空氣質素管理問題，她們都是對抗空氣污染問題的領導者。本研究有兩個主要目標：一﹑提供適當的標準，為香港的空氣質素問題和政策進行評估；二﹑參考上述兩個城市的經驗，找出可以在香港成功地推行的改善空氣質素措施。因此，本研究將聚焦在兩個主要問題上：與其他國際都會相比，我們管理空氣質素的表現如何，以及我們可以向她們學習的地方。倫敦和洛杉磯都很重視綜合規畫和為改善空氣質素投放大量資金，令她們的空氣質素管理基礎設施發展完善，這為她們帶來優勢。倫敦的空氣質素管理策略傾向推廣能源效益和需求管理，而洛杉磯的策略則較為倚重以技術性措施減少排放。香港為空氣質素管理政策所訂立的目標遠較這兩個城市寬鬆，結果導致污染物的排放趨勢持續惡化。個別空氣質素及政策指標

倫敦

洛杉磯

香港

是

否

2007年

2003年

1987年

二氧化硫（24小時）

125微克/立方米

105微克/立方米

350微克/立方米

二氧化氮（全年）

40微克/立方米

100微克/立方米

80微克/立方米

直徑少於10微米的粒子（PM10）（全年）

40微克/立方米

20微克/立方米

55微克/立方米

12微克/立方米

100微克/立方米

137微克/立方米

123

空氣質素標準/指標是否具法律約束力？最新修訂年份

直徑少於2.5微米的粒子（PM2.5）臭氧（8小時移動平均數）市內空氣質素監測站數目倫敦、洛杉磯及香港的空氣污染趨勢

二氧化硫

香港

洛杉磯

粒子

倫敦 100

香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30 世衛 (2006年) 24小時平均數

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

80 70

50 40 30 世衛 2006年 (每年)

20 10

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1997

二氧化氮

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

70 60 50 世衛 2006年 (每年)

40 30 20

70 全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30 20 10

10 0 1997

1998

臭氧

100

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

香港AQO (每年)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

中文

師法倫敦香港政府應制訂較全面和嚴緊的空氣質素政策。在改善空氣質素方面，倫敦採取了多方面的、嚴厲的和創新的措施。相反地，香港迄今仍未能全面地解決問題及改善空氣質素。由於香港受更多的污染源影響（例如倫敦不受電廠和船舶污染影響），同時又缺乏更廣闊的法律框架處理個別層面的空氣污染問題（如英國和歐盟的空氣質素政策），因此香港較倫敦更為需要一個多角度的空氣管理策略。此外，香港落實執行的空氣質素政策亦遠不及倫敦的嚴緊。倫敦的空氣質素指標，訂立了以健康為基礎的目標，並定期更新；香港的空氣質素指標，訂立的目標過低，而且自1987年以來從未作出任何修訂，對公眾健康構成危險的影響。這些過時的指標依然用於計算空氣污染指數，最終因不能反映香港空氣質素的真實情況而誤導了公眾。香港政府應改善空氣質素監測網絡。目前，倫敦的空氣質素監測網絡是由123個運作有效的空氣質素監測站組成。這些監測站分為五個不同類別，分別指明監測站的位置和收集樣本的高度。相比之下，香港的14個監測站只分為一般監測站和路邊監測站兩類。由於倫敦的監測站數量和分類都較多，故能更準確地反映空氣質素的狀況，並有助於制訂更具成效的改善空氣質素措施。香港政府應推行如交通擠塞收費計畫及低排放區等措施，以減少道路運輸的廢氣排放。倫敦的經驗證明交通擠塞收費計畫能夠非常有效地減少交通擠塞及車輛廢氣，同時提高政府在運輸方面的收入，以支持在倫敦發展更具持續性的運輸模式。由於香港的車輛密度極高，路面空間有限，無法繼續擴建道路，加上現時的路邊空氣污染處於高水平，因此政府必須制訂一些減低交通流量的政策。其次，倫敦所建議的低排放區將會為減少高污染車輛的廢氣排放及改善倫敦的空氣質素踏出重要的一步。在香港推行這兩項措施有助於體現「污染者自付原則」，並減低車輛廢氣的排放。香港需要更具魄力的政治領袖。倫敦市長利文斯頓（Ken

Livingstone）的領導才能，是倫敦得以推行各項減少空氣污染行動

的關鍵因素。一些受到社會個別行業猛烈反對的措施，如交通擠塞收費計畫最終得到落實，最後更成為非常成功的政策，正正展示了利文斯頓的領導能力。他亦正積極游說英國政府，推行同時適用於國內和歐盟水平的更嚴格的環境標準。香港正需要如利文斯頓的領袖，管理空氣質素。例如：要解決來自珠江三角洲地區的跨境污染問題，就必須透過廣東省和各地方政府之間的政治合作。同樣地，要改變香港的運輸和能源政策，就需要有強勢的政治領導。香港政府應公開承認香港空氣污染問題的嚴重性，及有關問題對公眾健康所構成的威脅。倫敦的公共機構面對當地空氣污染的態度，與香港政府官員面對本地空氣污染問題的態度截然不同。倫敦有關部門傾向強調當地空氣污染的嚴重性，並以此作為制訂嚴格的環保措施的理據。香港政府卻不時嘗試傳達訊息指，空氣污染並未對社區造成重大威脅。此外，倫敦當局經常提及空氣污染與公眾健康不可分割的關係，更在潔淨空氣政策中清楚說明這一點；香港政府則一直淡化兩者的關係。空氣污染日益嚴重，香港政府必須改變目前的態度，方能實施適當的措施和有效地解決問題。

師法洛杉磯香港政府應引入更嚴緊的空氣質素指標，並制訂排放標準，以抑止日益向上的污染物排放趨勢。在70至80年代期間，洛杉磯地區透過推行一些曾受到商界或特定行業激烈反對的強硬政策，成功改善已達惡劣水平的空氣污染問題。政府在訂立有關法規之後，便會引入以市場為主導的減少污染措施。根據洛杉磯和加利福尼亞州的經驗，香港政府不應害怕實行更嚴緊的空氣質素指標，以及為各類移動和固定污染源，實施更嚴格的排放標準。香港和廣東省政府應共同研究設立跨境空氣質素管轄區，以及成立專責機構管理該管轄區的空氣質素的可能性。香港與廣東省兩地政府需作出更大努力，共同解決區域性空氣污染問題，以整體改善珠江三角洲地區的空氣質素。加利福尼亞州以地形來界定空氣質素管轄區的做法，或可為香港未來的發展指出路向。粵港兩地政府該慎重考慮應否設立跨境空氣質素管轄區，並成立專責機構管理區內的空氣質素。無論如何，加強跨境合作是香港改善空氣質素的主要工作範疇。香港社會各界應進一步參與討論與空氣質素有關的議題。洛杉磯推行各項空氣污染防治政策的發展歷程，清楚顯示了公眾壓力可迫使猶豫不決的政府作出果斷和有效的行動。在2006年，公眾對本地空氣質素的關注和參與程度明顯增強。各社區團體應進一步推動這種公眾積極參與的趨勢，以催生必要的政策改革，並鼓勵商界在清潔香港空氣行動中，扮演更積極的角色。香港政府應與航運業界共同制訂和推行全面的策略，以減少港口相關活動所產生的排放。本報告第3.5節所描述聖佩德羅灣港區計畫（SPBP）的個案研究顯示，在推行針對各類與港口排放有關的行動計畫時，必須與當地航運業的主要持份者充分合作。香港值得向聖佩德羅灣港區計畫借鏡的主要措施包括：制訂一套潔淨船用燃油策略（按照香港的情況，此措施應適用於遠洋和內河船隻）；推行船隻減速計畫；為各類在港口內操作的柴油機，訂立強制性排放標準；及確保潔淨柴油在港口內的供應和使用。香港政府應履行法定責任，透過單一法律文件制訂全面的空氣質素行動計畫。洛杉磯和倫敦的空氣質素政策，大部份都包括在一份單一、全面而具法定地位的文件內〔如洛杉磯的南岸空氣質素管理區（SCAQMD）計畫及倫敦市長頒布的空氣質素策略〕。相比之下，香港的空氣污染管理政策則零星地按多條法例制訂。倫敦和洛杉磯的處理手法比香港高明的地方在：可促進綜合規畫和協調行動；有興趣的人士和機構都可對各項空氣質素管理措施作徹底的檢討；以及公眾可較容易取得有關空氣質素管理的資料。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

縮寫一覽表 AFV

替代燃料車輛

一氧化氮

API

空氣污染指數

NO2

二氧化氮

空氣質素

NOx

氮氧化物

AQM

空氣質素管理

臭氧

AQO

空氣質素指標

OGV

遠洋輪船

AQS

空氣質素策略

粒子

CAFE

歐洲潔淨空氣計畫

PM2.5

直徑少於2.5微米的粒子

CARB

加州空氣資源局

PM10

直徑少於10微米的粒子

CCAA

加州潔淨空氣法

PRD

珠江三角洲

CCS

交通擠塞收費計畫

SCAG

南加州政府協會

CNG

壓縮天然氣

SCAQMD

南岸空氣質素管理區

一氧化碳

SECA

硫排放控制區

CO2

二氧化碳

SO2

二氧化硫

DEFRA

英國環境食品農業事務部

SoCAB

南岸空氣流域

EPA

美國環境保護局

SOx

硫氧化物

歐盟

SPBP

聖佩德羅灣港區

GPD

本地生產總值

英國

HGV

重型貨車

美國

香港

VOC

揮發性有機化合物

洛杉磯

WHO

世界衛生組織

LAQM

本地空氣質素管理

LAQN

倫敦空氣質素網絡

LEZ

低排放區

LGV

輕型貨車

LPG

液化石油氣

MTR

地下鐵路

1 前言空氣污染已成為香港最嚴重的環境問題，不但影響公眾健康，也影響香港吸引和保留外國投資者的能力。近年，嚴重的空氣污染事故日益增多，引起了公眾的關注及各方的批評，不滿香港政府無法有效處理日趨惡化的空氣質素問題。在2007年 3月，香港行政長官選舉期間，改善空氣質素及可行的措施成為候選人辯論的其中一個重要議題，並且會繼續成為政府需於短期內優先處理的問題。在這情況下，政府、環保團體和學者都經常引用其他國際都會有關空氣質素的議題作為例子。政府希望藉此為其措施樹立理據或減低批評聲音，而後兩者則希望以此為例證，要求政府推行更有效的行動計畫。本研究有兩個主要目標：首先，提供適當的標準，為香港的空氣質素問題和政策進行評估；其次，參考其他城市的經驗，找出可以在香港成功地推行的改善空氣質素措施。因此，本研究將聚焦在兩個主要問題上：與其他國際都會相比，我們管理空氣質素的表現如何，以及我們可以向她們學習的地方。倫敦和洛杉磯被選為研究個案，因為這兩個城市在過去幾十年非常成功地降低了其高水平的空氣污染，尤其是她們在經濟持續擴張的同時，仍然堅持實行最先進的空氣污染防治制度。較諸倫敦和洛杉磯，香港的空氣污染問題在近期才引起各界關注，香港政府目前仍在嘗試制訂適當的行動計畫，以改善空氣質素。因此，倫敦和洛杉磯在過去和目前努力對抗空氣污染的工作，理應成為香港參考的最佳例子。比較倫敦、洛杉磯和香港的有趣之處在：這三個城市都是已發展的經濟中心，同時面對既要減少空氣污染，又要保持經濟優勢的挑戰。本報告以下的章節將進一步闡明三個城市的異同。本報告共分四章，包括本章─前言。第二章和第三章分別簡述倫敦和洛杉磯的資料，當中包括：政府推行空氣污染防治管控制度的歷史回顧；各種空氣污染問題的主要特點（即污染源、空氣質素趨勢、氣候和地形特徵）；現行主要空氣質素政策的撮要；特別值得香港參考的空氣污染防治措施；以及香港可向她們借鑑的地方。第四章是報告的結論。此外，報告有四個附錄，分別提供倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素政策的詳細和技術資料。香港的相關資料則散載於報告的各個章節中，方便作更綜合的比較，並減少重覆論述一些在過往的報告中已廣泛檢討的香港空氣質素數據和政策。本研究得出的結論是，一些在倫敦和洛杉磯行之有效的空氣質素管控措施，為香港提供了學習榜樣。香港有需要仿傚倫敦和洛杉磯，採取更綜合的方法管理空氣質素，並訂立更進取的空氣質素目標。然而，我們必須指出，鑑於本報告的研究和分析範圍廣泛，故當中提出的部分建議須作進一步探討，才可確定其是否適用於香港。無論如何，我們期望本研究能夠提供實用的比較資料，激發公眾作進一步的討論，最終有助提升香港的空氣質素管理政策。

根據香港美國商會進行的一項調查顯示，79%受訪者均認識因香港的空氣污染問題而打算撤離香港或已經撤離香港的專業人士；此外，55%的受訪者表示認識的專業人士中，確有因香港環境質素欠佳而拒絕來港發展。請參考香港美國商會：Polluted Air Threatens Business Decline in Hong Kong， 2006年8月27日；從網站：http://www.amcham.org.hk/content/view/5493/203/下載。請參考曾蔭權競選辦公室派發的競選政綱單張，2007年1月22日。 2006年底，行政長官曾蔭權於某商務論壇上發表的演說中辯稱：「香港的空氣質素不及北歐城市或南北極地區清新」，以及香港的空氣質素「大概與東京、首爾、巴塞羅拿和洛杉磯等城市位置相若」。因此他得出的結論是：「我們為所有人、包括行政人員和香港市民，提供了最環保的生活環境」。請參考香港特區政府：《行政長官出席「商界攜手共用藍天」會議致辭全文》，政府新聞公報，2006年11月27日。從網站：http://www. info.gov.hk/gia/general/200611/27/P200611270129.htm下載。這篇演詞引起不少市民和媒體的批評。請參考2006年11月28日和29日《南華早報》及《英文虎報》刊載的多封讀者來信和媒體報導。請參考陸恭蕙：《香港空氣質素管理計畫》，思匯政策研究所，2006年9月；以及思匯政策研究所：《香港空氣質素》，2006年9月〔網上版〕。從網站：http://www.civic-exchange.org/index.php?cat=88下載。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

2 倫敦 2.1 城巿概況倫敦是一個主要的國際金融中心和國際交通樞紐，對英國的經濟有著舉足輕重的地位。大倫敦區現時擁有人口740萬，預料在未來15年內會再增加70萬。大倫敦區覆蓋面積達1,579平方公里，以面積計算是世界上最大的城巿之一。倫敦巿中心及鄰近住宅區的人口密度相當高，近郊地區的密度則較低。在人口稠密的地區，市民集中居住在中等高度的建築物內。跟香港不同的是，高樓大廈在倫敦是相當罕見的。此外，市內有多個大型的綠化地區。比較倫敦和香港，有趣的地方在於：首先，兩個城巿都面對嚴峻的空氣污染問題。其次，兩者在人口、經濟模式、富裕程度，以及政府架構和政策方面都有相似之處。然而，兩個城市在地形、人口和污染源的特徵上都存在差異，本章將重點指出有關的情況。整體而言，倫敦對抗空氣污染經年而累積的豐富專門知識，以及現行的空氣質素管理政策，為其他仍在嘗試制訂適當空氣污染防治制度的地區，如香港，提供了一個極具啟發性的範例。

2.2 倫敦空氣污染防治政策的演變自十九世紀以來，空氣污染一直是倫敦面對的一個嚴重問題。過去一百五十年，倫敦的空氣污染防治政策經歷了三個明顯的演化階段。污染防治最初只為對付煙霧所造成的滋擾和監管工業生產過程，至近期才轉為制訂環境空氣質素標準。 1850年代，倫敦經常被工業和供暖設施排出的廢氣而形成的濃霧所籠罩，引起嚴重的健康問題。有見及此，英國政府於 1863及1874年分別頒布《鹼業法》，以減少工業生產過程造成的空氣污染。這些法例採用了當時屬嶄新的概念，包括減少排放、排放量上限，及「最佳可行方法」，防止釋出空氣污染物。事實上，「最佳可行方法」的原則至今仍是倫敦管制工業空氣污染的基石10。雖然《鹼業法》確能幫助減少工業污染，但民居生火取暖仍然是構成巿內長期煙霧籠罩的主要原因。 1952年的某個星期內，民居燃燒煤碳及工業源頭造成嚴重空氣污染，導致4,000人過早死亡。這宗事件後來被稱為「1952年倫敦煙霧事件」。政府初期的反應是拒絕承認對事件有任何責任，並否定有加強立法的需要11。然而，事件卻引起公眾對空氣污染禍害的關注，最後引致立法機構在1956年通過《潔淨空氣法》，以管制煙霧造成的滋擾。其後此法例容許地方當局畫出「煙霧控制區」，禁止區內民居採用煤碳作為家用燃料。此禁令引起公眾極大的不滿，因為不少市民不願意改變家用發熱的習慣12以符合法例的要求。但以今天的眼光來看，1956年的法例在當時實屬恰當和十分成功的政策13。

倫敦2005年的本地生產總值約佔英國的國內生產總值19%。請參考倫敦市政當局2005年11月撰寫的報告：London’s Place in the UK Economy 〔網上版〕第8頁，2005/06年度報告；從網站：http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2CAE66FB-2DD5-41A5-B916-8FFC37276059/0/BC_RS_lpuk_ 0511_FR.pdf下載。本報告內「倫敦」一詞是指整個大倫敦區，特別指明則例外。倫敦市長：The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy，2002年9月，第V頁〔網上版〕。從網站：http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/air_quality/air_ quality_strategy.jsp#highlight下載。香港跟倫敦一樣，亦是國際金融中心和交通樞紐。香港共有人口700萬，本地生產總值達17.8億美元（2005年數字），面積為1,104平方公里，人口密度則為每平方公里6,407人。當中例子包括：1873年12月，倫敦出現極大濃霧，期間錄得的死亡人數較該季節一般預期的數字多出700人。請參考The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy，第371頁。 10 「最佳可行方法」(best practical means) 現在一般被稱爲「最佳可行技術」(best available techniques)，適用於大型工業。「最佳可行方法」的定義是：「當有關工業活動及其作業方法已發展至最具成效和最成熟的階段時，某項特定技術確實適用於訂立排放上限以防止污染物排放，以及在不可行的情況下減少污染物排放和對環境造成的整體性影響」。請參考The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy，第357頁。 11 倫敦市長： 50 Years on – The struggle for air quality in London since the great smog of December 1952，2002年12月，第13頁〔網上版〕。從網站：http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/docs/50_years_on.pdf 下載。 12 同上；第1頁。 13 同上。

自1967年起，政府引入天然氣作為發熱燃料，進一步加強1956年《潔淨空氣法》的果效，結果令煙霧和二氧化硫排放持續減少。1968年新修訂的《潔淨空氣法》加入條文，規定燃燒煤、液態或氣態燃料的工廠必須使用高煙囪，使廢氣更有效消散。當時，上述法例令巿區的空氣污染大為減低（請參考圖1和圖2），情況如下： • 「煙霧控制區」減少了家居排放。 • 電力和天然氣取代了部份高污染的固體燃料。 • 燃燒較清潔、含硫量較低的煤。 • 使用高煙囪有助減少電廠及其他工業污染源的廢氣排放 ─ 雖然污染物只是轉移到其他地方，導致跨境污染。 • 大部份電廠被搬至鄉郊地區。 • 倫敦周邊範圍的重工業活動持續減少。英國在1973年加入歐盟，亦有助進一步發展空氣污染防治措施。過去30年，歐盟通過多項指令，管制來自路面車輛、工業及其他源頭的污染物排放量。當中，1996年頒布針對環境空氣質素評估14的《1996年歐盟空氣質素框架指令》及其附屬法令15，為12種主要空氣污染物訂立以保障健康為本的空氣質素限值。這些歐盟限值正逐步被各成員國納入國內的法例中。在英國，空氣質素限值是透過國家空氣質素指標（AQO）而實施的。現時，英國已引入法例16，以使空氣質素能達到10項國家空氣質素指標。英國在2003年最新一次修訂國家空氣質素指標，並於2007年為英格蘭訂立新的排放限值17，這些限值都是強制執行的。英國的空氣質素指標和歐盟的限值都較香港的指標更為嚴緊；而且，香港的指標自1987後從未作出修訂，也不是強制執行的（請參考附錄二）。

450 400 350 煙霧

二氧化硫

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

圖1：1950年至2000年倫敦的煙霧和二氧化硫全年平均濃度資料來源：AEA Technology Environment 2002年報告（單位為每立方米微克）。

14 1996年9月27日頒布有關大氣質素評估和管理的《歐盟指令96/62/EC》；從網站：http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1996/ L/01996L0062-20031120-en.pdf下載。 15 指第一（1999年）、第二（2000年）、第三（2002年）及第四（2004年）項附屬指令；從網站：http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/ambient. htm#1下載。 16 英國空氣質素指標實施了9項限值，分別為：二氧化氮、氮氧化物、粒子、二氧化硫、一氧化硫、臭氧、鉛、苯及多環芳香族碳氫化合物。雖然歐盟現時並未要求成員國立法管制1.3丁乙烯，英國卻已就1.3丁乙烯另行制訂空氣質素指標。 17 請參考Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007，從網站：www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/20070064.htm#32下載。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

600

汽油柴油電力

500

燃油家用煤其他固體燃料

400

天然氣

300

200

100

0 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

圖2：1950年至2000年倫敦的能源使用情況資料來源：大倫敦區政府雖然上述政策大致能控制工業的排放，但陸路交通和能源消耗的增長，卻為倫敦帶來新的空氣污染問題。現時，倫敦再次受到英國和歐盟地區最惡劣的空氣質素影響。倫敦現行空氣質素政策的首要重點是，減少路面交通所產生的廢氣及推廣使用較清潔的能源。此外，透過收緊空氣質素標準、更嚴格的燃料規定和其他政策，倫敦積極在國家及歐盟層面上進行改善空氣質素的工作（請參考第2.4和2.5節）。上文有關倫敦空氣污染防治政策演變的簡介，帶出了一些值得香港思考的問題。就工業空氣污染而言，雖然倫敦已成功地處理工業污染源的問題，但香港仍需尋找方案解決由毗鄰的珠江三角洲地區工廠所產生的空氣污染。倫敦和香港所面對的問題略有不同，因為珠江三角洲內的工廠並不受香港管轄（所以香港對它們的影響力有限）。然而，倫敦在解決工業污染問題上所推行的特定措施仍然值得我們仔細分析。特別值得香港考慮的有下列各項：(1)重置珠江三角洲地區內的工廠，是否減少工業排放影響鄰近人口中心（如香港）的一個可行方法；(2) 如何鼓勵區內的工廠採用較清潔的燃料（這些工廠現時大量使用高污染的柴油發電）；(3) 如何促使這些工廠採納更嚴格的環保標準（即奉行「最佳可行方法」原則）。此外，在空氣質素標準方面，香港應仿效歐盟和英國的做法，設定可保障巿民健康的標準（第2.4節將會進一步討論這個問題）。

2.3 現時倫敦空氣污染的特點空氣質素及對健康的影響倫敦是英國國內空氣質素最差的城巿，亦是歐盟各國中污染最嚴重的城巿之一。衆多污染物當中，氮氧化物的污染尤其嚴重18。估計倫敦每年因空氣污染導致1,600人過早死亡，1,500人患上呼吸系統疾病而需入院治療19。同樣地，據香港的公共衛生專家估計，若可改善香港因空氣污染而變差的能見度20，由目前的「平均」水平提升至「良好」水平，則每年應可避免

18 請參考歐洲環境局：Air pollution at street level in European cities，2006年〔網上版〕；從網站：http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2006_ 1/en/technical_1_2006.pdf下載。 19 The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy，第v頁。 20 能見度降低是一個清楚顯示污染惡化的指標。

1,600人死亡，並節省超過20億港元的直接醫療開支和因生產力受損而造成的經濟損失，以及高達192億港元的無形經濟代價21。主要空氣污染物及相關污染源倫敦最惹人關注的污染物是二氧化氮（NO2）、粒子（PM）和臭氧（O3）。倫敦各處每年都出現這些污染物大幅超標的情況。在倫敦地區受監測的其他污染物包括：二氧化硫（SO2）、一氧化碳（CO）、碳氫化合物和鉛。上述的主要污染物都有不同的來源，包括路面運輸、發電、工業生產、以及航空、鐵路和海路運輸所燃燒的化石燃料（煤、汽油、柴油和其他燃油）。倫敦的路面運輸是二氧化氮及粒子污染的主要來源，差不多一半的氮氧化物（NOx）（氮氧化物會產生大量二氧化氮）及直徑少於10微米的粒子（PM10）都是由此而產生的（請參考圖3）。燃燒天然氣──主要用於家居和辦公室供熱，同樣會排放大量氮氧化物和粒子。其他氮氧化物和粒子的污染源，包括受管制的工業生產、鐵路和航空運輸。 1.9%

3.9% 3.9%

12.7% 路面運輸 8.4%

天然氣（工商業和住宅）

21.1% 46.9%

47.4%

工業生產鐵路、航空運輸其他

30.1%

47.4%

氮氧化物

粒子

圖 3： 2005年大倫敦地區氮氧化物和粒子污染源排放量估值22 資料來源：倫敦環境污染物排放清單雖然倫敦的路面運輸是粒子的主要來源，但只佔粒子總實測濃度的三分之一；其餘的來自透過風傳送至倫敦市內的外圍污染物，因氮氣與含硫氣體進行化學作用在大氣層產生的次生粒子，被倫敦路面交通揚起再懸浮於大氣中的塵埃，以及建造工程活動。同樣地，香港的粒子亦是來自本地（主要是路面運輸和發電廠排放）和區域性污染源，包括珠江三角洲內的工業生產。在倫敦巿內多個地方，二氧化氮的每小時排放量經常出現超標的情況。2005年，單是位於Marylebone Road的監測站就曾錄得 383次超標的情況23。幾乎一半的氮氧化物都是來自路面運輸的。儘管在倫敦巿內各處亦經常出現臭氧排放超標的情況，但此氣體一直被視為區域性污染物，是由英國和歐盟的先導污染物經光化學作用而產生。臭氧的污染事故一般會伸延至影響幾千平方公里的範圍24。此外，臭氧濃度幾乎完全受天氣情況影響。當光化學反應在夏季加劇時，臭氧濃度亦會明顯增加。事實上，遵守臭氧空氣質素指標的法定責任由英國政府承擔，而非倫敦巿政府，正好反映臭氧污染屬區域性現象。不少在倫敦以外的地方，包括鄉郊地區，亦經常無法符合臭氧的空氣質素指標。 21 賀達理、麥潔儀等人：《空氣污染：經濟成本及解決問題方案》，2006年6月，第1頁〔網上版〕。從網站：www.civic-exchange.org/ publications/2006/VisibilityandHealthE.pdf下載。 22 Mattai, Julius與Hutchinson, David：London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory 2002: Report，2005年11月〔網上版〕。從網站： http://www.london.gov. uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/research/emissions-inventory.jsp下載。 23 National Air Quality Archive網站，2006年資料；網址：www.airquality.co.uk/archive/data_and_statistics_home.php。 24 Fuller, Gary W.與Green, David：Air Quality in London 2005 and mid 2006 --Briefing，2006年〔網上版〕。從網站： www.londonair.org.uk 下載。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

有些時候，倫敦區內的污染物濃度偏高，是源於大氣層內經長程飄移的次生污染物（乘東風而至）或其他如冬季的逆溫層、夏季的光化學事故及羽流下沉等氣象情況25。因此，即使倫敦區內的污染物排放量大致維持不變，每日或每年的污染物濃度都會受當時的天氣狀況影響而出現變化。空氣污染趨勢倫敦和香港都正面對惡劣的空氣質素。但是，要簡單判定哪一個城巿的空氣質素較差殊不容易。圖4顯示1997至2005年期間，香港和倫敦多個監測站錄得的四種主要污染物的全年平均濃度水平。香港的數值是所有監測站錄得的污染物濃度的平均數26，而倫敦的數值則是按每種污染物在不同監測站錄得的數值平均計算出來的，目的是更佳地反映在倫敦所量度到的污染物濃度的差異。這一點必須在分析時加以考慮，因為所得出的數值，將取決於以哪些監測站的平均數來計算。例如，路邊監測站的二氧化氮和粒子濃度會較一般監測站高。因此，倫敦的二氧化氮平均濃度看似較高，但可能只是由於倫敦比香港用更多路邊監測站的數據計算平均值而已27。其他可能導致平均值出現差異的因素包括：儀器故障28、監測方法29和收集樣本的高度30。儘管如此，我們仍可得出這樣的結論：一般而言，倫敦的臭氧濃度較香港高，而香港的粒子水平則較倫敦高。然而，從下列圖表（圖4）得出最有力的結論是：除臭氧外，倫敦各種污染物的濃度正在下降，而香港的各種污染物濃度即使沒有上升，也只是大致持平。這情況反映出倫敦的污染防治策略正取得正面的成效，尤其是倫敦的二氧化硫濃度在比較期內大幅下跌至低於香港的水平，而香港同期的數字卻錄得上升。倫敦二氧化硫的濃度下降，無疑是當地政府有效管制燃料使用及工業生產的成效。

25 倫敦英皇學院：”Air Pollution in London”，載於London Air Quality Network – Pollution Guide。從網站：http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/ information.asp?view=howbad下載。 26 在1997年，香港設有9個監測站（8個一般監測站和1個路邊監測站），到1998年增至12 個監測站（9個一般監測站和3個路邊監測站），其後於 1999年至2005年期間，再增至14 個監測站（11個一般監測站和3個路邊監測站）。 27 在有關比較期內，計算倫敦二氧化氮的平均值時，收集數據的路邊監測站佔總數的比例時有改變，但大部分年份的比例都達到50%或以上。與香港計算二氧化氮平均值的情況比較，路邊監測站的比例一直維持在少於三分之一的水平。 28 在個別監測站收集到的數據並不是全部有效的。在是項比較過程中，儀器故障率可能低至75%。 29 我們應特別注意的是，粒子的實測濃度會因所採用的測量技術出現顯著的差異。本報告使用的粒子讀數都是採用 TEOM儀器量度而得出的。 30 香港所有一般監測站的採樣高度是離地面11至25米，而倫敦所有監測站的採樣高度則是離地面2至5米。就市區一般監測站而言，採樣高度不同並不會對讀數構成很大的差異，因為這些監測站所測量的污染物大部份並非如路邊監測站般是從地面排放的。值得注意的是，香港和倫敦的路邊監測站的採樣高度都是離地面少於5米的。

二氧化硫

香港

粒子

倫敦 100

香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30 世衛 (2006年) 24小時平均數

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

20 10

80 70 香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30

世衛 2006年 (每年)

20 10 0

0 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1997

2005

粒子

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

70 60 50 世衛 (2006年) 24小時平均數

40 30 20

70 全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30 20 10

10 0 1997

1998

臭氧

100

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

圖4：倫敦和香港的空氣污染趨勢31 資料來源：倫敦空氣質素網絡（倫敦的數據）及香港環境保護署（香港的數據）。空氣質素監測一個城巿需要有精密的空氣質素監測系統，以便瞭解其所面對的空氣污染問題的複雜性，讓公眾得知任何可能危害健康的風險和在出現嚴重污染事故時需採取的措施（如對哮喘病患者和長者發出警報），同時讓政策制訂者在掌握足夠資料的情況下，作出改善空氣質素的決策。空氣污染以不同形式出現，而且有廣泛的排放源頭。空氣中各種污染物的實際濃度會因所在位置而異，視乎該位置與排放源頭的距離和當時的盛行天氣狀況而定。倫敦擁有覆蓋廣泛的空氣監測站網絡，由倫敦空氣質素網絡（LAQN）負責管理。現時，倫敦空氣質素網絡轄下共有123個正常運作的監測站，並畫分為5種不同類別32。倫敦各個城區亦有自資設立監測站，參與監測活動。倫敦空氣質素網絡是由倫敦英皇學院的環境研究小組負責管理的。該小組定期在學術期刊上發表利用倫敦空氣質素網絡所得數據而進行的研究。該小組亦設有一個易於使用的網站，提供在個別監測站錄得的所有污染物濃度的實時數據，以及一系列幫助分析倫敦空氣質素網絡資料庫的統計和圖表工具33。倫敦空氣質素網絡同時包括多個由英國環境食物及鄉郊事務部（DEFRA）資助的自動監測站，這些監測站是英國全國巿區自動監測網絡的一部份。英國全國巿區自動監測網絡內的監測站數據、一般統計數字和超標情況的統計資料，以及倫敦地區的空氣污染水平預報，都可以透過互聯網查閱34。相反地，香港的空氣質素監測網絡只有14個監測站，分成兩大類（11個一般和3個路邊監測站）。雖然存檔的監測資料和超標的統計數字都可透過網站取閱，但有關空氣質素的現時和預測水平，卻只能以空氣污染指數（API）的方式提供35。

31 原以ppb量度的數據，按攝氏20度和1,013mb壓力下的轉換系數轉化成以μg/m3（微克/立方米）為單位（用以向歐洲委員會匯報英國數據的單位）。橫虛線分別顯示世界衛生組織空氣質素指引的全年標準（短虛線）及香港的空氣質素指標（長虛線）。由於二氧化硫每日平均標準十分低，故世衛並沒有制訂二氧化硫的全年平均標準指引；圖4顯示的因此是每日平均標準。在比較倫敦及香港的二氧化硫全年平均濃度時，必須考慮這個因素。 32 附錄三載有倫敦空氣質素網絡（LAQN）內各類監測站的簡介。 33 請參考網站：www.londonair.org.uk。 34 請參考網站：http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php。 35 空氣污染指數（API）是根據可吸入懸浮粒子、二氧化硫、一氧化碳、臭氧和二氧化氮的水平編製而成的，以0至500標示。空氣污染指數達到 100即表示其中一種污染物超出該污染物的短期空氣質素指標。

中文

不幸的是，香港的空氣污染指數是根據香港的空氣質素指標（AQO）所編訂的，而這些空氣質素指標自1987年後都從未再作修訂，其嚴格程度遠低於世界衛生組織和其他如倫敦等大城巿所採用的標準36。這意味著香港的空氣污染指數只會錯誤地反映空氣質素的情況。舉例來說，根據香港現行的空氣質素指標而被界定為「中等」程度的空氣污染指數，若使用更嚴格的空氣質素指標，則可能會被界定為「偏高」水平。倫敦與香港空氣污染問題的異同倫敦和香港都受路面交通污染及區域性污染影響。可是，香港的污染受多項因素的嚴重影響，包括：地形特徵防礙污染物的擴散（如建築物的高度和圍繞城市的高山），較高的人口密度，及電廠的排放等；然而上述因素並沒有對倫敦構成顯著的影響。這些差異可能使香港的空氣污染問題變得更為嚴峻和難以處理。圖 5: 倫敦與香港空氣污染問題的主要異同之處

相似之處

相異之處

區域性空氣污染問題：

電廠的排放：

兩個城巿的空氣質素都受鄰近地區吹來的污染物影響。在

在香港，發電廠的排放佔本地整體污染物排放的比例甚

香港，微弱的北風將珠江三角洲的污染物吹送到境內；而

高，分別是二氧化硫(92%)、可吸入懸浮粒子(51%)和

在倫敦，東風將歐洲工業地帶的污染物帶到境內。

氮氧化物(49%)。在倫敦，估計電廠的本地排放比較低（2002年的數字為二氧化硫17%、粒子9%、氮氧化物 6%）。與香港比較，倫敦的二氧化硫水平較低。

路面運輸的排放：

地形：

兩個城巿都擁有擠塞的道路及大部分源自路面運輸源頭的

香港的地形多山，並有許多高樓大廈。這些因素限制了空

氮氧化物和粒子。此外，兩個城巿的柴油車輛亦佔很大比

氣流動（高牆或建築物的下沖效應），阻礙空氣污染物有

例，相對於汽油車輛，柴油車輛所造成的污染更為嚴重。

效地擴散，從而加劇了街道的峽谷效應，使街道的污染物

這意味著兩個城巿的路邊都量度出高濃度的氮氧化物和粒

濃度增加。倫敦的地形非常平坦，建築物普遍較低矮，這

子。

讓街道上的污染物較容易被吹散。

家居能源使用：

天氣狀況：

倫敦（冷）和香港（熱）的極端氣溫，增加了能源消耗

香港最嚴重的污染事故通常發生在颱風臨近的時候，那時

量，進而影響兩個城巿的空氣質素。自19世紀以來，為住

濕度很低、風勢微弱和污染物擴散非常慢。類似的情況亦

宅供熱一直是倫敦需要面對的一大問題（見第2.2節），而

可能在香港的春季和秋季發生。至於倫敦，由於緯度較

香港的空調系統卻是現時香港高用電量的主因。

高，嚴重的空氣污染事故往往在冬天發生，逆溫層出現把污染物困在近地面處，而在夏季期間，太陽輻射加劇了光化反應，因而產生臭氧。

2.4 倫敦的空氣質素管理政策本章節將概括述明倫敦所推行的各項主要空氣質素政策，其中包括由歐盟、英國政府、倫敦地方政府和倫敦巿長所制訂的政策37。附錄一載有一份更全面的政策摘要。

36 倫敦採用分級制，向公眾傳達空氣質素水平的訊息。這制度是用絕對濃度來分級，而不是採用指數形式，將空氣質素情況分類為偏低、中等、偏高或甚高。 37 英格蘭和威爾斯地方政府是透過各地區政府運作，當中包括倫敦多個城區的自治議會。大倫敦政府是掌管倫敦全市策略事務的一個獨特政府架構。它是由一名由直選產生的市長（倫敦市長）和一個由選舉產生的議會（倫敦議會）所組成。倫敦市長負責為制定運輸、土地發展、經濟發展和環境管理的法定策略作好準備。

倫敦的空氣質素管理法律框架倫敦的空氣質素政策大都是受歐盟和英國的相關政策所驅動。歐盟訂立了多項環境空氣質素標準，對歐盟各成員國都具有法律約束力。歐盟的各項標準正逐步被納入英國的法例中，並透過國家空氣質素策略實施。倫敦巿長有法定職責制訂空氣質素策略及訂明措施，使大倫敦區達到國家空氣質素策略規定的七項空氣質素標準。同樣地，倫敦的各個城區均受法律約束，必須對當地的空氣質素進行檢討，評估達到政府指標的能力，並在預期未能達標時，擬訂行動計畫，以改善空氣質素。這個被稱為本地空氣質素管理(LAQM)的制度，賦予地方政府特定的責任和權力，以協助當地屢行達成國家及國際空氣質素指標的責任。國家和歐盟的政策倫敦巿長制訂的空氣質素策略定位於兩個廣闊的法律制度下：即英國法例（特別是國家空氣質素策略）及歐盟法規。這兩個法律制度訂立了範圍廣泛的條例，主要可分為三大範疇： • 環境空氣質素標準：這些標準在歐盟法規中被稱為「限值」，而英國法例中則被稱為「空氣質素指標」。它們泛指國家和地方政府需要達到的、空氣污染物在地面水平的一般濃度。歐盟各成員國有法律責任，在指定期限（2005年及 2010年）達到限值的要求。污染物濃度一旦超出限值，有關成員國將會被要求實施污染消減計畫並向歐盟作出匯報，而歐盟亦可以展開違規訴訟程序。目前，英國正著手將各項限值納入國家法例中，並為多種污染物訂立更嚴格的減排目標。倫敦巿長有法定職責，確保大倫敦區達到英國法例中訂明的九項指標中的其中七項。 • 排放上限：歐盟為二氧化硫、氮氧化物、氨氣和揮發性有機化合物訂立了國家排放上限。成員國必須透過歐盟及各國自訂的措施，於2010年或以前達標38。此外，根據京都議定書的協議，歐盟必須在2008年至2012年間，將溫室氣體排放量按1990年的水平削減8%。英國根據一項歐盟成員國的內部協議，把這個目標提高至12.5%39。 • 按行業畫分的排放規例：歐盟訂有多項政策，管制來自不同源頭的排放，包括車輛（即歐盟一期至四期排放標準）、非路面機械器材、大型燃燒設施及工業生產（即《綜合污染防治與管控指令》）、溶劑與含溶劑產品的使用，以及液態燃料的含硫量40。英國制訂了多項政策，以加強和配合這些措施的推行。倫敦巿的政策倫敦巿長經廣泛諮詢後，於2002年公布他的空氣質素策略，並於2006年作出修訂，當中清楚訂明倫敦市的空氣質素政策。巿長空氣質素策略的首要重點是減少路面運輸所造成的污染。巿長亦推廣能源效益和建議加快採用可再生能源。是項策略的目的是改善倫敦的空氣質素，以使「污染不再對人類健康構成顯著的危害」41。倫敦巿長的空氣質素策略：空氣質素策略中，部分已推行的最重要措施包括42： • 在巿長的運輸策略和草擬的倫敦發展計畫（土地發展策略）中，有多項減少交通流量的措施，包括倫敦交通擠塞收費計畫（請參考第2.5.1節）及建議中的低排放區（請參考第2.5.2節）。 • 規定所有巴士必須最遲於2005年符合歐盟二期排放標準並裝設微粒收集器，而所有新購買的巴士必須符合歐盟三期標準並裝有微粒收集器。 • 規定倫敦長途巴士領有本地經營許可證，令一半的長途巴士最少符合歐盟一期標準。 • 規定所有的士必須最遲於2005年最少符合歐盟一期標準，同時推行計畫確保每年有500部的士轉換為石油氣的士。 • 25%的重型貨車（主要是以車廠為基地的車隊）及所有倫敦交通局轄下的巴士將使用水乳化柴油。 • 推行財務獎勵計畫，增加使用液化石油氣車、壓縮天然氣車、電動汽車、混合動力汽車及改裝替代燃料車輛的比例。

38 請參考歐洲議會及歐洲理事會於2001年10月23日頒布的2001/81/EC指令。 39 請參考1998年6月16日簽訂的‘Burden Sharing Agreement’。 40 有關詳情，請參考歐盟網（Europa）關於2005年9月21日發布的新聞稿：”Questions and Answers on the Thematic Strategy on air pollution”；從網站： http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/334&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en#fnB2下載。 41 The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy，前言部份。 42 有關各項措施詳載於The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

• 把機場禁區內的燃料消耗減少30%；在希斯路機場禁區內行駛的車輛及其他路面車輛，其中10%須使用替代燃料。 • 為環保車輛提供汽車許可證優惠。 • 推行交通需求管理計畫，包括到學校、俱樂部和辦公室的旅程，令汽車使用量大幅度降低43。配合氣候變化政策：雖然不是具體針對改善空氣質素，但倫敦巿長同時大力倡議一系列進取的計畫，以減少氣候變化的影響。2007年2月，市長宣布推出一項大型計畫，目標是在20年內減少倫敦60%的碳排放量，計畫涉及在未來三年撥款780萬英鎊，推行一攬子措施，以減少住宅、商業、運輸和能源界別的能源消耗量44。該計畫的大部份措施不單能節省成本，同時可減少能源消耗和生產，最終減少空氣污染。鑑於能源生產亦是珠江三角洲空氣污染的主要源頭，減少能源消耗的措施事實上亦是減少污染的其中一個具成本效益的方法。夥伴計畫在倫敦減少空氣污染所作的種種努力中，私營機構扮演著重要的輔助角色。企業和民間團體參與政府多項的夥伴合作計畫，在貨物運輸、能源效益及推廣可再生能源等領域帶來改善45。再者，不少企業都跟隨建議的最佳營運方法，當中包括：改善建築物的能源效益；推行減少汽車使用量的員工交通安排計畫，以及使用產生較少塵埃的建造方法等。環保組織在倫敦亦非常活躍，多個團體正跟倫敦巿長合力制訂和倡議各項空氣質素政策46。此外，私營機構亦積極提供財務獎勵，以鼓勵新技術的應用47。至於政府方面，亦主動就涉及企業和個人的政策和建議，接觸私營機構和聽取他們的意見48。倫敦和香港空氣質素管理政策之比較下表列出部分與香港和倫敦空氣質素政策有關的指標。雖然它們不能全面地反映兩個城巿所推行的政策，但仍足以展示倫敦採納的空氣質素標準遠較香港嚴格，而且倫敦的標準都具法律約束力，而香港的卻沒有。最後值得一提的是，倫敦的空氣質素監測網絡明顯較香港發展完善。對於管理空氣質素方面，倫敦受惠於擁有發展完善的行政和法律框架。倫敦目前推行的空氣質素管理政策是國際組織、英國政府和地方政府一致而協調的行動所取得的成果。歐盟和英國政府主責釐定空氣質素政策的大方向（如訂立須達到的空氣質素標準，決定燃料標準的要求和實施工業污染防治計畫等），而地方政府（包括倫敦巿長和倫敦各城區的自治政府）則負責實施具體行動計畫，以改善當地的空氣質素，並達至預期的目標（如更有效地管理路面交通和推廣提高能源效益）。香港的實際情況跟以上的截然不同，因為香港缺少國家或超國家層面的法律框架，提供制訂空氣質素政策的指引。不過，在香港實施超國家、國家和本地行動計畫的理念仍是可行的。這種多層次的方法可以為珠江三角洲地區的污染源制訂區域性指標和措施；為本地污染問題制訂適用於香港的指標和措施；以至為個別都市地區制訂措施（因為適用於人口密集地區如港島北和九龍的措施，可能跟人口較少地區如屯門的不盡相同）。此外，英國將管理空氣質素的責任交託給地方政府（倫敦空氣質素監測系統）的做法，也許是值得香港採納的概念，以便政府在各部門推廣各項空氣質素計畫。舉例來說，香港的區議會可進一步推行空氣質素計畫49。

43 倫敦交通局於2007年1月16日發布的新聞稿：“TfL builds on success of new Sustainable Transport Programmes in the Capital”；從網站：http://www. tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=1061 下載。 44 請參考倫敦市長辦公室於2007年2月27日發布的新聞稿：“Mayor unveils London Climate Change Action Plan”；從網站：http://www.london.gov.uk/ view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11011下載，及”Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan”；從網站：http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climatechange/ccap/index.jsp 下載。 45 請參考附錄一有關倫敦可持續貨物分銷夥伴計畫（第2.2項）、氫氣夥伴計畫（第3.13項）及倫敦氣候變化夥伴計畫（第9.1項）的簡介。 46 例子包括：綠色和平與倫敦市長合力推動分權管理的能源政策。請參考倫敦市長與綠色和平：Powering London into the 21st Century，2006年 3月。從網站： http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7474.pdf 下載。 47 請參考附錄一有關節能信託基金會（第8.3項）的簡介。 48 請參考The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy，第277至299頁。 49 舉例來說，有建議指政府可借助區議會在地區層面推行節能和提升能源效益的計畫，例如協助改善交通交匯處、監察城市規畫程序，以減低「街道峽谷效應」，以及推廣行人專用區計畫等。請參閱陸恭蕙：《香港空氣質素管理計畫》，第5頁。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

圖6：部分空氣質素及政策指標倫敦

香港

是

否

2007年

1987年

二氧化硫（24小時）

125微克/立方米

350微克/立方米

二氧化氮（全年）

40微克/立方米

80微克/立方米

直徑少於10微米的粒子（PM10）（全年）

40微克/立方米

55微克/立方米

100微克/立方米

123

空氣質素標準/指標是否具法律約束力？最新修訂年份

直徑少於2.5微米的粒子（PM2.5）臭氧（8小時移動平均數）市內空氣質素監測站數目

倫敦巿長所制訂的空氣質素策略的另一大優點是，所有策略性政策都融為一體。該策略明確考慮空氣質素與其他政策目標的相互關係，包括經濟發展、能源、廢物管理、噪音和保護生物多樣化等政策。香港正正缺乏這種將各種不同政策目標互相融合的做法，特別是一些如運輸和能源等核心政策。香港政府應努力改善在這方面的不足，確保其經濟、運輸、能源和其他策略與空氣質素策略目標一致。

2.5 專題討論在倫敦實行的多項空氣質素管理行動計畫中，我們挑選了交通擠塞收費計畫和建議中的倫敦低排放區計畫，加以詳細討論。交通擠塞收費計畫於2003年開始實施；而建議中的倫敦低排放區計畫則可能在2008年落實推行。交通擠塞收費計畫是一個創新、具爭議性，但最終成功推行的行動計畫，而且由於該計畫在減少交通流量和增加政府收入兩個方面取得成果，所以英國的以至世界各國的其他城巿都紛紛對計畫表示濃厚的興趣。建議中的低排放區計畫是另一項嶄新而進取的政策，並具大幅改善空氣質素的潛力。

2.5.1 交通擠塞收費計畫簡介 2003年2月，倫敦巿開始於平日向在巿中心地帶駕駛私家車的人士徵收費用，目的是減少交通擠塞，同時增加收入，為推行各項改善交通的措施籌集資金。交通擠塞收費計畫（CCS）成功減少交通擠塞、改善巴士服務，並為政府帶來可觀的收入。塞車收費計畫實施初期，只得到極少市民的支持，其後反應卻漸趨熱烈50。塞車收費計畫取得成效，促使英國政府決定在未來10年內在全國實施道路通行費或道路收費計畫。部分英國城巿（如曼徹斯特和伯明罕）已計畫在未來5年內展開試驗計畫。 2007年2月，交通擠塞收費區向西擴展，現時的覆蓋範圍已增至40平方公里，差不多是原來面積的兩倍（請參考圖7）。

50 請參考Martin G. Richards：Congestion Charging in London: The Policy and the Politics， Palgrave Macmillan出版，2006年。

中文

圖7：交通擠塞收費區及大倫敦範圍內交通擠塞收費區位置圖收費計畫如何運作？駕車人士於平日的上午7時至下午6時30分把車輛駛進交通擠塞收費區，即須繳付8英鎊的費用51。然而，電單車、持牌的士、殘疾人士駕駛的車輛、部分替代燃料車輛、巴士及緊急車輛則獲豁免繳付交通擠塞費。居住在收費區內的市民駕駛車輛進出則可獲90%的折扣。交通擠塞收費可全日24小時經多個途徑繳付，包括零售店舖、付款機、流動電話短訊或互聯網。駕駛人士亦可購買附有八五折優惠的全月或全年通行證。現時每日大約有110,000名駕駛人士繳付交通擠塞費（98,000名私家車司機和12,000名商業車隊司機），而且愈來愈多人利用流動電話短訊繳費。此計畫的營運機構利用攝錄機網絡進行監測，記錄車輛的車牌號碼，然後核對已繳費人士的名單。違例者將會收到80英鎊的罰款通知書，如兩週內繳清費用，罰款可減至40英鎊，但若在一個月後仍未繳清欠款，罰款會提高至120英鎊。此計畫的初期和營運成本高昂，估計在2000年至2008年間的總支出高達6億英鎊。可是，塞車收費和罰款兩方面的收入，已足以抵銷上述成本。自計畫開始實施以來，每年淨收入大約為1億英鎊，當中部份已用作改善各項公共交通服務52。效益交通擠塞收費計畫推行三年後，為倫敦帶來以下的效益53： • 減少塞車和交通流量：收費區內的擠塞情況較2002年引入收費計畫前減少了26%。同期，收費區內的交通流量減少了 15%，其中私家車的流量下降了33%；交通意外的數字和交通延誤的情況亦同樣得到大幅減少。此外，並無證據顯示因

51 交通擠塞收費最初為5英鎊。自2005年7月起，收費增至8英鎊。 52 倫敦交通局：Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report，2006年6月，第8頁〔網上版〕；從網站：http://www.tfl.gov.uk下載。 53 同上。

收費計畫而進行的交通改道，會對收費區周邊的路面交通造成不良的影響。整體而言，計畫推行一年後，內環迴路（即圍繞收費區範圍的道路）的交通只是輕微增長了1.5%，而增長率亦正逐年下降54。至於其他圍繞收費區的環迴路，交通流量基本上維持與實施收費計畫前的水平相若。 • 交通行為：交通擠塞收費計畫並未影響前往巿中心地區的人數，只是改變了他們使用交通的方法︰50至60%的人改乘公共交通工具（主要是巴士）、20至30%的人選擇繞過收費區，而15至25%的人則採取其他應變方法55。2003年，倫敦的巴士網絡作出了大規模的改善措施，以應付不斷增長的乘客需求。雖然歐盟其他城巿在鼓勵市民使用公共交通方面較倫敦起步更早，但交通擠塞收費計畫成功令大量倫敦市民放棄使用私家車而改為乘搭巴士。2002年，38%的倫敦巿民每日都駕車出外；到了2006年，比率下降至19%56。交通擠塞收費計畫亦促使腳踏車數目大幅增加：自2000年以來，倫敦主要道路的腳踏車使用量上升了72%57。 • 減少排放：收費區內的交通流量減少，令車行速度提高，使氮氧化物、粒子和二氧化碳的排放分別減少了8%、6%和 16%。至於在內環迴路，交通改道引致交通量輕微上升，但氮氧化物的排放大致維持不變，只是粒子的排放增加了 3%。雖然這說明交通擠塞收費計畫並非簡單地將路面排放由一個地方轉移至另一地方，但我們仍需指出，個別地區確實因此計畫而出現污染物排放量增加的情況。交通擠塞收費引發更多人乘搭巴士，但預期將會因此而增加巴士排放量，卻因現有和新購的巴士廣泛裝設微粒收集器和採用新的巴士引擎技術而得到抵銷。雖然收費區內車輛的排放顯著減少，但我們尚未觀察到交通擠塞收費對空氣質素的數據有所影響。這是由於塞車收費計畫對空氣質素的數據影響輕微，更被其他對空氣質素影響較顯著的因素所掩蓋，如天氣規律、車隊車種結構和技術規格的變化等。 • 經濟影響：交通擠塞收費計畫對倫敦經濟的影響基本上屬中性。雖然一些零售店舖認為計畫對它們造成損害，不過，總體上收費區內企業抱支持態度多於反對態度。事實上，自2003年以來，區內的零售業的銷售和聘請雇員方面所佔的比例皆錄得上升58。此外，交通擠塞收費計畫的淨收入（每年約1億英鎊），大部分皆用作改善倫敦區內的巴士服務。 • 對替代燃料車輛帶來正面影響：塞車收費計畫為替代燃料車輛提供收費折扣或豁免，證實有助刺激這類車輛在倫敦區的銷售和使用59。例如：有估計指交通擠塞收費計畫將會導致超過 6,500輛額外的混合動力車輛在倫敦的馬路上行駛60，而電動車輛供應商亦紛紛以可節省交通擠塞收費作為促銷的賣點61。公眾的回應巿長利文斯頓（Ken

Livingstone）最初提出交通擠塞收費建議時，計畫備受爭議62。反對團體包括駕駛人士組織、勞工團體

及部份傳播媒體。在2004年的巿長選舉中，利文斯頓的競選對手承諾在當選後馬上取消有關計畫。西敏巿和三百名肯辛頓區的居民曾就建議中的計畫提出訴訟，但都被法院駁回63。利文斯頓的領導能力成為他最終能力排眾議、成功推行計畫的主

54 由倫敦政府聯盟（ALG，現改稱為倫敦議會）委託進行的一項獨立研究指出，估計實施交通擠塞收費後的首年，內環迴線上的四輪或以上車輛的交通流量將會增加3.9%。然而，計畫落實後，圍繞收費區的幹道（包括內環迴路）的交通流量卻減少約3%。請參考倫敦政府聯盟：An Independent Assessment of the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme，2004年〔網上版〕。從網站： http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=13026&cat=1798下載。 55 Murray-Clark, Malcolm（交通擠塞收費組總監）於全球大城市氣候變化峰會發表演講：“Tackling Congestion and Vehicle Emissions in London”， 2005年10月4日〔網上版〕。從網站：http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-summit/documents.jsp下載。 56 請參考John Vidal 2006年11月1日於《衛報》（The Guardian）發表的文章“Plane speaking”；從網站：http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/ story/0,,1935908,00.html下載。 57 請參考倫敦交通局於2007年2月20日發布新聞稿： “Successful start to Congestion Charge Western Extension”。從網站：http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/ press-centre/metro/article.asp?id=1470下載。 58 Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report，第67頁。 59 Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders：UK New Car Registrations by CO2 Performance，2005年〔網上版〕。從網站：http://lib.smmt.co.uk/articles/ sharedfolder/Publications/CO2Report%20New.pdf下載。 60 請參考Green Car Congress於2007年2月19日發表評論：“Honda to Triple Supply of Civic Hybrids in the UK; London Congestion Charge Accelerating Demand for Hybrids”；從網站： http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/honda_to_triple.html#more下載。 61 請參考G-Wiz電動汽車的廣告；從網站http://www.goingreen.co.uk/下載。 62 利文斯頓於2000年5月4日首次當選為倫敦市長，並於2004年6月10日成功連任。 63 西敏市聲稱計畫的諮詢和審批過程出現程序不當。申訴被高等法院拒絕受理後，西敏市同意予以協助，使此計畫能夠及時實施。另一方面，肯辛頓區的居民聲稱這計畫的畫定收費區界限會增加肯辛頓路的交通流量，進而嚴重影響當地居民的生活，違反「歐洲保障人權公約」賦予的享受家庭生活的權利。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

因素。交通擠塞收費計畫在實施後不久，陸續得到更多市民的接受，當中包括一些原先反對計畫的團體，以及商界人士。然而，今天仍有不少批評收費計畫的意見，當中主要包括64： • 收費準則欠周全：塞車收費計畫並未有按車輛馬力的大小、車輛在收費區內的行車路線和車行公里，釐定不同的收費標準。有意見指，當收費標準同時考慮及反映上述因素時，將可鼓勵駕駛人士由在繁忙時間改為在非繁忙時間使用車輛、避免使用最擠塞的道路和減少行車里數。 • 收費計畫不公平：有意見指道路收費屬不公平的措施，因為駕駛人士已繳付汽車登記費和燃料稅，再要繳付交通擠塞收費是「雙重收費」。此外，計畫亦對必須駕車進入收費區的低收入人士不公平。 • 成本效益：計畫差不多一半的收入用於支付經常營運費用（項目研發、設備和營運）。然而，由於塞車收費計畫自實施以來，利潤一直很高，這抵銷了部分人士對財政的憂慮。 • 周邊地區的交通：交通擠塞收費區周邊道路的交通流量確實有輕微上升。可是，車輛的行車時間並沒有因此而增加，部份原因是由於這些道段的交通訊號系統都經過預先調節，以配合交通流量的增加。部分人士預期周邊地區路面交通流量增加而造成負面影響的情況並沒有出現65。對香港的啟示倫敦的交通擠塞收費計畫是一個最佳的例子，證明一項嶄新而具爭議性的措施，如何成功減少交通擠塞，同時為運輸部門帶來收益，繼而幫助改善巴士服務。在空氣質素方面，此計畫確能令車輛減少排放，但到目前為止，監測站錄得的空氣質素數據卻未能顯示出任何可歸因於此計畫的明顯變化。交通擠塞收費措施是否適用於香港？香港的路面交通密度非常之高：香港有超過540,000部持牌的車輛，但可使用的道路卻只有1,955公里。交通擠塞降低了香港道路系統的效率，車輛排放廢氣同時對健康和環境造成損害，為社會帶來巨額的外部成本。解決擠塞問題一方面可從供應著手，主要是增加道路的容量；另一方面，則可以控制現有道路的使用需求。由於香港是一個被高山和海洋環抱的城巿，所以不斷擴建道路並不是一個可持續的做法。在道路容量有限和車輛使用比例繼續增長的情況下，香港有足夠的經濟理據考慮採取一些減少交通流量的措施，就如一些過亦被認同的方法66。再者，推行道路收費計畫將迫使道路使用者自己承擔他們對健康和環境所造成的損害，同時有助減少車輛排放出危害健康的污染物。香港政府自 1980年代起已認同有需要限制私家車的流量，而這亦是政府訂立高汽車首次登記稅和投資地下鐵路計畫的源起。然而，我們必須指出，雖然倫敦的交通擠塞收費計畫確實減少了氮氧化物、粒子和二氧化碳的排放，但至今未有任何量度數據顯示此計畫為倫敦帶來空氣質素的改善。這可能是由於有關當局欠缺足夠數據，以核實純粹由此計畫所造成的空氣質素變化；以及受到如天氣規律、車隊車種結構和技術規格的變化等其他更重要的因素的影響67。同樣地，在香港推行交通擠塞收費所帶來的減排效果可能會被區域性空氣污染抵銷。我們必須指出，香港政府在過去十年推行的多項車輛污染消減措施，確實能有效減少車輛的排放，但這些效果卻未能在監測站錄得的空氣質素數據中反映出來，這從路邊空氣污染水平大致持平的情況可見一斑。雖然我們不應單以減少空氣污染，作為支持交通擠塞收費計畫的理據，但當我們考慮在香港實施交通擠塞收費計畫（或任何道路收費計畫）時，必須把計畫視為空氣質素改善措施之餘，同時視之為整體交通運輸政策的重要元素，以及資助其他改善空氣質素計畫的收入來源。例如，香港政府可以把道路收費計畫所得到的收益，用來發展其他低污染的運輸模式（如擴展地下鐵路系統或改善巴士車隊）。雖然香港的公共交通系統是需要自負盈虧的，情況與倫敦的略有不同，但假如政府願意投入資金興建更多鐵路線或鼓勵採用更環保的技術，將有助於進一步減少空氣污染。 64 有關上述各項批評已詳載於Tod Litman於2006年1月撰寫的報告：London Congestion Pricing – Implications for Other Cities〔網上版〕，維多利亞運輸政策研究所；從網站：www.vtpi.org/london.pdf下載。 65 Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report，第126至146頁。 66 1983年，香港政府推出電子道路收費試驗計畫，研究多項電子道路收費技術的可行性，並就有關系統提出多項設計建議，但這些建議最終被擱置。1997年，政府委託顧問進行第二次研究，評估推行電子道路收費系統的需要，以及研究在香港引入計畫的確實可行性。研究報告建議，香港島在2006年以前並不需要推行這項計畫。 67 Central London Congestion Charging: Fourth Annual Report，第114至118頁。

在實際應用方面，在香港推行此類計畫有需要先進一步研究收費技術和計畫的設計68。此外，政府亦必須考慮公共交通系統（如地下鐵路和巴士）接載額外乘客的能力（例如：由於香港巴士的車齡愈來愈高，政府有必要研究減少使用私家車所帶來的減排效益會否因巴士排放增加而被抵銷）。最後，實施此類計畫須倚靠強勢領導和十足的政治膽識。

2.5.2 低排放區簡介低排放區（LEZ）是一個按空氣質素管理的需要，以地理畫分的區域，區內限制或禁止高污染車輛行走。低排放區可以加快車隊內車輛更替的速度，或要求舊型車輛的經營者加裝減排裝置。雖然低排放區內的交通流量未必有所改變，但由於車輛的排放量會降低，因此區內的空氣質素將會得到改善。在大倫敦區設立低排放區的程序始於2001年，整個計畫包括多個階段。現時估計，低排放區最早可於2008年初開始運作70。

計畫如何運作？建議中的倫敦低排放區，其設計目的是藉著徵收高昂費用，鼓勵市民放棄在大倫敦區使用污染嚴重的車輛。計畫將有助減少在大倫敦區內行駛的高污染車輛的數目，同時加快引進更環保的車輛71。預期這些轉變會為空氣質素帶來明顯的改善。低排放區計畫針對的車輛包括重型柴油貨車、巴士、長途旅遊巴士、較重的輕型貨車和小巴。現階段，私家車並不在低排放區的限制名單上。低排放區規定，重型柴油貨車、巴士和長途旅遊巴士的粒子排放量必須在2008年或以前最少達到歐盟三期標準，而在2012年或以前，則需要達到歐盟四期標準。低排放區亦會在2010年起，對較重的輕型貨車和小巴實施排放規定。若歐盟於此期間內訂立有關超微細粒子或直徑少於2.5微米的粒子的排放標準，低排放區亦會將有關標準納入規定之內。

若營運者希望把未能達到低排放區排放標準的車輛駛進區內，則須每日繳付費用，而政府亦會向欠交費用人士按比例徵收罰款。低排放區收費和相關罰款的增幅將會較上文已分析的交通擠塞收費計畫為高73。符合建議中排放標準的車輛可在低排放區內行駛，而無須繳付任何費用。低排放區將覆蓋整個大倫敦地區，包括英國境內多個空氣質素超標最嚴重的地區（如倫敦巿中心、希斯路機場和位於主要道路網附近的地區）。低排放區將會全年365日、全日24小時運作。有建議指低排放區可以採用跟交通擠塞收費計畫類似的車牌自動識別攝錄機系統執行收費。只有那些未能根據已有紀錄斷定排放特徵的車輛才須事先登記。建議中的低排放區計畫並非為增加收入而設，計畫所得的收入並不足以抵銷推行計畫和營運的成本，這一點與交通擠塞收費計畫有所不同。有估計指，倫敦交通局由發展低排放區計畫初期至2015/16年度止，將要支付大約1.25至1.3億英鎊的成本

68 1997年進行的香港電子道路收費計畫研究報告，曾指出全球定位系統（GPS）為合適的收費技術，因為預期此系統未來的成本會降低，並可與未來的智慧交通運輸系統（ITS）輕易結合。該報告亦同時推薦採用收費區域的設計，單一收費區的範圍包括港島北岸的主要商業區。 69 2001年7月，倫敦政府委託進行一項可行性研究，探討透過設立一個或多個低排放區，減少交通的排放。該第一階段研究的結論指，在倫敦設立低排放區是協助當地更快達到空氣質素指標的最佳方法。2003年7月發表的第二階段報告的結論是：一個覆蓋整個倫敦的低排放區是最有效的方案。上述研究的最後一輪諮詢已於2007年2月2日結束，研究結果則尚未公布。 70 倫敦市長：The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Revised following consultation，2006年7月，第2頁〔網上版〕；從網站：http://www.london.gov.uk下載。 71 未能符合低排放區標準的車輛的營運者，可以為舊型車輛加裝排放消減裝置，替車輛更換新引擎或購買/租用符合標準的車輛，以達到低排放區的要求。 72 The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Revised following consultation，第15頁。 73 根據現時建議，不符合標準的重型貨車、巴士及長途旅遊巴士的每日收費為200英鎊，而不符合標準的重型客貨車和小巴的收費則約為100英鎊。不符合標準的重型貨車、巴士和長途旅遊巴士若欠繳費用，其罰款為1,000英鎊（若在14日內付款，可減至500英鎊），而重型客貨車和小巴的罰款則為500英鎊（若在14日內付款，可減至250英鎊）。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

。在2008年至2015年期內，將會有3至5千萬英鎊的總收入，全部將撥作支付計畫的運作成本。另一方面，營運者在同期

須就低排放區計畫額外付出的成本估計約為3億英鎊75。據估計，到2008年計畫開始推行時，34%的重型貨車和42%的長途旅遊巴士將不能符合低排放區的排放標準76。效益建議中的低排放區計畫是一項空氣質素管理措施，目的是使在倫敦居住、工作，以及到倫敦旅遊的人士，在健康和空氣質素方面都有所裨益。計畫的主要效益可歸納為： • 改善公眾健康：低排放區可以減少巿民接觸粒子和氮氧化物的風險。那些早已因現時空氣質素差劣而飽受健康問題困擾的人士將尤其受惠於污染物排放的減少。低排放區將會減少過早死亡的個案、壽命的縮減、因呼吸系統問題住院的病人數目，及成年人及兒童因呼吸系統和心血管毛病對醫療服務的需要。低排放區計畫帶來的公眾健康效益極可能令整個大倫敦地區，甚至倫敦以外的地方受惠77。利用英國環境食品農業事務部的計算方法估計，低排放區在2008至2015年期內可為倫敦帶來的公眾健康效益約高達1億英鎊，而同期在倫敦以外地區所得的效益則約為7千萬英鎊。若採用歐盟清潔空氣計畫的計算方法，倫敦可獲得的效益估計約值1.6億英鎊，而倫敦以外地區的效益則約值1億英鎊78。 • 協助倫敦達到空氣質素指標：建議中的低排放區將可減少倫敦區內柴油車輛的整體粒子和氮氧化物排放量，從而減少倫敦市內超出國家粒子排放指標和歐盟排放限值的總面積範圍。根據預測，倫敦若不推行低排放區計畫，估計在2008年大倫敦內將有面積達100平方公里的地區超出粒子的年平均指標（每立方米23微克）79。建議於2008年實施的低排放區計畫（包括要求粒子排放符合歐盟三期標準），卻可以把超出粒子年平均指標的倫敦地區的面積減少6%，而超出粒子每日平均指標的倫敦地區的面積則可望減少9%。到2012年，當針對重型貨車、長途旅遊巴士和巴士的歐盟四期粒子排放標準全面實施時，超出粒子全年和每日平均指標的倫敦地區的面積將會減少約11%，而當計畫加入管制較重的輕型貨車和小巴時，上述的超標地區的面積將可進一步減少3%80。公眾的回應設立低排放區的建議顯著得到公眾的支持。根據倫敦交通局發表的諮詢文件，大部份市民（89%）和大多數持份者（60%）都支持設立低排放區的建議。81企業和其他團體的反應則較為參差。表示支持（41%）和反對（41%）低排放區建議的受訪企業的百分率相同，而其他團體當中，反對建議的（42%）較支持的（25%）為多82。當中最具爭議性的議題包括： • 對經濟的影響：巴士、長途旅遊巴士和貨運經營者反對設立低排放區的建議，因計畫對他們的業務將會造成負面的經濟影響。低排放區計畫對小型企業的打擊更大，因為他們一般使用較為陳舊的車輛，而且缺乏資金改裝或更換他們的車輛。長途車和搬運業界提出反對的理據是，由於他們使用的車輛通常擁有較長的壽命週期，因此若要跟隨低排放區規定的進度更換新車，成本將會變得非常昂貴83。為遊客和學童提供接送服務的營辦商則表明，他們的服務勢將受低排放區

74 計畫的資本開支約為6,000萬英鎊，當中包括開發、諮詢和實施費用，而在2008年初至2015/16年度期間，計畫的經營成本估計在6,500萬至 7,000萬英鎊之間。The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Revised following consultation，第26頁。 75 同上。 76 倫敦交通局：Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone – Report to Mayor Following Consultation with Stakeholders, Businesses, other Organisations and the Public，2006年7月，第51頁〔網上版〕；從網站：http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission-zone/pdfdocs/LEZ-RTMchapters.pdf下載。 77 The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Revised following consultation，第25頁。 78 同上。 79 同上，第24頁。 80 同上，第24至25頁。 81 倫敦交通局： Low Emission Zone Public Consultation Report，2006年6月，第12頁〔網上版〕；從網站：http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission-zone/ pdfdocs/LEZ-RTM-Annex-A-Accent.pdf下載。 82 同上。 83 Draft Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Report to Mayor Following Consultation with Stakeholders, Businesses, other Organisations and the Public，第33頁〔網上版〕；從網站：http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission-zone/pdfdocs/LEZ-RTM-chapters.pdf 下載。

計畫影響。此外，低排放區計畫會在一定程度上影響不達標的車輛的二手價值，即使其中不少車輛只要加裝污染消減裝置便能符合標準，也難免受影響。上述行業提出反建議，希望延遲實施低排放區或降低收費和罰款，以減輕企業的成本。另一方面，低排放區計畫預期會為車輛製造商，包括改裝設備製造商和裝嵌商，帶來正面的經濟影響，同時更可增加就業機會。倫敦交通局曾就計畫的潛在經濟影響作出檢討和作多次估算，得出的結論是：在一般情況下，低排放區計畫的經濟影響相對輕微，而對整個社會帶來的健康和空氣質素效益，則遠遠超出所有負面經濟影響84。 • 目標車輛：在諮詢過程中，有人質疑為何部分車輛（如小型貨車和私家車）並未包括在低排放區的管控目標之列。有指所有私家車的總車行里數非常高，因此私家車製造污染的比例亦較其他車種高，故理應應被列為受管制對象之一。雖然倫敦交通局認同私家車所造成的污染問題，但它決定現階段不把私家車列入低排放區計畫建議的管制範圍內，是希望避免引起負面的社會和經濟影響。低排放區的車輛管制範圍將不斷進行檢討。 • 低排放區以外的其他方案：儘管設立低排放區的建議普遍獲得市民的支持，但倫敦交通局進行諮詢期間，亦有不少人士認為當局應採取其他措施改善空氣質素，如提供更多的財務獎勵，鼓勵車主替換高污染的車輛，以及以禁止車輛行駛的形式，代替徵收費用的制度。其他人則認為，按照正常的車輛更換週期換車及營辦商自願地減少排放，已足以改善空氣質素。部分回應人士認為，低排放區計畫具政治動機，是針對企業而推出的措施；其他人則視此為增加政府收入的方法，對改善空氣質素幫助不大。然而，有關計畫的可行性研究的結論是，沒有一個上述提及的方案能夠以相近或更低的成本達至如低排放區帶來的效益85。對香港的啟示建議中的倫敦低排放區計畫至今已通過了技術可行性和公眾認受性兩重考驗，相信會在短期內開始實施。跟倫敦低排放區計畫相似的計畫亦已在瑞典的哥登堡、隆德、馬模和斯德哥爾摩（自1996年起）86，以及東京（自2003年起）成功推行。這些經驗帶出了在香港設立低排放區是否亦同樣可行的議題。香港與倫敦的情況相近，正急切需要減少源自路面車輛的排放。事實上，香港的粒子主要來自車輛的排放，而粒子的濃度水平比倫敦還要高（請參考圖4）。此外，香港的專營巴士車隊和商業柴油貨運車隊相對陳舊，有必要加快替換新車的速度。現時，在香港馬路上行駛的最污染的車輛，大部份是燃燒柴油的巴士、小巴和商業車輛。它們約佔全香港車輛總數的30%，卻製造80%的路邊空氣污染87。有鑒於此，香港有足夠理由展開關於設立低排放區的可能性評估研究。現時，香港政府已推行一項車輛註銷計畫，向歐盟前期和歐盟一期商用車輛的車主提供總數高達32億港元的資助，鼓勵他們更換歐盟四期車輛。若全部74,000名車主都參與計畫，接受資助的話，估計粒子和氮氧化物的排放量將可分別減少18%和10%88。在香港實施低排放區會進一步鼓勵車主更換新車輛，與上述的車輛註銷計畫相輔相成。雖然設立低排放區是減少香港路邊污染的重要一步，但低排放區本身未必能夠整體地改善香港的空氣質素，因為香港同時受到其他主要空氣污染源的影響（如區內工廠、電廠和航運活動）。跟交通擠塞收費計畫一樣，低排放區的設立，應被視為一個針對所有影響香港的空氣污染源的全面性空氣質素政策的其中一部份。香港要實施低排放區計畫，將需要進行廣泛的技術性研究和全面的公眾諮詢。其中一些必要闡明的基本問題包括：香港的低排放區應該管制哪類車輛？什麼是最適合香港使用的污染消減技術？以及哪個地點最適合被畫為低排放區？由於香港面積細小，我們或可以考慮把整個香港畫成低排放區，而非只畫定個別地區。這個方案可節省大量涉及技術和行政方面的支出，以及解決有關畫界的問題。最後值得一提的是，低排放區可以與交通擠塞收費計畫同時運作，以達至更大的減排效果和更佳的成本效益（例如兩個計畫共用一個攝錄機網絡和行政架構）。 84 同上，第51頁。 85 The Mayor’s Transport and Air Quality Strategy Revisions: London Low Emission Zone - Revised following consultation，第11-13頁。 86 有關瑞典低排放區的更詳細資料，請參考Gwyn Jones， Steve Pye與Paul Watkiss：Service Contract for ex-post Evaluation of short-term and Local Measures in the CAFE Context， 2005年〔網上版〕，英國空氣質素資料庫。從網站： http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat09/0505171126_CAFE_final_report.pdf下載。 87 Alan Seigrist：Air Pollution for Dummies，2006年10月；從網站：http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/dummies.htm下載。 88 香港環境保護署：《空氣污染管制策略》，2006年〔網上版〕；從網站： www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_solutions/strategies_apc.html 下載。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

2.6 師法倫敦倫敦展示出一套明顯地比香港發展更成熟、結合性更強和更全面的空氣質素行動計畫。她的計畫包含了管理空氣質素必須的法律和行政框架，以及現正實行的各項具體的空氣質素政策。然而，我們必須承認，倫敦受惠於其所屬國家及歐洲大陸都非常積極地對抗空氣污染問題，這是與香港有所不同之處。然而，回顧倫敦在改善空氣質素方面所作的種種努力，將可為香港提供許多值得學習的地方： a. 香港政府應制訂較全面和嚴緊的空氣質素政策。在改善空氣質素方面，倫敦採取了多方面的、嚴厲的和創新的措施。相反地，香港迄今仍未能全面地解決問題及改善空氣質素。由於香港受更多的污染源影響（例如倫敦不受電廠和船舶污染影響），同時又缺乏更廣闊的法律框架處理個別層面的空氣污染問題（如英國和歐盟的空氣質素政策），因此香港較倫敦更為需要一個多角度的空氣管理策略。此外，香港落實執行的空氣質素政策亦遠不及倫敦的嚴緊。倫敦的空氣質素指標，訂立了以健康為基礎的目標，並定期更新；香港的空氣質素指標，訂立的目標過低，而且自1987年以來從未作出任何修訂，對公眾健康構成危險的影響。這些過時的指標依然用於計算空氣污染指數，最終因不能反映香港空氣質素的真實情況而誤導了公眾。 b. 香港政府應改善其空氣質素監測網絡。目前，倫敦的空氣質素監測網絡是由123個運作有效的空氣質素監測站組成。這些監測站分為五個不同類別，分別指明監測站的位置和收集樣本的高度89。相比之下，香港的14個監測站只分為一般監測站和路邊監測站兩類。由於倫敦的監測站數量和分類都較多，故能更準確地反映空氣質素的狀況，並有助於制訂更具成效的改善空氣質素措施。 c. 香港政府應推行如交通擠塞收費計畫及低排放區等措施，以減少道路運輸的廢氣排放。倫敦的經驗證明交通擠塞收費計畫能夠非常有效地減少交通擠塞及車輛廢氣，同時提高政府在運輸方面的收入，以支持在倫敦發展更具持續性的運輸模式。由於香港的車輛密度極高，路面空間有限，無法繼續擴建道路，加上現時的路邊空氣污染處於高水平，因此政府必須制訂一些減低交通流量的政策。其次，倫敦所建議的低排放區將會為減少高污染車輛的廢氣排放及改善倫敦的空氣質素踏出重要的一步。在香港推行這兩項措施有助於體現「污染者自付原則」，並大幅減低車輛廢氣的排放。 d. 香港需要更具魄力的政治領袖。倫敦市長利文斯頓（Ken

Livingstone）的領導才能，是倫敦得以推行各項減少空氣污染行動的關鍵因素。一些受到社會個別

行業猛烈反對的措施，如交通擠塞收費計畫最終得到落實，最後更成為非常成功的政策，正正展示了利文斯頓的領導能力。他亦正積極游說英國政府，推行同時適用於國內和歐盟水平的更嚴格的環境標準。香港正需要如利文斯頓的政治領袖，管理空氣質素。例如：要解決來自珠江三角洲地區的跨境污染問題，就必須透過廣東省和各地方政府之間的政治合作。同樣地，要改變香港的運輸和能源政策，就需要有強勢的政治領導。 e. 香港政府應公開承認香港空氣污染問題的嚴重性，及有關問題對公眾健康所構成的威脅。倫敦的公共機構面對當地空氣污染的態度，與香港政府官員面對本地空氣污染問題的態度截然不同。倫敦有關部門傾向強調當地空氣污染的嚴重性，並以此作為制訂嚴格的環保措施的理據。香港政府卻不時嘗試傳達訊息指，空氣污染並未對社區造成重大威脅90。此外，倫敦當局經常提及空氣污染與公眾健康不可分割的關係，更在潔淨空氣政策中清楚說明這一點；香港政府則一直淡化兩者的關係。空氣污染日益嚴重，香港政府必須改變目前的態度，方能實施適當的措施和有效地解決問題。

89 請參考附錄三。 90 請參考附註4。

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

3 洛杉磯 3.1 城市概況洛杉磯是美國人口密度第二高的城市，經濟主要由國際貿易、娛樂事業、航天工業、農業、石油、時裝和旅遊所帶動。雖然近二十年來，洛杉磯的工業發展已開始放緩，但這城市仍然是美國最大的製造中心。洛杉磯港與長灘港這兩個相鄰的港口是美國最舉足輕重的港口，亦是世界上最重要的港口之一。私家車是當地最主要的交通工具。事實上，洛杉磯是世界上擁有汽車數目最多的大都會，每名持牌司機平均擁有1.8部已登記車輛。加利福尼亞州的經濟規模與世界其他國家相比排名第七，而洛杉磯地區則排名第九或第十91。加州被畫分成多個空氣流域和空氣質素管理區，以便管理空氣質素。洛杉磯市及洛杉磯縣人口最稠密的大部分地區都被畫入南岸空氣質素管理區（SCAQMD）和南岸空氣流域（SoCAB）內（請參考有關洛杉磯的空氣質素管理法律框架的章節）。洛杉磯縣的沙漠部份的空氣質素管控工作不太嚴格，空氣質素管理的重要性不大，被畫入莫哈維沙漠空氣流域內。除特別說明外，否則本章餘下部分所討論的空氣污染問題、演變和相關政策，均包括整個南岸空氣質素管理區和南岸空氣流域，而非只限於洛杉磯市92。

Santa Barbara County

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

San Bernandino County

Kern County

Mojave Desert Air Basin

South Central Coast Air Basin Ventura County

Los Angeles County

South Coast Air Basin Orange County

Riverside County

San Diego Air Basin

Salton Sea Air Basin Imperial County

San Diego County

圖8：南岸空氣質素管理區及南岸空氣流域的覆蓋範圍洛杉磯過往和現在為改善空氣質素所作出的種種努力，為香港提供多個值得借鏡的地方。其中較特別之處是，洛杉磯目前採用的空氣質素管理方法，並不是以法定的行政邊界而是按照地形來畫分空氣質素管轄區。此外，洛杉磯在減少港口相關活動所造成的空氣污染上所採取的各項措施，尤其值得香港深入研究，因為香港正面對類似的跨境和港口相關的空氣污染問題。

3.2 洛杉磯空氣污染防治政策的演變早於1940年代，洛杉磯政府已認識到空氣污染是一個嚴重問題。1946年，洛杉磯縣監事會率先成立美國第一個空氣污染管制區，專注處理工業空氣污染問題。及至1950年代中期，加利福尼亞州成立首個州政府機構，專責管控車輛排放，而到了 1966年，加州政府更訂立全美首個車輛排放標準。許多源自加州的空氣管控措施，後來都成為了美國聯邦政府於1960年代開始推行的空氣污染防治計畫的藍本93。

91 Daniel A. Mazmanian ：Achieving Air Quality: The Los Angeles Experience，2006年3月，第6頁，南加州大學。從網站：http://www.usc.edu/schools/ sppd/bedrosian/private/docs/mazmanianairquality.pdf下載。 92 除特別說明外，否則本報告內提及的「洛杉磯」，是指加州內的整個洛杉磯地區。 93 南岸空氣質素管理局：2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe，2003年，第15頁〔網上版〕。從網站：http://www.aqmd. gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm 下載。

在1970年代，加州政府和聯邦政府發現單靠地方措施和規畫，不足以解決屬於區域性和不會停留在各管轄區範圍內的問題。於是各項污染管制計畫紛紛以由地理邊界畫分的空氣質素區作為依據，取代傳統上以縣界或州界畫定的法律管轄區。 1977年，加州立法機關成立了南岸空氣質素管理區（SCAQMD），將洛杉磯、橙縣、河濱縣和聖伯那地諾縣的空氣質素監管機構的職能合併，並予以擴大。南岸空氣質素管理區的職能是，負責制訂區內的空氣質素管理計畫和措施，使該區能於指定時限內達到聯邦政府規定的空氣質素標準。自成立以來，南岸空氣質素管理區一直領導美國訂立汽油、溶劑、油質漆料、點火機油及其他商業產品的排放標準，促使上述大部份產品的製造商重新制訂配方或設計產品，以減低污染94。除上述標準外，工商業和電力公司紛紛改用污染較低的天然氣，以取代煤和燃油，亦有助消減污染。以上各項政策互相配合，令南岸空氣流域的空氣質素獲得重大的改善（請參考圖 9及圖10）。

南岸空氣流域的煙霧排放趨勢 0.60

250 超過聯邦政府每小時臭氧排放標準的日子臭氧每小時最高濃度

0.50

200

150 0.30 100

濃度（ppm）

0.40 空氣流域超標日數

0.20 50

0.10

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

0.00 1977

0 1976

中文

年

圖9：南岸空氣流域的煙霧排放趨勢資料來源：南岸空氣質素管理區然而，與此同時，整個區域經歷前所未有的急劇擴展，經濟大幅增長，城市範圍以驚人的速度向外伸展。期間，南岸空氣流域的人口由480萬激增三倍以上至1,600萬，而車輛數目則錄得四倍的增長，由原來的230萬部飆升至1,000萬部。同樣地，進出區內的火車、船隻和飛機的數量亦錄得相近的增長。區域的高速增長結果抵銷了人均減排幅度所取得的良好成績95。南岸空氣質素管理區於1982年制訂的減少臭氧排放計畫，引發了一場危機。該計畫預期南岸最少在未來20年內都無法達到臭氧的排放標準，而美國環境保護局根據法例雖然有責任確保所有州政府和區域環境計畫都必須符合《潔淨空氣法》的規定，但它最後竟然接受了南岸減少臭氧排放計畫的評估。1984年，一群環保人士96為此向美國環保局和南岸空氣質素管理區提出索償，指控這兩個機構明知無法為符合《潔淨空氣法》要求提供確實可行的策略，卻仍然頒布計畫。經過四年冗長的訴訟程序，法官判環保人士勝訴。法院認為南岸空氣質素管理區無力自行制訂措施，故頒令美國環保局必須替該區制訂有關計

94 Daniel A. Mazmanian，前引文，第14頁。 95 同上，第18頁。 96 有關法律行動是由當地環保組織Coalition for Clean Air提出，並得到Sierra Club的支持。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

畫。是項裁決成為該區其後十年重新努力推出各項消減空氣污染計畫的法律背景97。

1950年至2000年南岸空氣流域的臭氧水平 80

20 臭氧水平峰值

百萬

十億份之一

人口

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

圖10：1950年至2000年南岸空氣流域的臭氧水平資料來源：南岸空氣質素管理區上述事件的發展促使南岸空氣質素管理區於1991年實施一項極為進取的空氣質素管理計畫，要求採取嚴厲的新政策和執法行動，並呼籲區內的企業、工業、駕車人士，以及所有居民為改善區內空氣質素作出犧牲。計畫同時要求所有有關的本地、加州和聯邦機構攜手合作。商界組織強烈反對此項計畫，並設法抗衡擁有強大權力的南岸空氣質素管理區。儘管商界提出抗議，1991年計畫的長遠策略最終獲得實現，為空氣質素帶來重大的改善，而對區內經濟卻未有造成嚴重的損害。到了1980和1990年代，美國各地愈來愈傾向採取帶鼓勵性質和市場主導的策略，以補「指揮及管控」政策之不足。「1991年計畫」開始發展「可供買賣的排放許可證」這個創新的概念，最終催生了「限量與交易」制度，讓參與計畫的企業買賣排放配額 98，藉此減少固定污染源的廢氣排放。這個制度透過1993年的「區域性潔淨空氣市場獎勵計畫」（ RECLAIM）正式推行。由於計畫其後證實取得甚佳的成效，所以成為了最富代表性的空氣污染管制措施。其他鼓勵性政策還包括：採用環保技術和低排放車輛可獲獎勵和回扣；按車行里數和燃油消耗量徵收費用；種植可吸收二氧化碳和提供遮蔭的樹木；高能源效益的房屋和企業可享獎勵和回扣；以及擴大氮氧化物、硫氧化物和揮發性有機化合物的排污交易計畫99。目前，洛杉磯地區仍然受到頗嚴重的空氣污染問題困擾，儘管污染程度已較過去的輕微。因此，地區政府繼續推行多元化的空氣質素管理措施，以針對固有及新增的空氣污染源（請參考第3.4節及第3.5節）。上文概述了洛杉磯地區防治空氣污染的歷史，總結如下：

97 Daniel A. Mazmanian，前引文，第19頁。 98 「限量與交易」制度的一般運作情況如下：一個中央機構訂立個別污染源的排放量上限，而每一個污染者則獲發排放配額，反映他們可以排放的特定限量。排放配額的總和不得超過既定的排放量上限，以便把總排放量控制在此水平。排放量超出配額的企業必須向排放量低於配額的企業購買剩餘的配額。需要購買配額的公司愈多，排放配額的價格就愈高。有關在香港推行排污交易的可能性的詳細討論，請參考陸恭蕙與Roger Raufer： The Emissions Game: How markets can help save the planet，2007年1月，思匯政策研究所；從網站： http://www.civic-exchange.org/index.php?cat=98下載。 99 Daniel A. Mazmanian，前引文，第26頁。

中文

• 空氣質素：過去35年來，儘管損害環境的因素如經濟和人口迅速增長、城市擴張及車輛使用量大幅增加等帶來了負面的影響，洛杉磯仍能顯著地改善區內的空氣質素，而且成功達到加州政府和聯邦政府所訂立的大部份空氣質素標準。儘管如此，洛杉磯地區仍然是美國境內污染最嚴重的大都會區。 • 空氣污染防治方法：區內空氣質素得以改善，主要是透過推行嚴厲的空氣質素管理法規，並交由獲適當賦權的本州和地方機構來執行。主要法規包括：為各種污染源訂立的排放標準；嚴緊的空氣質素標準；以及改變能源政策，使用天然氣和電力部份取代燃煤。及後，這些「指揮及管控」政策的推行都得到市場主導措施的配合。 • 推動改變的動力：空氣污染及其對社區健康的影響是洛杉磯發展空氣質素管治制度的主要考慮因素。公眾透過法律訴訟和其他行動向政府施加壓力，是迫使未盡全力的政府機構正視問題的重要元素。洛杉磯地區的商業特質意味著有關當局必須以技術解決方案及市場主導的措施，配合「指揮及管控」式的政策。

區域經濟減少大型工業生產（如航天工業、能源生產）實施24小時碼頭及貨物運輸科技、媒體和生物科技行業的興起電子通訊和家居購物模式愈趨普及

民意公眾強烈要求一個潔淨的環境願意為擁有更多休憩地方、清潔的環境，和環境衛生付出代價有魄力的政治和民間領袖多個活躍的環保組織

能源政策以天然氣代替燃煤發電加州能源行動計畫決心發展可再生能源（風力和太陽能）制訂減少溫室氣體和臭氧排放的政策加州燃料電池合作夥伴計畫增加汽油價格飆升和國際壓力

空氣污染防治政策聯邦政府潔淨空氣法及美國環保局加州潔淨空氣法及加州空氣資源局加州空氣質素管理局制訂計畫和行動加州公用事業委員會制訂提升能源效益和保育計畫

交通政策改善貨運流通：船舶、火車、貨車（阿拉米達走廊）擴建區內輕鐵系統和洛杉磯地鐵系統獎勵低排放車輛實施交通擠塞收費

城市設計增加主要交通幹道沿線的住宅密度（「2%計畫」）人口特性的改變和新的都市生活方式處理居住和工作地點的關係

圖11：為洛杉磯帶來清新空氣的各項因素

空氣質素

3.3 現時洛杉磯空氣污染的特點空氣質素及對健康的影響美國肺臟協會發表的報告將洛杉磯－長灘－河濱縣組成的大都市地區，列為全美PM2.5（直徑少於2.5微米的粒子）污染最嚴重的地區，該地的24小時和全年PM2.5數值均屬最高；而洛杉磯－河濱－橙縣則是臭氧污染最嚴重的大都市地區100。根據南岸空氣質素管理區觀察所得，在美國各地（包括洛杉磯地區），持續高企的環境污染水平與死亡率、呼吸道感染個案數目、哮喘病發作的嚴重程度和入院治療人次的增加，有穩定的相關性101。主要空氣污染物及相關污染源南岸空氣流域的高污染水平，部份是由氣象和地形效應所造成。該區的北部和東部邊界由高山組成，妨礙空氣有效地消散。此地形效應加上乾旱的天氣環境（低雨量和充足的陽光）促進光化學煙霧的形成，這些煙霧含有臭氧、微粒、二氧化氮和一氧化碳。此外，環境污染物的濃度亦明顯地受到空氣流域內原生空氣污染物排放的影響。 1980年至2005年間，洛杉磯縣的車行里數大幅增加75%102。結果，路面交通成為洛杉磯環境污染物的一大源頭。圖12清楚顯示，在2005年，57%的氮氧化物是由路面交通產生；氮氧化物包括二氧化氮和一氧化氮，是形成臭氧的先導污染物。路面交通同時產生微粒、一氧化碳和有毒空氣污染物。其他流動污染源，如非路面運輸和農用設備（不包括火車、飛機和船隻）亦排放大量氮氧化物、粒子和硫氧化物（請參考圖12）。與香港的情況相近，洛杉磯港與長灘港排放的污染物，對洛杉磯縣的空氣質素造成極大的影響。事實上，單單在2005年就有超過50%的硫氧化物和10%以上的氮氧化物來自輪船和商用船隻。估計到2020年，南岸空氣流域的總排放量中，將有 73%的硫氧化物、24%的氮氧化物和10%的PM2.5是來自洛杉磯港和長灘港內的污染源（包括遠洋輪船、港口工作船、火車、貨車和貨物裝卸設備）103。洛杉磯的另一主要污染源是已鋪築和未鋪築路面（佔粒子排放量的61.9%），以及建築和拆卸活動所揚起的微粒。在洛杉磯縣，燃料燃燒（電力生產、製造業、工業、農業、食品生產和其他商業活動）、工業生產和石油生產亦排放相當數量的污染物。

100 美國肺臟協會：Best and Worst Cities，2006年〔網上版〕。從網站： http://lungaction.org/reports/sota06_cities.html下載。 101 2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe，第2.1節至第2.23節。 102 Cox, Paul，Johnson, Martin與Auyueng, Janelle：The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality: 2006 edition，2006年〔網上版〕。從網站： http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac06/almanac2006all.pdf 下載。 103 南岸空氣質素管理區：Air Quality Management Plan 2007- Draft ，2006年〔網上版〕。從網站：http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/07AQMP. html下載。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

100

中文

4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 3.8%

3.8%

8.1% 已鋪築／未鋪築路面揚起的

路面交通

塵埃 5%

其他流動污染源

建築及拆卸活動

輪船及商用船隻

工業生產 16.5%

燃料燃燒

路面交通

61.9%

其他流動污染源

其他

16.5%

其他

1.2%

粒子

火車和飛機

氮氧化物

5% 5.2%

輪船及商用船隻石油生產和銷售活動燃料燃燒

10.8%

路面交通 51.6%

其他流動污染源工業生產

22.2%

其他

硫氧化物

圖12：2005年洛杉磯縣的粒子、氮氧化物和硫氧化物排放清單104 空氣污染趨勢我們可以觀察近年洛杉磯縣和香港的基準污染物的實測濃度趨勢，作為比較兩地空氣質素的方法。圖13顯示1997至2005年期間，洛杉磯縣和香港多個監測站錄得的三種主要空氣污染物的全年平均濃度水平。我們有必要再次強調，比較不同城市的全年平均值是必須謹慎進行的。可能會影響比較結果的因素包括：用作計算平均值的監測站數目；監測站的位置；設備發生故障；監測方法及採樣高度。雖然用作計算洛杉磯的污染物濃度平均值105的監測站數目和監測方法106都是已知的資料，但有關監測站位置、設備故障率及採樣高度的資料卻未能取得。因此，在利用這些污染趨勢來比較洛杉磯和香港的空氣質素時，必須考慮此情況。無論如何，我們仍可得到一個合理的結論：香港的二氧化硫濃度較洛杉磯縣為高。此外，香港的粒子水平似乎亦比較高，但我們必須指出，這可能受洛杉磯的監測站位置的影響 — 我們不清楚位於路邊的監測站數目是更多還是較少，但我們可以肯定這是影響粒子濃度讀數的主要因素。然而，我們可以從這些趨勢得到另一個確實的結論：在1997年至2005年期間，洛杉磯縣的二氧化氮和粒子平均濃度正逐步下跌（見圖13）。

104 加州空氣資源局：2005 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Los Angeles County，2006年〔網上版〕；從網站：www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ emssumcat_query.php?F_DIV-4&F_DD=Y&F_YR=2005&F_SEASON=A&SP=2006&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=19下載。 105 1997年，香港設有9個監測站（8個一般監測站和1個路邊監測站），到1998年增至12個監測站（9個一般監測站和3個路邊監測站），其後於 1999年至2005年期間，再增至14個監測站（11個一般監測站和3個路邊監測站）。計算洛杉磯的平均值時，所採用的監測站數目介乎4個至16個之間。 106 我們應特別注意的是，粒子的實測濃度會因所採用的測量技術出現顯著的差異。香港的粒子讀數都是採用 TEOM儀器量度而得出的。但洛杉磯的數值則是用重量分析或貝他衰減法計算。有證據顯示，用TEOM測得的數據一般較重力測量法的測量結果低，而用重力測量法得出的結果一般又較貝他衰減法低。欲悉進一步資料，請參考立德國際公証行：UK Equivalence Program for Monitoring of Particulate Matter，2006年〔網上版〕。從網站： http://www.airquality.co.uk下載。

101

二氧化硫

香港

二氧化氮

洛杉磯 100

香港AQO (每年)

90 全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

70 60 50 40 30 世衛 (2006年) 24小時平均數

20 10

香港AQO (每年)

80 70 60 50

世衛 2006年 (每年)

40 30 20 10 0

0 1997

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1997

2005

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

粒子 100

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

90 80 70 香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30

世衛 2006年 (每年)

20 10 0 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

圖13：洛杉磯及香港的空氣污染趨勢107 洛杉磯與香港空氣污染問題的異同洛杉磯及香港都受地形特徵影響，令在城市範圍內排放的污染物無法有效消散。這兩個城市亦同時受到港口活動所產生的大量空氣污染物的影響。兩地差異之處在於，香港受到街道峽谷效應及跨境污染的影響較洛杉磯嚴重，而洛杉磯則因汽車數目驚人，故遭受較顯著的路面交通污染影響。圖14：洛杉磯與香港空氣污染問題的主要異同之處

相似之處

相異之處

地形：

建築物高度－街道峽谷效應：

洛杉磯和香港都被高山包圍，使城市範圍內排放的污染物

香港建有大量高樓大廈，造成街道峽谷效應，把污染物

無法有效消散。

（如汽車廢氣）困在城市峽谷內；大洛杉磯地區並沒有太多高樓大廈，因此街道峽谷效應的影響不大。

航運活動的排放：

區域性空氣污染：

洛杉磯和香港都擁有大型港口。這兩個城市的港口相關活

香港的環境污染物濃度受源自廣東省的跨境污染物影響；

動（遠洋輪船、港口工作船、火車、貨車和貨物裝卸設備

洛杉磯的區域性污染問題並不顯著。

等）都產生大量廢氣。

路面交通污染：洛杉磯是世界上擁有汽車數目最多的大都會，由此產生相當嚴重的空氣污染；香港的汽車使用情況不及洛杉磯般普遍。

107 資料來源：香港環境保護署及南岸空氣質素管理區。原以ppb量度的數據，按攝氏25度和1,013mb壓力下的轉換系數轉化成以μg/m3（微克/立方米）為單位。橫虛線分別顯示世界衛生組織空氣質素指引的全年標準（短虛線）及香港的空氣質素指標（長虛線）。由於二氧化硫每日平均標準十分低，故世衛並沒有制訂二氧化硫的全年平均標準指引；圖13顯示的因此是每日平均標準。在比較洛杉磯及香港的二氧化硫全年平均濃度時，必須考慮這個因素。

中文

102

3.4 洛杉磯的空氣質素管理政策本章節將概括述明洛杉磯地區所推行的各項主要空氣質素政策，其中包括由聯邦政府、州政府、地區政府和地方政府制訂的政策。附錄四載有一份更全面的政策摘要。洛杉磯的空氣質素管理法律框架洛杉磯現時推行的空氣質素管理政策是由聯邦政府、州政府、地區政府和地方政府所制訂的各項法規和集體行動的成果。這形成了一套全面的、適用於整個區域的政策制訂和推行策略，以對付空氣污染問題。空氣流域是根據地形特徵（而不是法定邊界）來畫分，並按此決定各有關機構應負的責任和應實施的空氣質素管理行動計畫。每個機構或司法管轄區都有參與具體規畫工作和協助推行措施的責任。在聯邦政府層面，美國環境保護局負責監管49個州的各項排放標準，包括路面機動車輛；火車、飛機和船隻；以及少於 175匹馬力的非路面使用引擎。此外，美國環境保護局亦負責監督州政府，制訂和推行各項空氣質素管理計畫。例如南岸空氣質素管理區的潔淨空氣計畫在經加州空氣資源局審議和批准後，必須交由美國環境保護局作進一步批核。若發現區域計畫有任何不足之處，美國環境保護局有權對空氣流域執行額外的管控。在州政府層面，加州空氣資源局（CARB）負責實行路面和非路面流動污染源的排放標準、汽車燃料的要求，以及管制消費產品的規例。加州空氣資源局同時負責根據聯邦政府的《潔淨空氣法》的規定，擬訂州政府的空氣質素實施計畫。但由於《加州潔淨空氣法》較聯邦政府的《潔淨空氣法》更嚴格，故《加州潔淨空氣法》成為州政府監管空氣質素規例的主要依據。《加州潔淨空氣法》的主要規定如下：採用最佳可行的加裝污染控制技術；以每年百分之五的幅度減少不達標的污染物和其先導物體，若無法達到此幅度，則應採取一切可行措施和加快實施的進度；根據指定的時間表，減少市民接觸不達標的污染物；以及按照成本效益和實施的優先次序，對污染防治措施予以評級。在地區層面，南岸空氣質素管理區是整個橙縣，以及洛杉磯、河濱和聖伯地諾三個縣的市區部份的空氣污染監管機構。這個地區的總面積為10,743平方哩，人口達1,600萬。南岸空氣質素管理區負責監管各固定污染源、間接污染源和部分流動污染源（如火車和船隻的可見排放物），同時亦負責擬訂空氣質素管理計畫，以使這個地區符合聯邦和州政府頒布的清潔空氣標準。在地方層面，南加州政府協會（SCAG）是由洛杉磯縣、橙縣、河濱縣、聖伯地諾縣、文圖拉縣和帝國縣的市長、市議會議員和縣監察員組成的義務規畫委員會。南加州政府協會的強項是進行研究、編製經濟和人口預測、推廣各地方管轄區和區域分會之間的合作，以及協助推行具體策略。最後，洛杉磯市政府實施與交通有關的政策，以配合上述各項減排計畫。州政府及聯邦政府的政策聯邦和州政府訂立的法規為在洛杉磯地區實施的空氣質素政策提供扎實的框架。這些法規包括直接行動、規畫要求和達標要求108。 • 聯邦和州政府制訂的《潔淨空氣法》：聯邦政府的《潔淨空氣法》指定多項具體減排目標，要求各州政府展示減排方面已取得合理進展和達到目標，並對未能達標或達到中期目標的州分施加制裁。《加州潔淨空氣法》要求所有在區域計畫下實施的措施進行成本效益評估；必須是技術上可行的；需列明預期減少的排放量；考慮公眾的接受程度和評估可執行程度。 • 排放標準：加州空氣資源局和美國環境保護局是負責減低路面流動污染源排放的主要機關。其他屬州和聯邦政府管轄的污染源包括：燃料和加注燃料的基礎設施，以及消費產品。加州空氣資源局和美國環境保護局主要是透過實施排放標準來控制這些污染源的排放。有關標準逼使相關行業生產污染較少的汽車引擎、汽車燃料和消費產品。 • 加州空氣資源局的策略：加州空氣資源局為達致減少排放而制訂的策略包括：(a) 以技術推動新的引擎標準；(b) 減少現有車輛的排放；(c) 要求使用潔淨燃料、支持使用替代燃料和減低對石油燃油的依賴；(d) 與美國環境保護局合力減少聯 108 附錄四第4.1項至第4.29項載有此方面的更詳細資料。

邦和州政府管轄的污染源的排放；及(e) 追求長期的先進技術措施109。預期到2010年，加州空氣資源局的污染防治措施可以每日減少排放33至72 公噸揮發性有機化合物和23至49公噸氮氧化物110。 • 未達標地區：特別受到嚴重空氣污染影響的地理區域，可以根據聯邦和州政府制訂的《潔淨空氣法》畫為未達標地區。未達標地區主要分為五類：輕微、中度、嚴重、十分嚴重和極度嚴重。整個南岸空氣流域屬臭氧排放極度嚴重不達標的地區。洛杉磯縣是唯一被歸類為一氧化碳排放嚴重未達標地區。在此情況下，有關當局必須制訂特別的行動計畫，使這些未達標的地區符合州和聯邦政府的標準。《加州潔淨空氣法》要求各地區每三年提交報告，證明其空氣質素計畫的整體成效。地區政府的政策在地區層面上，空氣質素管理的職能主要由南岸空氣質素管理區執行。南岸空氣質素管理區制訂的《2003年空氣質素管理計畫》內詳列現正推行的政策。該計畫提供管理空氣質素的藍本，協助該區達到聯邦和州政府頒布的清潔空氣標準。 • 固定和流動污染源：該計畫透過訂立適當的規例，處理固定空氣污染源（即電廠、煉油廠、加汽站等）的污染問題，強制這些污染源必須遵守減排規例，同時為各項改善環境措施提供資金111。

雖然流動污染源主要是由州和聯邦政府制訂

的法例監管，但該計畫亦訂明多項輔助措施，如推行改變駕車習慣的計畫，藉著透過鼓勵共用車輛、利用電子通訊和在非繁忙時間用車，以減低汽車的用量112。 • 南岸空氣質素管理區技術提升計畫：此計畫把焦點放在研究和發展可助減少排放的清潔燃料技術和其他先進技術的項目之上。計畫嘗試發掘適用於公路及非公路車輛的清潔燃料技術；改善基礎設施以推廣清潔燃料的使用；推廣燃料電池車輛；及推廣建築設備和其他非路面設備使用低排放和零排放機車、氣體液化燃料、乳化燃料、生化柴油，以及低含硫量柴油113。 • 為企業提供協助：南岸空氣質素管理區採取多項措施，協助企業達到《2003年空氣質素管理計畫》公布的各項要求。這些措施包括：簡化發牌程序、加強與中小企的互動、提高對污染源的認識，以及協助評估達標。南岸空氣質素管理區更舉辦了針對社區和特定工業的工作坊，鼓勵公眾參與政策和規則的制訂過程。洛杉磯市和地方政府的政策洛杉磯市自行採取的行動，其影響力不及上述各項措施，但仍有協助減少污染的作用，以及教育市民的價值。 • 清潔燃料政策：洛杉磯市擁有2,259部替代燃料車輛，並承諾每年增加15%替代燃料車輛114。 • 單車巡邏隊：此計畫是安排警員執勤時以單車代替汽車，以減少汽車的排放。預期落實這項計畫後，每輛單車的壽命期內將可減少約12.59噸污染物115。 • 洛杉磯市政府的其他計畫：洛杉磯市透過水電局，推行多項教育及獎勵計畫，包括：植樹計畫；能源效益計畫；環保動力計畫；太陽能計畫；產品循環再造計畫；及環保教育服務116。

109 此五項策略是透過附錄四第4點所述的流動污染源和燃料措施實行的。有關進一步資料，請參考2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe，第4.21至4.29頁。 110 2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe，第4.29頁。 111 附錄四第1.1項至第1.21項載有這些措施的摘要。有關進一步資料，請參考2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe，第 7.21頁。 112 南岸空氣質素管理區的辦公人員交通計畫覆蓋6,000家公司和200萬名員工，內容重點是要求僱主鼓勵員工不要獨自駕車上班，改為安排多名同事共乘一車或乘搭公共交通工具或騎單車上班。 113 2003 Air Quality Management Plan – Cleaning the Air We Breathe，第7.18頁。 114 有關此方面的詳細資料，請參考洛杉磯水電局：Alternative Fuel Vehicles 〔網上版〕。從網站： http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp000801. jsp 下載。 115 請參考洛杉磯市網站文件：Bike Patrols Programs；從網站： www.cityofla.org/EAD/EADWEb-AQD/bikepatrols.htm 下載。 116 有關此計畫的詳細資料，請參考洛杉磯水電局：Programs for Green LA；從網站： http://www.ladwp.com/library/statichtml/homepage_greenla.html 下載。

中文

103

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

104

私營機構的參與加州社會在影響當地的空氣污染問題上扮演著積極的角色，一方面主動要求公營機構提供解決方案，另一方面則直接開展各項計畫。非政府組織對洛杉磯減低空氣污染的行動頗具影響力117。他們的活動包括：表達公眾對環境質素的關注；廣泛傳播空氣污染對人體健康影響的訊息；遊說立法機關和地方官員；及當政策推行不善或執法不嚴時，向法院尋求協助。其他積極參與空氣污染議題的重要組織包括：潔淨空氣聯盟（the Coalition for Clean Air）和美國肺臟協會加州分會（the American Lung Association of California）118。此外，不同團體成立了多個夥伴計畫，處理個別空氣質素問題。例如南加州經濟夥伴計畫就是於1994年成立的非牟利機構，其目標是加快採用先進的運輸技術119。這些團體結合力量，協助支持推行更嚴格的環境政策。洛杉磯和香港空氣質素管理政策之比較下表顯示洛杉磯採用的空氣質素標準遠較香港的空氣質素指標嚴緊：圖15：部分空氣質素及政策指標洛杉磯

香港

是

否

2003

1987

二氧化硫（24小時）

105微克/立方米

350微克/立方米

二氧化氮（全年）

100微克/立方米

80微克/立方米

少於10微米的粒子（全年）

20微克/立方米

55微克/立方米

少於2.5微米的粒子

12微克/立方米

臭氧

137微克/立方米

空氣質素標準／指標是否具法律約束力？最新修訂年份

巿內空氣質素監測站數目

3.5 專題討論：聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫簡介洛杉磯港和長灘港組成了美國最大的貨櫃港，亦是全世界第三大貨櫃港。雖然港口活動成為洛杉磯經濟增長的主要動力，但港口亦同時為該地區帶來嚴重的空氣污染問題。為解決這些問題，港口地區制訂了一項名為2006年聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫120的聯合行動計畫，以減少因航運及其他港口相關活動造成的空氣污染。該計畫的預期目標是，在五年內大幅減少港口相關的排放。估計粒子排放將會減少45%，氮氧化物減少47%，而硫氧化物則減少52%。跟洛杉磯一樣，香港亦是一個海運中心，需要面對大幅消減港口污染的挑戰。香港的海上排放逐年增加，而且排放的位置都是在地面的水平，又接近九龍人口密集的地區，故此特別容易對市民健康造成損害。多項本地研究得出的結論都認為香港偏 117 現時在洛杉磯最活躍的多個重要非政府組織都是在空氣污染問題最嚴重的時候冒起的，如：Environmental Defence（1967年）、地球之友（1969年）、the Natural Resources Defence Council（1970年），及the League of Conservation Voters（1970年）。 118 有關詳情，請參考網站：www.coalitionforcleanair.org和www.californialung.org 。 119 請參考南加州經濟夥伴計畫（Southern California Economic Partnership）網站：www.the-partnership.org/ 。 120 洛杉磯港與長灘港：Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，2006年11月〔網上版〕；從網站： http://www.polb.com/environment/ air_quality/clean_air_action_plan.asp下載。

105

高的二氧化硫濃度源於海上的污染源，因而促請政府推行潔淨港口政策121。然而，香港及其他鄰近的內地港口（即深圳港）至今仍未正視船舶污染的問題122。因此，聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫為香港提供一個極佳的示範個案作詳細的分析，包括該計畫訂出的各項減少海上排放的具體方法，以及與區域內其他港口合力推行類似政策的前景。計畫概述聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫由洛杉磯港與長灘港於2006年共同制訂和實施。在制訂此計畫過程中，兩個港口與多個負責空氣質素管理的主要機構，包括南岸空氣質素管理區、加州空氣資源局及美國環境保護局合作緊密。聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫將港口地區的減排努力和願景，跟上述各監管機構的類似努力和目標聯結起來。就此方面而言，新計畫以美國環境保護局、加州空氣資源局及港口地區過往已推行的防治措施為基礎，並同時提供更進取、更全面的減排行動計畫123。該計畫為未來五個財政年度（2006/7年至2010/11年度）訂立清晰目標、具體減排措施及財政需要，並會每年進行檢討和修訂。制訂聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫的目的是，回應公眾對海上排放影響區內空氣質素日益增加的關注。船舶和港口設備主要採用柴油作為燃料，尤其在沿岸地區，以及港口範圍內和鄰近地區排放大量氮氧化物、粒子、溫室氣體和有毒廢氣。在南岸空氣流域內，12%的粒子、9%的氮氧化物及45%的硫氧化物源自與港口活動有關的船隻和車輛124。加州空氣資源局最近完成的一項研究所得結論是：港口地區排放的柴油粒子對大範圍地區造成影響，而潛在的健康風險亦令人十分憂慮125。此外，因大部份污染源採用了各種管控措施，可形成臭氧的污染物的排放量因而隨時間而逐步減少，但海上污染源的淨排放量卻持續上升。由於預期港口地區的貨櫃吞吐量到2020年將會增加一倍以上，上述排放趨勢只會繼續惡化126。聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫嘗試減少兩個港口現行不同貨運模式的排放總量，並希望做到「公平分配」港口地區需要減少排放的污染物總量。有關計畫建基於三個標準：1) 減低對公眾健康帶來的風險127； 2) 「公平分配」基準污染物排放量的減幅；及 3) 符合港口區範圍內空氣監測站的排放標準。推動制訂聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫的一個關鍵因素是，兩個港口都決心合力推行各項減排策略，以確保公平性及避免其中一方因採用較寬鬆的環境標準而取得優勢。基於同一道理，洛杉磯港和長灘港都清楚表明它們要求加州空氣資源局和美國環保局強制其他加州港口和美國港口採用與聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫相同的環境標準。在擬訂空氣質素管理行動計畫的過程中，兩個港口由於是大業主的緣故，限制了他們直接改良營運標準和實施政策的能力。兩個港口局興建碼頭設施，然後租予船公司和碼頭裝卸公司，但他們本身並不負責經營碼頭、輪船、貨場設備、搬運貨物的貨車或火車。要擺脫這個限制，聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫惟有把需要實施的管控措施納入租賃協議及與港口營運者簽訂的其他合約中。該計畫亦列出了多項輔助性措施128。

121 請參閱劉啟漢等人：Significant Marine Source for SO2 Levels in Hong Kong，香港科技大學及思匯政策研究所，2005年〔網上版〕；從網站 http:// www.civic-exchange.org/publications/2005/MarineSO2.pdf下載；及劉啟漢、羅致安等人：《香港的空氣污染：探討本地及區域污染源的相對重要性》，香港科技大學環境研究所及思匯政策研究所，2007年；從網站： www.civic-exchange.org/publications/2007/airmarch.pdf下載。 122 請參考Caitlin Gall與溫富錦：《減少香港及珠三角船舶廢氣排放的方法》，思匯政策研究所，2006年3月；從網站：http://www.civic-exchange. org/index.php?cat=88 下載。 123 多個與港口相關的排放源都受到加州的環境規例監管。加州空氣資源局推行的港口相關措施包括：(1) 要求船隻在進入加州海岸線24海浬範圍時，輔助引擎必須燃燒低含硫量燃料（2007年為含硫量少於0.5%；到2010年則為少於0.1%）；(2) 為貨物裝卸設備、船舶推進引擎及火車，制訂排放標準；(3) 船隻減速計畫；(4) 加州空氣資源局與鐵路貨運公司簽訂適用於全加州的諒解備忘錄。有關詳情，請參考Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，第3至10頁。 124 洛杉磯港和長灘港：San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Fact Sheet，2006年11月〔網上版〕www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload. asp?BlobID=3432 125 加州空氣資源協會：Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment – Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach，2006年4月〔網上版〕；從網站：http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf 下載。 126 請參考Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，第1頁。 127 10萬分之1的癌症風險屬可以接受的水平。請參考Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，第24頁。 128 各項措施包括：修訂稅率；財務獎勵；自願性措施；配額交易；基建售後租回；政府保證信貸；第三方貼現租賃；採購；專營權；紓減環境影響徵費；確認良好表現計畫。請參考Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，第3頁。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫將涉及大量財政費用，預計在五年期內投入的資金將會超過20億美元。特別值得一提的是為更新貨運車隊而提供財政資助（共18億美元）。這些費用由多方共同承擔，包括：受計畫影響的業界和碼頭；需要改善基建設施、提供財政獎勵，及實施管控措施的兩個港口局；以及資助獎勵計畫的各個監管機構129。這些開支將會帶來下列空氣質素的效益：藉改善空氣質素取得的效益聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫預期在未來五年可消減來自港口相關污染源超過47%的柴油粒子，並顯著減低相關的健康影響。可形成煙霧的氮氧化物排放將會減少超過45%，而硫氧化物排放則可減少52%130。五年內所有港口相關污染源的柴油粒子排放總量將按年減少1,200公噸，氮氧化物排放減少12,000公噸，而硫氧化物排放則減少8,900公噸。

基本排放水平

2,500

2,295

實施計畫後的剩餘排放

30,000 27,504

2,215

2,185

2,173

2,163

26,724

26,200

26,195

26,119

25,000

2,000

25,342

2,257

1,500

1,519 1,270

1,000

20,000

氮氧化物 (公噸)

柴油粒子 (公噸)

1,905

21,815 18,332

15,000

16,430 14,047

1,038

10,000

500

5,000

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

年

柴油粒子

氮氧化物

硫氧化物

12,000

8,000 7,000

6,753

10,000

5,740

6,000

5,740

6,655 8,000

5,000

5,372 4,458

4,000

4,023 3,530

3,000

減排總量 (公噸)

硫氧化物 (公噸)

中文

106

6,000

4,000

2,000 1,000

2,000

0 06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

年

06/07

07/08

08/09

09/10

10/11

圖16-19：剩餘的柴油粒子、氮氧化物和硫氧化物排放及減排總量資料來源：2006年長灘港

129 每個撥款機構未來五年承諾投入的資金為：洛杉磯港1.775億美元；長灘港2.404億美元；南岸空氣質素管理區（初期）4,700萬美元；保證金／影響徵費撥款16億美元。請參考Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，第7部分（預算條文）。 130 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Fact Sheet，第1頁。

107

減低空氣污染的措施131 幾乎所有港口相關的排放都來自五類燃燒柴油的污染源：輪船、貨車、貨物裝卸設備、港口工作船和火車。聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫列明上述各類污染源的減排措施。以下是這些管控措施的簡介，附錄四（第3點）則提供更全面的摘要。 • 遠洋輪船：所有位於兩個港口的主要貨櫃碼頭和郵輪碼頭將於未來五至十年內提供岸電，以便船隻在停泊期間關掉柴油引擎。此外，船隻亦必須在進出港口範圍時減低航行速度、採用低硫燃油（含硫量少於0.2%），以及採用其他減排措施和技術。 • 重型車輛或貨車：聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫建議於五年內要求所有柴油貨車符合若干排放標準（即2007年美國環保局的排放規定），方能在港口內運作，藉此淘汰高污染的柴油貨車。此外，計畫亦會透過改善加油設施，為貨車提供潔淨燃料。約有1,680部貨車（佔總數的80%）將需要進行改裝或更換。 • 貨物裝卸設備：於五年內替換所有貨物裝卸設備或為它們進行改裝，以達到美國環保局為新購設備訂立的最嚴格的排放標準。 • 港口工作船：在計畫實施的第二年，所有以洛杉磯港和長灘港為運作基地的港口工作船將需要符合美國環保局頒布的特定排放標準或達到同等的減排幅度。在執行計畫的第五年，所有在聖佩德羅灣港區登記而又曾重新安裝引擎的港口工作船都必須加裝經加州空氣資源局驗證並能最有效減少氮氧化物及/或粒子排放的裝置。當較環保的引擎推出市場後，上述所有船隻均須於五年內更換新型引擎。 • 鐵路機車：於五年內，所有在兩個港口運作的機車都必須符合美國環保局就新購機車制訂的最嚴格排放標準，同時必須使用更清潔的柴油及採用廢氣處理技術，以及安裝可自動關掉引擎的裝置，以防止引擎長時間空轉。此外，所有在新建鐵路貨場內運作的機車、貨車和貨物裝卸設備都必須採用市場上可供應的最環保技術。 • 技術提升計畫：這項研究計畫的目的是，處理和最終克服妨礙兩個港口採用最環保船隻、引擎和設備的障礙。此計畫將會把新策略和技術引入已推行的一攬子管控措施之中。對香港的啟示當洛杉磯地區的各個港口正認真採取措施，減少港口污染，香港卻仍未訂立任何管控措施，以減少其港口相關活動的排放。這種漠視態度影響重大，因為香港是全球最大的貨櫃港之一132。聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫大抵是世界上針對港口相關活動的減排計畫當中，最全面和最進取的的空氣質素管理行動計畫，因此，它可以為香港提供多方面值得借鑑和仿效的地方。由於區內的海上交通極之頻繁，香港應採取的主要減少海上排放行動很可能是要制訂潔淨船用燃油政策。可是，加州透過國家和州法律來強制執行清潔燃油規定（含硫量不得超過0.2%）的做法在香港是行不通的，因為香港管轄的水域（亦即燃料規定有效的水域）較加州海岸區的面積小得多。另一方面，香港已開展確認《1973年國際防止船舶造成污染公約》 (MARPOL)133附件六的程序。該附件涉及船舶產生的空氣污染，並規定遠洋輪船使用的燃油含硫量不得超過4.5%。這項規定的效力極低，原因是目前一般船用燃油的平均含硫量約為3%，實際上已低於上述規定。然而，確認《國際防污公約》附件六是積極的行動，因為透過確認公約，香港便可以聯同中國內地，向國際海事組織提出申請在香港和中國水域畫定一個硫排放控制區（SECA）。在任何硫排放控制區內，船用燃油的可允許最高含硫量是1.5%。因此，確認《國際防污公約》附件六應被視為宣布設立硫排放控制區的一個必要步驟，而非解決問題的方法。《國際防污公約》附件六的規定必須輔以一項同時實用於內河船的燃油政策；目前在香港水域內運作的內河船多不勝數，但它們卻不受上述規定監管。無論如何，我們必須指出，畫定一個硫排放控制區涉及冗長的程序，而即使最終得以實現，亦只能處理港口污染問題的其中一個部分（遠洋輪船的排放）。因此，香港有必要採取更迫切和多元化的措施。船隻減速計畫似乎亦是可以在香港水域內推行的可行和低成本的方案。現時香港海事署規定的船速限制較世界其他主要港口

131 請參考Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan，第5部份。 132 請參考香港特別行政區海事處：《全球集裝箱港口排名》；從網站：http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pdf/portstat_2_y_b5.pdf 下載。 133 《1973年國際防止船舶造成污染公約》的條文及相關附件曾於1978年作出修訂。

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

108

為高。其用意主要是提高港口的效率，但卻忽略了高航速限制對環境的影響134。至於聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫中的岸邊供電策略，香港若採取類似策略時，可能會受到限制，因為大部份進入香港港口的船隻都不是停泊在碼頭，而是錨泊在維多利亞港，然後在拖艇的協助下卸貨。此外，由於香港部分電力是燃煤產生的，我們因此還需要評估減少船用柴油耗用量的減排效益會否因電廠排放的增加而被局部抵銷。最後，聖佩德羅灣港區清潔空氣行動計畫中針對減低貨車、貨物裝卸設備和港口工作船排放的各項措施看來亦適用於香港。這些措施包括：確保在港口供應和使用低硫柴油；為貨車、貨物裝卸設備和港口工作船訂立排放標準；推廣使用可消減排放的設備；及透過技術裝置和訂立規例，限制引擎空轉的情況。在制訂政策及推行措施的影響方面，聖佩德羅灣港區港口的經驗顯示，香港政府應接觸航運業的持份者，鼓勵他們參與制訂一個技術上更可行和更具成本效益的行動計畫，以減少海上排放。香港企業在本地港口營運的參與程度很大，是世界極少數由私營企業投資、擁有和營運的國際港口之一，情況十分獨特135。因此，政府有需要結合各方力量，以克服管轄和賦權方面的種種限制。聖佩德羅灣港區港口所採用的各項實施當中，可能適合香港情況的包括：在租約中列明空氣質素要求；自願參與計畫及強制性規例。此外，香港政府應與區內其他主要港口合作，致力確保在海上排放管控方面，採取統一的處理方法，避免香港因採用較嚴格的環境標準而失去競爭力和令船隻「過門不入」。要制訂畫一的政策，香港政府必須與中國內地的港口機構（特別是深圳的港口管理部門），以及在香港和鄰近港口經營的主要航運公司攜手合作136。

3.6 師法洛杉磯洛杉磯地區的空氣質素管理能力得到聯邦、州和地方政府在行政和政策方面的支持，明顯遠較香港的空氣質素管理能力發展成熟。根據以上各部分的討論，香港值得向洛杉磯借鏡的地方包括： a. 香港政府應引入更嚴緊的空氣質素指標，並制訂排放標準，以抑止日益向上的污染物排放趨勢。在70至80年代期間，洛杉磯地區透過推行一些曾受到商界激烈反對的強硬政策，成功改善已達惡劣水平的空氣污染問題。根據洛杉磯和加利福尼亞州的經驗，香港政府不應害怕實行更嚴緊的空氣質素指標，以及為各類移動和固定污染源，實施更嚴格的排放標準。 b. 香港和廣東省政府應共同研究設立跨境空氣質素管轄區，以及成立專責機構管理該管轄區的空氣質素的可能性。香港與廣東省兩地政府雖已共同推行多項重要的合作計畫，但兩地政府需作出更大努力，共同解決區域性空氣污染問題，以整體改善珠江三角洲地區的空氣質素。加利福尼亞州以地形來界定空氣質素管轄區的做法，或可為香港未來的發展指出路向。粵港兩地政府該慎重考慮應否設立跨境空氣質素管轄區，並成立專責機構管理區內的空氣質素137。無論如何，加強跨境合作是香港改善空氣質素的主要工作範疇。 c. 香港社會各界應進一步參與討論與空氣質素有關的議題。洛杉磯推行各項空氣污染防治政策的發展歷程，清楚顯示了公眾壓力可迫使猶豫不決的政府作出果斷和有效的行動。在 2006年，公眾對本地空氣質素的關注和參與程度明顯增強。各社區團體應進一步推動這種公眾積極參與的趨勢，以催生必要的政策改革，並迫使業界在清潔香港空氣行動中，扮演更積極的角色。 d. 香港政府應與航運業界共同制訂和推行全面的策略，以減少港口相關活動所產生的排放。本報告第3.5節所描述聖佩德羅灣港區計畫的個案研究顯示，在推行針對各類與港口排放有關的行動計畫時，必須與當地航運業的主要持份者充分合作。香港值得向聖佩德羅灣港區計畫借鏡的主要措施包括：制訂一套潔淨船用燃油策略（按照香港 134 海事處制訂航速限制系統，以在港口效率和航運安全之間取得平衡。海事處：〈新船隻航速限制系統於7月1日生效〉，政府新聞公報， 2000年6月29日；從網站：http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200006/29/0629153.htm 下載。 135 位於葵涌的九個貨櫃碼頭共有二十四個停泊位，分別由五家營運商擁有：香港國際貨櫃碼頭擁有十二個停泊位、現代貨箱碼頭擁有七個停泊位、香港中遠─國際貨櫃碼頭擁有兩個停泊位、DPI Terminals擁有一個停泊位，而亞洲貨櫃碼頭則擁有兩個停泊位。 136 部分香港的貨櫃碼頭營運商，包括香港國際貨櫃碼頭、現代貨箱碼頭和DPI Terminals都在中國內地的港口擁有貨櫃碼頭。 137 香港政府與廣東省政府於2002年完成區域空氣質素聯合研究，並於 2002 年 4 月達成共識，目標是以 1997 年為基準，在 2010 年底或之前以最大努力把二氧化硫、氮氧化物、可吸入懸浮粒子及揮發性有機化合物的排放量，分別減少 40%、20%、55%及 55%。

的情況，此措施應適用於遠洋和內河船隻）；推行船隻減速計畫；為各類在港口內操作的柴油機，訂立強制性排放標準；及確保潔淨柴油在港口內的供應和使用。 e. 香港政府應履行法定責任，透過單一法律文件制訂全面的空氣質素行動計畫。洛杉磯和倫敦的空氣質素政策，大部份都包括在一份單一、全面而具法定地位的文件內〔如洛杉磯的南岸空氣質素管理區計畫及倫敦市長頒布的空氣質素策略〕。相比之下，香港的空氣污染管理政策則零星地按多條法例制訂。倫敦和洛杉磯的處理手法比香港高明的地方在：可促進綜合規畫和協調行動；有興趣的人士和機構都可對各項空氣質素管理措施作徹底的檢討；以及公眾可較容易取得有關空氣質素管理的資料。

4 結論倫敦和洛杉磯都很重視綜合規畫和為改善空氣質素投放大量資金，令她們的空氣質素管理基礎設施發展完善，這為她們帶來優勢。倫敦的空氣質素管理策略傾向推廣能源效益和需求管理，而洛杉磯的策略則較為倚重以技術性措施減少排放。香港為空氣質素管理政策所訂立的目標遠較這兩個城市寬鬆，結果導致污染物的排放趨勢持續惡化。再者，香港欠缺像倫敦般由市長制訂的、或如洛杉磯般由南岸空氣質素管理區執行的全面的改善空氣質素策略。然而，我們必須指出，倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素政策都得到高層次的強力支持：洛杉磯受到州和聯邦政府支持，而倫敦更有歐洲大陸的法制作後盾。這些都是香港獨有法律地位所無法賦予的。更重要的是，倫敦和洛杉磯市政府看來都較香港政府更重視空氣質素問題。這可能是由於這兩個西方城市的民眾對空氣質素問題較為關注。香港政府採取較少辯護和更積極主動的態度，似乎是制訂改善香港空氣質素的更有效策略的先決條件。最後，香港應認真考慮借鏡倫敦和洛杉磯的個別經驗，以改變目前令人日漸擔憂的污染情況（見第2.6及3.6節）。我們最主要的建議是：香港應追隨倫敦和洛杉磯處理空氣污染的方法，訂立進取的空氣質素目標，並擬訂全面、綜合和同樣進取的行動計畫，以達致改善空氣質素的目標。個別空氣質素及政策指標

倫敦

洛杉磯

香港

是

否

2007年

2003年

1987年

二氧化硫（24小時）

125微克/立方米

105微克/立方米

350微克/立方米

二氧化氮（全年）

40微克/立方米

100微克/立方米

80微克/立方米

直徑少於10微米的粒子（PM10）（全年）

40微克/立方米

20微克/立方米

55微克/立方米

12微克/立方米

100微克/立方米

137微克/立方米

123

空氣質素標準/指標是否具法律約束力？最新修訂年份

直徑少於2.5微米的粒子（PM2.5）臭氧（8小時移動平均數）市內空氣質素監測站數目

中文

109

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

倫敦、洛杉磯及香港的空氣污染趨勢

二氧化硫

香港

洛杉磯

粒子

倫敦 100

香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30 世衛 (2006年) 24小時平均數

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

80 70 香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30

世衛 2006年 (每年)

20 10

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

1997

二氧化氮

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

70 60 50 世衛 2006年 (每年)

40 30 20

70 全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

香港AQO (每年)

60 50 40 30 20 10

10 0 1997

1998

臭氧

100

全年平均濃度（每立方米微克）

中文

110

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

附錄一﹑倫敦已實施的主要空氣質素管理政策政策名稱／政策範疇

摘要路面運輸

交通管制

1.1

交通擠塞收費計畫

目的是透過在指定地區向行駛的車輛徵收每天8英鎊的交通擠塞收費，減少倫敦市中心和內倫敦的交通流量，以及減少車輛的廢氣排放。

1.2

交通控制中心

自2002年開始運作，職能包括交通管理及交通管制。中心負責監測實時交通狀況並發出擠塞預報，有助實施減少塞車的措施，令交通更為暢順，從而減少車輛的廢氣排放。

1.3

倫敦低排放區 (LEZ)（建議中）

倫敦市長聯同倫敦政府聯盟、倫敦各城區及中央政府，正考慮設立一個低排放區，範圍覆蓋大倫敦部分地區。根據低排放區計畫，不符合排放標準的車輛須繳付一筆巨額費用或改裝引擎以符合歐盟的低排放標準，方可駛進該區。

1.4

街道工程專責小組

負責協調倫敦的街道工程，減少交通受阻的情況出現。專責小組透過執法行動，鼓勵相關公用事業機構在最短時間內完成工程，減少製造沙塵和對交通造成干擾。

路面公共運輸

2.1

並非由倫敦交通局營運的巴士

所有長途巴士最低限度必須符合歐盟一期排放標準。車隊必須按比例以歐盟一期或更新歐盟標準車輛取代歐盟前期車輛。

2.2

倫敦可持續貨物分銷夥伴計畫

主要目的是確保貨物分銷和運送以最符合環保的方式進行。合作夥伴包括當地商家、有關代表組織、地區政府，以及倫敦開發局（LDA）。

2.3

倫敦夜間及週末貨車管控計畫

此計畫由倫敦政府聯盟負責推行，限制路面貨運車輛在夜間及週末的使用。

（1985） 2.4

路面貨運替代方案

倫敦市長支持在合符經濟原則及在切實可行的情況下，鼓勵逐步把路面貨運改為以鐵路及水路運送貨物，並保留鐵路及水路貨運交匯設施。

2.5

黑煙車輛舉報熱線

目的是減少路面重型車輛的廢氣排放。市民可以舉報黑煙車輛，然後由車輛視察組跟進執法行動。

2.6

歐盟一期的士計畫

在2005年或以後，倫敦已淘汰所有歐盟前期的士。

2.7

石油氣的士轉換計畫

由2002年開始，每年會有500輛的士轉換為石油氣的士（業界估計數字）。石油氣車輛將取代歐盟一期及二期車輛；這類車輛的氮氧化物（NOx）及直徑少於10微米的粒子（PM10）排放量估計與歐盟四期大型汽油車相同。

中文

111

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

112

環保車輛及車用燃料

3.1

環保車輛策略

(1)

倫敦市長將首先集中處理最污染的車輛，鼓勵它們加快採用合符成本效益的清潔

引擎、技術和燃料，以及非化石燃料和零排放技術，同時推廣以上技術的效益。(2) 市長將確保倫敦政府聯盟或以她名義使用的所有車輛都盡可能符合最高環保標準。 3.2

動力轉換計畫

由英國交通部撥款的資助計畫，向購置新替代燃料車輛或改裝現有車輛以能使用替代燃料的車主，提供部分資助。

3.3

清潔大行動

由英國交通部撥款的資助計畫，向加裝尾氣處理技術或重新裝配污染較少的引擎的柴油車車主，提供部分資助。

3.4

最佳營運方法

主要目標是協助貨運車隊，其次是私家車和小型貨車車隊，更有效地管理車輛；同時協助各機構實施僱員交通計畫。

3.5

新車輛動力轉換基金

英國交通部撥款900萬英鎊設立為期3年的基金，資助如混合動力車和燃料電池車等創新低碳車輛試驗項目。

3.6

環保燃料挑戰試驗計畫

此計畫的目的是，確保政府徵收的道路燃料稅將用於鼓勵發展替代交通燃料。

3.7

環保技術

此項由財政部協調的計畫，向投資指定環保技術的企業提供資助。

3.8

展望車輛計畫

由英國貿易工業部牽頭的研究項目，目的是在英國國內推廣新車輛技術的開發工作。

3.9

新能源及可再生能源計畫

由英國貿易工業部牽頭的研究項目，目的是推廣新能源及可再生能源的開發。

3.10

燃料電池計畫

由英國貿易工業部牽頭的研究項目，目的是支援燃料電池的開發工作，以加快應用於運輸及其他用途。

3.11

可持續技術計畫

由英國貿易工業部牽頭的研究項目，目的是資助所有行業的可持續技術開發工作。

3.12

Motorvate

英國交通部撥款的計畫，目的在協助汽車及小型貨車車隊營辦商透過選用更具能源效益的車輛、更有效地管理車隊和減少車行里數，以節省燃料成本和減少二氧化碳的排放。

3.13

氫氣夥伴計畫

此項目於2002年開始推行，目的在促進業界及其他推動發展氫經濟人士互相合作。

3.14

液化石油氣/壓縮天然氣

業界估計至2005年，市場上將約有50,000部石油氣車輛，當中20%符合歐盟四期排放標準。

3.15

車輛加裝粒子消減裝置

TransportAction將致力推廣及支援在英國為9,500部車輛加裝粒子消減裝置。在倫敦地區進行加裝的車輛當中，80%會是歐盟三期重型貨車，10%是歐盟一期車輛，餘下 10%歐盟三期的其他車輛。

3.16

電動車輛

2002年，TransportAction資助購買約1,000部電動車。預期到2005年，數目將會增至 3,000部。

3.17

混合動力車輛

2002年，英國（不包括蘇格蘭）約有935部混合動力車。預計到2005年，數目將會增至2,805部。

3.18

電單車

倫敦市長（通過倫敦交通局）成立倫敦電單車工作小組，為電單車和腳踏車提供更多泊位，尋求機會改善道路安全、減少排放和噪音污染，並提供誘因鼓勵電單車車主採用加裝技術和使用更環保的電單車。

3.19

倫敦潔淨燃料車輛工作小組

小組負責推廣替代燃料基礎設施的改善工作。小組同時會就市長與燃料供應商及其他人士合作在倫敦地區增加替代燃料供應點，包括氣體燃料供應站和電動車輛快速充電設備，提供建議。

3.20

新添加劑及相關技術

倫敦交通局鼓勵政府與TransportEnergy合作研究新添加劑及其他裝置，以減少氮氧化物、直徑少於10微米的粒子和二氧化碳排放。具成本效益的減排裝置和添加劑將得到大倫敦政府大力推廣。

3.21

車輛維修保養及駕駛習慣

車輛排放測試工作小組負責透過各種宣傳計畫，加強市民對車輛維修保養的意識。倫敦市長同時開展了另一項宣傳計畫，特別是通過倫敦旅遊局，提高市民對空轉引擎車輛的關注。

4 4.1

航空交通及機場減少航空交通的排放

尋求以下列各項措施減少排放：(1)盡量減少直接相關活動（即機場禁區內的車輛、機場內的發電站、向機場運送貨物和提供服務）產生的排放；(2)改善來往機場的公共交通系統； (3)減少飛機的排放；(4)減少機場鄰近地區與機場運作無關的路面交通的排放。

4.2

空運貨物對環境的影響

英國政府將致力研究通過各項國際協定、適用於全國及與機場相關的規例，以及經濟措施，減少空運貨物對環境的影響。

4.3

希斯路區運輸論壇

此組織與持份者接觸和合作，減少希斯路機場貨運活動對空氣質量的影響。

4.4

國際民用航空組織標準

這些標準限制飛機升降時所排放的煙霧、碳氫化合物、一氧化碳和氮氧化物。有關標

（第3及第4章)

準是由英國政府立法實施的。在希斯路機場升降的所有航機均須最少符合第3章規定的排放標準。所有在2006年或以後出售的飛機，則必須符合第4章的規定，但這標準預期不會顯著改善空氣污染物排放，部分原因是航機隊伍的更新速度相對緩慢。

4.5

控制機場地面排放

倫敦各機場正實施或仍在研究各種可行方案，控制機場地面的污染物排放，包括：使用低排放的地面運作車輛；改用電動設備提供地勤服務；推行改善機場禁區計畫，減少飛機延誤的情況。

此外，倫敦建議推行的低排放區，將包括希斯路機場的鄰近範

圍，機場禁區內的車輛也在規管之列。 4.6

英國機場管理局空氣質素行動計畫

英國機場管理局在英國境內擁有及經營7個機場，其中包括位於倫敦的希斯路、蓋特

及策略

威及史丹斯特德機場。英國機場管理局空氣質素行動計畫採取了多角度方法減低空氣污染，包括：減少地面排放；與各持份者接觸與合作；並採用最佳營運方法管理空氣質素。

4.7

「污染者自付」原則

政府進行的一項有關未來航空發展的諮詢指出，航空業須承擔對他人造成的外部成本。從徵收個別稅項所得的款項，將由航空環境基金分配給每個機場。

5 5.1

鐵路、航運及地鐵倫敦市長的空氣質素管理策略

支持乘客由使用私家車改為使用巴士、地鐵、火車及內河船；而貨運則由路面運輸改為以鐵路和內河運輸為主。

5.2

鐵路營運

策略鐵路局、Railtrack及倫敦市長攜手合作，提倡以最佳營運方法運作鐵路系統，並研究以不同方法在車站內外減少機動車頭產生的污染物。

5.3

鐵路營運合約中的環保條款

倫敦市長建議策略鐵路局（SRA）在與鐵路營運商簽訂合約時，加入保護環境的條款。

5.4

船用燃料

根據歐盟指令1999/32/EC，由2008年1月1日起，船用燃料的最高含硫量為1,000 ppm。倫敦市長建議政府修改英國法例，在倫敦加快採用潔淨燃料，並尋求與英國運輸部共同努力，完成目標。

5.5

地鐵

倫敦地鐵有限公司與倫敦交通局正繼續研究以各種可行方案，改善地鐵系統內的空氣質素，特別要減少塵埃的排放，包括直徑少於10微米的粒子（PM10）。

6 6.1

工業和跨境污染源綜合污染防治（IPC）

此制度適用於由英國環境局負責監管的工序。這些主要工序（產生嚴重污染的可能性很高）對土地、水和空氣所造成的污染都受到監管，例如大型發電站、煉油廠和大型焚化設施等。此制度正按照歐盟及國際條約逐步作出改善。

6.2

地方空氣污染防治（LAPC）

此制度適用於地方政府（包括倫敦各城區）負責監管的工序。這些工序規模較小，並由城區的環境衛生部門負責監管工序對空氣造成的污染，例如小型鍋爐、混凝土攪拌機和火葬場等。此制度正按照歐盟及國際條約逐步作出改善。

6.3

工業排放

當工業生產過程釋出的污染物超出空氣質素指標時，倫敦市長會視乎情況要求環境部或倫敦城區政府採取行動，減少有關排放。

中文

113

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

114

7 7.1

建造工程倫敦發展計畫（土地發展策略）

鼓勵採用可持續的建築物設計和建造方法，並提倡節能和善用能源。在可行的情況下，倫敦市長推行各項措施，優先考慮保留現有建築物循環再用，而不鼓勵拆卸和重建。

7.2

城區建造業工作守則

6個倫敦城區已自行制訂建造業工作守則（CoCPs）或承建商關懷計畫，以減少建築工地產生的污染和噪音。

7.3

測量與建造工程有關的污染

倫敦市長將提供更多與建造工程活動有關的排放資料，並把資料列入2003年倫敦大氣污染物排放清單內。

7.4

7.5

控制塵埃的排放及減少它對環境的

通過建造業工作守則進行管制。倫敦市長將會在其他團體推出的措施之上，訂立最佳

影響

建造方法指引，以鼓勵建造工程活動減少產生塵埃及其他對環境的影響。

廢物管理

透過都市廢物管理策略，倫敦市長將致力鼓勵倫敦廢物處理部門採用堆肥法，間接減少箐火事件的發生。

7.6

建築工地露天生火

英國《1993年潔淨空氣法》禁止任何人士於建築及拆卸工地露天生火（在個別情況下可能容許燃燒木材）。

8 8.1

能源效益與供熱空氣質素策略（能源政策）

(1)倫敦市長將與能源供應企業合作，增加可再生電力的供應；(2)市長透過他的能源策略和倫敦發展計畫，鼓勵推行高效益的本地能源生產計畫，特別是熱電聯供(CHP) 及社區供熱計畫。市長同時鼓勵使用凝汽式鍋爐和裝有低氮氧化物燃燒器的鍋爐； (3)市長將鼓勵倫敦各城區利用海關制訂的「優質熱電聯供」指數，評估各項熱電聯供建議方案，同時確保發展商已全面評估善用熱能的所有機會；(4)市長將鼓勵倫敦區內仍然燃燒重油的大型鍋爐改用輕質燃油或天然氣。市長會尤其鼓勵這類鍋爐改用熱電聯供系統。

8.2

減少熱量排放

透過下列各種方法減少熱量排放：(1) 物；(2)

採用最佳方法，建造更多高能源效益的建築

改善現有建築物的能源效益；(3)安裝能源效益更高的鍋爐；(4)改善燃料效

益；(5) 推行計畫，在可行情況下在現有建築物轉用更環保的燃料；(6) 使用可再生能源技術，如太陽能熱水系統。 8.3

節能信託基金會

由政府及私營機構聯合成立的非牟利機構，目標是要實踐可持續的能源使用和減少二氧化碳排放。該機構提供資助和金錢上的獎勵，推廣使用潔淨燃料和環保車輛。

8.4

倫敦發展計畫

有關章節提供多項政策資料，有助減少新土地發展項目對能源方面的影響。

（土地發展策略第5F節） 9 9.1

有關氣候變化的項目倫敦氣候變化夥伴計畫

倫敦氣候變化夥伴計畫的目標是，確保倫敦為氣候變化作好準備。該夥伴計畫由來自倫敦不同政府部門和企業的持份者組成。

9.2

倫敦氣候變化局

倫敦氣候變化局（LCCA）是新成立的政府機構，負責推行減少倫敦溫室氣體排放的不同項目。

9.3

全球大城市氣候變化峰會

這項由倫敦市長舉辦的大型會議是探討氣候變化的長期國際協作計畫的其中一項活動，全球共有18個城市派出代表參加。與歐盟及英國相關的政策

空氣質素

10.1

有關大氣質素評估及管理的

該指令為歐盟各國統一處理空氣質素問題提供策略性框架，同時訂立了空氣質素限

《歐盟指令96/62/EC》（框架指令）

值，要求各成員國達標。此外，另有幾條附屬指令配合框架指令的執行。

《歐盟指令1999/30/EC》

訂立環境空氣中，二氧化硫、二氧化氮、氮氧化物、粒子和鉛的限值（歐洲委員會

（第一附屬指令）

2001/744/EC號決議作出修訂）。

《歐盟指令2000/69/EC》

訂立環境空氣中，苯和一氧化碳限值。

10.2

10.3

（第二附屬指令）

115

10.4

《歐盟指令2002/3/EC》

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

訂立環境空氣中，與臭氧相關的污染物的限值。

（第三附屬指令） 10.5

《歐盟指令2004/107/EC》

訂立環境空氣中，與砷、鎘、汞﹝水銀﹞、鎳和多環芳香族碳氫化合物相關的污染物

（第四附屬指令）

的限值。

10.6

歐盟頒布的歐洲潔淨空氣策略

將於未來十年內實施，為所有空氣質素法例及相關計畫訂立劃一標準。

10.7

歐盟車輛標準

歐盟一期（1992/3年開始實施）；歐盟二期（1995/7年）；歐盟三期（2000/1年）；歐盟四期（2005/6年）；以及歐盟五期（2008/9年）標準。歐盟標準要求車輛排放的廢氣必須低於特定的標準值，而該等標準正逐步收緊。

10.8

10.9

英國空氣質素限值規例

該等規例將歐盟各項政策訂立的限值納入英國法例當中。有關規例訂明，環境事務大

（SI 2315/2001）

臣有責任在指定日期前達到限值的要求。

英國國家空氣質素策略

該策略提供框架辨別改善和保持空氣質素的措施，並以協調和可持續的形式實行，同時協助制訂區域及地方空氣質素政策。特別受到關注的污染物包括二氧化氮、直徑少於10微米的粒子、二氧化硫、鉛、一氧化碳、苯、1,3丁二烯、臭氧和多環芳香族碳氫化合物。該策略同時為兩種污染物訂立指標，以保護植皮和生態系統。

10.10

英國1995年環境法

(1)

在英格蘭及威爾斯成立環境局和為蘇格蘭成立環保局，作為環保事宜的監管機

構，並賦予多方面的權力及責任，保護及管理環境。(2)

規定政府必須擬備國家空氣

質素策略，包括為特定污染物訂立空氣質素標準和目標，以及簡單說明地方政府將會採取的措施。(3)

規定地方政府必須定期檢討及評估當地的空氣質素，並彙報當地在

指定限期內的達標情況。 10.11

2000年英格蘭空氣質素策略

(1) 訂立在指定期限內必須達到的七種基準污染物的空氣質素指標。(2) 實施各項措施以達到英國國家空氣質素策略所設定的指標。

10.12

1999年大倫敦法例

規定倫敦市長必須制訂並公布《倫敦空氣質素策略》，當中必須包括市長對管理空氣質素的各項建議及政策。

氣候變化

11.1

歐盟排放交易計畫

這是全球規模最大、有多個國家及多個行業參加的溫室氣體排放交易計畫，目的是協

（指令2003/87/EC）

助歐盟各成員國履行《京都議定書》的承諾，達到減排的目標。參與計畫的企業可以購買或出售排放配額，以最低成本達到減排目標。

11.2

英國排放交易計畫

英國排放交易計畫（UK ETS）是歐盟排放交易計畫「限量與交易」模式的原型。

11.3

歐盟排放指令2003/87/EC

該指令的目的是，確保歐盟在2005年至2007年《京都議定書》落實前期妥為擬備所有必須的法例和程序，以使歐盟可以如期履行2008年至2012年《京都議定書》第一達標階段的承諾，甚至提早履行協議。

11.4

大型燃燒設施指令（2001/80/EC）

這是一個「限量與交易」模式的排污交易計畫，提供可交易的氮氧化物、二氧化硫和

（於2006年2月修訂）

塵埃排放配額。

11.5

氣候變化徵款

這是英國向企業徵收的能源使用稅項，於2001年4月1日開始實施。

11.6

2000年公用事業法

可再生能源責任於2002年4月開始實施，所有持牌的電力供應商所生產的總電量中，

（可再生能源責任）

必須有特定比率是利用可再生能源產生的。2002年至2003年度，供應商總銷售電量的 3%必須由可再生能源生產，而此比率將於2015年至2016年度增至15.4%。供應商可透過可再生能源責任證書（ROCs）及/或支付「買斷價格」履行責任。可再生能源責任證書跟排放配額一樣，都可供企業之間進行買賣。

11.7

歐盟建築物能源消耗指令

指令規定必須確立一種方法評估建築物的能源消耗，並要求設定最低的能源消耗標

（2002/91/EC）

準。預期自消耗證明書。

2009年開始，當建築物建成、出售或出租時，買家或租客都可獲發能源

中文

116

附錄二﹑國際空氣質量標準污染物

平均時間

濃度（微克/立方米）世界衛生組織

香港

倫敦

加里福利亞州

美國聯邦政府

266(c)

（2006年）二氧化硫

15分鐘

500 （10分鐘平均數）

二氧化氮

直徑少於10微米的粒子

1小時

800(a)

350(d)

655

24小時

350(b)

125(e)

105

365

1年

1小時

200

300(a)

200(f)

470

24小時

150(b)

1年

100

24小時

180

150

1年

180

137

157

(b)

(g)

40（法定） 23（非法定指標）

直徑少於2.5微米的粒子臭氧

24小時

1年

1小時

8小時

100

240

(a)

100

(g)

每年超標次數不應超過3次

每年超標次數不應超過1次

每年超標次數不應超過35次

每年超標次數不應超過24次

每年超標次數不應超過3次

每年超標次數不應超過18次

每年超標次數不應超過35次（此每天平均值同時訂有非法定指標，每年超標次數不應超過10次）

117

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

附錄三﹑倫敦空氣質素網絡（LAQN）倫敦空氣質素網絡（LAQN）於1993年成立，目的是為了確保倫敦能履行責任，達到國家和國際規定的空氣質素標準。倫敦現時有30個城區撥出經費設立監測站，定期向倫敦空氣質素網絡提供空氣質素的測量結果。網絡的運作和管理同時獲得英國環境部與英國食品及農業事務部（DEFRA）的資助，而倫敦交通局（TfL）亦資助少數監測站，以監測交通擠塞收費計畫的影響。此外，有8個監測站是由英國食品及農業事務部直接運作，讀得的數據同樣會輸入空氣質素網絡的數據庫之中。138 現時共有123個運作中的監測站為網絡提供數據。可是，不是每個監測站都會量度所有污染物。部分監測站可能只量度單一污染物的濃度。每個監測站都會根據其所在位置予以分類。下表將列出和說明不同類別的監測站：監測站

說明

監測站數目（2004年數字）

行人路旁

位於距離行人路旁1米以內，採樣高度為3米或以下

路邊

位於距離行人路旁1至5米範圍內，採樣高度為3米或以下

市區

位於可代表市區中心地帶狀況的地點；同時遠離所有重要污染

源，例如距離行人路旁25米郊區

位於可代表市區邊緣郊外住宅區狀況的地點；同時遠離所有重

要污染源，例如距離行人路旁25米工業區

位於特定工業污染源旁邊

138 Fuller, Gary W和Green, David：Air Quality in London 2005 and mid 2006 -- Briefing，2006年。〔網上版〕從網站： http://www.londonair.org.uk 下載。

中文

118

附錄四、洛杉磯已實施的主要空氣質素管理政策政策名稱／政策範疇 1 1.1

摘要

減排量

南岸空氣質素管理計畫（SCAQMP）下的各項政策進一步減少建築塗料及清洗溶劑的排

目的是透過對塗層性能進行持續技術評估，並採用低揮發性有機化合

放（揮發性有機化合物）（CTS-07）

物含量及/或低活性塗料或清洗物料，以進一步減少建築塗料類產品及

每日8.5公噸

稀釋和清洗溶劑所產生的揮發性有機化合物。 1.2

其他工業用塗料及溶劑作業（揮發性

透過制訂揮發性有機化合物排放上限，以及對清洗物料、清漆油、人

有機化合物）（CTS-10）

手清洗航機作業等進行全面技術評估，以進一步減少工業用塗料及溶

每日3公噸

劑作業所產生的揮發性有機化合物。 1.3

減少逃逸性污染源的排放（揮發性有

透過為特定設施制訂經南岸空氣質素管理區批准的達標計畫，力求減

機化合物）（FUG-05）

少如煉油廠、石油/天然氣生產設施、碼頭、化工廠和製造業設施等逃

每日2公噸

逸性污染源的揮發性有機化合物排放。 1.4

減少煉油廠廢氣燃燒所排放的污染物

適用於所有煉油廠、硫回收裝置和製氫廠的廢氣燃燒設施，目的是準

（硫氧化物）（CMB-07）

確地編製關於廢氣燃燒操作的排放清單，從而找出最可行和具成本效

每日2.1公噸

益的防控策略，以減少煉油廠燃燒廢氣時產生的污染物。防控措施包括改裝設施及優化作業和維修程序，以防止或減少不正常的操作。 1.5

1.6

減少煉油廠催化裂化裝置的排放

透過改善安裝在催化裂化裝置的靜電除塵器和旋風分離器，或更新

每日0.3-

（直徑少於10微米的粒子或氨氣）

舊有設備至更高效率的型號，以減少粒子（直徑少於10微米和2.5微

0.5/1.6公噸

（CMB-09）

米）及氨氣的排放。

推廣使用淺色物料舖砌屋頂和路面及

透過獎勵計畫，鼓勵市民自願採用較淺色的屋頂和鋪路物料，從而降

植樹計畫（所有污染物）

低環境溫度，以減少揮發性有機化合物或氧化物氮的排放。

待定

（MSC-01） 1.7

1.8

1.9

推廣催化劑塗料技術計畫（所有污染

透過在管理區內全面使用可消除臭氧的催化劑塗料，以減少臭氧和一

物）（MSC-03）

氧化碳的排放。

減少餐廳、食肆的排放（直徑少於

目的在減少碳燒式扒爐產生的粒子。當滴下的油脂燃燒時，脂肪將會

10微米的粒子）（PRC-03）

被帶走，同時釋出粒子。

工業工序作業（揮發性有機化合物）

建議編製更細緻的排放清單，並進一步控制來自各種化工程序的揮發

（PRC-07）

性有機化合物。可能適用的防控措施包括：加強檢修工作和優化內部

待定

每日1-5公噸

每日2公噸

工作程序，以減少物料運送、儲存和處理過程中產生的逃逸性污染物。 1.10

減少禽畜廢物排放的廢氣（揮發性有

可能適用的防控措施包括：將禽畜糞便移離管理區、使用受管制堆肥

每日

機化合物或氨氣）（WST-01）

設施或厭氧消化池處理禽畜糞便。透過重置養牛場、執行現行水質監

4.8/8.7公噸

管規例，及WST-01控制措施，估計到2010年，每天可以減排4.8公噸揮發性有機化合物和8.7公噸氨氣。 1.11

減少堆肥所產生的廢氣（揮發性有機

可能適用的防控措施包括：強制通風、修建圍牆、控制處理程序及末

每日

化合物或氨氣）（WST-02）

端控制裝置（如生物過濾池）。有關當局將評估可行的措施，然後應

1.2/1.9公噸

用於園林廢物堆肥和廚餘堆肥。 1.12

向每年產生超過10公噸揮發性有機

聯邦政府頒布的《潔淨空氣法》規定，所有位於極度不達標地區而未

化合物的固定污染源，收取每公噸

能達到臭氧的環境空氣質素標準的主要揮發性有機化合物固定排放源

5,000美元的排放費（揮發性有機化

頭，都必須繳付罰款。這項防控措施建議：若有關地區至2010年仍未

合物）（FSS-04）

能符合聯邦政府訂立的環境空氣質素標準，南岸空氣質素管理區便需要向區內任何排放超出基準排放量80%的主要污染源，徵收每公噸揮發性有機化合物5,000美元的排放費。

待定

1.13

經濟獎勵計畫（所有污染物）

目的是透過提供其他達標的方法，加強監管工作的靈活性，並降低監

（FLX-01）

管的成本，同時透過排放配額信貸安排（即RECLAIM計畫），鼓勵企

待定

業提早進行減排和加快應用環保技術。 1.14

1.15

透過區域性潔淨空氣市場獎勵

希望透過推行區域性潔淨空氣市場獎勵計畫，減少氮氧化物的排放。

（RECLAIM）計畫，進一步減少氮氧

可實施的防控策略包括：減少2003年至2006年的最終配額，增訂針

化物的排放（氮氧化物）

對特定污染源的規例，豁免規模較小的排放設施；及對發電廠和非發

（CMB-10）

電設施作分層管理。

進一步減少逃逸性塵埃排放源的粒子

建議檢討管理區內現行的最佳可行防控措施，並考慮推行強化措施，

減放（直徑少於10微米的粒子）

以進一步減少源自已鋪築和未鋪築的路面、建築/拆卸和掘土活動、翻

（BCM-07）

動空置土地和農業污染源的粒子（直徑少於10微米）的排放。可考慮

每日3.0公噸

待定

在區內強化的條文包括：改善達標測試方法，特定的短期和長期的土壤整固規定；建造工程項目的標示，以及強制使用控制污染物離開工地的裝置（例如在工地出入通道鋪妥路面）。 1.16

進一步減少集料和混凝土生產設施的

目的在控制集料設施和混凝土製造廠內的污染源所釋出的逃逸性塵

排放（直徑少於10微米的粒子）

埃。具體措施可包括：在萃取物料前先灑水；採用化學粉塵抑制劑或

（BCM-08）

替地面植皮，以抑止擾動；覆蓋物料輸送帶和拖運車輛；以及在拖運

每日0.7公噸

車輛經常使用的工地閘口安裝洗轆裝置。 1.17

減少各種氨氣污染源的排放（氨氣）

建議編製更細緻的氨氣排放清單，並為各種氨氣排放源頭（如汽車、

（MSC-04）

家禽和牲畜養殖業、堆肥作業和其他固定污染源）識別其他可行的防

待定

控方法或技術。 1.18

貨車停泊處電氣化計畫（氮氧化物）

強制規定在貨車停泊處安裝電力供應系統，為貨車駕駛室的暖氣、通

（MSC-05）

風和空調系統，其他電動器材，以及貨運路線系統提供電力，以減少

每日2.1公噸

貨車柴油引擎空轉的情況。 1.19

減少燃木壁爐和一般燃木爐具排放的

此項政策的目的是就燃燒加工木材與天然木材的分別，編訂更細緻的

污染物（直徑少於10微米的粒子）

排放清單，以及評估已有的排放資料和及兩者對空氣質素的影響；考

（MSC-06）

慮各種防控排放的方法〔如新建住宅或公眾設施須安裝美國環保局認

待定

可的燃木爐或壁爐〕；設立獎勵計畫，鼓勵市民更換舊式燃木裝置；及加強公眾對燃木裝置排放的認識和教育計畫。 1.20

訂立天然氣燃料規格（氮氧化物）

此策略主要考慮訂立天然氣的熱值上限。天然氣生產商或供應商可透

（MSC-07）

過不同方法達到以上目標，例如：不向管理區供應熱氣，去除熱氣中

待定

的高氫化物或降低熱氣中的Btu（英制熱量單位）值。 1.21

1.22

進一步減少大型揮發性有機化合物污

根據此項防控措施，所有有關設施必須提交計畫，簡單說明為減少整

染源的排放（揮發性有機化合物）

體排放量至低於現時規定的水平，以及達到特定的排放目標而將會推

（MSC-08）

行的具體措施。

聯邦政府污染源緩解費用計畫（所有

建議由美國環保局實行緩解費用計畫，透過制訂規例及向管理區提供

污染物）（FSS-05）

資助，向聯邦政府轄下的污染源收取緩解污染的費用。聯邦政府轄下

待定

的污染源包括由美國環保局管轄的飛機、遠洋輪船、火車和非路面設備。 1.23

進一步減少使用中的非路面車輛和設

建議若加州空氣資源局或美國環保局未能制訂積極進取的計畫，減少

備的排放（所有污染物）

仍在使用中的各類非路面設備和車輛（即建築和工業設備、休閒車、

（FSS-06）

公用設備）的廢氣排放，管理區便可以行使權力制訂規例，改裝現有

待定

引擎或加快引擎的替換速度。 1.24

與港口相關的移動污染源的排放收費

計畫建議向正在使用中的港口相關移動污染源（即船隻、火車、貨車

計畫（所有污染物）（FSS-07）

和非路面設備）徵收排放費用。管理區會利用計畫收集得來的款項推行不同項目，重點在於減少正在使用中的路面和非路面移動污染源的排放量。

待定

中文

119

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

120

1.25

按車輛行駛里數（VMT）收費計畫

車行里數費用是根據車輛行駛的里數而徵收的。此項措施的優點是直

（建議中）

接和公平，所有車輛都會按照使用車道的里數，按同一收費標準繳

待定

費。由於現時已有多種利用電子儀器讀取車輛行駛里數的技術在應用當中，因此收費系統的設計將不會對駕駛者造成太大的滋擾。 2 2.1

南加州政府協會（SCAG）實施的各項政策南加州政府協會區域性交通策略和

根據法律規定，南岸空氣流域內的交通發展計畫必須與空氣質素管

管制措施

理計畫互相配合。法例同時要求該區必須提出被稱為交通管制措施 (TCMs)的特種運輸方案。聯邦政府的《潔淨空氣法》當中具體說明了這些措施的要求。

2.2

2001年區域性交通計畫（RTP）

2001年區域性交通計畫是南加州政府協會制訂及推行的其中一項主要

到2010年，

空氣質素管理政策，主要目的是增加單人使用車輛模式以外的其他交

每日15.7公

通模式的比例。此計畫包括多項具體的干預措施和策略，大致可歸納

噸揮發性有

為下列三個主要部分：

機化合物、 7.8公噸氮氧化物和 161.8公噸一氧化碳

2.3

a. 高載客量車輛（HOV）計畫

在南加州，90%市民選擇獨自駕車上班；這計畫嘗試改變單獨駕車上班人數的比例，提高區內使用高載客量車輛的人數。計畫的其中一項措施是設立高載客量車輛特別車道，特別在繁忙時段在高流量的高速公路闢出專線，專供高載客量車輛使用。

2.4

b. 公共交通及系統管理計畫

推廣公共交通及替代交通工具（如單車和步行）的使用，並透過獎勵計畫，鼓勵提高車輛的平均載客量，例如鼓勵共用車輛和智能穿梭巴士等。計畫將包括傳統公共交通系統（例如：巴士、客運鐵路、地下鐵和穿梭巴士服務）、非機動交通工具（為騎單車和步行人士提供方便），以及聯運交通設施（例如設立泊車轉乘設施、安排共用車輛路線等）。

2.5

c. 資訊化交通系統計畫

嘗試改變乘車習慣，以改善交通帶來的塞車和空氣污染問題。其中一系列策略是嘗試提供足夠資訊，方便配對往返特定起點和目的地的乘客，增加多人共乘車輛的比率。另一系列策略是嘗試透過把繁忙時段的交通流量配置到非繁忙時間，以改變交通需求的時間規律。計畫已實行的措施包括：推廣和鼓勵市民使用高載客量車輛專用車道或鐵路；教育公眾，認識泊車轉乘設施的收費、地點、可達性和所提供的服務；推廣共乘車輛的安排和相關的獎勵計畫；推廣透過互聯網配對共用車輛服務，以及透過其他渠道向市民提供其他交通選擇的資訊；及各種塞車管理策略。

3 3.1

海上排放〔聖佩德羅灣港區（SPBP）清潔空氣行動計畫〕 SPBP-HDV1路面重型車輛性能標準

提供財務獎勵，加快車隊在2011年底或以前，透過更換或改裝所有經

每年

常進出長灘和洛杉磯港的「高污染」貨櫃車，改為使用環保車輛。屆

2,095公噸

時所有貨車必須符合若干標準（如美國環保局2007年排放標準），方

柴油粒子、

能在港口範圍內運作。此措施將透過租賃條款、更改關稅，及/或獎勵

16,273公噸

機制推行，估計五年共需成本18億美元。

氮氧化物和 6公噸硫氧化物

3.2

SPBP-HDV2 為重型天然氣車輛興建

為支援SPBP-HDV1這項針對替代燃料貨車的重大投資計畫，此項措施

替代燃料基礎設施

落實在Terminal Island興建加氣和中央維修設施，由長灘和洛杉磯兩個港口共同擁有。估計五年共需投資400萬美元。

3.3

SPBP-OGV1遠洋輪船船隻減速計畫

船隻減速計畫的目的是，透過減低船隻進出港口的速度，減少遠洋輪

5年內

（VSR）

船的氮氧化物排放。根據現行的自願性船隻減速計畫，船隻在距離

14,625公噸

Point Fermin 20海浬的水域範圍內，必須減速至12海哩。是項新措施

氮氧化物

將船隻減速範圍擴展到距離Point Fermin 40海浬的水域內。估計五年共需成本2,270萬美元。 3.4

SPBP-OGV2 減少泊岸遠洋輪船的

五年內，洛杉磯港內的所有主要貨櫃碼頭和客輪碼頭均須確保船隻在

排放

停泊期間使用岸電，以減少泊岸船隻的排放；長灘港內所有貨櫃碼頭

噸柴油粒

和一個原油碼頭，則計畫在五至十年內為停靠的船隻提供岸電。不配

子、2,430公

備連接岸電裝置的船隻則須採用另類消減泊岸排放技術（如廢氣洗滌

噸氮氧化物

處理和運油船需使用岸邊電泵）。估計五年的成本開支為1.791億美

和1,015公噸

元。 3.5

5年內56公

硫氧化物

SPBP-OGV3 遠洋輪船輔助引擎燃料

此措施規定位於Point Fermin 20海浬範圍內或停泊於碼頭內的遠洋輪

標準

船，其船上輔助引擎必須使用低硫蒸餾油。規定的燃料標準為含硫

噸柴油粒

量0.2％或更低的蒸餾油或船用輕柴油；或採用同等含硫量減量的燃

子、38公噸

料。

5年內13公

氮氧化物和 316公噸硫氧化物

3.6

SPBP-OGV4 遠洋輪船主引擎燃料

此計畫打算在2007年內，推廣、鼓勵並強制規定位於Point

Fermin

標準

20海浬範圍內的遠洋輪船的主要推進引擎使用低硫燃油，並於

噸柴油粒

2008年第一季把管制範圍擴展到Point Fermin 40海浬以內水域，以配

子、841公

合同期推行的船隻減速計畫。根據現時的規例，船隻可以使用含硫量

噸氮氧化物

高得多的燃油。船隻進出聖佩德羅灣港區時，主引擎的燃料標準為含

和4,613公噸

硫量0.2％或更低的船用輕柴油。 3.7

5年內641公

硫氧化物

SPBP-OGV5 改善遠洋輪船主引擎和

此項措施是採用經技術提升計畫核證的主引擎和輔助引擎消減排放技

輔助引擎的排放

術，目的是減少主引擎和輔助引擎釋出的柴油粒子、氮氧化物和硫氧

噸柴油粒子

化物達90%。首項引進的引擎減排技術是在主引擎安裝MAN

和2,592公噸

B&W設

計的滑閥。此措施初期會透過技術提升計畫、租賃條款、修改關稅和

5年內259公

氮氧化物

獎勵機制推行。 3.8

SPBP-CHE1貨物裝卸設備性能標準

措施：自2007年開始，所有新購置的貨物裝卸設備都必須符合下列

5年內40公

其中一項性能標準：配備市場上有售的、氮氧化物排放最低的替代燃

噸柴油粒子

料引擎，並符合微粒排放標準0.01克/制動馬力小時；或配備市場上有

和1,323公噸

售的、氮氧化物排放最低的柴油引擎，並符合微粒排放標準0.01克/制

氮氧化物

動馬力小時。若當時市場上未有供應符合微粒排放標準達0.01克/制動馬力小時的引擎，則必須購置市場上最清潔的引擎，另須加裝經驗證的柴油廢氣排放控制裝置（VDEC）。到2010年底，所有在聖佩德羅灣港區操作的貨場拖拉機都必須符合2007年美國環保局頒布的路面或第四級引擎排放標準。到2012年底，所有2007年前期的路面或未達第四級引擎標準的，以及馬力小於750匹的重櫃型堆高機、鏟車、伸臂式起重機、輪胎式貨櫃龍門起重機和貨櫃跨載機都必須最少符合 2007年美國環保局頒布的路面或第四級引擎標準。到2014年底，所有馬力大於750匹的貨物裝卸設備都必須最少符合2007年美國環保局頒布的第四級非路面引擎標準。自2007年起（直到所有設備都完成更換第四級引擎為止），所有貨物裝卸設備若裝有大於750匹馬力的引擎，都必須安裝市場有售的最清潔的和經加州空氣資源局驗證的柴油廢氣排放控制裝置。

中文

121

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

中文

122

3.9

SPBP-HC1港口工作船性能標準

當清新空氣行動計畫踏入第二年，所有在聖佩德羅灣港區登記的港口工作船都必須達到美國環保局所制訂的第二級港口工作船排放標準，或達到同等的減排幅度。在執行計畫的第五年，所有在聖佩德羅灣港區登記而又曾重新安裝引擎的港口工作船都必須加裝經加州空氣資源局驗證並能最有效減少氮氧化物及/或粒子排放的裝置。當符合美國環保局第三級標準的引擎推出市場後，上述所有船隻均須於五年內更換新型引擎。此外，當所有拖船停泊在船隊基地時，都必須使用岸電。

3.10

SPBP-RL1 PHL調車機車現代化計畫

到2008年，所有在港區內操作的調車機車必須改用第二級引擎，並

每年3公噸

燃燒乳化燃料或其他同樣潔淨的柴油。所有在更換計畫後購置的新調

柴油粒子、

車機車都必須符合美國環保局的第三級標準，或符合每制動馬力小時

163公噸氮

排放3克氮氧化物和每制動馬力小時排放0.023克粒子的標準。此外，

氧化物和

所有使用二級引擎的調車機車均需要安裝可正常操作的15分鐘引擎空

0.2公噸硫氧

轉上限裝置。根據機車柴油催化器（DOC）或柴油微粒濾清系統(DPF)

化物

試驗計畫的成功經驗，所有第二級引擎都必須優先選擇裝配柴油微粒濾清系統，並以柴油催化器作為後備，以防柴油微粒濾清系統試驗失敗。估計是項計畫在五年內共需成本2,100萬美元。 3.11

SPBP-RL2現有一級鐵路綫的運作

是項計畫的目的是，與現有一級鐵路綫的營運單位達成諒解備忘錄，

待定

並使用其他合約機制，以減少有關鐵路綫在不會在未來五年符合 CEQA行動要求的港口範圍內（即新建或重建的火車調度場）的廢氣排放。計畫採用的措施包括：空轉引擎的限制，及規定使用清潔的引擎和燃料。 3.12

SPBP-RL3新建及重建的火車調度場

此項計畫集中監管港口範圍內新建和重新發展的鐵路設施，目標是在鐵路營運中引入最環保的機車、貨物裝卸設備和重型車輛技術。適用於鐵路調度場的性能標準包括：調車機車、輔助車和長途機車採用更環保的技術（如電動車、柴電混合車、多引擎發電機組、柴油粒子和氮氧化物消減設施和替代燃料等）；「環保貨櫃」運輸系統；空轉引擎關閉裝置；空轉引擎排氣罩；超低硫柴油或替代燃料；環保貨物裝卸設備和重型車輛等。

3.13

技術提升計畫

此項綜合性計畫的目的是，評估和試驗新的策略和技術，並把它們引進現有的一攬子污染防控措施當中（例如上述各項措施），希望最終可以大幅減少柴油粒子和其他基準污染物的排放。有關試驗計畫將包括善用「環保」和可再生能源的技術，並會嘗試界定「環保貨櫃」交通系統。估計五年的成本開支為1,540萬美元。

3.14

基建及操作效率改善計畫

此計畫專門發掘可以在聖佩德羅灣港推行而又有利於空氣質素的基建及操作效率改善項目，例如：比較碼頭內和碼頭附近的鐵路設施的優劣；分層交匯安排；在碼頭閘口採用光學字元識別系統或無線射頻識別系統；改善碼頭貨物處理和碼頭設計布局的效率。估計五年的成本開支為500萬美元。

3.15

洛杉磯港與中國海運集團簽訂和解

洛杉磯港與各環保團體及港口區內各社區組織共同簽訂一項和解協

協議

議，內容包括一系列旨在改善區內空氣質素的環境計畫。所有受資助項目所取得的減排量將會由洛杉磯港贖回，以改善環境。估計五年內共需成本1,200萬美元，由中國海運集團和洛杉磯港共同分擔。

待定

123

4 4.1

中文

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗

州政府及聯邦政府的空氣質素管理政策加州空氣資源局的策略

加州空氣資源局的策略可歸納為5個方向： (a) 訂立以技術推動的新引擎排放標準；(b)減少現有車隊或船隊的排放；(c)

規定使用清潔燃

料，支援改用替代燃料，並減低對石油能源的依賴；(d)

與美國環保

局合力減少來自聯邦政府轄下和州政府轄下污染源的排放；及(e)

發

掘長遠的先進技術措施。以上五項策略將會透過下列各種針對移動污染源和交通燃料的措施而實行： 4.2

LT/MED-DUTY-1 (CARB)

更換或提升現有的客車排放控制系統（試驗計畫）。

每日0.19公噸揮發性有機化合物和 0.18公噸氮氧化物

4.3

LT/MED-DUTY-2 (BAR)

改善煙霧測試安排。

每日5.6至 5.8公噸揮發性有機化合物和8至 8.4公噸氮氧化物

4.4

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-1 (CARB)

以社區為基礎，開展在高速公路上檢測貨車和巴士的計畫。

每日0.01公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.5

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-2 (CARB)

收集並控制汽油貨車油缸排出的蒸氣。

每日4至5公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.6

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 (CARB)

尋求方法，全面減少現有貨車和巴士車隊的排放。

每日1.4至 4.5公噸揮發性有機化合物和8至 11公噸氮氧化物

4.7

OFF-RD CI-1 (CARB)

尋求方法，全面減少現有重型非路面設備的排放（壓燃引擎）── 對加裝設備的管制。

每日2.3至 7.8公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.8

OFF-RD CI-2 (CARB)

為現有重型非路面設備推行登記和檢驗計畫，以偵測過量的排放（壓

不適用

燃引擎）。 4.9

4.10

OFF-RD LSI-1 (CARB)

OFF-RD LSI-2 (CARB)

為新型非路面燃氣引擎訂立更嚴格的排放標準（25匹馬力或以上的燃

每日0.8公噸

油噴射點燃式引擎）。

氮氧化物

透過對加裝設備的管制，全面減少現有非路面燃氣設備的排放（25匹

每日0.5至

馬力或以上的燃油噴射點燃式引擎）。

1.4公噸揮發性有機化合物和1.5至 3.5公噸氮氧化物

中文

124

4.11

OFF-RD LSI-3 (CARB)

在可行情況下，要求鏟車必須達到零排放 ── 吊重能力8,000磅或以下的鏟車。

每日0.3至 0.6公噸揮發性有機化合物和1.4至 2.8 公噸氮氧化物

4.12

SMALL OFF-RD-1 (CARB)

為新型手持小型引擎和設備，訂立更嚴格的排放標準（少於25匹馬力的燃油噴射點燃式引擎，如雜草修剪器、落葉鼓風機和電鋸）。

每日1.9公噸揮發性有機化合物和 0.2公噸氮氧化物

4.13

SMALL OFF-RD-2 (CARB)

為新型非手持小型引擎和設備，訂立更嚴格的排放標準（少於25匹馬力的燃油噴射點燃式引擎，如割草機）。

每日6.6至 7.7公噸揮發性有機化合物和0.6至 1.9公噸氮氧化物

4.14

MARINE-1 (CARB)

尋求方法，全面減少現有港口工作船隊的排放 ── 使用更環保的引擎和燃料。

每日0.1公噸揮發性有機化合物和 2.7公噸氮氧化物

4.15

MARINE-2 (CARB)

尋求方法，全面減少港口範圍內的地面排放 ── 使用替代燃料、使

每日0.1公

用更環保的引擎、管制加裝設備、進行電氣化計畫、推行教育計畫、

噸揮發性有

實行操作方面的管制。

機化合物和 0.1公噸氮氧化物

4.16

FUEL-1 (CARB)

為柴油燃料添加劑訂立標準，以控制引擎的沈積物。

4.17

FUEL-2 (CARB)

為貨車和巴士、非路面設備和長怠速引擎使用的柴油燃料，訂立低硫

不適用予以支持

標準。 4.18

CONS-1 (CARB)

訂立於2006年實施的新消費產品揮發性有機化合物排放上限。

每日2.3公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.19

CONS-2(CARB)

訂立於2008年至2010年期間實施的新消費產品揮發性有機化合物排放上限。

4.20

FVR-1 (CARB)

增加回收地面儲油缸排出的燃油蒸氣。

8.5-15 VOC t/d 每日0至 0.1公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.21

FVR-2 (CARB)

回收遊艇停泊處加油槍排出的燃油蒸氣。

每日0至 0.1公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.22

FVR-3 (CARB)

減少燃料從加油槍喉管滲漏。

每日0至0.7公噸揮發性有機化合物

4.23

PEST-1 (DPR)

推行現行的殺蟲劑策略。

4.24

地區、州及聯邦政府制訂的長期防

聯邦政府頒布的《潔淨空氣法》第182(e)(5)章特別授權，於極度不符

控策略（182(e)(5)措施或「黑盒」

合臭氧標準的地區內執行這些一般被稱為「黑盒」的措施。黑盒的大

措施）

小將會根據每種污染物的最終排放目標（環境容量）和採用短期控制措施後的剩餘排放量的差距而定。

5 5.1

洛杉磯市推行的政策洛杉磯市「排放零淨增值專責小組」

這個專責小組設立的目的是，為洛杉磯港發展一套創新而又符合實情的「排放零淨增值」策略建立共識。專責小組的成員包括各監管機構代表、來自各社區的持份者、港口顧客代表、港口部門的員工和環保專家。

5.2

單車巡邏隊 — 清潔空氣計畫

此計畫是安排警員執勤時以單車代替汽車，以減少汽車的排放。預期落實這項計畫後，每輛單車的壽命期內將可減少約12.59噸污染物。

5.3

清潔燃料政策（CF 00-0157）

此政策支持一些計畫和規例，以平衡使用替代燃料的環保效益與應用上需關注的實質問題，如安全、效率和成本效益等，最終協助推廣替代燃料的應用。在政策下，洛杉磯市議會決定使用和購置採用清潔燃料及或以電力驅動的車輛；開展推廣能源效益和清潔運作的汽車技術；考慮為在現有汽車應用改裝技術；促進發展替代燃料基礎設施。

5.4

洛杉磯快速充電計畫

這是與水電部和29個公營機構合作推行的夥伴計畫，結果成功完成安裝200個電動車充電站。

5.5

洛杉磯植樹計畫

6 6.1

此計畫由洛杉磯水電部負責執行，向洛杉磯市民免費送上遮蔭樹木。私營機構推行的計畫

南加州經濟夥伴計畫

這是一個非牟利組織，力求加快在整個南加州地區採用先進運輸技術。此外，他們會定期舉辦工作坊，討論發展有關技術應用和市場推廣策略可會面對的障礙和可能得到的協助，以及推廣各項教育及宣傳活動。

6.2

區內技術提升辦公室（TAO）

此辦公室贊助各項公私型合作的研發夥伴計畫，以找出和推廣適用於固定和移動污染源的低排放和零排放技術。辦公室現時正參與多項計畫，包括資助、研究和在市場推廣先進的移動和固定污染源污染防控策略。

6.3

南岸空氣質素管理區清潔燃料計畫

這是地區管治委員會根據加州法例要求而推行的正式計畫。計畫把焦

──技術提升計畫

點放在多個具潛力的項目，當中涉及研究、開發、試驗和在市場推廣潔淨燃料技術，以及可減少排放和協助達到區內清潔空氣目標的先進技術。

基線

中文

125

給香港上寶貴的一課：倫敦和洛杉磯的空氣質素管理經驗