-
ADD TIME NEWS
- MOBILE APPS
- NEWSLETTERS
Carmageddon
In Hong Kong, we like to blame pollution on the factories of neighboring Guangdong province, but the fact is that vehicle emissions are an even greater contributor to the appalling state of our air. After coal-burning power plants, they comprise the second largest form of air pollution, and the city reels daily, in emphysematous torment, because many of us imagine ownership of a Merc or Beemer to be some kind of fundamental human right.
There should be no problem, therefore, with passing a law that would prevent drivers from leaving their engines idling while waiting for partners, children, employers, drug dealers, hookers or whoever it is that keeps them there, at the kerb, emitting gratuitous carbon. After all, we're not talking about imposing some draconian new fuel standard or punitive road tax. We're just asking that drivers turn off their engines when their cars are stationary, as they are required to do in many places around the world.
Instead of committing to this mere formality of environmental protection, however, the government is moot. Chief Executive Donald Tsang said some months ago that prospective legislation “may” ban idling engines only “at particular hours” and “in particular zones,” which is as good as useless. Back in 2005, the legislature actually a passed a motion to ban idling engines but nothing happened, because the government decided the issue was “controversial,” as though reducing the amount of deadly pollutants in the air could in any way be tainted with controversy.
The Secretary for the Environment, Edward Yau, referred to the issue as controversial again yesterday—so much so that he is actually launching a two-month public consultation on the matter (“Would you like to keep choking on the same morbid haze? Tick yes or no”). But let us be clear. There is nothing to consult the public about. And the only controversy about a ban is that drivers won't be able to run the air-conditioner or CD player while parked anymore.
They'll get over it. It will take us somewhat longer to get over the government's indecision about such a simple and same time urgent matter of public health.
Add Your Comment:
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- How to Outsmart a Debt Collector
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Time to Give Up the Ghost on bin Laden
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late













RSS