Press Release
EPD rejects Greenpeace's API
A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) said the Air Pollution Index (API) launched by Greenpeace today (March 1) is unscientific and misleading the public.
"Greenpeace is applying indiscriminately the European Union's (EU) air quality standards to compute its API, without recognising that scientifically these standards are not designed for API reporting.
"The EU has not set a standard nor a methodology for computing API. Also we are not aware of any other places in the world using Greenpeace's method to calculate API," the spokesman noted.
The EU's air quality standards cannot be compared to Hong Kong's Air Quality Objectives (AQO) directly because the former allow many exceedances in a year.
For example, the EU allows the hourly average Sulphur Dioxide standard to be exceeded 24 times a year (whereas Hong Kong allows only three times).
The EU also allows the daily average Respirable Suspended Particulates standard to be exceeded by 35 days in a year (whereas in Hong Kong it would be considered falling short of the AQO if exceeded by more than one day).
Having more allowable exceedances, the EU standards thus have numerical values significantly lower than those of Hong Kong.
The methodology and values of Hong Kong's API system are similar to those being used by some other places in the region such as Singapore and Taipei.
There is however no standard method for calculating API values internationally.
For example, Hong Kong's API values range from one to 500. Sydney has a range of one to 100. London and Paris adopt a 10-grade system. The computation methods of these cities also vary.
For places adopting similar API methodology as Hong Kong, such as Singapore and Taipei, API values of one to 50 are normally classified as "good" and 51 to 100 as "moderate".
Hong Kong's API system is particularly stringent as it classifies API values of 26 to 50 as "medium", and 51 to 100 as "high".
The EPD has also introduced roadside monitoring stations and announced the roadside API, in advance of many other countries and cities.
"We strongly support the introduction of more measures to improve air quality. However, we have to be objective and scientific about the air quality measurements. It is wrong to report air pollution levels in an arbitrary and unscientific manner," said the spokesman.
End/Tuesday, March 1, 2005
|
