Blogs

Tropical forests cover about 15 percent of the world’s land surface but every year around 13 million hectares of forest are cleared for crop cultivation, cattle, logging and mining (FAO 2010). Forests are both carbon guzzlers (sinks) and emitters (sources) and deforestation and forest degradation accounts for a whopping 15-17 percent of man-made GHG emissions each year. In the context of climate change, a 50 percent reduction in GHG emissions is needed by 2030 to prevent global temperature rising above 2 degrees Celsius (IPCC 2007, AR4) but the positive news is that reducing deforestation is the “single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions.”

Despite the collective groan over Rio+20’s lack of political leadership and a global process that is failing to urgently address our planetary challenges; the contrast between Rio’s Earth Summit 20 years ago and now, could hardly be greater. Back then, the spirit of sustainability was idealistic, not entirely understood and it then took some time for people to put it into practice and get fuddled by its complexity. Compare this to the current polarized ‘sustainability everything’ and surely we should be applauding Brazil’s canny negotiators for getting to any agreement at all - even if it is a hortatory, non-binding statement called “The Future We Want”.

It is, of course, a rhetorical question. The plan to hold this year's United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro has been underway for years. However, were the Earth Summit to be held in the capital city of the US state of Alabama from mid-September onwards, any delegates without diplomatic passports might be a little concerned by the implications of Alabama Senate Bill 477. It was signed into law by the state's governor last week and comes into effect three months later, having been unanimously whisked through both chambers of Alabama's legislature in the space of six weeks.

The social value of a place has not always been a strong basis for heritage conservation in Hong Kong but a sea of change could be on the horizon. The destruction of some of Hong Kong’s most iconic heritage in the past decade – such as the Central Star Ferry Terminal, Queen’s Pier, and Lee Tung (Wedding Card) Street – created a public uproar. It created recognition that certain places have meaning to society as a whole while Hong Kong government processes have been inadequate in engaging the public to identify the value of such heritage sites. Vocal opposition and resentment generated at the time represented a strong endorsement of social views on heritage issues.

It is now widely accepted around the world that shipping emissions need to be tightly regulated in order to protect public health. Various types of port-related equipment and activities, such as cargo handling machinery and trucking goods to and from ports, also generate pollution. Research shows that, in Hong Kong, the combined emissions from ships and port activity are a significant source of pollution that directly affects some 3.8 million people. The city’s shipping and port management stakeholders have been most active in working with local authorities to define a path towards tighter regulation, and have made progress in reducing emissions.

Cities in a number of Asian countries, including China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore and Taiwan, are currently on the warpath against plastic shopping bags. The cities have passed local laws that ban such bags, on the basis that they clog sewers and drainage canals, cause street flooding, choke animals and are responsible for other forms of environmental damage. China and Taiwan, for example, impose heavy fines on violators. Other countries are appealing for a switch to the production and use of biodegradable bags.

The move this week by the US Consulate in Shanghai to monitor and publish the level of fine particulate matter, less than two microns in diameter (PM2.5), in the air around its office has caused a certain amount of confusion and consternation among local residents and officials. The US diplomats are in part to blame for this because, although their measurements are no doubt sound, their data presentation in somewhat misleading. Following in the footsteps of the country’s embassy in Beijing, the Shanghai consulate now publishes the concentration of PM2.5 in micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) on an hourly basis and also publishes the average over the previous 24 hours at noon and midnight each day.

In many Asian cities thriving quarters are progressively being stripped of their distinctive street life. Market pressure is forcing out older residents and local shop-owners, typically in places that have been earmarked for prime real estate development due to their central, high-traffic location. No where is this more visible and dispiriting than in Hong Kong’s older districts. The confluence of Hong Kong's high post-war population growth, limited space for development and the urban design resulted in the development of areas that are socially vibrant and commercially diverse. Today these are situated in older districts where many buildings have become dilapidated, threatening their ability to support the residents within, as well as the street activity on their doorstep.

Good news – momentum is building to reduce ship emissions in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region. Last month, Shenzhen Municipal Human Settlements and Environment Commission informally stated that reducing emissions from ship and port activities will be a primary area of focus this year