|
Air Pollution - is it wise to move to HK?
We are relocating to Asia and have the option to move to HK or to other places incl. KL and Singapore. HK is most attractive and stimulating, but the air quality is a grave concern, esp. with young children.
My questions are:
- overall, if you were to choose today, would you do it again and still move to HK?
- are there official (i.e. reliable) pollution readers in HK, available on the internet or elsewhere?
- if opting for HK, does living in Stanley/South Side completely address the pollution issue, or only marginally?
Thanks to all for your feedback.
Find what you are after in our Hong Kong A-Z Directory
Need a Part Time Maid?
Commission-Free Flats
Buy a Car?
2 for 1 Dinner
Posted by axptguy38 (1154 days ago)
"- overall, if you were to choose today, would you do it again and still move to HK?"
Yes we would. Overall, the pollution is actually less bad than we thought it would be. Sure, you get days like earlier this week. But those are exceptions. It's not a clean city, that's for sure, but we aren't constantly walking around in a smoggy miasma, especially outside the downtown areas. The city core does have much vehicular exhaust but you get that in most major cities.
The other quality of life factors here (e.g. excellent public transport, affordable domestic help, good schools, warm climate, great hiking, good environment for children) make it a place we really like to live in despite the pollution issues.
It also helps to put things in perspective. If you walk around in central London, for example, the air isn't so clean either. Many cities world wide are dirtier than HK. And compared to, say, Beijing or Shanghai HK is actually pretty clean (and isn't that a lovely thought.)
"- are there official (i.e. reliable) pollution readers in HK, available on the internet or elsewhere?"
Yes. Here: http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/eindex.php .
"- if opting for HK, does living in Stanley/South Side completely address the pollution issue, or only marginally? "
Completely is a big word but it is more than marginally. There is HUGE difference between South Side and the downtown parts. Sure, the air here can sometimes be bad, but the "brown" days per year on this side can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of course there are invisible pollutants but nevertheless the air quality on South Side is much better, as you would expect in any suburb compared to the city core. You have both way less traffic and a whole bunch of steep, tall hills between South Side and Victoria Harbour.
I would also add that while I love my South Side, there are other good options such as Sai Kung.
Posted by cassy27 (1154 days ago)
I was listening to a radio programme last week here in Hk regarding the air pollution - they were saying 3 people a day die and we only have 65 days a year that are within the air pollution limits.
Not sure I would want to bring kids up here on the long term
Posted by ecareken (1154 days ago)
Yes the pollution here can be an absolute deterrent to any living being. But, it is crystal clear weather here today. And it was totally muggy and damp a few weeks ago then a day later the red fire danger warning was issued because of dryness. Weather or Not.
Posted by Slammy (1154 days ago)
Right now - I would say that the pollution is tolerable so I would still choose HK over any other place.
HK has so much to offer. Singapore - I couldn't stand the same hot weather all year round. KL I've heard is rather boring.
Come to HK, choose a place to live that's less polluted, invest in some air purifiers... and then go out and enjoy the things HK has to offer - like water sports, going to the beach, going hiking, going camping. There's loads to do here (on a clear day...)
Posted by axptguy38 (1154 days ago)
As cassy27 says supposedly 3 people die every day from pollution. What I would like to know is how many people die from pollution in Tokyo and London. I would also like to see a geographical breakdown. Where do those people live? In Mong Kok or Sai Kung?
As Slammy says you don't have to live in the miasma. Get out of downtown and you'll find (relatively) clean air.
Ironically, many people with respiratory issues get better in HK because of the high humidity. I used to get quite a raspy throat and dry skin back in Stockholm. Not here. So all in all I think I'm ahead.
"we only have 65 days a year that are within the air pollution limits"
In downtown. One wonders why they don't have pollution monitors in South Side. Stanley for example. I bet the numbers would be different.
Posted by LotharvonSpatzhausen (1154 days ago)
I would most probably not move to HK. But Singapore and KL are not ideal either, for reasons mentioned before: hot year round, boredom etc.
Not that I don't like HK. I'd still pick Hong Kong (even with the air pollution index hitting 500 day in day out all year round) over Stockholm.
Posted by surf231 (1154 days ago)
If your moving from a Western country to Asia, you do not have many choices that might fit an easy transition from wherever you are from with a family, i.e. schools, meeting other similar like people, etc. I live on the back of HK Island and the air quality is much better than where I work in Admiralty area. The Air pollution here is serious, but you can avoid it too by staying away from rush hour foot (so many smokers here) and vehicle traffic.
Other than the air, there are many things really good about HK and blow other places in Asia away....
Posted by cara (1154 days ago)
sorry, that information is NOT correct. the 500 was the reading on ONE day, the next day, it started to go down.
previous to that the highest reading was 202. PLEASE, the pollution is NOTa good, but it isn't as bad as Lothar would have you believe.
Posted by flyboyHK (1154 days ago)
the only reliable air pollution index for Hong Kong is this one:
http://sn.im/v32sn [Air Pollution Truth Index]
it is referenced against the World Health Organisation Air Quality Standards
Posted by axptguy38 (1154 days ago)
"Not that I don't like HK. I'd still pick Hong Kong (even with the air pollution index hitting 500 day in day out all year round) over Stockholm."
Well, maybe not 500 every day. But I agree with the sentiment. :)
Posted by dipper (1153 days ago)
- overall, if you were to choose today, would you do it again and still move to HK?
Absolutely. If the air is slightly cleaner in Singapore it might add a couple of weeks to your life expectancy but after a couple of weeks in Singapore you'll want to kill yourself from boredom anyway.
- are there official (i.e. reliable) pollution readers in HK, available on the internet or elsewhere?
There's an official one but it's a bit of a blunt instrument.
- if opting for HK, does living in Stanley/South Side completely address the pollution issue, or only marginally?
Air is air; by nature it gets around so nowhere on planet earth are you going to address air pollution completely but it will be better on South Side than Central as there's less traffic density and less wall effect from high rises. That said South Side is a pretty unique combination of expense and inconvenience so you don't have to pay South Side prices to live in a less polluted area, you can also look at places in the New Territories that will give no more inconvenience than South Side but with significantly cheaper prices/bigger properties than South Side. If you want the 'expat' thing then Sai Kung/Clearwater Bay is very expatty but significantly better value, for example.
Posted by axptguy38 (1153 days ago)
"That said South Side is a pretty unique combination of expense and inconvenience"
That's an interesting way of putting it. :) Expensive, certainly. Inconvenient? Hardly. My wife gets to work in Sheung Wan in less than 15 minutes in the morning. Try that from the beach suburbs in a typical European or American city.
I will agree that in the places you mention you get more space for your money. Better value is subjective though. It wouldn't be better value for us since we place value on living on the South Side. We wouldn't want to move out to New Territories. Sure, we'd get three times the space but at the expense of closeness to the city and, yes, convenience.
It all depends on what you like.
Posted by flyboyHK (1152 days ago)
roseortulip ... there are 3 main components to the HK air pollution problem:
Traffic, local powerplants and chinese regional air pollution.
You can get away from the traffic pollution if you don't live in Central, Causeway Bay etc.
Moving to the South Side will help with that. However, some very expensive areas there are basically right under the 3 chimneys of a coal fired powerstation with not even 1980ies scrubbing technology installed ... (and the developer dares to call the place " Bel Air" but that's beside the point)
But whatever you do, you will not get away from the regional pollution, which is still the biggest factor in overall air quality.
It can be quite bad, if your kids have asthma you should really think twice.
Posted by axptguy38 (1152 days ago)
"Moving to the South Side will help with that. However, some very expensive areas there are basically right under the 3 chimneys of a coal fired powerstation with not even 1980ies scrubbing technology installed ... (and the developer dares to call the place " Bel Air" but thats beside the point)"
Oh come on. Nothing on South Side is "right under" the Lamma Island power station. It's on the northern side of Lamma Island, which doesn't even face the South Side. I doubt it affects South Side air quality as much as industrial pollution from the Pearl River Delta. Lamma Island air itself is actually pretty nice.
Also, Bel-Air is not on South Side. It is in Cyberport/Wah Fu.
"It can be quite bad, if your kids have asthma you should really think twice."
Agreed. However as I mentioned before, many (but not all) people with asthma actually feel better in HK due to the high humidity.
Posted by flyboyHK (1152 days ago)
Bel Air (which officially is in the Island South District ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_District,_Hong_Kong ) is less than 3 miles to the north east of Lamma Power Station. (look it up on Google Earth) And that is straight downwind during the summer months with the prevailing winds from the south west ... So whilst everybody else gets a break from the China made pollution Bel Air and Pok Fu Lam are still in the soot. I've lived in Bel Air otP for more than 2 years, and you would not believe the amount of black dirt that settled on my balcony railings and windows almost EVERY DAY.
On the really bad days with light winds in a high pressure weather area, when the local and regional pollution really add up you couldn't even see Lamma Island from the window, just one mile away across the Lamma Channel. Everything drowned out in a thick yellow haze. dis.gus.ting.
Stanley, Tai Tam etc. should be better off, of course as they lie not in the main wind direction.
Posted by axptguy38 (1152 days ago)
Yes it is in the Southern district. However it is not traditionally part of "South Side", which I would say starts around at Shouson Hill. Many would not even include that, but start at Deep Water Bay.
Posted by Bausi (1152 days ago)
Apart from air pollution, the biggest problem is finding school places for your kids, very difficult at the moment and that could also determine in which area you have to live.
Posted by righto (1151 days ago)
yes the air is bad and from what all my friends tell me the schooling situation is even worse-- in terms of money esp.
would i move here again? Well I came for two primary reasons. One is the job seemed great on paper. It isn't. It actually blows chunks. On a daily basis. Hate it in many ways though still grateful to have a job in my field in the current economy. Even though my colleagues are just awful ppl to work with.
I also left to get out of a nasty relationship and living situation -- I knew it'd force me to get out. Escape. That was still a great move.
So in addition to all the objective type of factors, to answer the question of moving you have to think of that type of subjective thing that isnt about the city specifically so much as your past and current life in other, personal ways.
Oh and while the food is great, and it is a great ravel region, HK is also Facking boring after 4 years. And I'm not the mid-levels, central ghetto expat type-- almost never do the typical expat stuff but try to experience the local culture.
But the word culture and HK may be an oxymoron.
Frankly if the pay is the same I'd do KL. Everyone in HK harshes on SINgapore as uber-dull but I could see it being better in some ways-- more English, more food variety, cleaner. And equally boring after awhile.
Posted by boobert (1151 days ago)
Your children should be your main consideration here. And because of that you should think very carefully about living in HK. The air is toxic, and it will affect them in the long run. Don't be fooled into believing what some posters tell you that 'air moves around' so it doesn't matter anyway - tell that to someone in California or Scandinavia! The air is foul. The sea water is full of trash. And the people you'll be working with will generally be oportunistic, money-grabbing individuals.
But hey, if you want to live in a box in HK and pay through the nose, go ahead.
Go to Singapore or KL. Food is better, cheaper. The skies are clear and blue. The people are friendly.
Posted by axptguy38 (1151 days ago)
Schools. No one I know has had a problem getting their kid into a school. It may have been a bit of an ulcer-inducing process but it has always worked out. The well-known private schools are all very good so even if you don't get your first choice it is hardly a disaster.
The important thing is this: As soon as you know you are moving to HK, apply to your top three picks. It's worth spending the money on the deposits even if you then only can pick one of the schools. The waiting lists are indeed long but remember that everyone else is applying to 2-3 schools, so a lot of the kids are on more than one list, making them seem longer than they really are. In addition, lots of people leave every year, clearing up space on the lists.
Private schools are costly, but nowhere near as costly as their equivalent in the UK or US. Then again in those countries public (non-private) schools are an option.
As for HK being boring, that is extremely subjective but I guess any place can become boring unless you keep a good attitude.
As for HK people being only interested in money, I don't know. Certainly money and status play a big role for some people. But for many others money is a means to an end, not a status symbol. I'd rather hang our with the latter. We made more friends in HK in 6 months than we made in the US in 6 years. Hey, maybe we're money-grabbing a***s like everyone else here. ;)
Posted by Fieter2 (1151 days ago)
If I could earn the same elsewhere I would not be here - with young kids you should seriously consider a healthier environment. Why would you care that KL or Singapore is supposedly boring? You don't hang around in night clubs like most single, selfish 40 year olds in Hong Kong do you?
Posted by Mighty (1150 days ago)
If your main concern lies on your children and you have a choice, definitely I will suggest Singapore. Cleaner in many ways. Boring? Well just like a relationship, it will become boring after a number of years no matter how excitingly it starts. But you still love your partner, may be in a different way. Air pollution.. as someone suggested it is a regional problem (except part of it casued by vehicles) so some places are better in Hong Kong than others but you cant avoid it 100%. Schools : I dont see the problem coz my child got in straight away in a relatively affordable English medium school (I m local but I lived overseas for a few years). Again depends on where you live and how advance you plan for the admission.
By the way.. if you come today.. air pollution is not bad (^-^). Good luck.
Posted by flyboyHK (1149 days ago)
not really the norm, but if you want to get your child into a top school as the German Swiss International be prepared to fork out 250,000 HK$ per child on a debenture, plus up to 12,000 HK$ per month ...
Posted by axptguy38 (1149 days ago)
That's only GSIS which, perhaps unusually, only has one debenture tier.
Many other schools have a two tier debenture system, with corporate debentures in the multiple hundreds of thousands, but individual debentures seldom over 100k. For example Kellett corporate debentures are 300k, while individual debentures are 60k.
Many companies will make corporate debentures available for transferees. The advantage is that they give priority in the waiting list.
ESF schools, which by all accounts are excellent, have no debentures at all and fees under 60k/year for primary.
Posted by Pippa Lucas Smythe (1149 days ago)
Having had and raised all my children in HK it is now home for us and I love it here for so many reasons. However, that said, if I had to do it all over again and know now what I know about the pollution here, would I choose another country to live in.... I think I would. One of the only things that keeps me awake at night is the pollution and the long term effects that it may have on my children.
Anyone who tells you that the pollution in Hong Kong is not that bad is in a complete state of denial. The air here is filthy and it is no better on the Southside as people mistatakenly believe. The government are doing very little to make improvements in regards to air quality and by implementing some very simple measures at very little cost improvement could be made.
Its a sad sad day when children at school are kept in doors during playtimes and all sporting activities are cancelled due to the filthy air, but that is what happens here and has happened twice already at my children's schools this year.
If you value your childrens health then think very long and hard about moving to Hong Kong. In regards to Singpaore (I don't find it boring) if it meant that my children would be exposed to less pollution I would take boring over damaging my childrens health any day.
In regards to schools the situation is no better in Singapore, and it may take a while for you to get a place here but you will get a place eventually. ESF schools do give priority to companies willing to pay a corporate debeture and as of next year they will be introducing a refundable capital levy but it is still more reasonable than most other schools here.
Posted by Kolichka (1141 days ago)
Yes, agree with what many here have said.
We absolutely love the city - and all it has to offer. With that said, we are planning a family and part of this plan, unfortunately, is to leave Hong Kong. I cannot imagine exposing precious, young lung tissue to this toxic crap we breathe.
If we saw the government doing something about it, we may be enticed to stick around. But in our 7 years here, it seems to have only gotten worse.
We love to travel and well realize there are many wonderful cities in the world where we can live - with lots to do/offer - AND BLUE SKIES/CLEAN AIR!!
Posted by baolongfeng (1141 days ago)
Singapore is probably better to raise a family because its safe and boring. Younger people like to go to Hong Kong cos there is more to do :)
Posted by selda (1141 days ago)
Personally i would choose Singapore over HK.
HK is a great place if you are young and single, and don't care too much about your health.
But the cumulative effect of breathing toxic air every day is very serious. I have lived in HK for over 10 years and a few years ago i developed skin allergies, and my immune system is run down. Not only i suffer from more colds than i used to, i feel generally tired and lethargic.
After one month in Europe, i get all my energy back, and feel alert and generally healthier.
We should not underestimate the effects of pollution, especially the less talked about effects, such as increased stress combined with lethargy. I know that pollution has put a big toll on my health, i feel like a yo-yo, one moment i am hyper-active, the next i am tired and lethargic.
I am a teacher and my students seem to suffer from the same symptoms, a lot of them suffer from asthma, and skin conditions. A friend who teaches PE told me that kids here cannot run, their lung capacity is somewhat impaired, and they get tired very easily.
Singapore has beautiful parks, a much nicer waterfront, great restaurants, a more diverse culture, and more colonial buildings than HK. It's not a fast-paced city like HK, but with young kids you have enough on your plate, and I am sure some peace and quiet are preferable to a very stressful environment.
Posted by lucasjw@netvigator.com (1141 days ago)
If I had children I would not elect to live in Hong Kong. As a 12 year resident who personally loves this island, I have seen the gradual upswing in pollution, and the past 4 years gets worse and worse, with regular reading well above the accepted levels...
I have Malay friends in Penang and Kuala Lumpur and certainly am aware of the increase in crime in KL the past few years. Also, the burning of fields in Indonesia and Malaysia gives way to very smokey air a good portion of the year.
As much as Singapore is not as exciting a city as Hong Kong, you are guaranteed clean air and safety for the most part.
I guess it all depends what you are looking for. But, if it is clean air you are concerned about primarily, then Singapore is your best option.
Posted by Dora the Explorer (1140 days ago)
At the outset, I should say that I LOVE HK. To us, it would the most perfect city in the world, apart from the air quality issue. Anyone who says that it has nothing to offer children lacks imagination. Apart from the obvious Ocean Park (which gets better and better each time we visit) and Disney, there's beaches, walks, boat trips, fantastic clubs etc.
However, after years of doctors visits and copious quantities of medication, we reluctantly decided to move to Singapore. It has taken an age to get used to the slower pace of life, more provincial city feel etc., however, we never need to visit the doctors anymore. We are almost guaranteed to wake up to blue skies and you cannot put a price on that (create seasons by visiting Japan etc. when we need to ski, feel cooler and so on). Because we miss HK so much, we return regularly and without an ounce of exaggeration, at least one of us experiences an asthma attack within a day of landing here. And we lived on the south side and stay there whenever we return. We tried to convince ourselves that we had clear days etc. while we lived here, but we were deluding ourselves.
I am confident that some day things will improve and they will put scrubbers on the power stations, impose emissions limits on the factories in the Delta etc. At that point, we will probably return here. It's a question of how long it takes for the powers that be to realise that breathing clean air is not a luxury. We are just not prepared to play Russian Roulette with our children's health in the interim.
Posted by montana1 (1140 days ago)
Dora, just read your reply. We are in the same situation and sadly have to leave HK within the next 12 months due to the air pollution. I have been living here for our 16 years and call it home but the health of our children (both have been diagnosed with asthma recently) is more important. We are contemplating moving to Singapore among other choices but it's a really difficult decision to make. HK is a fantastic city and I hate leaving it.
Posted by sistim (1140 days ago)
If I had a choice of the 3 cities mentioned, personally I love HK but I do have a kid, born here - no health issues yet, but it does bother me. If I was starting from scratch I'd reluctantly choose Singapore, now that I'm middle aged and less interested in a "scene" - but then I wouldn't have our amazing country parks & beaches & hills!
But being less serious, my gran lived to her 90s & was a burden- a few years off her life would have helped everyone!! Shoulda brought her here.... if current 10 yr olds have a life expectancy of 80 or 90, what's a couple of years off that? ;)
Now lambast me for being an irresponsible parent....
Posted by sistim (1140 days ago)
If I had a choice of the 3 cities mentioned, personally I love HK but I do have a kid, born here - no health issues yet, but it does bother me. If I was starting from scratch I'd reluctantly choose Singapore, now that I'm middle aged and less interested in a "scene" - but then I wouldn't have our amazing country parks & beaches & hills!
But being less serious, my gran lived to her 90s & was a burden- a few years off her life would have helped everyone!! Shoulda brought her here.... if current 10 yr olds have a life expectancy of 80 or 90, what's a couple of years off that? ;)
Now lambast me for being an irresponsible parent....
Posted by mum of 2 (1140 days ago)
If it was as simple as a lower life expectancy sistim, I would not necessarily disagree with you. However, the issue is quality of life and having been on nebulisers for approx 2 hours a day for a chunk of our time here, and worse still, watched my children do the same; we had no choice but to leave. I was able to handle my own respiratory problems but just could not bear to watch the children wheeze and cough, especially though the night. It meant they were exhausted during the day and therefore more vulnerable to every bug that was doing the rounds. The light bulb moment for me was the waiting time in my doctor's office twice to 4 times a month. When I looked at the number of people, both young and old being wheeled in with oxygen tanks in tow, I knew it was time to leave. Since we left (over a year ago) I still have not managed to get around to seeing a respiratory specialist in Singapore. Most importantly, I have not needed to.
Posted by Kolichka (1140 days ago)
It makes us sad to leave HK as well.
My wife is a pediatrician and sees everyday what the air is doing to the children here. If it were up to me, we would be staying - but we must take our future family´s health into account. According to my wife, the health of a child is seriously at jeopardy here. Just not worth it....
Posted by flyboyHK (1138 days ago)
this really sums it up nicely, Ed ....
Q: is it wise to move to HK?
A: I know someone who sells air filters so you don't ruin your lungs just as quickly...
Posted by tristan1970 (1132 days ago)
i've been here for 7 years and year on year the pollution gets worse, I first visited here in 1996 and the pollution was no problem. But now you can taste it and your lungs start to feel it after a bad day. As china's economy grows and is expected to grow by at least 8% a year, so will productivity as will the pollution.
Posted by jk333 (1131 days ago)
It's bad, I moved here 1 week ago and i cant believe how bad it is. I have just moved from London and grew up in LA in the 80's. I have never seen or felt as bad pollution as this place. I'm an avid jogger and forget it 10 minutes in your lungs are screaming. You can taste it.
Also if you have less than USD$6000 a month forget about renting any descent kind of apartment. I have HK$35'000 a month allowance and cant find anything even halfway decent. I have a 1 year contract, my feelings now are what have i done!! Ok the tax benefits are positive but what’s the use of that when you die from a respiratory disease.
If you have kids dont do it to them, as the above post indicates it's only going to get worse... I can even imagine that!!!!
Night life is good though! specially if your a single guy!!!
Posted by flyboyHK (1131 days ago)
jk333 ... i'm sorry to say that you haven't seen anything, yet. The last few days were actually pretty good as far as HK air goes..
Its a grim reminder for us living here that we're slowly getting used to it...just like the frog in the slowly heated up kettle.
I really get upset when people rave about how great the weather was for outdoor sports and how blue the sky was .... when all they could see was a bit of blue right above them, as straight up is the shortest distance through the sh!t... a lot of HK people really don't know (or forgot) what a proper blue sky looks like, unless they jump on a flight and get above 5000ft ....
by the way, has anyone else noticed that you can smell HK air when you come in on a flight? About 10 minutes before landing it starts so smell sulphury ...
Posted by ecareken (1130 days ago)
Hi RoseorTulip would like to know your decision. The air and seas here can be very foul, the kids should not be exposed to this (on a daily basis). Our gov't turns a blind eye about the situation. But, HK is a very dynamic and international city more so then what you can get in most any other Asian cities. If you do relocate here (to Asia) it is easy to visit the neighboring places you mentioned and others also draw up a course of action on that next move in a few years time. Great experience for the little ones.
Posted by axptguy38 (1130 days ago)
The government does seem to be moving on the issue, or at least talking about it. The anti-idling law currently being discussed is a good start. California-level emissions would be better.
These things wouldn't solve the pollution coming from the mainland, but they would definitely improve air quality, especially at street level in downtown areas.
Maybe I'm an optimist.
Posted by flyboyHK (1130 days ago)
the idling engines legislation is a farce. It will allow taxis, red and green minibuses to practically continue to as before and even trucks and buses have a 3 minute grace period.
Nothing will change for the better, as long as the business sector has a direct say in what will become law and what not.
(half the seats in the HK Parliament are given to representatives of the various business sectors, only the other half is elected)
Posted by axptguy38 (1130 days ago)
I hadn't seen those conditions. I would agree, then, that it is a bit of a joke.
Posted by flyboyHK (1130 days ago)
- taxis: the first 5 on each stand are allowed to idle their engines unlimited. (initial proposal: only first 2, nontheless this will at least help a little bit at the big transport interchanges)
- green minibus: first 2 of each GMB route serving a bus stop are allowed to idle their engines unlimited.
i.e. on a bus stop with 5 routes you can have 10 idling engines and so on. (initial proposal: only first 2 buses)
- red minibus: the first 2 at each stop, plus each bus with at least 1 passenger on board as well as the 1st bus behind any of these is allowed to idle the engine unlimited. (can you see that working in practice? Initial proposal was: only first 2)
- any tour coach / bus with at least 1 passenger on board can idle their engine unlimited (initial proposal: not exempted)
- any diesel or petrol (not LPG) goods delivery vehicle is allowed to idle their engine for 3 minutes in every 60 minute period
(how are they gonna keep track of that? Every driver will claim that right now it's his 3 min grace period for this hour) (initial proposal was: no exemption)
and that's not even the final draft, as the transport sector demands even more concessions: wait for it...... a general exemption on hot or rainy days!
this is again just a worthless piece of paper so that the government can say: "see, we're working hard on the issues", without having any significant impact on anything ... as usual.
I can already picture the government leaflets that educate drivers on how to circumvent even this weak legislation, just as they did with the racial discrimination law.
Posted by tristan1970 (1129 days ago)
another lovely polluotion free day in HK....NOT... This city is doomed. China will choke this city to death.
90% of this pollution is blowing in from China.
Posted by flyboyHK (1129 days ago)
that's what the government is trying to make us believe.
"See, it's all from China, we can't do anything about it."
Not true though. half of it is home made, right here in HK....
Posted by axptguy38 (1128 days ago)
As flyboyHK says. As I recall, the Clean Air Network, which has done its homework, states that at least half the pollution is local.
Why can't HK clean up its act like California has been doing? Clean cars, clean leafblowers (ok not so big here), clean lorries, clean buses, clean ships and boats. Real idling regulations.
Posted by jk333 (1128 days ago)
damn, the pollution just gets worse and worse, i've been here over a week now and every day the pollution is worse. Ive noticed that all Taxi's, buses and mini busses are LPG surely that has made a difference. But everyone i have spoken to tells me that year on year the pollution gets worse. As China's economy grows so does the level of the pollution.
Is there anywhere that i can get accurate readings of the contents of the pollution. I want to know if the financial benefits of living here are worth it. I cant belive property priced here, why would you pay that much to live in this polluted city.
I read this on the BBC
a ratio based on the concentration of pollutants in the air, including sulphur dioxide and lead - was at "record high levels".
People with heart or respiratory problems are advised to stay indoors at an API reading of more than 100; the public is advised to stay indoors at more than 200.
On Monday the API was 453 at one recording station with five other stations marking levels of above 400, the government said
Posted by JJChan (1128 days ago)
flyboyHK - you are so right! there is so much that can be done to solve much of the pollution problems right here at home in HK but the government just dont have the ba.ls to do it!
Posted by dipper (1128 days ago)
jk333 it sounds like you're working yourself up into a state. If you don't like it here it's fine, don't worry, life's too short to stay somewhere you don't want to be. However, if you do decide to stay, if you've got an allowance of 35K and you can't find anything good you've got the wrong agent (or you're looking in the wrong neighbourhoods). Your housing allowance alone is 3.5 times the median salary. Let us know how many people are in your family and which area you work in/your kids will go to school in and we can suggest some places to consider.
Regarding the day to day effects of pollution, you have to bear in mind that different people are more or less sensitive to it. Whilst I wouldn't in any way deny that there is a problem and that something needs to be done about it, the idea that you can't walk down the street without collapsing isn't most peoples' experience. I and everybody I know plays sport, goes hiking and lives there lives normally. Again, the pollution may well have long-term health effects and action certainly does need to be taken but some of the reactions are a bit hysterical.
The idea that you can feel the air change as you fly in (unless you're flying in a light plane with the window open) is clearly nonsensical, for example.
Posted by axptguy38 (1128 days ago)
Wise words from dipper. We do live "normal" lives here.
BTW I am liking the new "twin axle" double deckers, which are allegedly much more green.
Posted by flyboyHK (1128 days ago)
Of course you can live a normal life here. Air pollution doesn't have an immediate impact, so you can choose to ignore the problem, unless you or your children develop respiratory problems or simply accept a certain health impact as a tradeoff for the $$ you're making here.. Many people do just that, and keep up their outdoor exercise routine even on bad days, even though scientists agree that they're probably doing much more damage than good by doing so.
@ jk333 .. the last few days were quite ok with regard to air pollution. The assumption that limited visibility equals pollution is not always true. During days with very high humidity the tiny water droplets can limit the visibility just as drastically. (This is called "mist" in meteorological terms. However, if the humidity is below lets say 70 to 80% and you still have limited visibility you can be sure it IS pollution, and the meteorologist calls that phenomenon "haze"
Most of the time you will see a combination of the 2 here in HK, with the formation of mist being accelerated by the pollution as it provides condensation nuclei in the air.
So don't panic, it's mainly moisture at the moment, and the rain washes the air nicely, too ;)
The only halfway reliable source of pollution information in HK is Greenpeace's Air Pollution Truth Index, which is referenced against WHO Air Quality Guidelines: (click on the dial for more detailed information)
http://www1.greenpeace.org.cn/camp/api/widget/gpc_api_widget_en.php
Be aware of the fact that the data is from government sources and the limits are the "short term exceedance" limits, which are not meant to be applied day after day. Annual limits are much lower.
@dipper: would you care to explain why it is "clearly nonsense" that you can smell HK as you descend into the HK pollution? Especially since you agree that you could probably smell it in a light aircraft?
@ axptguy38 these new twin axle buses are a good step in the right direction. Other easily recognisable "green" buses are KMB's gold colour buses (EURO III standard) and the greenish-blue "shiny beetleshell" (don't know how else to describe it) colour buses, which are EURO IV.
Posted by jk333 (1127 days ago)
flyboyHK According to the Hong kong government enviromentle agency the pollution has been on high all this week., and thats based on an outdated 1997 scale.
You are obviously used to it but my lungs are screaming!
Why would anyone choose to live in this if you could afford not to, i am seriously considering trying to get posted elsewhere!. This is hideous!
Posted by Bryan666 (1127 days ago)
It is grim. KL not much better. SG is much better air quality and every day life quality. I don't get this "SG is boring" thing? People here in HK tend to get really defensive and snobby about HK. They think it is the best and in fact the expats are worse than the locals at bigging it up.
HK is fine, it is easy to live here for various reasons.. But it is not as "Amazing" as people try to kid themselves it is.
If you are going to come. Plan well, invest wisely and get out with full pockets and fond memory's. Not empty pockets and ruing organs!
Posted by madtown (1127 days ago)
What bothers me the most is the lack of transparency and honesty about the environment here. You would think that the 7 million+ locals would be up in arms demanding action, as their children are forced to breathe this mess from birth until death.
I could handle living in an area that has less than ideal air quality, but frankly I don't trust anything that is reported here, and it seems that no one truly cares. It is the fear of the unknown that scares me. I would be very afraid to raise a child here, because I have little doubt that the government/business would do everything in their power to cover up any "bad" info on the environement. No one truly knows what effect the air here is having, and very few people really want to know. Denial at its finest. All in the name of money and not losing face.
Posted by notaeuropean (1127 days ago)
i think trading off health -- we *might* well be talking about years off your life or some nasty cancer -- for $$ is twisted.
I'm basically doing the same, so I'm not judging anyone.
In addition to toxic air HK in my experience is a quite stressful and frustrating work environment and not a terribly social place.
If I could get an approximately equal, even comparable job in singapore or somewhere else in SE Asia or even China I'd be gone. Yes China air can be even worse than here but it has other advantages.
Posted by Kolichka (1127 days ago)
I am curious what the original has decided? Dare she bring her kids here after reading this thread she started??
Posted by Kolichka (1127 days ago)
I am curious what the original has decided? Dare she bring her kids here after reading this thread she started??
Posted by stan35 (1125 days ago)
There is no easy answer to whether it is wise, but one will be in a state of denial to claim that air pollution is not a problem. It is almost like asking why people still smoke cigarettes given that they are bad for health.
It depends on how much you value your health. Ask yourself, if someone paid you to breathe in air that has pollutant concentration that exceeds the WHO standards, how much must you be paid before you will do it? Is it $0.01 per breath or $1 per breath? Will this amount change if you have to take in 10,000 breaths at one go (which is probably less than a day of bad air)? Will this amount again change if your child has to do the same.
On average, a person takes in 10-15 breathes a minute. More than half the time, the air in HK is graded unhealthy. How many puffs of a cigarette does a smoker take in a day?
You get the point. To some, they make a lot more money in HK and it is worth it, or they purchase expensive air purifiers to mitigate. To others, it is a different choice altogether.
Posted by dipper (1124 days ago)
Interesting that several people seem to see the issue in terms of a trade-off between money and health. To be honest, if the only reason you're in HK (or anywhere else for that matter) is because of money then I don't see any reason to stay in any case, regardless of any health or pollution issues.
The question surely only arises if you actually enjoy being in the city and have some connection with the city. If you don't want to be here anyway then the pollution issue is irrelevant.
Posted by surf231 (1122 days ago)
Good point dipper. I think this place has to be considered one of the best places to live, BUT it is the air pollution trade off we have to consider.
Posted by madtown (1120 days ago)
Dipper -
I think most people the only trade-off is between air and money. Yes Hong Kong is a great place to live, but what exactly is it that you do here, that you couldn't do in another city with less pollution? What exactly makes hong kong better than any other major city in the world? For most, its money.
The other thing is that no one knows how bad the air really is. The life expectancy in Hong Kong is quite high. But will that figure remain 50 years from now? Or are others lifestyle or genetic factors at play? I think a lot of people do not equate the harmful effects of the air with something as bad for you as cigarettes. I think a lot of us are just kinding hoping that the air isn't too bad for our health.
I wish Hong Kong would implement a 5% tax increase across the board for everyone and use the money to update all vehicles, put scrubbers on all power plants and do what ever else they can to improve the situation. I love low taxes, but I would gladly pay a little more to breathe a little easier.
Posted by nosey-parker (1119 days ago)
It makes me laugh that many people think that this polution in made in Hong Kong. Almost all public transport is LPG inc the buses and Taxis. The cars mostly modern and pretty economical. The average yearly KM is under 10k.
Ok i admit the power station pollute but they are not responsible for this. over 75% of this pollution is coming from the mainland, just look at GZ or even SZ. It is terrible.
Tell me when China has holidays IE long new year, labor day ect why is the air clear in HK?
I have 2 rental properties in HK and both have been vacated this year by Expats who could not put themselves and families lives at risk any more. In my opinion this will only get worse. If China's economic growth of 8.5% per year, as it has to or this will crash continues.
Posted by JJChan (1119 days ago)
Nosey - I think you will be surprised....it's not only China, HK could do much to reduce emmissions. Road side emmissions are horrific!
HK's air pollution is mainly contributed by motor vehicles and power plants. The two greatest challenges are local street-level pollution and regional smog. Diesel vehicles, particularly trucks, buses and light buses, are the main source of street-level pollution. The every day smog is caused by a combination of pollutants mainly from motor vehicles, industry and power plants in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta.
Posted by nosey-parker (1119 days ago)
JJchan,
I'm sorry I do not believe it, this is more Hong kong lies, if you travel into China as I do a few times a week the pollution is Horrific. If you have a neighbor that is the world’s factory, you will be affected. As we are here!!!
There are 15 times more cars in London and the average mileage is far higher than here, and the pollution in London is nothing compared to here. LA has over 20 times more cars and Pollution there is also nothing like here!
Pollution will only be getting worse here!
Posted by lucas.ogara (1119 days ago)
JJChan, one of the points that nosey-parker made was:
Tell me when China has holidays IE long new year, labor day etc why is the air clear in HK?
I notice that your reply doesn't really address this, but it's is true. Within a day or two of the start of the sort of holiday that causes factories on the Mainland to knock off work, the air quality in HK improves dramatically. Every time.
HK pollution is not much more than the icing on the cake w/respect to what we're getting from the Mainland but neither those in the environmental movement nor those in local govt can afford to acknowledge this.
HK leaders are terrified of being denounced as splittist and so can never speak loudly and frankly about the source of the bulk of the miasma enshrouding the city. Local environmentalists, reasonably enough, don't want to end up in black prisons, mental hospitals, etc., so crossing the border and protesting over there is out.
Posted by JJChan (1119 days ago)
There is no doubt that the pollution is comming from China, absolutely YES! but a huge amount is comming from HK. Take a look at the Clean the Air website and have a walk along Repulse Bay Beach Road past all the buses spewing out filth with their engines running as I do on most days. There is no excuse as to why we can not curb some of the pollution in HK and no it is not just icing on the cake it is 70% more!
Posted by flyboyHK (1118 days ago)
Of course it did improve in 2009. Remember, we had a massive economic crisis, and a lot of factories in the delta did stop to operate. But they're back up and and smoking now....
And of course the politicians will attribute this improvement to their efforts in cleaning up pollution.
The year 2009 will be used in these statistics for a long time: look, how good we are.
It's a publicity stunt, as usual.
Remember what happened about 2 years ago, when they noticed they can't meet the 2010 emission targets (55% reduction of RSP and 40% reduction of SO2, based on the 1997 levels)
They claimed that the 1997 levels were actually much worse that what they had previously determined in the proposal, and based on these "new" much worse 1997 base levels they were much closer to achieve the proposed percentual reductions (still miles off target though)...
And this is NOT a conspiracy theory, these are HK government statements.
smoke and mirrors ...
Posted by selda (1118 days ago)
A lot of local people prefer to bury their head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine...they just turn up their air-con and they are only happy when it's so cold that you have to wear a jumper....they mistakenly believe that the cooler the air the cleaner. They never make the connection between over-reliance on air-conditioning and pollution. They don't see the coal-fired power plants that produce the energy they waste.
Local media never devote much attention to pollution, and when i pointed out to a friend whose husband was dying of lung cancer despite never smoking in his life that the air we breathe causes cancer, she looked at me in disbelief and said "i don't think so, otherwise the doctors would tell us". In one year i know of 5 people who died of lung cancer in their 40s and 50, none of them smoked.
Local doctors don't alert people, the government hides the pollution index in the weather observatory website so well that most people who visit the website will not see it.
And let's not forget that the pollution index is outdated, and when it tells you that the pollution at roadside level is "high", it should read "very high". Basically we are breathing harmful air everyday.
The ignorance is so widespread that drivers protest against the government's proposal to fine those who keep their engines running while waiting. They believe that running their air-con is their god-given right, even if that means gassing pedestrians.
The government has done a lot of anti-smoking campaigns, but nothing about the effects of vehicles' pollution. So now you see 'no smoking' signs near the beach, next to a line of tourist buses that spew out black fumes.
Our city is so dense that it would make sense to pedestrianize most alleys and streets where there is not enough ventilation due to the canyon effect caused by very tall buildings. Instead we have double deckers and diesel trucks using those streets.
Only electric trams and underground trains should serve those congested areas. Running diesel buses in the inner city is criminal.
Posted by evildeeds (1118 days ago)
It's certainly got worse here over the years. I certainly worry for my kids even though I'm in one of the supposed "cleanest" areas. Year after year we see that coloured haze and it's not just being able to see it, you can smell and taste it.
I'll probably give it one more year myself and if there is no improvement I'll be off to Singapore because I value the health of my kids.
Posted by axptguy38 (1118 days ago)
Point of order. "Diesel" is per se not dirty. New diesel cars, buses and lorries in Western Europe are as clean as their petrol counterparts (very very clean). Old diesels, which never had to meet emissions standards, on the other hand, can be very dirty.
Posted by madtown (1117 days ago)
I'm certainly no expert, however I would think that a reasonably healthy adult could live in Hong Kong for two or three years with little ill effects. The human lungs are great at "healing" themselves. I would be very concerned if I lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years. This air would take its toll. I intend on leaving after my third year, with enough money to live where ever i wish (cleaner air). Oh, and if have children, you would have to be crazy to live here for any length of time. Young and developing lungs should not be exposed to this air.
Posted by notaeuropean (1116 days ago)
so what are the "cleanest" areas of HGK to live, air-wise? I love the city/center (am in cwb) but the air is horrid here of course. may want to move next year.
Posted by cara (1116 days ago)
sorry... just a little side-track back to the "factories over the border are causing the pollution problem" folks...
one little question:
who owns (at least partly) the factories???? HONG KONGERS!!!! why do you think they moved the factories from hk to china??? fewer restrictions!!!
Posted by axptguy38 (1116 days ago)
Cleanest areas on the Island are Repulse Bay, Stanley, Red Hill, Tai Tam.
Off island South Lantau is not bad, as well as many other parts of the NT.
Posted by cookie09 (1116 days ago)
"Posted by nosey-parker
It makes me laugh that many people think that this polution in made in Hong Kong. Almost all public transport is LPG inc the buses and Taxis. The cars mostly modern and pretty economical. The average yearly KM is under 10k.
Ok i admit the power station pollute but they are not responsible for this. over 75% of this pollution is coming from the mainland, just look at GZ or even SZ. It is terrible."
i am not surprised at the lack of awareness and inclination to blame others among the typical HK person.
If one only reads the Gov announcements, then one probably has never come across any decent research on pollution. However, it does exist. A simple look at Wikipedia under Air Pollution in Hong Kong shows quite some research references.
Just taking one of them, coming from HKUST (http://www.civic-exchange.org/eng/upload/files/200703_HKAirPollution.pdf), shows:
- local air pollution is responsible for 56% of total air pollution
- regional air pollution (which means PRD based) causes 36%
among the local pollution factors are mainly two:
- cars and especially trucks which are operating on sub-standard engines/exhaust systems
- the two large electricity generators run by CLP
the car/truck issues cannot be solved because of the hk political situation where these constituencies wield a too large influence relative to their economic importance or relative to total population
the electricity issue cannot be solved because...guess who owns CLP...
Posted by mayo (1116 days ago)
"Cleanest areas on the Island are Repulse Bay, Stanley, Red Hill, Tai Tam."
If this is true It certainly isn't visibly so. Where I live I have both a habourview and a southbay view and when one is smoggy the other is equally so.
Posted by funbobby (1116 days ago)
'cleanest' may mean 'in terms of roadside emissions'...the notion that any one area of HK is cleaner overall than another is ridiculous...the suspended particulate blows in every direction, and Southside is as grey overhead as Tin Shui Wai...don't kid yourself
Posted by axptguy38 (1115 days ago)
Certainly the smog can be on both sides. But there's no way there are as many roadside emissions on Southside. Stand on Des Voeux Road Central, then stand on Repulse Bay Road. Which seems cleaner to you?
Then again, I would love for the Environmental Department to put a couple of monitoring stations on Southside.
"over 75% of this pollution is coming from the mainland, just look at GZ or even SZ. It is terrible.""
Sure, but this doesn't mean the 25% remaining can't be improved. Minibuses may be LPG but most "big buses" are old diesels, as are the lorries.
Posted by JJChan (1115 days ago)
Sadly, the Southside is just as bad as anywhere else - It may have less roadside emissions marginally than Central but most of us don't live in Central. Just walk down by the beach each day in Repulse Bay as I do and breath in the muck that comes out of those old buses and if you had your eyes shut you would think you were in Central. It is disgusting! Agree though axpatguy more should be done in HK to improve the situation, we can't blame it all on PRC.
Posted by axptguy38 (1115 days ago)
Agreed that those buses on Beach Road are horrible. If only we had idling regs... Real ones.
Many new cars can keep the A/C on to a degree for 15-30 minutes after the engine has been turned off, just off battery and residual engine heat. Where are those solutions for HK buses and taxis?
Posted by dipper (1115 days ago)
Repulse Bay is particularly unpleasant though, there are places on South Side that are not as grim.
Posted by nbv (1115 days ago)
We'd move to Singapore in a heartbeat if we could. We love HK, but I am finding it hard to live with the guilt about what living here is doing to my children (who are developing asthma, etc.)
Posted by axptguy38 (1115 days ago)
To be fair, most of Repulse Bay is ok. Beach Road is the bad spot with all the idling buses. There's also the HKIS school rush but that's only for two rather brief periods in the morning and afternoon.
Posted by flyboyHK (1115 days ago)
copy & paste from Bloomberg.com
Hong Kong Air Pollution Has Two Worst Quarters Ever
By Debra Mao
Hong Kong’s air pollution was the worst on record during the past two quarters, sparking regular government health warnings and growing discontent among the city’s 7 million people.
Roadside pollution was either “very high” or “severe” 13.6 percent of the time from January to March and 23.8 percent of the time in the October-December period last year, compared with a previous high of 13.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, Environmental Protection Department data show. The oldest quarterly air pollution index figures showed it breaching “very high” levels 1.9 percent of the time in the third quarter of 1999.
Then-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa declared in his 1999 policy address that fighting pollution would be a priority. Eleven years later, it has gotten worse, at times forcing schools to cancel sporting events and stirring concerns it could harm companies’ efforts to recruit overseas workers to the city.
“There aren’t too many other financial hubs where you have to check the pollution index before deciding whether to run outside or on the treadmill,” said Ben Hoad, a sales trader from Australia who’s lived in Hong Kong for five years.
Hong Kong’s Air Pollution Index reached a “very high” 102 today in Causeway Bay, a congested shopping area east of the main business district.
Public Discontent
Hong Kong people are the most dissatisfied in the world with their air quality, according to a Gallup survey of adults in 153 countries. Seventy percent of the city’s residents expressed the highest level of dissatisfaction with air quality. The next most disgruntled population was in Chad, where 59 percent of adults were highly dissatisfied with their air, as well as water and other basics, said Gallup research director Bob Tortora.
Singapore had the lowest dissatisfaction with air quality, 3 percent, according to the survey released April 22, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.
Information Officer Y.F. Chau of the Environmental Protection Department acknowledged the recent rise in roadside air pollution. While Chau said he could not provide an immediate explanation for the increase, he said the government is taking measures to fight back including vehicle emission controls.
Health Warnings
The government classifies readings above 100 as “very high.” When it’s that level at general stations, the government discourages people with heart and respiratory diseases from outdoor activity and physical exercise. With readings above 100 at roadside stations, officials urge people with heart or respiratory diseases to avoid staying in heavy traffic areas.
“Studies show that if you have long-term exposure to fine particulates generated from diesel engines, then your risk of death from a respiratory disease rises over 10 percent,” said Wong Tze Wai, a professor in public health at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Wong has researched the health effects of air pollution for more than 20 years.
At levels above 200, the pollution is called “severe” and the warnings apply to the general public. Pollution is often cited as an issue for people thinking of moving to Hong Kong.
“It gets brought up in every conversation I have with people we try to bring out here,” said Yash Rana, a partner at law firm Goodwin Procter. Rana moved to Hong Kong a year and a half ago and installed an “industrial strength” air-filtering system in his home for his asthmatic daughter.
Topping Pollution Index
Hong Kong’s pollution index rose to the top reading of 500 at 10 of 14 monitoring stations on March 22 as winds from sandstorms in northern China carried particles to Hong Kong. Pollution had never been so high in the city.
Alexis Lau, an assistant atmospheric math professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said this year’s increased frequency of high roadside pollution had nothing to do with sandstorms.
“It has to do with the high nitrogen dioxide,” said Lau, referring to the light brown gas produced by vehicle engines. Lau periodically analyzes concentration levels published by the government.
The Hong Kong and Guangdong province governments released a report April 29 on air quality of the Pearl River Delta in 2009, citing lower levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and breathable suspended particles compared with previous years.
Scrapping Old Buses
“There is absolutely no reason to rejoice,” wrote Joanne Ooi, chief executive officer of independent advocacy group Clean Air Network, which sends e-mail alerts when the index rises above 100. “What matters is the level of pollution to which people are actually exposed to at street level,” Ooi wrote in response to the Hong Kong-Guangdong report.
Since 1999, the Hong Kong government has implemented control measures to reduce vehicle emissions, Chau wrote in an e-mailed statement April 30.
In March, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau said Hong Kong may accelerate replacement of old buses, change transit routes and set up low-emission zones to cut pollution. Old buses are expected to be eliminated from city roads by 2019, according to Yau. In April, the department submitted a proposed law to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council requiring drivers to switch off their engines while their vehicles are idling.
“Actions are in hand to promote the use of electric vehicles, ban idling vehicles with running engines and to implement a statutory specification for using biodiesel as motor vehicle fuel,” Chau wrote.
Hong Kong lawmakers will debate a motion May 5 on improving air quality, urging the government to improve early-warning signals for heavy pollution and to make specific guidelines for closing schools and suspending outdoor work when it hits severe levels. Legislator Kam Nai-wai wants Hong Kong to adopt more stringent air-quality guidelines and to be more prompt about taking high-emission buses off the streets.
“If it gets much worse, I think people will leave,” said Rana. “And you might have to pay more money to get people to come here and replace those people.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Debra Mao in Hong Kong at dmao5@bloomberg.net
Posted by funbobby (1115 days ago)
"Hong Kong people are the most dissatisfied in the world with their air quality, according to a Gallup survey of adults in 153 countries. Seventy percent of the city’s residents expressed the highest level of dissatisfaction with air quality. ...Singapore had the lowest dissatisfaction with air quality, 3 percent, according to the survey released April 22, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day."
That's gotta sting an already insecure government that blubbers and stutters whenever SG is mentioned in comparison to HK...
Posted by madtown (1111 days ago)
WOW. Get outside today. The rain has really cleared the pollution out (for awhile). It is crystal clear and the air doesn't smell bad. God I wish everyday could be like today :(
Posted by jk333 (1108 days ago)
Must admit the last few days have been good, no smell in the air, no stinging eyes, no pain in my chest or throat. Not bad been here nearly a month and the 4 days have been bearable!
Is this the best i can hope for.
I would love to know the rates of asthma among the young, but from what i gather all detrimental information is hidden by the corrupt HK government
oops just looked out my window, the Pollution is back. On with the face mask AGAIN!!!
Posted by axptguy38 (1108 days ago)
For asthma rates talk to an allergist. They'll tell you. Then again they might tell you that there is more irritated airways stuff than asthma. Not that this is much better really.
Furthermore, many sufferers of asthma feel better in HK because of the humidity, so this would "mask" some of the pollution figures.
Re: face masks. Those paper ones do very little good against pollution. The ones that help are motorcycle/bicycle masks with replaceable filters.
Posted by jk333 (1105 days ago)
Another day living in an exhaust pipe! I have no energy , my throat has been sore for weeks. I always feel short of breath.... Is this normal or will the pollution subside.
From what i am hearimng it is getting worse every month!
I even saw government posters yesterday warning people not to exercise out doors!
Posted by axptguy38 (1105 days ago)
Honestly the last week has been pretty good for HK. I wouldn't expect it to be very much better than now.
Summer tends to be better because of prevailing winds from other directions than the Pearl River Delta.
Posted by jk333 (1104 days ago)
Well if thats the best to hope for! Today Friday 14th May is another terrible day, you cant see over the harbour to kowloon, and the smell and taste of the air is terrible!
Posted by dipper (1104 days ago)
Well come down to Wan Chai then jk, we've got beautiful clear skies here.
Posted by axptguy38 (1104 days ago)
South Side is also nice and sunny with clear air.
It should be noted that while pollution certainly plays a large part in creating haze, high humidity is also a factor.
Posted by JJChan (1104 days ago)
I'm not sure exactly where you are axptguy but in Repulse Bay the sun is shining, lots of fog but having been down Beach Road this morning with all the buses/cars and their idling engines I think I will have to say pollution rather than fog. I haven't noticed any clear air as yet and as for clean air forget it!
Posted by axptguy38 (1104 days ago)
I am in Repulse Bay. It looks hazy. Very humid. Beach Road is of course always blech in the summer afternoons. There's a huge difference between points higher up the hill in RB and points by the beach. Also this is all very subjective since the EPD hasn't even seen fit to install sensors on South Side. Perhaps they fear what the readings might be?
Posted by alphalau (1104 days ago)
There is no denying that the air in Hong Kong, particularly in the city centre areas, could be pretty bad. This is the case in most large cities, but in HK, because of its relative size (small) and large population and the concentration of the city areas, also with the tall buildings, this could be an issue.
However, I wouldn't put it quite as badly as some have put it here -true, if you come from a little village in Wales and are not used to it, it would seem like you are walking through a grey smog every day. There are indeed cases of asthma, but it can't be THAT bad if over 7 million locals live here and their life expectancy is still one of the highest in the world, maybe after Japan, but certainly ahead of some other NA or Euroeapn countries.
I was born here and had asthma when very young (a toddler), but as with most people (but not all) with asthma, grew out of it by age 5. I left to live in the Midlands in the UK aged 15 and stayed until age 23. I came back to HK (then subsequently Shanghai and Taipei) to work since then as the pace is just faster in Asia and the money is better.
The only 2 asthma attacks I have had so far since age 5 - once while playing Netball in the Midlands, in an area of lush green trees and large green lawns and hardly a car in sight. And another time here in HK on a day when the pollution index was below 100 but I was suffering from a lot of stress because of a close relative's illness. I went to Beijing a couple of months ago on one of the sandstorm days (pollution index must have been 1000 if they measured it!) and was armed with N95 face masks, 2 different types of asthma inhalers and medication, but bad nothing happened (touch wood) during that trip except for overexpenditure on my part on shopping.
So children or not, I would compare the overall quality of life and what sort of job you are working at, plus where you come from - the last being most important - because it takes a while to get used to a new environment, new weather, new pollution, new culture. Singapore is more multicultural it seems, whereas HK is more a stepping stone into China (for work). HK does have a more varied climate (it could get cold in the winter), and lovely country parks. Singapore has casinos!
KL is... KL.
Posted by jk333 (1104 days ago)
Dipper, that blue you see must be the Samsung sign, there's no blue today just yellow grey pollution pumped in from China.
I've lived in LA, New York London and Paris. I have never at any time seen or experienced pollution even half as bad as it is here!
You will have to wait some time to get realistic life expectancy stats. the effects of this acrid air we are all breathing will take years to show what it is doing, but one things for sure it will only be getting worse especially if the great factory we call China keeps growing without any care to its people!
Posted by flyboyHK (1102 days ago)
i just came back from Singapore ... a friendly reminder of what clean air looks and smells like and what blue skies look like ... we're talking not just a small circular spot of pale blue-ish sky right above, no, proper blue blue and blue right down to the horizon. the HORIZON, dear HK people, is that line where sky and land/water are supposed to meet ... you just don't get to see it in HK ...
It's a crying shame if you hear people here talk about how they had blue skies only because there was a blue patch right overhead (think about it, that's the shortest distance through the pollution layer) ...nothing but delusions. Go to Thailand or other similar places if you need a reminder what a blue sky looks like, and until then please don't tell me you saw one ...
*rant over*
Posted by madtown (1101 days ago)
flyboyHK-
You don't need to go anywhere to be reminded just how bad the pollution is. Just go outside immediately following a heavy rain event (when it clears). It is truly amazing the crisp outline and detail you can see in the buildings, mountainsides and horizon. Its like the first time someone goes to the eye doctor and walks out with glasses.
Sad thing is, it seems like it only takes about 24 hours and the pollution rolls back in.
AlphaLau - You can't use life expectancy figures as an indication of how bad air pollution is (yet). I bet in 50 years, the life expectancy figures will plummet (if accurately reported). Hong Kong's air is awful compared to all cities outside China that I've been to. I'm glad you have gotten used to living and breathing filth. I never will. I'm also glad you have managed your asthma and have masks at the ready, but that is not the life I want for my kids (should I have any).
Posted by nosey-parker (1098 days ago)
What a perfect day to day. Shame it is so rare. You forget how small Victoria Harbour is. Most of the time you cant even see the 1/2 mile accross it.
Shame it takes a huge rain storm and the winds to be blowing towards China to get a single clear day!
When the wind blows in from China its like Hell on earth in Hong Kong!
Posted by madtown (1097 days ago)
Just got back from Guangzhou a couple days ago, I go there about once a month. If you have never been to Guangzhou its worth going up there for a day just to see the air. It is twice as bad as here (and thats saying something). My eyes were stinging and everyone in the conference room looked as though they were crying. My clothes still smell and my throat is raw. If there is such a thing as hell, Guangzhou on a 35 degree day must be close to it.
Posted by flyboyHK (1092 days ago)
Singapore Beats Hong Kong to Remain Asia’s Most Livable City
May 25, 2010, 7:30 PM EDT
By Le-Min Lim
May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore retained its ranking as the Asian city with the best quality of life, while Hong Kong lags rival financial hubs as it struggles with air pollution, according to a survey by Mercer Consulting.
Singapore ranks 28 among 221 cities, Tokyo is at 40 and Hong Kong is placed 71, the list shows. The cities are rated on 10 factors including infrastructure, political and social environments, and access to medical care. Hong Kong scored poorly on health concerns, said Cathy Loose, a Tokyo-based Mercer officer who helped compile the list.
“The government hasn’t done very much to introduce green measures or reduce pollution,” said Loose, in an interview. The list serves as a compensation guide for expatriate relocation.
Hong Kong’s air pollution was the worst on record during the past two quarters, sparking regular government health warnings. To address the problem, the government introduced a bill in April proposing a ban on idling engines among other steps.
Singapore lags Hong Kong only on measurements of personal freedom and media censorship, said Loose. Mercer is a unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos.
Hong Kong’s effort to cut pollution and protect the environment trails even that of Havana and ranks just above Damascus, the list shows. Overall, Vienna retains the top spot as the world’s best city to live in.
Posted by dipper (1092 days ago)
"Singapore lags Hong Kong only on measurements of personal freedom and media censorship, said Loose."
Those are two pretty massive 'onlys'.
That said, for sure something needs to be done about air pollution.
Posted by axptguy38 (1092 days ago)
Apart from the "onlys" mentioned by dipper, those surveys are pretty subjective and don't really give a definite answer. Any given person may or may not agree with the criteria.
"To address the problem, the government introduced a bill in April proposing a ban on idling engines among other steps."
And I see the spin is working.
Posted by 28cars (1079 days ago)
I drive all over HK every day in my work. I live near Yuen Long which is as close as you can get to Shenzhen without being in the sea. Now, I am no scientist but I can tell you that I often wake up to lovely blue skies here, I get in my car and south and the air gets progressivley worse towards Kowloon and positively minging in central. Meanwhile, it's all good up on the Peak and not too bad over at Repulse Bay and Stanley. Drive out to Lantau, no problem. Hmmm? Let's think about this, could it be that just like anywhere else the nasty stuff is in the centre which is the most crowded and busiest of all, hmmm. Oh and the people moaning about it tend to live and work and these little congested part of the territory? Pollution from China? So the pollution starts off invisible, flies over the New Terrirtories and then by coincidence settles downtown, hmmmm? Solution, don't live in the middle of a hot crowded city built at the bottom of a steep hill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy Check out this list to see where Hong Kong ranks in the world for life expectancy. Perhaps you'd be wrong not to bring kids here!
Posted by Loyd Grossman is Miss Venezuela (1079 days ago)
HK, KL and Singapore. Quite a difficult choice. Now I've been living in HK for 16 years and have more or less gone local - I'm a Brit and I'm putting my kids through local schools - but each of the cities has real advantages and disadvantages. I think the important thing to do is to decide what you are looking to achieve. How about this for a quick check list?
Making money: 1) HK (only if accomodation is provided or you're willing to live in a much smaller place) 2) Singapore 3) KL
Tax: 1) HK 2) Sing 3) KL
Pace of life: 1) KL 2) Singapore 3) HK
Stress: 1) KL 2) Sing 3) HK
Travel: 1) HK/Sing 3) KL
House size relative to price: 1) KL 2) Sing 3) HK
Mixing with the locals: 1) Sing (most speak English and many have good senses of humour) 2) HK (quite difficult to mix outside expat/overseas Chihense and well-educated locals) 3) KL (don't really know to be honest)
Political freedom: 1) HK (streets ahead) 2) KL 3) Sing
Freedom of the press: 1) HK (again by miles) 2) KL 3) Sing
Pollution: Difficult. If if they are burning the forest in Indonesia then Sing and KL much much worse. For, HK it is industrial pollution from poor quality electricity generation and cars but they are doing something about it and, although I'm in a minority, I positive longer term on HK.
Safety: 1) HK/Sing 3) KL
Transport: 1) Sing (because of the road pricing) 2) HK 3) KL
Greenery: 1) Sing/KL 3) HK
Govt efficiency: 1) HK/Sing 3) KL
Weather: 1) HK (you get seasons) 2) KL 3) Sing
Schools: 1) Sg (I think you could send your kids to a local school and they would be able to learn in English - though not sure) 2) HK 3) KL. HK schooling is expensive or difficult to find a place if you want the kids to be taught in English. If they are very young, you could put them into local Cantonese speaking schools and end up with bilingual children who can read and write Chinese.
Flexibility: 1) HK 2) KL 3) Sing
Estate management: 1) Hk 2) Sing 3) KL a poor last
Arts: 1) HK (no censorship) 3) Sing/KL
Hong Kong also doesn't have the death penalty and a completely free currency.
If you are free-wheeling, have an opinion, go-getting and you're not overly-concerned about 'lifestyle' then it has to be HK. If you want a gentle pace of life, a greater variety of cultures, a large home with a garden and you don't mind roughing it just a little bit more than in HK or Sing - then KL's for you. Something in between, then Sing.
You can live extremely cheaply in all 3 places if you eat local food and your accomodation is sorted out.
Posted by JJChan (1079 days ago)
I think I have mentioned it before. Love Hong Kong best place in the world me thinks BUT the air is digusting and maybe 28cars is just in need of some new specs. I live South Side and oh my very few clear days and as for the Peak I am there regularly and same thing. YUK YUK! as for the life expectancy figures - pure and utter rubbish, who knows what this filth will be doing to our health in the long term. They may of been correct for some years ago well maybe 8 years ago when I last remembered clear skys.
Posted by madtown (1078 days ago)
The life expectancy figures prove nothing in relation to the air pollution. For starters, the pollution problem hasn't been around long enough to effect people. I think we need to wait another 20 or 30 years to get a more accurate picture of the effects of breathing the filth.
Also, the chinese lead a healthier life in general than most. Better diet, more walking, less obesity etc.
The air in Hong Kong is awful. It is a health hazard. How bad of a health is the question?
Posted by madtown (1073 days ago)
Some more thoughts on the pollution crisis in Hong Kong. I have read about idling buses and taxes, and putting scrubbers on the power plants and turning A/C down. The truth of the matter is, nothing will make the air breathable in Hong Kong unless two thing happen. First, would be an alternative source of energy to fossil fuels. That one unfortunetely I don't see on the horizon anytime soon. The second would be population reduction (or sprawl). This could be possible down the road if China's economy can improve. The real problem with the air in Hong Kong boils down to population in the pearl river delta.
According to my figures, Hong Kong and Guangdong province have about 100,000,000 million people. The size of the area is about 69,000 sq mi. with most of the population is centered around the pearl river delta.
The UK for example is 90,000 sq mi and has 60,000,000 and far better spread out.
When people try to compare Hong Kong's acrid air to LA, New York or London, it is kind of a joke. A more accurate comparison would be if we picked up New York, LA and London and placed them all right next to each other (kinda like HK, GZ and SZ).
What needs to happen in my opinion, is that the people in China need to spread out. I know that is much easier said than done. People will go where the jobs and economy is best.
The reason China (and Hong Kong) are so polluted all comes down to population density. I personally think the entire region is doomed as far as environmental conditions, but they could slow down their demise by stopping further construction and taking steps to control population in the region.
Every time I drive by the New Territories and see a new high rise housing tower being built, I just shake my head. Do we really need additional housing in hong kong? If anything they should be tearing the old buildings down and slowly trying to reduce the number of housing units. Hong Kong doesn't need growth, it needs clean and breathable air.
Posted by axptguy38 (1073 days ago)
Like it or not, people spreading out has never to my knowledge happened on any significant scale in recorded history. It never will unless there is a really MAJOR disaster. Like, say, a plague that kills ½ the population or a big asteroid strike. Spreading out is bad for the economy.
Stop the growth and you might as well give up altogether. You can't have the cake and eat it.
Not judging. I would love to have better air. But people spreading out is not a viable solution.
Posted by madtown (1073 days ago)
In the US a decade or two ago, urban sprawl was an issue. People were moving out of the city and choosing to live in less dense suburbs. Admittedly that is totally different than what were dealing with in Guangdong/HK, but it does show that humans don't actually enjoy living on top of each other.
most of the population in SZ, GZ and HK moved here from less dense/rural areas in china. Perhaps as China's economy improves, other areas within china will appeal more and people won't need to migrate over here?? Wishful thinking perhaps. But it is mind boggling to think of the sheer number of people that live here. Guangdong/HK is equal to 1/3 of the entire US population. It would be like taking 1/3 of the entire US population and cramming them into Florida. If that happened, I'm sure Florida would have the same environmental and air issues as here.
Posted by dipper (1073 days ago)
In fact spreading people out is bad for the environment overall. By far the best thing for the environment (in terms of reducing global warming in any case) is to have people clustered together in dense population centres, close to where they work, shop and play. This reduces wastage of resources, travel and energy use.
Living in a stand-alone house in the countryside, with many external walls, frequent travel, delivery of goods and services etc. is nice for the individual concerned but environmentally the most damaging. Generally speaking (for a given number of people) the higher the population density the better the energy efficiency.
Posted by vak (1073 days ago)
Based on a survey conducted by Lonely Planet with inputs from travel journalists, staff, readers and other participants HK came 12th while Singapore was 25th and KL was ranked 52nd amongst the Worlds Top 200 cities. The huge gap was due to the fact that the competetion was amongst 200 cities from the WORLD from 230 countries of the world and not just ASIA. Yes they did look into all aspects including pollution, history, a WOW factor, diversity, crime rates etc etc.
The main WEAKNESSES going against HK in the survey were, Noise/Water/Air Pollution, Crowds, overexcited airconditioners and Expensive Beer while the GOLD STAR was for Business.
28cars wherever you see high rise the levels of pollution will be higher and specially on days with no breeze due to air locks between buildings and the high density of people per sq meter.
Just stand at any overbridge on Gloucester road in the morning and see the no of EMPTY double deckers between the last stretch from Elizabeth house to Exchange square. The problems have worsened since the govt privatised the bus services. The bus companies probably make more money from ad revenues of the TV screens than passengers.
I feel some NGO or University should conduct a survey based on facts and realtime situations rather than heresay. The survey should include the age, general background of the participants and list the number of Doctor visits per year that person made for Respiratory Infections. It should also include where the person lives, works , how they commute and how much exercise they do per week. How many hours per day the persons spend indoors and how many outdoors. I have not seen anything in terms of a comprehensive result other than general complaints that the city is polluted. The health of a minibus driver sitting near idling buses will be different from a street sweeper on the PEAK even if they both lived in Mongkok.
I think it would make an interesting project for some university or school students.
Posted by madtown (1072 days ago)
dipper -
I know what you are saying, and in general you are correct, that spreading people out is bad for the overall net carbon emmissions. However, when it comes to regional environemental/pollution problems, you can go too far as is the case with GD and HK. If you are refering to TOTAL GLOBAL emissions, than you are right, stack people on top of each other.
But, what I'm basically saying is to spread the population (and thus pollution) out throughout China better. China is a huge country geographically, yet it seems all the industry and most of the population is centered in a select few areas. 100 million people living in an area smaller than Florida might be good for the overall worldwide environment, but it is a disaster for the region.
Posted by funbobby (1072 days ago)
I think much of the problem is the path China has decided to follow regarding the handling of these large numbers of people. Instead of seeing the obvious flaws in the 'car culture' countries like the US and Canada, and developing more efficient mass transit alternatives for moving huge numbers of people around, they've decided to emulate the freeways and resulting gridlock/pollution as the middle class in PRC becomes more affluent and all of a sudden 'needs' a car to get around...IMHO they really screwed up with their shortsightedness, missing a real chance to become leaders in the world in terms of mass transit, when their own 'car culture' had not yet developed....now they're trying to right the wrong with high speed rail, and yet continue to pave thousands of kms of freeway every year....
as madtown says, a more geographically diverse allocation of manufacturing centres, linked by efficient transportation could lessen the severity of pollution in places like the PRD...
Posted by madtown (1072 days ago)
Vak -
Most jobs in Hong Kong give 2 sick days per month. I thought that was a bit excessive when I got here. I give final approval and sign off on sick leave application forms for a large company. Far and away the most common sick leave form (must be granted by a medical professional) I get is URI. URI is upper respiratory infection. I sign dozens every day. I used to think the staff used that as an easy way out of work, now I believe they honestly have chronic URIs.
It would be interesting to do a study of total lost wages/production due to URI's in Hong Kong. I'm guessing it would be in the billions.
As for the lonely planet ranking, I never pay attention to those rankings. They are meaningless to me. The fact they have air quality and the price of beer in the same ranking is laughable, even if they do weight some categories higher than others. I could care less how much a beer costs, if you live in an area where doctors advise you not to run outside because it will do more harm than good to your lungs?
Posted by wildhogs (1042 days ago)
well, if air pollution is all you are concerned with, i can vouch that S'pore is the best amongst all 3. been to all 3 and lived in singapore and hk. But in terms of quality of life, and what you can do/will get to do, i think singapore loses out by a fair bit.
Posted by chilltown jc (1031 days ago)
just wondering, are there any local action or environmental groups that have an impact on the air pollution problem? is the general consensus that we are really bad getting worse or is there any chance for optimism?
Posted by axptguy38 (1031 days ago)
Cautious optimism at the very best...
There are a couple of advocacy groups but while getting airtime they haven't managed to achieve much except increased awareness. The government does talk a lot, but again, action is scarce. Bla bla bla green Hong Kong bla bla but that's it.
There is the whole idling debate, where taxi drivers are up in arms about the proposed law to cut idling time to a few minutes. Apparently they have health concerns if they have to have the A/C off. Singapore taxi drivers who have to live with an anti-idling regulation are just fine though, and it is on average hotter there. Buses also idle for hours at tourist spots like Beach Road in Repulse Bay.
The thing is, vehicular pollution is just one aspect. Industrial pollution from the Pearl River Delta is a big deal, especially in winter. It's hard to affect a country where environmental concerns are only on the agenda when the rest of the world happens to be looking on, like during the Olympics or the World Expo.
The major issue in China, as I see it, is that in the West environmental concerns started being voiced decades ago by strong advocacy groups. In China grassroots groups are seen with great suspicion and can't rise to the same level of power. And so the populace remains uneducated and just "accepts".
Posted by madtown (1031 days ago)
well said axpat. especially the last paragraph. one must remember that Hong Kong is 96% chinese, so if things are to change it must come from them. And like you said, they tend to "accept" rather than challenge the status quo.
Its kinda like smoking was 50 years ago. Until people start prematurely dying in large numbers, heads will likely remain in the sand.
Posted by madtown (1031 days ago)
good article, but Hong Kong has the transportation down pat. They move people around with great effiency and with minimal effect to the environment.
Its our friends to the north, aka the "worlds factory" and coal power.
Posted by ocean0 (1019 days ago)
very interesting thread, but makes us worried about moving to HK (with a young child)...I heard that NT has (comparatively) better quality of air, so please can anyone live there share your views/experience on this? and where would you recommend to live in NT?
Posted by madtown (1019 days ago)
Ocean -
Have lived in the new territories. I guess you could say that it is better, but not much. There are two basic polluting factors in hong kong. One being roadside pollution largely from older, high sulfur burning, diesel engines, the other being regional smog produced by coal powered plants and the industrial cities of shenzhen and guangzhou. The air in Hong Kong is awful no matter where you live, but it would help to stay far away from the roadside pollution, and thus the New Territories would be a better choice.
Air quality is a big issues for expats, especially those with kids. Many have moved out of Hong Kong, or not come, due to the air. The air gets so bad at times, that schools keep kids inside.........
Posted by JJChan (1019 days ago)
You mention that you have a young child.. my advice to you is think very carefully before you move here. The pollution here is vile and the air is filthy for most of the year. Living in NT is not going to make the slightest bit of difference. Who knows how you child will react to the pollution here, many suffer with all sorts of illnesses and others don't. Goodness knows what the long term effects will be, it really does not bear thinking about.
Posted by ocean0 (1018 days ago)
Thanks JJChan and madtown - yes air pollution is a big issue and it does put us off going to HK, and if we ever decide to go, then it will be short-term. Out of my curiosity, is neither of you living in HK anymore?
Posted by madtown (1018 days ago)
Yes, I live in Hong Kong, admittedly mostly for the money. No one knows for sure what the air is doing to our lungs. I am going off the assumption that a few years won't cause too much harm to an adults lungs. Just like someone who smokes cigarettes for a few years probaly isn't doing too much harm to themselves. Adult lungs are capable of repairing themselves (so to speak), so I'm told. I do enjoy living here, it is a shame the air is so bad.
Posted by JJChan (1018 days ago)
Yes, home for me. Hong Kong is the most fabulous place to live, however, as said the pollution is dire and it is the only thing that will make me leave. Have watched many friends move over the years due to the pollution. All very sad. I have just driven past the lamma chimneys and they are now merrily pumping out vast amounts of smoke.
Posted by cowleyp (1016 days ago)
I am off as soon as I can organise it. I have just had a discovery trip to KL and in my view it is better overall for family life and cheaper.
Posted by wellwhatever (388 days ago)
Great to find out cowleyp has the same view as me. I grow up in HK. Lived 4 years in Santa Barbara, 4 years in Singapore, about one year in Tokyo. Hk is just worse of all if your are not super rich. I mean super rich, not just rich.
You need to be super rich to put children into good international school.
You need absolutely super super super rich to get a decent house with ground space in the good area.
You only need to be super rich to get a good apartment in good area.
You need at least rich to pay for all the good things people mentioned in this forum.
You can live in super rich places like the Peak/Stanley to breath better air and yet get to work in Central or go shopping in Causeway Bay very fast. You superrichness allow you to get to these place in 10 min. Your driver wait for you. You don't wait.
Air pollution is horrible. After 4 years in Singapore, I return to HK and that smell of Causeway Bay is still sticking in my head. I can't fell it again if I go back to Causeway Bay today. But I am sure if I travel to Singapore today, I will tell the difference again.
But many people like to come to HK. Because they are super rich. Money can compensate for many things. You don't have to squeeze yourselve in a tiny restaurant but rather visit a super rich country club restaurant if you are super rich.
You don't have to drink HK water if you are super rich that you can bought whatever mineral water to wash vegatables or to wash yourself. (Many Japanese do that.)
There is just one thing you can't buy. The Air.
So, the only thing expat complaint about is usually the air pollution. In fact, they complaint to the HK government. The HKG people are just jerks. They would not act if just local citizen complants about air quality, but when the foreigners/riches/powers complain, they wave their tails.
Now, what if you are not super rich. Ok let's see.
(btw, people on an expat forum may come from all countries, right? Expat from some africa, and south asia countries such as pakistan, no offence, living in TST's Chun Hing Mansion and yuen long are not super rich but rather very poor financially.)
You might be living in New Territories, not to live a larger space but because limited budget, you can only afford a not so big apartment or even village house and than travel an hour to work in the HK island taking firstly a train and than a tunnel bus. You can tell your friends that air is better in New Territories, just to save your faces.
But that is true. The place I live in NT has ZERO air pollution.
You can eat in those very horribly dirty wet market food court for cheap food.
You can look up to the sky when you walk. -----> Ha Ha. Do you know why?
Ha Ha, still don't know?
Ok. Hong Kong's streets are horrible. In many places, they use this type of sewage system all over the places. you will walk over many sewage covers if you are not super rich. Now, the sewage covers have a lot of BIG holes. You can SEE inside the sewages very easily through the holes. The wet markets and horrible dirty hawkers and other horrible dirty people throw all kinds of oilly stuff in it (I can't describe it any more). If you don't look up to the sky, you might be looking down and you might see what it inside. Oh God. I don't want to think about it anymore. But for your info., I am telling you. Get super rich and have someone drive you instead of walking. Some the next time a rat pop up out of the sewage hole will be smashes by your ferrari, ready for a meat ball sphgattei. can't spell it.
Note that I am not saying HK is bad. HK is very good for the super rich.
And HK is very bad for those who are not super rich. Got it?
Now, about singapore. Singapore is NOT humid. Singapore is NOT hot.
Got it?
I lived there 4 years.
Singapore is NOT humid. Singapore is NOT hot.
I seldom use air cond. in Singapore. I just once in a while for the extra comfort.
I never use the dehumidfier in Singapre. I ship it from HK to Sing. and then back to HK. Never used. And there are a lot of swimming pools in singapore for easy cool down. Sing. car is expensive but taxi is cheap. I didn't have a problem without a car. But in HK, without a car is a problem. you will be squeezing yourself in train or buses.
In Singapore, you don't have to super rich to have very good accomodation. Just look at the design of the latest semi-public public housing.
In Singapore, you certainly have good air. Only slightly disturbing if you are on orchard rooad.
I will be visiting KL next month in an attempt to move there. It is even cheaper than Singapore. Unlike some expats who are sent by company to a place, my income does not change anywhere I live. There is no compensation to me for the more expensive housing in HK. So, the same amount of money to get the best out of it is my way.
|
