Strike a balance
Updated: 2014-09-16 06:20
By Staff Writer(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||
Given the sheer size of the HK$130 billion-dollar third runway, there is a strong case for environmentalists to express their concerns about its potential impact.
But development is not necessarily always at odds with environmental protection.
A win-win scenario is not something hard to achieve when the necessary measures are strictly implemented to offset the potential impact.
With the Hong Kong International Airport nearing its capacity, there is no argument that it badly needs a third runway. At a time when competitors in the region are gearing up to boost their respective aviation capacities, a third runway is essential for Hong Kong to maintain its status as a leading aviation hub.
This is an indispensable part of its highly efficient infrastructure which sustains the vitality and competitiveness of the city's trade and logistics industry - one of the four pillars of the economy.
Environmental groups have been vocal in objecting to the project since it was first proposed in June 2011. Their main concerns are potential air pollution and harm to the habitat of Chinese white dolphins.
To address these concerns, the Airport Authority has commissioned an environmental impact assessment (EIA). This includes a series of studies assessing the potential environmental effect of the third runway project across 12 key areas.
The EIA team, comprised of local and foreign experts, concluded in their report that the potential impact of the project will be reduced to an acceptable level with effective implementation of the measures they have proposed.
Now that the EIA team has recommended the necessary measures to cope with, or to compensate for, the potential environmental impact, these concerns are no longer warranted. Focus should now turn to ensuring strict implementation of these measures.
The public should have confidence in the authorities' ability to protect the environment.
After all, it is not by mere chance that the city has been spared a major environmental disaster over the course of its development.
Environmentalists have always managed to occupy the moral high ground. But they should temper this with reason.
Hong Kong would have remained a small fishing village if early residents had fought against development as intensely as some campaigners do now.
Decision makers are not people living in outer space. They live in the same space, breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else in the city.
(HK Edition 09/16/2014 page1)