Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

Hong Kong

Gas Plan For Sokos Ditched By CLP Firm Looks To Invest In Mainland LNG Plant

Denise Tsang, SCMP – Sep 12, 2008

CLP Power (SEHK: 0002) has abandoned its controversial HK$10 billion plan to build a liquefied natural gas plant on the Soko Islands off Lantau.

The power company will instead look to invest in an LNG processing plant on the mainland.

“The Sokos project is stopped,” CLP’s commercial director Richard Lancaster told the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) yesterday.

To ensure a secure supply of the clean fuel, CLP wanted to invest in either a regasification plant planned by PetroChina (SEHK: 0857, announcements, news) in Dachen Bay, Shekou , or one planned by China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC (SEHK: 0883)) in Zhuhai , Mr Lancaster said.

It would also negotiate on sourcing gas from CNOOC’s gas fields in the South China Sea and from PetroChina’s planned 4,800km pipeline from Turkmenistan via Kazakhstan to Shenzhen, he said.

CLP had said the LNG project – which involved building a storage and regasification plant on South Soko Island and a pipeline to carry the fuel to the Black Point power station at Tuen Mun – was needed because reserves at CNOOC’s Yacheng gas field, off Hainan , were far less than expected and would run out soon after 2011 at the current usage rate of 2.5 billion cubic metres a year.

Opponents challenged the plan over fears it would damage an environmentally sensitive marine area and lead to higher electricity bills.

The fate of the project was thrown into doubt when Hong Kong and Beijing struck an energy pact last month to guarantee supply to the city for another 20 years, with CNOOC saying that with further drilling, Yacheng, could supply at least 2 billion cubic metres a year.

“We concur with the [Hong Kong] government view that [the LNG plant] is not needed after a memorandum of understanding on energy supply to Hong Kong was signed,” Mr Lancaster said.

The accord, which includes nuclear power supply, ensures the availability of cleaner fuel for electricity generation – and better air quality – and may reduce pressure to raise power tariffs.

Green groups last night hailed the CLP decision.

Angus Wong Chun-yin, of Friends of the Earth, said: “Although using natural gas is good for the environment, building a liquefied natural gas plant on the Soko Islands could have harmed the environment more.”

He said the project would certainly have destroyed an important habitat of the Chinese white dolphin.

But Mr Wong said more needed to be done to switch to clean fuel.

“Dropping the Soko Islands project should not be the end of the story. The Hong Kong government should press harder to require power companies to use more natural gas to generate power.”

Natural gas and nuclear power each account for about 20 per cent of CLP’s fuel mix, with coal making up 60 per cent.

A government source described CLP’s decision as “realistic and clever”. The source said the Environment Bureau would facilitate talks between CLP and the mainland authorities and companies concerned.

Mr Lancaster said CLP would go ahead with a 20-year gas purchase agreement with British-based BG. A preliminary agreement for the gas, originally intended to supply the Sokos plant, was signed in June.

The BG deal would fill a supply shortfall, he said. The Black Power plant could consume 3.4 billion cubic metres of gas per year, while CNOOC would supply 2 billion cubic metres and PetroChina 1 billion cubic metres annually by 2013.

Expert Backs Soko LNG Terminal Plan

Timothy Chui, SCMP – Tuesday, September 09, 2008

The territory’s power supply will be more secure if a planned liquefied natural gas terminal on the Sokos Islands goes ahead, according to an energy expert.

“We can have complete control on how much to buy and how much to pay,” director of Hong Kong Baptist University’s Energy Studies Centre Larry Chow Chuen-ho said.

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen signed a memorandum of understanding with Zhang Guobao, the head of the mainland’s National Energy Administration, late last month to extend the supply of nuclear and natural gas energy to the territory for two decades.

An LNG terminal would also insulate Hong Kong from supply disruptions from the mainland, Chow told Sunday’s City Forum.

Chow said CLP in 2003 used more coal in power generation to make up for a shortfall in LNG, as China National Offshore Oil Corp was not able to sell as much that year. However, Chow was confident the mainland would keep its end of the bargain.

Pointing out that the supply payment contract between Hong Kong and CNOOC’s contract was based on an agreement made in the early 1990s, he speculated that the corporation was not happy to be locked in at lower rates.

Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said the power deal “diminished” the need to build a local LNG terminal. He hinted the likelihood the government would approve the late-stage plan was “much reduced.”

Yau said a 16-kilometer pipeline from Shenzhen would be much cheaper than CLP’s HK$10 billion proposal for a 38km pipeline to South Soko Island.

Will HK’s Gas Pipeline Really Clean Our Skies?

SCMP – Sep 05, 2008

It is welcome news that Hong Kong will be getting gas from a new mainland pipeline.

However, the reported volume of about 1 billion cubic metres per year (“More gas for HK in deal with mainland”, August 29) is less than 40 per cent of what CLP Power (SEHK: 0002) is getting from the Yacheng field near Hainan . If CLP is right about Yacheng’s continuing decline, gas supplies to Hong Kong will actually fall over time even with this new deal. In contrast, the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal would provide something like four times the reported amount of gas from the new pipeline deal.

To meet clean-air targets Hong Kong needs natural gas to replace much of the coal it uses. Natural gas is a versatile fuel used around the world for residential and commercial energy, transport and generating electric power. The more gas we have, the more options we have to reduce pollution. Considering this, the new gas deal should not necessarily rule out a Hong Kong LNG terminal.

We urge the government to provide specific information about the amount of gas Hong Kong will receive under the new pipeline agreement and clearly state whether the amount will be adequate to allow us to substantially reduce (and eventually eliminate) dependence on coal for power generation.

Bill Barron, visiting scholar, Alexis Lau, director, environmental central facility, Institute for the Environment, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Time For Answers Over Gas Deal

Michael Chugani, SCMP – Sep 03, 2008

Something stinks about this whole business of the government signing a gas deal with the mainland so CLP Power (SEHK: 0002) won’t have to build its eyesore terminal on South Soko Island. And the stink is coming from both sides. There are so many unanswered questions over whether or not to build the terminal that it makes you wonder what the big boys in government and CLP Power are up to, and if the people have become pawns.

For starters, why did CLP insist the only way to ensure gas supplies was to build the terminal, which would have meant higher electricity bills for consumers? Was CLP trying to fatten profits? The government has now proved it is possible to buy cheap gas from the mainland using a much shorter, less expensive pipeline. What does that say about CLP’s claim that it had to buy from abroad using a much longer, less environmentally friendly pipeline? To justify its Sokos terminal, CLP insisted that gas from the Yacheng field off Hainan was running out. But the government has secured a 20-year supply from Yacheng. Was CLP trying to dupe us?

Why did the government keep the mainland deal secret all this time and then suddenly spring it on us after it was signed and sealed, yet all the while making us believe CLP’s Sokos proposal was still alive and kicking? Did CLP know about the government’s talks with the mainland? If yes, why did it still waste time chasing the Sokos plan? If no, why did the government sit back and watch CLP chase the plan, knowing it would be dead on arrival?

All these questions need answers simply because the government continues to give CLP a monopoly which allows the company to maximise profits by building more plants.

CLP Upbeat On UK Deal In Spite Of Beijing Move

The Financial Times Limited By Tom Mitchell and Robin Kwong in Hong Kong – September 1 2008

China Light and Power, Hong Kong’s largest energy company, hopes shortly to finalise a provisional natural gas contract with the UK’s BG Group worth billions of dollars in spite of a government agreement that appeared to redirect the lucrative supply arrangement to two Chinese state-controlled oil and gas companies.

In a bilateral memorandum of understanding announced last week by the Hong Kong and Chinese governments, Beijing said it would support the 20-year renewal of existing supply arrangements from China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s gas fields in the South China Sea.

The two governments also agreed to study the feasibility of supplying Hong Kong from China’s second West-East Gas Pipeline, which is being built by PetroChina. Unlike PetroChina’s domestic business, any sale of its gas to Hong Kong would not be subject to government price controls.

The surprise agreement appeared to trump a provisional supply arrangement signed in June, under which BG Group agreed to provide CLP with one million tons of LNG a year from 2013 to 2033. CLP did not reveal how much it would pay BG Group under the two companies’ 20-year “heads of agreement”, but such long-term gas contracts are typically worth billions of US dollars.

However, CLP told the Financial Times: “Even with the gas supplies cited in the MoU, significant quantities of LNG will still be needed to meet our full requirements for natural gas … We will continue working to finalise the sales and purchase agreement [with BG Group] in 2008.”

BG Group declined to comment.

CLP has long argued that it needs new gas supplies because reserves at Yacheng, a CNOOC-controlled field in the South China Sea, are running low. To import new supplies from BG Group, CLP has proposed building an LNG receiving terminal in Hong Kong. The project, which is bitterly opposed by environmental groups, has yet to receive final government approvals.

Speaking after last week’s MoU, senior Hong Kong government officials suggested that CLP would no longer need to build a receiving terminal in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s agreement with the Chinese government instead proposes the construction of an LNG receiving terminal across the border, in nearby Shenzhen.

But the Hong Kong government did say that any new supply agreements between CLP and Chinese energy companies would have to be “worked out on commercial principles between the relevant enterprises on both sides”.

“The MoU introduces a new possible location for a LNG receiving terminal,” CLP’s spokesperson added. “We will study this alternative and consider the feasibility of using it to supply [our] power station by 2013.”

CLP’s Hong Kong-traded shares fell sharply in response to the bilateral MoU, dropping 3.57 per cent on Friday to HK$63.50, because of fears that the company would be forced to cancel its plans to build an LNG terminal in the territory.

More Gas For HK In Deal With Mainland 20-year Energy Supply Guaranteed

Ng Kang-chung, Denise Tsang and Agnes Lam, SCMP – Aug 29, 2008

Hong Kong and the mainland signed a new energy deal yesterday that guarantees continued supplies of natural gas and nuclear power for 20 years and holds out the prospect of cleaner air and cheaper electricity.

The deal, which took analysts by surprise, also appeared to put paid to plans by CLP Power (SEHK: 0002) for a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal on the Soko Islands, off Lantau.

Under the deal with the National Development and Reform Commission, state-owned gas supplier China National Offshore Oil Corporation will continue to supply Hong Kong with natural gas for a further 20 years.

The city will also receive gas from the nation’s second west-east natural gas pipeline being built to transport gas imported from Central Asia to the Pearl and Yangtze river delta regions.

The deal marks the first time Hong Kong has been included in the nation’s energy supply blueprint.

The 4,800km pipeline is expected to reach Shenzhen in about five years. Hong Kong officials estimated the city would receive about 1 billion cubic metres of gas a year from this source.

The agreement opens up opportunities for Hong Kong companies to invest in natural gas developments in Guangdong.

Under the deal, the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Company will renew its supply agreement with Hong Kong for a further 20 years.

Speaking at the signing ceremony yesterday, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen described the agreement as “extremely good news” for Hong Kong’s power supply and environment.

National Development and Reform Commission vice-chairman Zhang Guobao said: “A stable energy supply to Hong Kong will boost Hong Kong’s prosperity.”

Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah said the main purpose was to ensure a long-term, stable energy supply.

“What is more important is that we do not need to build LNG terminals in Hong Kong any more. So, there will be no more pressure for raising tariffs as a result of investment,” he said.

CLP’s HK$10 billion Soko project had been expected to inflate by an estimated 13 per cent the value of the power company’s net assets, on which electricity tariff rises are based.

The agreement puts a big question mark over a preliminary 20-year deal CLP made with British-based liquefied natural gas supplier BG two months ago for the project.

CLP said it would study the implications for the project, which “is already at an advanced stage”, and study new options. The terminal was designed to replace dwindling supply from Hainan’s Yacheng gas field in 2013.

A government spokesman last night declined to say if the new agreement would kill the project, but added: “The need for that project is greatly reduced.”

Hongkong Electric (SEHK: 0006) welcomed the agreement. Green groups also hailed it, saying they believed it would bring better air quality to the city.

Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by 50 per cent when liquefied natural gas is used instead of burning coal to generate power. And sulfur dioxide – a major source of air pollution here – can be cut by more than 90 per cent, according to environmental officials.

HK Gas Terminal On Hold In Green Move

Robin Kwong in Hong Kong, The Financial Times Limited – August 28 2008

The Hong Kong government has backed away from approving a controversial natural gas terminal in an ecologically sensitive area, in what is seen as its first serious attempt to tackle air pollution in the territory in recent years.

China Light and Power, Hong Kong’s biggest energy company, has long argued that it needed to build an HK$8bn ($1bn) liquid natural gas receiving terminal to ensure a stable future gas supply for the territory.

Having more natural gas was also a prerequisite for improving Hong Kong’s air quality, according to CLP, which said it now had to burn more coal to conserve its dwindling gas supplies.

However, environmental activists claim that the terminal, which CLP proposed to build on two small islands on the edge of Hong Kong’s territorial waters, will endanger marine life, particularly the rare pink dolphins and finless porpoises that are Hong Kong’s only indigenous marine mammals.

Edward Yau, environment secretary, said on Thursday that the need for the terminal was greatly reduced after Hong Kong signed a series of energy deals with Beijing that will ensure a stable supply of gas to the territory for the next 20 years.

Under the agreement, the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corporation will renew its supply agreement to Hong Kong for another 20 years, and Petro­china will still study the feasibility of supplying gas to Hong Kong from central Asia via pipeline as well as an LNG terminal that Petro­china is planning to build in neighbouring Shenzhen economic zone.

A senior government official, who preferred to remain anonymous, said the government expected that, with this agreement in place, CLP would increase its use of natural gas from a third of its fuel mix to half, thus improving Hong Kong’s air quality. CLP is the biggest polluter within Hong Kong, though the territory also suffers from pollution generated by factories across the border.

Andrew Brandler, chief executive of CLP, said he welcomed the agreement, but the new supply will only “partly fill the gas shortage being faced by us”.

“Imports of LNG will still be needed to meet our full requirements as our need for clean natural gas continues to grow,” Mr Brandler said.

While the new gas supply is still subject to CLP reaching a commercial agreement with CNOOC and Petrochina, the senior official said it was “an obvious choice” over CLP building its own terminal within Hong Kong.

The lack of government support for a Hong Kong terminal also calls into question a 20-year gas supply deal that CLP had initially agreed on with BG Group, the UK gas company, in June. CLP declined to comment on the impact the latest developments would have for the BG deal.

Amended Air Pollution Law Will Lead To Drastic Emissions Cuts

Updated on May 02, 2008 – SCMP

I refer to David Renton’s letter (“Change in pollution law relaxes controls over power plants”, April 19), regarding our proposed amendment to the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.

Quite contrary to what he thinks, the proposed amendment is an important step towards achieving the 2010 emission reduction targets agreed with the Guangdong provincial government. Through the amendments, the Hong Kong government proposes to establish the necessary control mechanism to ensure a timely and transparent implementation of the emission caps for the power sector and to cater for possible tightening of the caps in future.

To achieve the 2010 emissions caps, which provide for a radical scaling back of the key air pollutants produced by the power sector by 24 per cent – to 54 per cent of the emission levels in 1997 – the two power companies will have to install additional emission reduction facilities, such as an advanced flue gas desulfurisation system and low-nitrogen-oxides technology. These facilities should be completed in phases starting next year. The amendment bill also proposes to allow the power companies to participate in cross-border emissions trading as an alternative to meeting the emission caps.

The emission trading scheme requires the seller of emission credits to embark upon additional emission abatement projects to achieve further emission reduction beyond statutory limits. Only then will emission credits be generated for trading. This trading framework will offer a flexible and potentially more cost-effective option for power plants in the region to meet the emission limits, thereby help improve the air quality of Hong Kong and the region. To ensure no adverse impact on the local air quality in the vicinity of the power station, the director of environmental protection may also impose any necessary terms and conditions upon the approval of the use of these emissions credits.

Power generation is the largest emission source in Hong Kong. Emissions must be reduced greatly if we are to improve air quality. The proposed legislative amendments aim to do just that.

Pang Sik-wing, principal environmental protection officer, Environmental Protection Department

Change In Pollution Law Relaxes Controls Over Power Plants

SCMP – Updated on Apr 19, 2008

Legislators are asking why the bill to amend the Air Pollution Control Ordinance does not cap emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants (“Carbon caps for power plants mean high bills”, April 11).

They are missing the point. The bill does not seek to tighten the existing controls over power plant emissions but to relax them.

The ordinance at present allows the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) to set emissions caps for power plants in Hong Kong having regard to:

  • The best practical means for preventing the emission of air pollutants;
  • The attainment and maintenance of the government’s air quality objectives; and
  • The extent to which emissions are prejudicial to health.

The EPD does not need additional legal powers to require the power companies to fit scrubbers and use other “best practical means” for reducing their emissions.

What is new in the bill is the proposal that the EPD should be able to relax emissions caps so that the Hong Kong power companies can buy emissions credits (essentially licences to pollute) under a recognised emissions trading scheme.

The bill would give the power companies the right to appeal if the EPD refuses their application to buy emissions credits.

The bill gives the general public in Hong Kong no right to challenge the granting of an application, even if the increase in allowed emissions would worsen local air quality and be prejudicial to health.

The EPD has promised its counterpart in Guangdong to implement the pilot cross-border emissions trading scheme that they announced in January 2007. It is right that it should do so.

However, it is regrettable that the proposed amendment treats emissions trading as a private matter between the EPD and the power companies and fails to impose any duty on the EPD to exercise its new power with a view to improving air quality in Hong Kong.

David Renton, Repulse Bay

Choke Before Starting

Saturday August 21 2004

While other world cities have embraced hybrid cars, Hong Kong’s government has been cautious about these low-emission vehicles, writes Peter Kammerer

The wheels of government efforts to curb Hong Kong’s air pollution turn slowly. More than 18 months after it began assessing environmentally friendly vehicles for its fleet, none have been purchased.

Some so-called hybrid cars are on the way as part of continuing trials – although they will not join the 6,700 vehicles in the government’s garages until the first few months of next year. Even then, tenders which closed recently provide for only five vehicles.

The Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works, Sarah Liao Sau-tung, traded her government-issue BMW for a petrol-electric Toyota from February to April last year as part of an initial trial. She liked it so much that she bought one for personal use.

The car’s emission performance and fuel efficiency were found ‘comparable to other good performing petrol vehicles in the market’, a statement issued last week by Dr Liao’s department concluded. A tender was opened in May to buy five hybrid cars for a pilot trial to enable an in-depth assessment of performance and suitability. Testing will begin when the cars arrive in the first quarter of next year.

‘Hybrid vehicles are a developing technology with a view to providing more environmentally friendly vehicles,’ the department statement said. ‘We are watching carefully its development.’

Concern about the contribution of vehicles’ petrol emissions to air pollution and global warming and, more recently, rising oil prices, have sparked interest in alternative types of transportation. Electric cars, initially seen as a solution, have not gained popularity because no way has been found to quickly recharge batteries, make them sufficiently light or produce the necessary power to compete with petrol-driven vehicles. Alternatives, such as hydrogen fuel cells, have similarly not taken off with motorists.

In 1997, the world’s biggest car-maker, Toyota, began marketing its first hybrid saloon, combining batteries and petrol. Its latest model, the Prius, has a reported top speed of 169km/h and can travel 100km on 4.3 litres of fuel, about twice as efficient as comparable sedans. Honda also markets models, and Ford this week unveiled in the US its Escape, the world’s first hybrid four-wheel-drive sports utility vehicle. Mercedes-Benz and Audi also have ‘green’ cars.

Despite the rapidly growing popularity of hybrids in Japan and the US, Hong Kong’s government is being cautious. Dr Liao said in January that providing incentives such as tax concessions to stimulate the market for cleaner vehicles in Hong Kong would be inappropriate. The problem, she said, was with supply.

Environmental lobbyists oppose the government’s approach, saying it is out of touch with the reality of Hong Kong’s pollution problems. They say that although the city’s 17,000 taxis have been converted to liquid petroleum gas under a tax-incentives system, other promised measures have yet to be enacted. All said, though, that hybrid cars were not the solution to clearing air pollution. Alone, they would make a tiny, possibly indiscernible, dent on the problem.

The chairman of Clear the Air, Christian Masset, said government departments approached environmental issues passively and shied away from making bold resolutions.

‘There’s a lot of talk, little action and a great deal of inconsistency,’ Mr Masset said.

Greenpeace China spokesman Martin Baker agreed. ‘The government should lead by example,’ he said. ‘It needs to identify the problem of air pollution. The public is very confused.’

Detailed information on the pollutants in Hong Kong’s air is available on the Environmental Protection Department’s website, www.epd.gov.hk, but no overall conclusions are drawn as to how polluting the sources are. A senior officer yesterday refused to make an assessment of the contribution of vehicle-exhaust emissions to the clouds of pollution hanging over Hong Kong this week.

Civic Exchange chief executive officer Christine Loh Kung-wai said on Thursday that government procedures meant making decisions took a long time. But when it came to getting hybrid cars, there was no need for stringent testing by departments.

She said she recently drove one in the US, from Denver to Aspen in Colorado, a long, uphill trip, and it performed like any other car.

‘There’s nothing wrong with the car and the government can send someone to test drive it elsewhere,’ Ms Loh said. ‘It’s just like an ordinary car. It can go uphill if they’re worried about that.’

But whatever the suitability of hybrid cars to Hong Kong, even large numbers would do little to improve air quality, environmental experts said. Another Environmental Protection Department senior officer, who declined to be identified, said diesel fuel-powered trucks and buses were far more of a problem to air quality than passenger vehicles.

‘Diesel vehicles do comply to very stringent standards, but there are lots of these vehicles,’ he said. ‘Even though they use ultra-low sulphur diesel, they still emit emissions.’

In urban areas, 90 per cent of roadside pollution was from vehicles, Hong Kong Polytechnic University air quality expert Hung Wing-tat said. ‘High-rise buildings block the dispersion of pollutants,’ he said.

Clear the Air said that 44 per cent of locally produced air pollution comes from vehicle emissions, 30 per cent from electricity generation and 26 per cent from other sources, such as construction sites. It said the bulk of vehicle pollution was caused by older-model diesel-powered delivery and container trucks and buses. As just 3 per cent of the 340,000 registered vehicles are privately owned, the contribution to air pollution from them is considered far less of a problem.

Nonetheless, Mr Masset said the government’s use and encouragement of hybrid cars would help. ‘We favour any measure that improves the emissions, whatever the percentage,’ he said. ‘As well, there is the message that is being sent to the public.’

Greenpeace Germany’s climate-change expert Wolfgang Lohbeck said the group and his country’s environmental protection agency did not believe hybrids were the future of ‘green’ motoring. Questions needed to be answered about battery life, the heavy subsidies Toyota was offering to make its hybrids competitive and the weight of the vehicles.

‘We are not against hybrids, but do not actively promote them as a solution,’ he said.

For now, Hong Kong people do not seem worried about high oil prices and the knock-on effect on the cost of petrol. Fuel-inefficient SUVs are growing in popularity. To July, 1,142 had been sold, compared to 1,320 for all of last year. SUVs also remain popular in the US, which is the reasoning behind Ford’s decision to produce a hybrid model. Hybrid sales in the US have been partly spurred by the US$2,000 tax breaks the government offers to purchasers. California environmentalist Gary Wolff, who owns two Priuses, said increasing numbers of Americans were environmentally aware and wanted more fuel-efficient vehicles.

‘Hybrids are catching on generally,’ Dr Wolff, an environmental engineer and principal economist at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, in Oakland, said. ‘Some people were early adopters and have been waiting and watching and others are trying to make a statement like certain celebrities have done. But there are also a lot of people who are buying the cars because they’re functional, and they are concerned about oil prices.’

Hong Kong ‘green’ car enthusiast Eric Wong Yat-po, the chairman and chief executive officer of Richburg Motors, said that rising petrol prices would also turn Hong Kong motorists towards hybrids. Public awareness would be increased through celebrities and big corporations buying them.

But he said the government was not doing enough to encourage people to turn to environmentally friendly vehicles. ‘I’m quite disappointed with the government policy,’ Mr Wong said. ‘They should encourage vehicle importers and owners to buy more hybrids by offering tax exemptions.’

Whether such methods are adopted and draw Hong Kong people towards less-polluting cars will only be determined in coming months or years.

While hybrid cars will have only a minimal effect in clearing Hong Kong’s pollution problem, they will at least substantially lower petrol consumption for motorists.

The biggest impact of the ever-developing technology could be more far-reaching – the creation of a culture of environmental awareness.