Unlike court verdicts that decide the winner and loser of the case, the Court of Appeal's ruling on the planned bridge to Zhuhai and Macau offers the possibility of both sides winning.
On the one hand, it allows the government to regain the environmental permit taken away by the High Court, thus enabling the project to go ahead. On the other hand, it imposes a more stringent standard for future projects: all proponents are legally obliged 'to satisfy the environmental authorities that they are using the best available technique to prevent or minimise pollution', regardless of whether overall pollution levels have exceeded limits.
This has profound implications for public health. For too long, our environment has been treated as a big bucket, into which pollutants may be poured as long as there is still space in the bucket. The evidence of such damage is abundantly clear. According to the Hedley Index compiled by the University of Hong Kong, Hongkongers made over 550,000 doctor visits in August as a result of our barely breathable air, nearly 30 per cent more compared with the same period last year.
Our economic losses, both tangible and intangible, amounted to nearly HK$14 billion last year, more than double the cost of delay to the bridge works, according to the government, because of the judicial review.
But there will only be a win-win situation if the government strictly abides by the law. First, the director of environmental protection has a duty to examine whether these new conditions should be imposed on the bridge plan to ensure that the 'best available technique' is indeed used to minimise pollution.
There are simple solutions, such as banning old and polluting vehicles from using the bridge, discouraging vehicles from filling up with cheap and dirty fuel before coming to Hong Kong, or declaring Tung Chung a low-emission zone. It is hard to see how the director can satisfy herself that the best available techniques have already been employed if none of these is included in the permit to be reissued.
