Hello everyone! We are finally concluding laws relating to air pollution as there have been so much to unpack. We hope that you are enjoying the posts as much as we are. Once again, we will be concluding air pollution and its laws by comparing and providing our opinions on them!
Comparison
Here is a summary of the definitions of air pollution that have been mentioned in our various posts
Our definition: “the introduction of contaminant(s) that, through physical, chemical or biological processes, cause(s) or result(s) in deterioration of human health and/or quality of life”
Environmental Protection and Management Act (“EPMA”) definition: “air pollution means the emission into the air of any air impurity.” (SSO, 2002)
Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (“THPA”) definition: “pollution of the environment in Singapore comprising any poor air quality episode involving smoke from any land or forest fire wholly outside Singapore.” (SSO, 2014)
Based on the definitions above, we can compare the definitions of air pollution.
Similarities
All definitions include the introduction of contaminants/pollutants that pollute the atmospheric environment as seen from 1. “Contaminants”, 2. “Air impurity” and 3. “Smoke”. While our definition has a broader scope encompassing all types of contamination, it is important to note that there are various policies tackling specific types of air pollution in Singapore apart from what we have discussed. However, it still stands that our definition of “contaminants” is very similar to the “air impurity” defined in the EPMA, as air impurity is defined as:
“air impurity includes smoke, cinders, solid particles of any kind, gases, fumes, mists, odours and radioactive substances” (SSO, 2002)
Another similarity among all three definitions is the harmful effects of air pollution on human health. While our definition explicitly states so, we can imply from the other definitions that these policies are concerned about the effects of air pollution that will harm its citizens.
Differences
Our definition is all-encompassing as we did not provide a spatial scale coverage. However, EPMA and THPA are concerned with different aspects of air pollution, EPMA being domestic and THPA being international. This illustrates the intricacies of formulating policies to effectively address different types of air pollution.
Yet, our definition specifically states the various processes that air pollution can affect human health while the policies do not. While these policies ensure equitable access to our commons, they are focused on the polluters (source) rather than the people or environment affected (sink). With that being said, it is acknowledged that the effects and processes of air pollution is considered implicitly than explicitly stated as legal measures will be taken on polluters and their source
Let us now further discuss what we think of the policies tackling air pollution in Singapore!
Our Opinions on the EPMA and THPA
Our opinions for air pollution laws under the EPMA are mostly similar to that of its water pollution laws – their emphasis on medium aesthetic, regardless of toxicity, are justifiable and by no means strict. However, we do have certain qualms about how visibility is measured under the Environmental Pollution and Management (Air Impurities) Regulations (EPMR). Unlike the law for water pollution, where the mere introduction of foreign materials that taint is considered an act of pollution, the EPMR requires a comparison with the Ringelmann Chart by a person. This can potentially introduce biases or differing verdicts into the equation.
It could sometimes also be a matter of what you want to perceive, take a listen to this video and you will see how what you think affects what you hear. This can be attributed to the confirmation bias.
For the THPA, the main concern was whether the presumption is too powerful. We felt that the presumption is powerful but necessary due to the difficulty of pinpointing the culprit. In the first place, the defendant (regardless whether the haze pollution in Singapore is caused extraterritorially) has indeed caused a forest fire at their plantation. Together with the fact that the winds carrying the pollution to Singapore is present and there is haze pollution here, it is not a stretch to assume that the haze pollution is caused by them. Should this presumption not exist, local agencies would have to investigate it themselves. Since the source of the air pollution is extraterritorial, this may lead to international disputes. Thus, it would be easier if the defendant, whose operation experiences a fire, goes on the ground to investigate. Hence, we feel that despite the presumption being powerful, it is not too strict as it is a more efficient way to convict companies but still allow them to prove themselves innocent.
Conclusion
Learning about air pollution has been a journey of 6 posts, but we have barely scratched the surface because of how broad it is. Fear not, however, as we will return to discuss specific types of air pollution in the future. For now, we shall proceed to learn more about land pollution and policies surrounding it!
Moving on!
Lee Yang and Ryan
Reference
Kuriki, I. (2018). A novel method of color appearance simulation using achromatic point locus with lightness dependence. i-Perception, 9(2), 2041669518761731.
SSO. (2002). Environmental Protection and Management Act. Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EPMA1999.
SSO. (2014). Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. SSO: Singapore Retrieved from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/THPA2014.