Clean air zones

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33783, 4 March 1975, Page 16

Clean air zones

Sir, — It is heartening that the Mayor and Councillo: Skellerup have their feet on the ground on this issue. It is frightening that some councillors would a decision of this financial and social magnitude, $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 at least, on propaganda, with so little investigation. Would the Council approve engineering projects of this magnitude with so little technical information? Some propaganda is not even from ratepayers. Smog has increased noticeably in 10 years. All combustion adds to this. However, residential consumption of coal has decreased heavily, while petrol, diesel and fuel oil (central heating) have increased rapidly. Surely this indicates something. Economically we have coal, a failing mining industry, and a serious overseas imbalance of payments. All will be aggravated if open fires are banned. We were grateful enough for open fires last winter and will be again. Apart from the comfort they provide company to many older folk. — Yours, etc., REASON. March 2, 1975.

Sir, — Cr Skellerup has made the ridiculous and irresponsible statement that the open fire is the heart of the home, and even that a house without an open fire is not a home. Surely any thinking person must realise that a house is a home if it is lived in by happy loving people. If Cr Skellerup’s w’ords are true, what a barren and soulless place the New Zealand home — or rather, house — must be throughout summer. The open fire is an inefficient as well as an unhealthy form of heating; a single fireplace heats one room, leaving the rest of the house cold; other heating methods are either more extensive or more flexible. Christchurch is a small city by world standards, yet has an air pollution problem that ranks with the worlds worst. Every citizen should be ashamed of this situation, and prepared to do something to change it. — Yours, ietc.,

MUTT AND HEPE. March 2, 1975.

Sir, — It would be a very retrograde step to back i down now in respect to the (decision by the City Council’s health ana general committee to begin phasing out i open fires in city homes. Christchurch is notorious for I its procrastination wheniever moves are afoot to change or improve condi- • tions. When a forum, including a member of Parliament. discussed our particular air pollution on television the Government could not be persuaded to make available clean-burning coal, which incidentally is freely available as far north as Wanganui, being shipped there from the Strongman mine near Greymouth. Our main reason for disi continuing the fighting of

our open fire was our disatisfaction regarding the quality of coal available. Therefore the failure of the Government to reply to council inquiries about possible zoning should not deter the committee from proceeding with measures to combat air pollution as soon as possible. — Yours, etc., CINDERELLA CITY. February 28, 1975. Sir, —I was away when the clean air zones were reported but was reassured by the thoughtful comments made by Mr Rich at the Waimairi county council meeting. I find no such responsibility being exhibited by Mr Dodge in this morning’s reports of the City Council meeting. Last winter with the council ripple control and the power cuts our family of six would have been hard put to keep clean and warm without our wetback open fire. Before this fatheaded idea is implemented something concrete would need to be offered in guaranteed electrical supplies, elimination of ripple miscontrol of water heating and appraisals of the comparative weekday, weekend and particular area pollution levels to show effectively where and with whom responsibility lies, and whether it is appropriate in terms of the current oil position — supply and cost — as far as the national interest is concerned.—Yours, etc., HOUSEHOLDER February 28, 1975. [This correspondence is now closed.—Editor]