Smoke in the air

Press, 2 May 1981, Page 14

Smoke in the air

The decision of the Christchurch City ' Council's . Health Department, to make, a : comprehensive survey of smoke levels in Christchurch this winter will result in , additional information about where -and > wh'enirimOke pollution is worst. This should, to a limited extent, help the responsible authorities to determine what steps are likely to be effective to reduce smoke < pollution. There would be no call for blanket restrictions on open fires if it could be shown that restrictions on their use in < certain, areas, or when certain weather. conditions, prevail; ;w;ould be sufficient to reduce the amount, of- smoke in .the air" to j •an .acceptable, level. The survey will : simply.underline: the urgent need ' < city-wide measures to .reduce this-form .Of-air pollution.'” - Mounting yet another 'survey,; leaves something of an / impression ", of the . authorities fiddling> ; while ifhe home fires burn. It has been known for decades that ' Christchurch’s winter air is badly polluted, < harming people's health and damaging property, and that a major culprit, probably the main culprit, is the domestic open fire. What is more needed than more j precise information is political action to j reduce, not just prevent any addition to, , 4he number of open fires in Christchurch. . j T At the very least;’,Christchurch needs 1 - an extension of the clean air zone to cover < 'the whole city and the framing of stricter < .regulations to apply within that; zone. The j failure to have a city-wide policy to abate 1 air’/ pollution from open fires is nothing i short of scandalbus and another indictment i of the fragmentation of local authority in 1 the Christchurch area. The United Council <

or, ,if necessary, the Clean Air Council, should flex their muscles in the interests of cleaning up the city's air. . . Somehow, householders who still rely on open fires to heat their homes must be persuaded, or forced, to turn to electric heaters or approved coal-burning appliances. Persuasion alone may not be enough. Electricity is already, in most instances, cheaper for home heating. The recent increase in coal prices is welcome if only because it will make this even clearer. Unfortunately the increases make the; types of coal that people should be encouraged to burn in open fires in the meantime more expensive than the less desirable coals. < One of the main reasons why people do notgive up their open fires is not the day-to-day cost of the fuel but the cost of purchasing other equipment. Sufficient interest-free loans or grants from the Government to help people make the conversion should be an aim of the area's local bodies. The need for further technical surveys about the incidence of smoke pollution is not as great as the need for an investigation of how people can be more easily persuaded to give up their open fires, of the social effects of enforcing a barion such fires, and of how the ill-effects of -using compulsion rather than persuasion cduld be mitigated. Other sources of air pollution prevail in Christchurch — notably vehi&les and some industries; but the inescapable fact is that Christchurch will never have cleaner air until the open fires have been curtailed, or clean air until the open domestic fire has been eliminated.