No advance on clean air

Press, 3 April 1989, Page 20

No advance on clean air

The Christchurch City Council seems certain to fail in its attempt to have open fires banned in the city from January, 1992. A commissioner appointed by the Minister of Health, Ms Clark, has recommended that she should not approve the amendments the council wishes to make to its existing cleanair zone by-law. At present open fires may not be installed in new houses, but there is no prohibition against existing open fires. In the face of more than 1800 objections, the council’s proposals for cleaner air had little chance of success, although there was general agreement that the intention was laudable. Arguments about the resulting costs and the threats to the coal industry have prevailed. The commissioner, Dr John de Lisle, rejected the council’s approach on the ground that it was not “the best practicable means of reducing smoke emissions from domestic chimneys.” Unfortunately for Christchurch, he has not provided an alternative that will eliminate pollution from this source within the next three years. The case against air pollution is sound and well-known. That Christchurch suffers particularly is also wellknown. In recent years considerable advance has been made in limiting pollution from the domestic fire, chiefly through education and publicity campaigns, through financial incentives for conversion to other heating methods, and through the ban on open fires in new dwellings. Although these measures have achieved a reduction in the winter pollution, progress is slow and much remains to be done.

A long and essentially fruitless argument has raged over which of the several contributors to Christchurch’s air pollution is the more culpable. Without doubt, traffic on

Christchurch’s roads augments the pollution from domestic open fires. Apportioning blame is hardly the issue. As each source of pollution is removed or reduced — and noone seriously contends that open fires do not pollute at all — the responsibility of the remaining sources for the remaining pollution is more clearly evident and appropriate measures can be taken. Debates over the order of precedence — the smokescreen of disclaimers and accusations — serve only to delay a further reduction in pollution.

Too many Christchurch chimneys continue to put out far too much smoke, in spite of the visual and scientifically measured evidence of the city’s pollution from open fires. This could be understandable if homes could not be heated any other way, or if other means of heating were much more expensive. The Clean Air Council, in association with the Ministry of Energy, established many years ago, however, that less polluting methods of heating are in fact cheaper. These findings have helped to persuade many Christchurch householders to switch from the open fire to other forms of heating but the majority continue to turn a deaf ear.

The reduction in the number of open fires, and the imposition of a limited cleanair zone by-law, have shown that air pollution in Christchurch can be reduced. It is obvious, however, that reliance on education and enlightened self-interest to eliminate this source of air pollution will -be unavailing. The Christchurch City Council was on the right track. If Christchurch is to escape the pall that spews from domestic chimneys, clean air laws will have to prevail eventually.