Clean air

Press, 2 July 1983, Page 16

Clean air

Sir,—My lungs and I would like to thank the many who, for whatever reason, seem to have stopped using their open fires. However, the City Council has failed by not making it clear that the burning devices they “approve” are still dirty anti-social unhealthy gadgets and I know many previously allelectric households which have installed them because they believed council "approval” means they are clean and healthy. What rubbish. Too large and too expensive to operate continuously at efficient burning temperatures, they smoulder on 24 hours a day, six months of the year. (The open fire afflicts us for three months.) Also, they are often fuelled with painted woods and household wastes. I trust the City Council will make amends by at least using any M.E.D. profits to reward its clean, health-minded citizens — especially the poorer classes who refrain from using open fires and cannot afford “approved” appliances anyway. — Yours, etc., D. McARTHUR. June 8, 1983. [Mr J. H. Gray, General Manager and Town Clerk, replies: “It is agreed that many of the solid fuel burning appliances approved by the Clean Air Council for use in clean air zones are expensive and have higher heat outputs than are needed for the majority of homes. We advise many inquirers at our city health department to this effect, but many go ahead just the same. Any of the approved appliances must, legally, be only used with the fuels approved for such appliances. The use of thermostatically controlled electric heating has a number of advantages for householders both in regard to cost and, of course, a reduction in

pollution. Electricity, used properly, is the premium domestic fuel for the Christchurch area. However, with reference to the comments suggesting that M.E.D. profits be used to reward its clean health-minded citizens, it seems the only way to do this would be to have a special tariff for all-electric homes. Even this would have its problems because of the large number of homes which normally use electricity, but revert to open fires during the cold winter months. Such a proposal would be very difficult to implement and may, in fact, conflict with Regulation 25 of the Electrical Supply Regulations which provide that, every consumer shall be entitled to a supply of electricity on the same terms and conditions as those on which any other consumer is receiving a corresponding supply. In any case, it is doubtful whether cheaper electricity would convert dedicated open fire users, as electricity is already the cheapest fuel available for domestic heating and we believe that a high proportion of open fire users are motivated by factors other than economic ones — in other words, they just enjoy an open fire and are prepared to pay extra for it."]