Comments on: Yule and Arnott pander to voters

By: Peter Maclean

Peter Maclean — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:52:51 +0000

Thanks for that, Tom
I dont have Lawrence email addy at my fingertip
Would you forward this? Copy to Rod Heaps too?

Dear Lawrence,
I didnt find your comments about air pollution quoted in Dompost helpful. While their motivation may be laudable re costs to ratepayers etc I think they are shortsighted.

There is obviously a discussion to be had and I think you and yours (HDC) could be leading it.
My interest is, immediately, fairly selfish.

I have a woodburner which I would like to replace with a new and better wood burner.

There seem to be 3 types of woodburners;

1. Old, inefficient. They will burn all night and just need a poke in the morning to get them going. I used to think they were great until I understood that they are terribly inefficient when damped down, wasting my firewood and pumping creosote into the night and therefore not doing nobody no good.
As of 3 years ago HDC will not permit you to install one of these.
However there must be a lot of them in use( HDC will know) responsible for some/most/all? of the pollution problem
Open fires belong in this category
Fires in this category are BAD

2.New, inefficient woodburners. Not as bad as 1 above.
You can get a permit to install because they don’t burn all night.
Because they are low efficiency (or because efficiency has not been verifiably measured) they will still pollute due to incomplete combustion.

3. New, efficient woodburners ( a very few old ones belong in this category)
These are much more efficient than 1 & 2 above therefore maximising heat produced.
Dont burn through the night.
Very low polluters

Lawrence,
I’m very happy to be corrected on any of this.
This is the stuff I need to be informed in deciding on my heating needs.
It would be helpful to know which brands are the best or is that not something HDC can recommend. ( if so, why is that?)
I will have to spend some money, I know, but, if an extra $500 will give me a measurably better result ( re efficiency, output and pollution) that’s not a lot over 20 years.

I live in Clive, do we have the problem here that Hastings and Napier do ( I’ll add my complaint to Tom’s)

I have my own decision to make but I think it would be useful to have some information in the wider debate.
You have thus far reacted in ‘defence’ of your constituents, thats ok.
The next bit is to work out what to do about the problem and how best to fix it.
Yes, of course we’ll grizzle about the bloody council forcing us to spend money but you knew that.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Maclean

By: mark sweet

mark sweet — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:59:12 +0000

Extraordinary! Arnott calls for civil disobedience (break the law) to a problem Yule suggests doesn’t exist, yet the problem has been identified and quantiified. Open fires cause serious illness. More so than passive smoking! This Government (it is election season) is a Nanny because changing this sort of nappy always causes a stink. But like the legislation to give children the right not to be smacked National, Greens & Maori parties support the ban on unfiltered open fires. Arnott & Yule are behaving as they did with the DHB saga, making a huge fuss, grabbing for headlines, before they thoughtfully consider the issue.

By: Dean Hyde

Dean Hyde — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:17:55 +0000

Good grief, well done Tom. When I was a Hastings City Ward Councillor with the Hastings District Council I dealt with a number of complaints on behalf of Constituents, ranging from the burning of medical waste, backyard ‘bon fires’ and incineraters to household wood fires.

Infact I recall several people from Havelock North seeking my help.

I think that Lawrence and Barbara’s responce is short sighted and avoiding the reality that we will ultimately need to clean up our act!

Arrogant avoidance is unbecoming of both these civic leaders.

Dean Hyde