Smoking bad for environment

It isn’t news that smoking is bad for human health but now it seems it’s bad for the globe’s health too.

The number of outdoor heaters has increased since smoking inside was banned and environmentalists are concerned about the carbon emissions from them.

 “100,000 homes all using a standard patio heater on average of one hour per week would generate a carbon footprint of approximately 18 000 tonnes, that’s equivalent to a medium-sized car travelling from Auckland to Wellington and back again around 60, 000 times,” says Kathryn Hailes, from Carbonzero programme.

“If these households stopped using their patio heaters cost savings could be potentially around $20 million dollars per annum, that’s a lot of savings that people could keep in their back pocket rather than using to heat the ambient temperature of the neighbourhood,” says Ms Hailes.

But do 100,000 homes all use a standard patio heater for an average of an hour a week?

We have a couple of patio heaters which we use for a few hours a few times a year – less than 10 hours in total.

We use a barbeque a lot more often, though usually for less than 15 minutes at a time.

“What seems very bizarre about them is that we’re busy insulating our houses so that we can minimise the amount of heat that we need to keep warm and here we are burning fuel outside with not even walls let alone insulation heating up the entire universe,” says Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party MP.

Environmentalists say they produce the same volume of climate-changing gases as a speeding truck. They’ve also calculated they consume as much energy as five electric fan heaters on full power.

The European parliament is in the process of banning the outdoor heaters and Australia is wondering about the environmental cost of them.

Here in New Zealand there are no plans for a ban but the energy efficiency and conservation authority says it’s keeping a close eye on developments in Australia.

Jeanette Fitzsimons doesn’t support a ban but says she is concerned about the heater’s carbon footprint. . .

 “It’s a question of personal responsibility of the person using them and that’s one of the things that a price on carbon emissions will start to create as it will raise the price of fuel and then people can decide ‘Do I really want to spend that much on outdoor heating or have I got better things to do with the money and the fuel,’ and for those determined to head outdoors on chilly evenings there’s always the option of putting on another jersey,” says Ms Fitzsimmons.

Personal responsibility and letting people make their own choice based on price is a pleasant change of tone from the Greens which have in the past been more keen on bans.

However, has anyone thought that if people weren’t outside enjoying themselves they might be somewhere else doing something else which caused even more emissions?

3 Responses to Smoking bad for environment

  1. murrayg1 says:

    Price is only a useful signal if it includes the real cost of natural capital, including mitigation of pollution.
    If the pricing of a one-off finite resource (like oil or LPG) only represents it’s immediate physical extraction/production cost, then no, price-signals are not enough.
    Cost the degradation of mining/wells in with the cost of pollution (carbon being but one) and then ask how many generations should have access to the resource. Ration it out so it last that many generations/years, note that the next generation will be 9 billion to our current 6, and see where the price goes…..
    A question arises from that – If we are using those finite stores of solar energy (for that is what wood, coal and gas are) and leaving the planet in an altered state for our kids but not giving them the energy to deal with it – is that not fraud?
    After all, we have foist them with a debt, and they didn’t get a say in the matter. Now there’s a good debate while you’re gathered round the pation heater….


  2. Keith Menefy says:

    CO2 is not a pollutant but is a rare gas ( 1 molecule to every 3,000 molecules of the atmosphere ) that is the essential food of all life. “All plants and animals are growing and living on a rare gas” ( (http://) (http://) ). And while there are other potential pollutants associated with fossil fuel use, CO2 and carbon are not among them.


  3. murrayg1 says:

    Disingenuous, I suggest, with respect.
    Water is good for you too, and you can’t live long without it, but one of my siblings drowned in it a few years ago…’s a quantitative thing.
    In the quantities we are releasing it, and given the current balance of the Carbon Cycle with present flora and fauna, it is a pollutant – capable of creating an imbalance which will go beyond the tolerance of currently-existing species.
    Hair-splits aside, we have no right – assuming we want our particular species to go on for a few more generations – to hand on the planet in any different a chemical state that in which we we inherited it.
    The moment we developed the ability destroy all species (including our own), surely we assumed permanent responsibility for not doing so? Follow that one more step – if there is a question mark hanging over any change we make to that chemistry, we only have one chance, and the only responsible move is caution.
    Anything more gung-ho is varying degrees of self-justification, surely?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: