The first step towards achieving a goal is to define it properly. When we talk about clean-air programmes, the phrase ‘fighting smog’ is pure rhetoric. You might call it the proverbial making of a great fuss about nothing. Why?
Because the ‘fight against smog’ has no defined parameters. We can fight smog all our lives and achieve nothing if we define the action as nothing more than fighting. A better starting point would be to define ‘smog’ and its parameters.
Smog is a physical phenomenon that occurs periodically. It is associated with factors such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity and wind, or air movement.
What we might call Polish smog, among the worst urban air pollution in Europe, consists primarily of oxides of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur, the particularly harmful particles PM10 and PM2.5, and benzo(a)pyrene. If that is the case, it is better to define the objective in terms of reducing those components. We can therefore set out to:
- systematically reduce airborne oxides of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur;
- systematically reduce airborne PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations;
- systematically reduce airborne benzo(a)pyrene concentrations;
- systematically reduce the amount of suspended particulate matter in the air.
We need to find a suitable solution for each of these problems. Each definition may point to a different solution. That is precisely what follows from defining the problem.
In Poland, all the blame for smog is placed on burning fuel in domestic heating appliances. Perhaps that is true. Yet in Italy, for example, coal is not used for heating at all, and Milan still has smog days and restrictions on leaving home. So what does that say about our own little war on smog in Poland?
Let us get back to the point.
Ways to tackle the problem
There are two ways to approach issues such as keeping the air clean.
One relies on rules and penalties, the carrot-and-stick approach. The other rewards preferred behaviour.
A classic example of the first is the phasing out of so-called ‘smoky stoves’. An order is issued and compliance is required. Those who do not comply get the stick. Those who do may get a carrot in the form of a grant. Think of the whole range of requirements and prohibitions, and the army of officials who check compliance and tell potential beneficiaries how to fill in forms and collect invoices. It is a methodological muddle funded with public money, which means our money.
A classic example of the second approach is transport. The rules grant advantages for certain choices without imposing penalties. Examples include limiting entry to city centres to electric cars, reducing the tax rate for vehicles with Euro 5 engines, lowering charges for vehicles that use less fuel and offering cheaper parking to vehicles that take up less space. Users choose how to act based on the potential reward. The two approaches are very different.
Keeping a home warm is more than an environmental or economic issue. You cannot get through a Polish winter without a warm place to live. The cost of heat can and should be treated as an economic issue. That is the problem to solve.
Two things in life deserve special consideration: heat and food. In Poland you cannot live without either.
Another important consideration is what I call a guaranteed supply of heat. That guarantee is closely tied to the security of the energy supply. What does this mean?
Two examples illustrate the point.
Example 1. We have electricity from a photovoltaic system. How much power it generates depends on the weather and on whether the whole system is working. The system can work perfectly in poor weather. Conversely, the weather can be excellent while the system is out of order. In either case, the energy supply is far from assured.
Example 2. We have a simple wood or coal stove. As long as we have access to wood or coal nearby, the energy supply depends entirely on us. In this case, the supply of heat is assured.
The two examples illustrate opposite ends of what a ‘guaranteed supply of heat’ can mean.
Is this important enough to consider when discussing how to heat our homes?
Try spending even a few winter days in an unheated room. Even in the most comfortably furnished home, it is difficult, if not impossible.
What does this mean in practice?
When we propose or require any heating solution, we should always consider the reliability of the supply. If we require gas heating, we need to assess how well the supply is assured, for example whether a backup is available. The less reliable the supply, the stronger the case for heating systems that use fuels that can be stored safely close by. From this perspective, requiring a coal or wood stove to be removed as a condition of receiving funding is absurd. That decision should be left to the beneficiary. No one acting rationally spends money on a better system just to leave it unused. We seek out something better because we intend to use it.
Solving a problem starts by analysing it to identify its most important component. According to the public authorities, the main issue for clean air is the number of old, smoky stoves still in use. That is plainly untrue. Even if we accept the claim, the first priority should be cutting smoke at its source. Why remove a stove that does not produce smoke?
How can we reduce smoke? We need to teach people and show them:
- how to use a stove properly;
- which fuels are best to use;
- how an old stove can be upgraded;
- how to burn less hard coal, the most harmful fuel;
- why the chimney flue matters;
- whether cleaning is worthwhile and what to clean first.
This is quick, inexpensive and produces results almost immediately.
Once we have dealt with the smoke problem, we can move on to more advanced measures, such as phasing out coal. We should approach it as we do school education, progressing from a lower grade to one that requires more knowledge. Any course of action requires those taking part to be prepared. Issuing a collection of orders and prohibitions and distributing money under complicated rules will not suffice. Life always pushes us to simplify things, and there is no shortage of examples. Why complicate what is simple?
Dr Bronisław Burkiewicz, engineer
Vice President of the Myślenice Region Chamber of Commerce
Owner of Agro-Partner – Agricultural Equipment