The fight for clean air
We are all taking part in the fight for clean air. Numerous national and local government programmes require us to do so.
Any programme aimed at improving the environment in which people live should preserve their existing standard of living. That is a broad concept, but at its most basic it comes down to two principles:
- Do not go hungry.
- Do not live in a cold room.
Both hunger and cold affect our health.
These two principles are connected by household finances. We all take that connection into account when managing our budgets. Family incomes vary widely, so families differ greatly in what they pay for first. When the household budget is particularly tight, we spend only as much on heat as we can while leaving enough for food. These are individual decisions that make sense to each family. Can officials take those decisions away from them?
The way these decisions are made makes clear that they cannot. At most, public authorities can influence household incomes and introduce rules that encourage families to make particular choices when planning their spending. This should be the starting point for any programme that aims to ‘improve’ our lives.
One of the most widely discussed programmes today is the ‘fight for clean air’. These programmes are full of requirements and prohibitions intended to compel families to act in certain ways. Whatever means we use to pursue cleaner air, we must keep the two principles above in mind.
Handing out money as a one-off grant does not solve the problem because it is not a systematic approach. A complicated grant system with many limits and conditions does not guarantee that we address the most pressing question: who is polluting the air, and by how much?
The programmes on offer require property owners to act in particular ways without analysing, even locally, the effect of imposing those requirements. It is easy to give a one-off ‘reward’ without thinking about the consequences. Heating costs are an expense property owners face for as long as they own the property, and they are difficult to predict over the long term. A more rational approach would be to offer a range of incentives, such as a one-off investment grant, tax relief or an energy allowance, for actions that solve the problem in the most technically and economically effective ways.
There is one more issue to consider: how well people understand the problems associated with using energy in any form.
The current process for applying for grants and accounting for them is difficult to understand and expects the beneficiary to deal with it personally. For information to be communicated effectively, the person receiving it needs enough background knowledge to understand it.
The current programme gives everyone the same information, regardless of what they already know. Environmental advisers receive training and know the subject, while beneficiaries are given information in meetings with them.
Giving everyone all the information regardless of what they want to do is a flawed approach. It is the same reason schools teach different material in the first and fifth grades.
Some beneficiaries know what they want, for example to replace an old coal stove with a heat pump. Others are being told by the Clean Air programme that they will face penalties if they do not replace their old, smoky stove. What should they do? Whom can they ask for advice? This is an important problem with serious consequences, especially financial ones.
According to information circulated by the municipal office, environmental advisers do not visit prospective applicants. How are applicants supposed to know what is best for them?
Taking responsibility for the consequences of bad technical advice is a different matter from taking responsibility for filling in an application incorrectly.
If the ‘Clean Air’ programme is to be rational, it needs a defined goal, for example reducing coal use for heating. Such a goal is simple and unambiguous to assess. Anyone who can show that their actions have reduced coal use deserves a reward in the form of funding.
Here is an example.
A property owner who heats with coal has been using five tonnes a year. What should they do to use only three tonnes? The programme's goal is clear: reduce coal use. Who should propose a course of action that would let this beneficiary achieve the goal? Perhaps someone needs to explain that the reduction is impossible or pointless and that another course of action would be better. A qualified assessor, someone who knows the subject, should visit the owner and, after assessing the situation, suggest several options. An automatic gas boiler, for instance, would be expensive but convenient, while a wood-fired boiler would cost less but be less convenient. Every proposed option must cut coal consumption by at least two tonnes. An option that eliminates coal use altogether, like the examples above, would be just as good. Which to choose should be up to the beneficiary, based on what they can afford. That is their right, within the agreed criterion. Whatever they choose, the goal will be met and the result easy to verify. Whether the municipal office grants funding is a separate question.
Under the current rules, funding is awarded for carrying out work rather than for the result. Such a programme will never be effective. It may look impressive because its author can boast about replacing one thing with another. But what will it achieve? The result will be difficult to verify, and any improvement in air quality will be illusory.
That is why I posed the question in the title, Coercion or concern? They are two different things.
Dr Bronisław Burkiewicz, engineer
Vice President of the Myślenice Region Chamber of Commerce
Owner of Agro-Partner – Agricultural Equipment