Scott3:

 

It does raise the question of how good, is good enough? Nobody likes undue regulations imposing costs on them or getting in the way of their affairs. While the impact of air quality in Auckland pales in comparison to say Beijing, or Manila, it is still quite high.

 

Auckland council commissioned research found the following:

 

•  

  The social cost from air pollution in Auckland is estimated to be $1.07 billion per year

   

•  

   Around 300 premature deaths in Auckland occur each year due to air pollution

   

(Link) 

 

And to link it back to the topic, that study shows home heating, rather than transport and diesel is the biggest factor in air pollution.  To be specific, home heating triples the problem in Winter.

So perhaps, rather than a topic that is titled in a way comparable to "won't someone think of the children, let's get rid of the evil diesel" (which may or may not be worse than petrol, if it matters) if the children were the really focus rather than diesel as the alleged worst fossil fuel, it should rather be "won't someone think of the children, let's ban home heating that pollutes".

Or perhaps it's never a case of either or, and we should be identifying the causes and dealing with them in practical manners rather than looking to remove some favoured target?  Does diesel now still deserve to be the focus of an at-all-costs removal from society, as some previous discussion headed towards?

There is already a crack down on home heating and pollution and clean air targets.  If your chimney is smoking too much, we have a system where it is encouraged to report your neighbour, which may be both a good and a bad thing.  Towns get ratings on clean air.  Presumably Auckland has already improved because of this.  Personally, if I don't earn a lot and I found out that my cold house had a chimney that had high emissions, and I'd have to get building work done with perhaps scaffolding to put in a proper flue, this clean air targets system would seem like a rich person's lark.