Burner rule

It is with interest and disappointment that I read Peter Scott’s comments on the burner issue.

I wonder if Mr Scott has confused his role, and is in fact now ECan’s representative in South Canterbury and not as he was elected to be, South Canterbury’s representative at ECan. There are enough appointed councillors who can fill the role of ECan’s rep.

I think all accept that there is an issue with the smoke from burners, but the issue that needs clarification is what is actually causing the smoke.

I would put it to Mr Scott that it is burning wet wood that is causing most of the problems.

But if Mr Scott has closed his mind and ears to locals concerns then I guess the next election will sort this out.

So instead of snooping around at night and then dropping a note on the letter box, if the smoke spotters actually knocked on the door, went in and actually tested the woods moisture content with inexpensive moisture meters and if the fuel is dry then explain that it is probably the burner that is at fault.

I would put it to him that there is a generation who don’t know what dry wood is and so education is a better approach.

But to get good dry wood is an issue for people who rely on merchants and also for those who cut their own.

Firewood merchants like all businesses need cash flow, and so the storing of wood for up to 2 years in a shed is just not viable.

I would like to suggest that before a lot of money is spent on replacing with heat pumps or the newer fast burn burners that cost an arm and a leg to run, that consideration be given to a scheme where ECan buys the wet wood, stores it for two years and then sells it back to those who put it in there at a small margin to cover the costs.

A cost neutral solution to ECan, and a huge cost savings to the people who may be forced