Motion on grants to upgrade fireplaces goes up in smoke
A motion calling for a grant allowing people to upgrade their homes to include open fires has been voted down by councillors for being “inefficient” and against climate action.
Councillors voted against the motion from independent Cllr Dean Donnelly, which called on the Minister for Housing “to come up with a solution or grant to allow people to install a solid fuel stove, upgrade their fireplace to avail of a back boiler stove, or even an open fire”.
During debates at the full council meeting for South Dublin on Monday, June 10, Cllr Donnelly listed benefits of having an open fire such as “heating efficiency, especially in the colder months, cooking alternative, energy independence, cost saving and sustainability, ambience and comfort and a cultural and traditional value.”
However, there was limited support for his motion, with many councillors highlighting the actual inefficiency and unsustainability of an open fire for heating.
“Burning wood, turf or coal is the most inefficient way to heat your home,” Cllr Jess Spear (PBP) said in response to the motion.
“It’s also a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but actually the biggest reason that I don’t support this motion and that we should reject it is because burning solid fules causes asthma and premature deaths,” she continued.
Other councillors echoed Cllr Spears sentiments, with many older councillors recalling thick winter smogs of their childhood, caused by open fires in homes.
“Our climate change objectives will never be reached if we reinstate open fires,” Cllr Pamela Kearns (Lab) said, adding that while she missed an open fire “terribly at Christmas particularly”, she could not support the motion.
Cllr Eoin Ó Broin (SD) highlighted that many modern homes are not built with fireplaces or open fires in mind, as a chimney acts as “a hole in the wall” letting heat out of a home when the fire is not lit.
“There are fake alternatives, fake fires work for creating a heart for the family,” he added.
In a vote, 25 council members voted against, with six voting for it and two abstaining, causing the motion to fall.
Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
