The city of Launceston in Australia’s island state of Tasmania is once again grappling with residential air pollution. The City Council has called for public submissions on how to address wood heater smoke after a recent return to unacceptable wintertime pollution levels.
This is not the first time the city – home to around 110,000 residents – has attempted to tackle the problem. The health and environmental impacts of wood heaters were first formally recognised in the early 1990s, leading to the Launceston Air Pollution Study. Designed to measure pollution levels and assess their impact on public health, the study marked a turning point in understanding the scale of the issue.
The original study, conducted between 1991 and 1994 and reported to the Tasmanian Government in 1996, involved around 50 public health experts. It ultimately led to a multimillion-dollar wood heater buyback and education program.
Among the most prominent advocates for action was respiratory physician Dr James Markos. As Chairman of the Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Lung Foundation, he helped raise awareness through public forums and later chaired an air pollution working group. While he noted the government was initially slow to respond, he credited strong local media support with helping drive the issue forward.
Further confirmation came in 2000, when Dr Melita Keywood of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) described Launceston as the most polluted urban area in Australia, followed by Canberra’s Tuggeranong Valley. In both cases, wood heaters were identified as the primary source.
In 2001, the Australian Government announced a $2.05 million program offering financial incentives for residents to replace wood heaters with cleaner, more efficient heating systems, alongside community education on correct usage. The initiative was introduced by the late, Jocelyn Newman, then Minister for Social Services and a Launceston resident.
However, the wood heating industry lobbied the Australian Government to include new wood heater models as an approved replacement option, arguing that excluding wood heaters would harm the industry and slow improvements in air quality.
Industry lobbying was partially successful, but it raised further objections stating the required emissions limit of 2 grams per kilogram of wood burned excluded 70% of heaters certified to Australian Standards. It also claimed that it was unfair to provide half the financial incentive to those choosing to replace their old wood heaters with a newer model rather than switching to an electrical reverse cycle air conditioner. Even so, Dr Markos said relatively few residents opted for new wood heaters.
‘We promoted a message that new wood heaters were not much better than old ones,’ Dr Markos said, ‘and that the more important factor in reducing wood smoke was proper operation.’
The buyback and education programs, managed by the Launceston City Council, were widely regarded as successful. More than 2,300 wood heaters were removed, with a further 2,000 taken out of service independently, particularly in areas beyond the program’s reach.
Public health physician and environmental epidemiologist Professor Fay Johnston, who leads the Centre for Safe Air in Hobart, believes the program delivered measurable health benefits.
Wood heater use fell by 30 per cent over the following decade, while mortality rates from respiratory disease over winter declined by 28 per cent and cardiovascular diseases by 20 per cent. Despite this progress, Professor Johnston has noted that as many as 60 Tasmanians still die prematurely each year due to wood smoke exposure.
Over time, however, the impact of the program appears to have diminished. Education campaigns have faded, and many residents continue to use wood heaters incorrectly. Rising energy costs have also driven increased reliance on wood heating, with some households installing new ones.
Evidence from similar campaigns suggests education alone produces only short-term behavioural change. Launceston City Council itself has acknowledged that inefficient use of wood heaters remains a key contributor to the city’s worsening air quality.
In response to the latest concerns, the wood heating industry has returned to familiar tactics—encouraging residents to upgrade to newer models. It maintains that modern wood heaters are significantly cleaner and more efficient. However, this claim is disputed. Professor Johnston has described current Australian emission standards as ‘not fit for purpose’, while a CSIRO study conducted in Launceston found little difference in real-world emissions between old and new wood heaters.
For Dr Markos and others involved in the original study, the situation feels all too familiar.
‘The primary hazard of wood smoke arises in areas where air circulation is limited. In such locations, including cities like Launceston, additional regulations may be necessary – measures that may not be required in other towns within the same state,’ he said.
‘The health effects are well established. There are immediate impacts – especially for people with respiratory conditions—and long-term effects that can affect anyone exposed.’
Dr Markos pointed to a 2023 study showing that particle pollution contributes to 15 per cent of lung cancer cases, compared with 62 per cent from tobacco smoking and 6 per cent from second-hand smoke.
‘This is not surprising,’ he added, ‘given that people are typically exposed to wood smoke for much longer periods.’
With around 15,000 new lung cancer cases diagnosed annually in Australia, Dr Markos argues that governments must act more decisively.
‘We have taken strong action to protect people from second-hand tobacco smoke,” he said. “It is time to do the same for those exposed to high levels of residential wood heater smoke.’
Leave a Reply