It’s a part of a Canadian vignette that lives in so many of our memories; the crunch of sharp blades on pond ice, the brace of morning air, the smell of wood smoke from a distant chimney promising warmth for soon-to-be frozen fingers and toes.
But our children, it seems, will have different memories.
Across the country, the burning of wood for heat is under fire. In Montreal, it is already illegal to install a new wood burning stove, except for those that use energy efficient wood pellets, like the ones that have caught on in parts of Europe.
In smaller municipalities like Parksville, on Vancouver Island, the subject is contentious. Earlier this month, councilor Kirk Oates argued for the ban of wood-burning appliances. But the town’s director of community planning, Blaine Russell, offered an alternate view.
“Many residents in Parksville are on fixed incomes and heating a home with wood is one of the most cost-effective methods available when compared to other options,” wrote Russell in a report.
Other towns, like Prince George and Revelstoke, are taking a different approach, offering rebates to those who upgrade their old stove to a pellet, gas or electric one.
The case against wood fires is at once clear and complex.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has already banned the sale of the majority of wood burning stoves. New standards that will be introduced in May of this year will lower the limit for fine airborne particulate emissions to 12 micrograms per cubic metre, down from 15 micrograms per cubic metre.
“Particulate pollution from wood heaters is a significant national air pollution problem and human health issue.” said the EPA in its own recent regulatory impact analysis. “These regulations would also significantly reduce emissions of many other pollutants from these appliances, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants and black carbon. Emissions from wood stoves occur near ground level in residential communities across the country, and setting these new requirements for cleaner stoves into the future will result in substantial reductions in exposure and improved public health.”
But a report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health says the issue is not only a matter of the type of stove, it is as much about the type of wood that is being burned, and its chemical composition, solubility and size.
“The physical and chemical properties of particulate matter from wood-burning have great influence on how these particles may affect our health. Worsening of cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are the main concerns,” noted the institute’s Anette Kocbach Bølling.
In Paris, a proposed ban on wood fireplaces that was to take place on January 1st of this year, was reversed. A campaign led by ecology minister Segolene Royal was successful after doubts were raised about a report from air quality monitoring network Airparif that claimed fireplaces were responsible for 25% of fine-particle emissions.
Another issue with data used in arguments against wood as fuel is the error of omission made when the harmful impacts of its emissions are considered without accounting for the source of power they are replacing, which is likely to be fossil fuels such as propane and heating oil.
What is clear is that, going forward, home heating from wood will not be the most efficient method available. But what is equally clear is that that day has not yet arrived for everyone. In the meantime, incentives like rebates should be combined with an education campaign from the like of the EPA and Environment Canada.
Anyone who has enjoyed the warmth of an aged hardwood fire knows there is a world of difference between a green softwood fire started with cardboard and broken down shipping pallets and the warm, smoke free glow of seasoned oak with a moisture content under 20%. There’s also a huge difference in emissions.
In Canada, and across the board, a legislated ban of wood fireplaces would be a decidedly Draconian measure. The use of wood as an important secondary source of heat is illustrated by a provision in Montreal’s legislation that allows anyone with any stove to burn wood during electrical blackouts of longer than three hours. A full scale ban would almost certainly affect a demographic that skews poor and/or rural. Until a reasonable alternative is widely available Canadians, many of whom have learned proper techniques for drying, storing and burning wood, should have the right to continue to do so to keep themselves warm.
Following news of a restructuring, Roth MKM analyst George Kelly has chopped his price target on Peloton (Peloton Stock Quote,… [Read More]
Ahead of the company's first quarter results, Beacon analyst Russell Stanley thinks Ascend Wellness (Ascend Wellness Stock Quote, Chart, News,… [Read More]
Following the company's fourth quarter results, Paradigm Capital analyst Daniel Rosenberg has cut his price target on Snipp Interactive (Snipp… [Read More]
A major development came down the pipe this week at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has reportedly decided to reschedule… [Read More]
Following the company's first quarter results, Roth MKM analyst Chip Moore remains neutral on Generac Holdings (Generac Holdings Stock Quote,… [Read More]
The stock has climbed slowly but surely since last October. But is there still money to be made on Bombardier?… [Read More]
View Comments
This 30-second educational video explains why much more needs to be done to combat the health effects of wood smoke pollution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlDy-tkkJk4&feature=youtu.be
For those who prefer written material, these 17 reasons are also essential reading: http://www.monroecourier.com/21903/physicians-organization-gives-17-reasons-to-ban-wood-burning/
Might I suggest that Australia is a completely different scenario? I don't think they have the same issues of FREEZING to death during the winter as we do. Thanks for the advice, but we have done fine up until now and I have no doubt we will continue to do so in the future.
Do you not realize, Nick, that people need to breathe clean air no matter where they live? Do you not realize that air pollution is a global issue, as well as a localized one?
Cleanairmatters... You don't sound like someone who would need to burn wood.. So ofcourse you would to be understanding or considerate to people who do as you think there is no need... Well not everyone lives like you do, but yet you try to shit on them anyways! It's retarded to attack something as a basic necessity like fire.. I suppose campfires are to be outlawed too... I burn wood because it's practical and never fails, don't have to wait on a service man to repair a problem while I freeze or for him to even show up, I don't wait for something to be delivered while I freeze.. Or if it even shows up on time.. I burn wood in my stove. Your an ass hole for attacking my basic right to ensure I have life's necessities in a efficient way...
Nothing is more essential than breathing.
Air = Life.
I'm pretty sure body heat is just as essential. Please do not act like there is only one central aspect to survival. There are different ways to survive and different environments that require different methods. There are many worries that must be dealt with in a variety of ways due to various circumstances.
Personally, I've lived in an old house where the central heating method was an old wood stove. I do not live in one now. I take public transit and don't even have my L. Not everyone is or can be in the situation I find myself in and for that I feel fortunate.
I am sure beyond any shadow of a doubt natural forest fires every year will damage your health far greater than wood stoves. Yet there is no way of completely preventing forest fires or stopping them immediately. So far I've never seen anyone mention natural forest fires where the same toxins are spread.
You don't immediately choke to death just because there are a few pollutants in your breath. The body is stronger than that. Not to say we shouldn't keep our air clean. We should. But to bitch like this is very distasteful.
Nothing is more important than breathing. Many things, including water, are just as important as air. But nothing is more important than air.
Forest fire smoke and smoke from wood stoves are equally harmful. The difference is that residential wood burning smoke can be avoided completely, through much-needed bans that will prevent residential burning smoke from happening.
Particulate matter, a major component of wood smoke, is now classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen. That means it is in the same category as other cancer-causing substances including tobacco smoke and asbestos. So contrary to your stated assumption, no amount of exposure is actually known to be safe.
You say that you find calls for clean air protection "distasteful." Smokers and supporters of the tobacco industry used to say the same sort of thing about the dedicated efforts of anti-smoking advocates, not so long ago. Actually, calls for clean air protection are calls for environmental justice. It's smoke that is not only "distasteful" - but also potentially lethal.
For the same reasons that you take public transit, please also support the protection of smoke-free air for everyone to breathe.
you cant breath when your frozen solid... and ive seen -17C in Parksville for over a week... without wood heat people would have died.... There may be places where restrictions come into effect on air inversion days when pollutions hangs in the air.
I wonder if you have ever even been in the cold???
The right to make fire should always be the last right compromised in cold climate countries.
I haven't seen the government make smoking illegal yet, have you? Simply because they profit from it. They don't profit from wood fires. Interesting how they pick and choose.
Snow: Smoking is banned in many places. For the same health reasons, wood burning in neighbourhoods also needs to end.
Re. your assertion that governments have no financial interest in their affiliation with the wood burning industry: please provide factual evidence that backs up your claim.
Air is important, so is water. Our Canadian government has no limitations or reasons for what they do. They ban wood stoves but dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence? Montreal may not be able to burn wood, but they can dump feces into a living river?
It might be difficult to prevent or slow forest fires, but, duh, wood stoves can be addressed decently, like with these comments...... And that is why some who get smoked out by others are complaining! You complain, we complain, tit for tat, duh, all OK.
Distasteful? What would you call cancer?
No "ahole" please. It weakens the argument.
This is not an attack but you could consider using a wood burning device that is more efficient (less smoke and particulates). Such stoves do exists.
Pretty ironic to call someone an "ahole" when you are treating the air like a sewer.
Actually, Parksville has a milder climate than where I live, yet I wouldn't dream of using filthy, polluting heat that damages our health and causes excessive global warming when there are affordable, environmentally-friendly alternatives.
Montreal has a much colder climate than Canada's west coast. Why do the residents of Montreal care about their health, their children's health and the environment, but not other Canadians?
Health and environmental experts such as the American Lung Association http://www.lungusa.org/press-r... and the UN Environment Program & World Meteorological Organization http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/green... recommend against use of domestic wood heating
The USA is promoting coal as clean energy and you are mouthing off about wood being filthy.
The same could be said of cigarette smoke, except that it's a lot less damaging to health. Tests in mice showed that wood smoke caused 12 to 30 times as many tumors as the same amount of cigarette smoke.
Burning 10 kg wood emits as much PM2.5 as in the smoke from 5,000 cigarettes and as many PAH (the main toxic chemicals in wood smoke) as in the smoke from a quarter of a million cigarettes http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/pah
Generating electricity from renewables is cheaper than building new coal-fired power stations, so by following the UN Environment Program recommendation to phase out log-burning stoves to reduce global warming and improve health, the result will be cleaner, healthier, environmentally friendly and affordable home heating!
(But the town’s director of community planning, Blaine Russell, offered an alternate view.“Many residents in Parksville are on fixed incomes and heating a home with wood is one of the most cost-effective methods available when compared to other options,” wrote Russell in a report.)
Russell Blaine needs to see the whole picture ,there is an enormous cost to the heath care system, there is a cost to the downwind neighbour either financially or reduced heath or both. Also when one of the City Counselors asked the City of Parksville if there had been any complaints about wood smoke , The Town replied that there hadn't been .I know for an absolute fact there has been complaints . What is going on !!!
No they should not have a right to pollute. ALL solid fuel burning should be banned in residential areas. What people should have is a right to unpolluted air.
The myth that dry, clean wood burns clean is just that, a myth. If you believe that you are deluded. There is no way to burn wood cleanly. It is hundreds of times dirtier than it would need to be to be objectively called clean. Poverty is not an excuse. Real poverty is having polluted air.
you and the people who liked your post are poor excuses for human beings....poverty isn't an excuse ? oh really? obviously you don't live in Ontario or you wouldn't have said such an assanine statement
Air pollution impoverishes communities. It affects their health, their economic wellbeing.
Here is a list of chemicals found in wood smoke:
http://burningissues.org/car-www/science/table2.htm
Here are the diseases woodsmoke causes:
http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/index.html
If you are an extremist who thinks woodsmoke belongs in any community then you are completely insane.The scientific evidence of the harm of woodsmoke is overwhelming. It is undeniable. You are not allowed to deny the facts.
(But
the town’s director of community planning, Blaine Russell, offered an
alternate view.“Many residents in Parksville are on fixed incomes and
heating a home with wood is one of the most cost-effective methods
available when compared to other options,” wrote Russell in a report.)
Russell Blaine needs to see the whole picture ,there is an enormous cost to the
heath care system, there is a cost to the downwind neighbour either
financially or reduced heath or both. Also when one of the City
Counselors asked the City of Parksville if there had been any complaints
about wood smoke , The Town replied that there hadn't been .I know for
an absolute fact there has been complaints . What is going on !!!
Perhaps Blaine Russell could move in next to a burner and see for himself. Many of you could offer him a night or two to stay with you and get the real picture. I hope he will accept and make sure that he is not harassed while visiting with you as the point is to be able to show him how it feels to live with wood smoke.
Why not make it a 'Challenge' to all council members? It would make a great newspaper article. I don't see how they could refuse if the press helps to start this challenge.
Excellent idea Shirley280 then maybe the town would reconsider covering up the fact that there is a problem
What a wonderful idea!
I don't know what you are talking about. I lived next door to a house heated with wood for 10 years and never noticed a thing. It's effect on my life was zero and I don't think I ever would have wondered how my neighbour heated their house had they not told me.
Every wood burner near me has a big house, big truck and big attitude. They can easily afford gas, which is in the area, and they probably do use it when convenient, yet smoke us out on the weekends,.... for ambiance? Poverty in my area is a poor excuse.
I would suggest a rough rule until stricter bylaws come into effect. If no one objects to your outhouse in the backyard, then no one is close enough to complain about wood smoke. If no one objects to your having a horse, then burn wood. But if you live in crowded places that have access to gas, then use gas. And if anyone nearby complains about your smoke, be considerate and responsible, and butt out.
Sorry, If I am paying to heat my home, and you can bet your last dollar I am, then I will decide how it will be done. Until someone else wants to take that financial burden off my plate, my advice to my neighbours is "Suck it up buttercup. This is Canada. We burn wood for heat."
Actually, Parksville has a milder climate than where I live, yet I wouldn't dream of using filthy, polluting heat that damages our health and causes excessive global warming when there are affordable, environmentally-friendly alternatives.
Montreal has a much colder climate than Canada's west coast. Why do the residents of Montreal care about their health, their children's health and the environment, but not other Canadians?
Health and environmental experts such as the American Lung Association http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/cleaner-alternatives-for-winter-heat.html and the UN Environment Program & World Meteorological Organization http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/greenhouse recommend against use of domestic wood heating.
What toxic chemicals tell you what stop fires fires first asshole tired of you telling me how to live
The link from the American Lung Association says: Converting a wood-burning fireplace or stove to use either natural gas or propane will eliminate exposure to the dangerous toxins wood burning generates including dioxin, arsenic and formaldehyde” see http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/cleaner-alternatives-for-winter-heat.html
There are many other dangerous chemicals including PAH - http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/pah and other known human carcinogens such as benzene - the average wood stove emits more benzene than the average car - http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/cancer
Instead of calling people names, why not check out the facts?
Duh Montreal is a city..... tell someone in the north they cant burn wood and they may just string you up... just sayn that blanket rules don't work for everyone.
For those that have a problem with smoke from fires maybe you need to start smoke free communities??? Why should I pay for your problem?
Why would you expect someone else to pay for your living expenses? Why do you suppose you have a right to pollute the air that other people breathe?
I live in Prince George, and every wood burner near me has a big house, big truck and a big attitude. We have access to gas and every one of them could easily afford gas for heat. Some have RV's, boats, lots of money for everything, even donating to worthy causes, EXCEPT CLEAN AIR. Pathetic.
Here's your clean burn EPA wood stove. Canadians as do every one the world over should have the right to clean air over someones selfish need to heat with wood if there are cleaner forms of heat available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dif5JdEqtaE
No, there should be no 'right' to burn when burning affects others as wood smoke does. Residential areas should be smoke-free for the health of everyone. Back when we didn't know what damage could be done by wood smoke nobody thought about it. Now we know the harm it causes. We also know of people who have developed cancer attributed to wood smoke. It is far past time to end this pollution.
Frankly, Mr. Waddell, you paint a charming vignette. "The smell of wood smoke from a distant chimney," if that were the issue at hand, probably wouldn't be a problem. The reality nowadays is more like the stench of garbage and damp or moldy wood burning permeating your property and front street. The only heater change-out programs that should be subsidized in urban and suburban communities should be from wood burning to lower emission fuel such as gas or electricity. Even oil burns an awful lot cleaner than the lowest-emission wood pellet burners so acclaimed by the industry. It is almost criminal to pretend that wood burning is OK where dense populations reside. Please see the emissions chart here: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/energyefficiency.html
Prince George banned the backyard bonfire, and after a few complaints, no big deal anymore, and we have cleaner air. Ditto should apply to wood stoves in any crowded place!