Should fireplace fires be banned?

[The Straight Story]

Should fireplace fires be banned?

Jeffrey Earl Warren

Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "public hearings" are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth.

Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.

Still, in the interest of basic fairness, we'd at least like the decision-makers to employ the rudiments of the scientific method, rather than riding the winds of energy dependence and global warming hysteria, before coming to a final decision.

The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And then, communicate the results.

So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?

Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies" indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay Area, does anyone actually believe that?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/EDNKTDK1S.DTL

[ixion]

1. yeah, because it's not the corporate-generated pollution that is the problem

it's the fireplace. Yeah. Right. Whatever.

The government always loves to stick it to the common folks, while giving the real trouble makers a free pass.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. I hope not.

It's how I warm my house in the winter. :scared:

[SharonAnn]

32. In Santiago, Chile they fires in fireplaces have been banned for many years. Their

geography is similar to some U.S. cities where they are situated right next to a high mountain range and the air gets trapped, especially at certain times of the year, and the pollution accumulates. The problem is especially severe in their winter which is, of course when they would like to use their fireplaces. And, because most of the homes didn't have central heating, the fireplace really affected them. They also implemented restrictions on driving one day a week unless your vehicle complied with new anti-pollution regulations.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Oh, I hope not...

There's nothing like a nice cozy fire in the fireplace up here on those cold winter nights...plus, it does cut down on our heating costs.

[cgrindley]

4. NO. They shouldn't.

Global warming is NOT an issue that individuals can address even remotely. No amount of recycling or reusing is going to change the biggest culprits--power generation through the burning of fossil fuels, manufacturing, and the world's love affair with automobiles. And if we drive more hybrids, BFD. They still only get 40 odd mpg. None of it will do any good unless we can get China to stop all power generation through fossil fuels and to ban cars entirely from India and China before they catch up to our ownership rate.

[Locrian]

15. thank you

Thanks for SOMEONE finally stating the truth. Changing all your light bulbs to CFL and buying a Prius is NOT going to save the planet.

[kestrel91316]

20. If EVERYONE did their part it sure would help. No one expects

any given individual to be able to solve the problem singlehandedly.

I do my part. I expect everybody else to do theirs.

[cgrindley]

23. No, it wouldn't help, not even a little

READ THIS

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

[kestrel91316]

71. It helps by setting an example of concern for the environment.

That, my dear, can be highly contagious if approached properly.

[kestrel91316]

72. BTW, I've already read Lovelock's piece. We have a DUTY to mitigate

to the greatest extent possible, or things will be worse than they need to be.

I guess I can't dissuade you from your fantasy that it's REALLY OK TO KEEP DRIVING HUMMERS.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Nice satire, but I think you've overdone it a bit

Focussing on 'India and China' is a bit too hackneyed. You could say "the developing world", and still look like someone saying "I've got mine, screw you".

[cgrindley]

22. Not admitting that the developing world needs to NOT develop

is just burying your head in the sand. Do you have any idea the per capita ownership of cars in either India or China? Do really think that they should be allowed to get to the same level of development as us? I don't think so. I don't pretend it's fair, but the world can no longer tolerate fair as far as "development" is concerned. The environment has to come before China and India's desire for electricity and automobiles.

READ THIS

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. "the world can no longer tolerate fair" - superb

almost Swiftian, in fact.

[cgrindley]

44. As far as fossil fuel powerplants are concerned... NO, it can't

do you really think that a fully developed, developing world would be a good idea? Let me guess, you're a baby boomer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. You're really advocating one rule for us, another for them, are you?

Based on what - our possession of deadlier weapons?

Why would you think that only baby boomers believe in equality?

[cgrindley]

52. Yeah, I don't think we'll have any choice in the matter

read the article.

I think that Baby Boomers are a little on the unrealistic side and sometimes carry idealism far beyond rational limits. Personally, I think that a lot of it is built on guilt. People feel guilty for their lives of excess and irresponsibility and therefore believe that everyone has the same "right" to "success".

Obviously, it cannot be. The world--physically, politically, socially--cannot bear the weight of a fully Westernized India or China. Look what China has already done to its environment. Imagine what it will do to the global environment when instead of having 7 cars per 1000 people it has 1030 cars per 1000 people like we do.

And yes, that does mean a different rule for the future than for the present, but that's always been the case. Or do you lament the loss of the security of the patriarchy, of colonialization, of segregation and other stupid ideas. Because yes, global industrialization is just as stupid an idea as anything anyone can name.

Developing the developing world is not a good thing. It's a fucking awful thing.

[Book Lover]

56. Two things

A) MV is a UK Duer and therefore not a baby boomer.

B) Can you imagine the political and military consequences of making your position public policy? I agree with you in that if China, India, and the African nations follow the US-type development path, that is a recipe for disaster. But to simply say, "You can't develop and sorry about that," well, that is not realistic. I wonder why implementing advanced tech (like when sat phones are installed in "developing" nations rather than the cell network) isn't your answer. Would you rather keep the brown and yellow peoples down? If you're here at DU, I can't imagine that would be your position.

Or am I misunderstanding your position?

[cgrindley]

59. that's the part I don't get

why is excessive development "up" and why is lack of excessive development "down"?

yeah, I guess I do favor keeping certain parts of the world "down", but it doesn't have anything to do with race or nationality or religion. It's just about population.

I do understand that nothing useful will get done and that the world is utterly fucked. That much is at least obvious.

I'm actually in favor of collectively burying our heads in the sand and pretending that everything's okay. To that end, I don't even pretend to recycle or reduce or reuse or drive a more efficiet car etc. There just isn't a point as long as we're basically going to die due to industrialization half a world away.

[Book Lover]

60. OK, thanks

Between this conversation and our chat in the period pad thread, I think we are speaking across each other. I disagree, but I don't want to argue with you anymore.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. You haven't thought this through at all, have you?

You say "it doesn't have anything to do with race or nationality". But your position does - you specified India and China. You want to discriminate based on nationality. You're saying that someone born Indian shouldn't have the same rights that you want for yourself.

And is it by force you would intend to banish cars from these countries? Bomb the car factories there, blockade their ports for imports, that sort of thing? I can't see any way of negotiating with countries so that they'll willingly give up the things that the USA claims the right to have.

[cgrindley]

62. Why are you continuing to spin over-development as a right?

no nation, no group of people have a right to over-development.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. So you're in favour of banning all cars all over the world, then?

If so, then your position is consistent. It just seemed that your stated intention to keep your own car implied you wanted to keep card in the US too.

[cgrindley]

64. I want to keep my car and I don't want everyone else to have one (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. So you are in favour of discrimination, then (nt)

[cgrindley]

66. Yes. I want everyone on earth to walk or take public transport except me (nt)

[JVS]

5. But where will the sweet love be made down by?

[Kurovski]

8. On the kitchen table, by the stove, with a pie.

Research shows that the smell of pumpkin pie engorges the gourd.

[Beerboy]

16. A clinical presentation would be most appropriate.

It's the freepers and fundies that breed by the light of a burning cross, spewing their hydrocarbons far and wide as if to advertise their wanna-be SS-status.
Open fires take a horrible toll on the Earth's atmospheric regenerative capabilities.:grr:

[JVS]

19. You gotta be shittin me!

[Beerboy]

21. Not really.

Besides, the children might smell smoke! Barbecues and fireplaces need to banned for our kids, now.

[SidDithers]

6. "global warming hysteria"?...

"psychic energy"?



Sid

[Gormy Cuss]

7. The editorial writer left out one pertinent fact: it's a ban for Spare the Air days only.

That and it's already the law in other counties around the state for the same reason. The estimate is burning in fireplaces would be banned for only 20 nights per year. The rest of the time people are welcome to light a fire and add all the particulates they want. Earlier article with details:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/06/BA9TT6R60.DTL&hw=Bay+Area+Air+Quality+Management+District+fireplace&sn=002&sc=507

The editorial writer couldn't bother to look up the studies of particulate matter level to see how the 33% calculation was derived. Facts could undermine his argument, after all. I'm betting he thinks global warming is a myth too.

[alarimer]

9. The "global warming hysteria" seems to indicate he thinks it is a myth

or at least overhyped. And then claims to want scientifically based studies to decide whether fireplaces should be banned. Well why would he believe scientific studies for that if he doesn't believe them in regards to global warming?

[DCKit]

10. Modern woodstoves are far more efficient and, even without catalytic converters....

Often pass current air quality standards.

That said, if the house came with a real fireplace, leave it or allow the owners to upgrade if and when they can afford to do so!

New construction in urban areas should mandate efficiency, but the nanny state is out of control.

[DemoTex]

11. IFF serial polluters like The Southern Company are made squeaky clean.

The Southern Company (Ga. Power, Ala. Power, Miss. Power, Fla. Power) is the second biggest polluted in the US. Georgia Power's Juliette, Georgia, power-plant emits more pollution than any other single power-plant in the country. It happens, strangely enough, that The Southern Company has been one of Bu$h's biggest benefactors, going back to the 1999/2000 campaign. Former Southern Company lobbyists often come from or return to GOP political positions in the South. Haley Barbour and Luther Strange come to mind.

Ban home fireplaces? BBQ grills? IF AND ONLY IF it is at the tail-end of a massive crackdown on moneyed, corporate polluters.

[Warpy]

12. Yeah, fireplaces provide the minimum of heat with the maximum

of particulates, meaning sooty smoke. If you want to heat with wood, ferkrissakes get yourself a Franklin stove insert for that wood waster!

There are days here in the valley in NM when wood burning is verboten because of the pollution. Most of those days coincide with unseasonable warmth, so it's rarely a real problem.

My woodstove is small and efficient. It paid for itself within the first 3 years in reduced gas bills.

[DesertRat]

13. We have many "no burn" days here in Phoenix

during our high pollution advisory days.

[Beerboy]

14. Could there be neighborhood watch-groups,

informants, and snitches? It's for the kids, after all. America is suffering a dearth of stuff being banned right now, why not fireplaces/barbecues?
Yes, they should be banned immediately!

[Esra Star]

17. It's sad to see so many feel this way.

Still with the corporate head in the sand.
On this issue everybody needs to be responsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4

[knitter4democracy]

24. It helps cut down on the heat we use for the whole house.

I can heat up our den on three to four logs a night (I'm diligent about getting every last btu out of every log), and it warms up the western half of the house, even making it warmer upstairs enough that I can lower the heat pretty far at night.

If it's a really bad smog day, I can see it. Here where we live in Michigan, though, we only use them in the winter, and smog isn't near enough of a concern as heat.

[SalviaBlue]

26. In my town... YES YES YES

I live in the San Joaquin Valley of CA. We get inversion layers and the air does not move out of the valley for weeks. Today the air is "unhealthy for sensitive groups" and burning is "discouraged" but people still burn. Its actually kind of nice outside and I would like to open some windows, but my neighbor always has his fireplace going. In our residential tract his smoke comes directly over my house and even with my windows closed I can smell it inside.

In winter when you go out for exercise you go through areas where the smoke just hangs in the air from the various fireplace burners.

Alot of children in this area have asthma and it is understood that stopping fireplace burning would help immensely, but some people feel it is their God given right to burn.

Another issue in California is that the air from the Bay Area does come into the San Joaquin Valley ... and then it just sits here, sometimes for months before the weather changes. What they do in the rural or bay areas affects everyone, especially in the Valley.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. Welcome to DU, SalviaBlue

from another Valleyite. :hi:

[Book Lover]

58. Thank you!

As a coastsider, I am in favor of this ban. My sweet, clear air right off the ocean is loaded down with too much crap as it is once it reaches the Central Valley. If the very occasional banning of burning a fire in one's fireplace (no, I don't have one) on Spare the Air days helps improve your air quality, I am for that.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. More fireplaces, fewer furnaces, I say.

A nice warm fire in the fireplace has always done more for me than central/baseboard/space heating.

[Bozita]

28. On cold, windless days, I can't use my yard. It's the air.

Neighbor installed a wood burning device. Now the air flat out stinks at wind conditions under 3mph. New snow becomes "dirty" within a day.

It didn't used to be this way.

Some progress!

[Captain Hilts]

30. I can't go out for a run. The air's too bad. nt

[dysfunctional press]

33. just wait until peak oil really takes hold...

it's really going to get ugly as people try to stay warm through the winter.

[Didereaux]

29. hmmm, if you did, then would you have to call it 'Not-fireplace'?

[sutz12]

31. No...it's pretty unenforceable...

except that they can force new designs to leave them out. That's already being done in too many areas.

Burning wood is fairly carbon neutral, because you're burning above ground carbon. It's all the crap we dig out of the ground and burn--aptly named "fossil fuels"--that is the real problem there. Ma nature buried that shit millions of years ago, over a nice slow period over millions (billions?) of years. We're digging it up and burning it in what amounts to a second or two of geologic time.

Fireplaces do create more particulates than we like, but the industrials do more. Keep the fireplaces.

[Redstone]

34. Simple answer, for once: There are catalytic converters you can install in

your chimney. They take care of the problem. Make them mandatory, and burning wood ceases to be a problem.

Redstone

[lonestarnot]

38. What about outdoor firepits?

[Redstone]

39. I'd say not a significant source of pollutants, along with campfires.

Redstone

[lonestarnot]

43. On no burn days, I wouldn't want to burn anything.

[Redstone]

46. Well, if there's a place that has "no burn days," then I'd agree that nothing should be burned

during those days.

We don't have those around here. But in the places where they are deemed necessary, I'd agree with your that NOTHING should be burned.

Redstone

[lonestarnot]

69. Phoenix has them when particulate level reaches a certain point.

[graywarrior]

35. Only in Florida.

Bastids.

[-..__...]

36. Something else to add to the Ban Wagon?

Christ... is there anything that people won't complain about and want to ban?

:eyes:

[H2O Man]

37. No.

They'll have to pry the firewood out of my cold, shivering fingers.

[-..__...]

42. Firewood?

I use shredded old truck tires and inner tubes with an application of kerosene.

They're free, plentiful and by recycling them by burning, it reduces the environmental impact created by landfills and tire graveyards.

[BlackVelvet04]

45. Sorry....

I didn't see yours. But, they WILL have to pry .......blah, blah, you know the rest.

[H2O Man]

47. I take it

as a good sign that we both thought of about the same joke!

[BlackVelvet04]

49. You're

joking? ;)

[BlackVelvet04]

40. They'll have to pry my fireplace

from my cold, dead fingers. :P

[H2O Man]

41. Hey!

Please read post #37!!!!

[L. Coyote]

50. Field burning, cleaar cut burning, oil well gas burning, any others to add. ??

yard debris, garbage, industrial processes like kilns (just to be fair to homeowners), coal and hydrocarbon electric plants, ???

[aikoaiko]

51. Fond Memory: Smoke from Juniper (aligator) Pine burning in fireplaces all over Flagstaff.

The whole town smelled like incense.

[lynne]

53. Burning a fire in my woodstove as I type -

- and saving on my coal generated electricity. Which is worse? That I don't know. Which is cheaper? That I DO know and I'm burning wood as long as my property keeps producing trees.

[B Calm]

68. My hands smell like wood smoke as I type. I just loaded

some nasty piss elm. The Gypsy Moth invasion we had last year killed every elm tree on my property. It's not the hardest wood I have cut for this winter, but what the hell it puts our FREE HEAT.

[EFerrari]

55. I think I have to go burn something immediately. n/t

[Joanne98]

57. NO!

[blondeatlast]

67. During inversion periods, absolutely. We have many of those here in Phoenix

and it's horrible even for healthy people.

The writer conveniently ignores that the ban is for inversion periods only, as it is in Phoenix. It's a very reasonable restriction, IMHO.

I love a good fire, but my neighbor's health is not a sacrifice I'm willing to make for it.

[Honeycombe8]

70. It's a matter of volume, I'd think. Are there enough home fireplaces in the U.S. to make ...

Are there enough home fireplaces in the country to make a difference, one way or the other?

I'm beginning to resent this push for the average American to conserve, recycle, and go without, while enormous commercial entities keep thermostats at 72 degrees in summer while it's 100 degrees outside, spew out tons of gray smoke, and be lauded for efforts for recycling a tiny fraction of copy paper! By sheer volume, I can see which buildings are doing the most harm. I'm no idiot.

But conserve I will, and go without I try. I recycle, too. But before we stop the home fires from burning, I'd like to see some sacrifice on the part of big bidness, where a small change CAN make a huge difference.

BTW...I say this as someone who does not have a fireplace. I wanted one, but the house I could afford in the area I wanted came without one, so.....