Energy & Environment

What wood smoke has taught me about fighting climate change

Severin Borenstein

While much of the U.S. has been dealing with severe winter weather, California is experiencing a record dry spell. The clear skies have also brought some cold nights and, with them, wood smoke.

What I’ve noticed in my neighborhood is that the desire for a cozy wood fire cuts across political lines.  And as the local air quality authority has called a record number of no-burn days due to poor air quality (high levels of PM 2.5, the fine particulates that can get through the respiratory system and lodge in lungs), the anger at restrictions on those cozy fires has also cut across political lines.

Many of these neighbors are friends of mine. They are caring people who recycle their newspapers and bring home their groceries in reusable bags. Most are concerned about pollution in general and believe that greenhouse gases are causing potentially devastating climate change. Yet, they ignore warnings about the pollution from their wood fires, in some cases even blatantly violating the burning bans that have been called on nearly half of all days in the bay area since November 1.

The science on local particulate air pollution is settled – both that wood fires are the primary source in winter and that the health threat is significant. And it takes much less imagination to understand the danger from wood smoke than the danger from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Particulates are visible in higher concentrations and your nose, eyes and throat tell you that there is a problem with the air. GHGs are invisible and odorless.

fireplaceAddressing the wood smoke problem does not require a fundamental shift in the way we live.  Sure there is a sacrifice -– even I enjoy a wood fire on occasion -– but it doesn’t mean living in a colder house, traveling less, reducing electricity consumption or anything else that has a broad impact on standard of living.  The houses around me already have natural gas furnaces that are a less-expensive way to heat.

Yet, judging from news reports, letters to the editor in the local papers, and discussions with my neighbors, there is widespread resentment that the air quality district is restricting wood fires.  Many of the excuses are of the “my contribution is so small it doesn’t matter” variety.   One recent letter in the local paper dismissed policies that are designed to reduce pollutants so small that they aren’t even visible, a “what I can’t see couldn’t be that dangerous” attitude that I bet is more widespread that we’d like to admit.

My point here is not to scold my neighbors.  I think they are just as public-spirited as other people.  What I take away from this is that people have a strong ability to deny uncomfortable truths about pollution (and externalities more broadly) when the implication is that they need to change the way they live, even if the change is fairly small.  The changes we will have to make to address climate change are going to be much more challenging than just substituting a cleaner, easier and cheaper heating source for a dirtier one that is also a hassle to use.

This realization has helped move me in the last few years to argue for much greater emphasis on subsidies for R&D to reduce the cost of substitutes for fossil fuel.  The renewables advocates are right that we have the technology today to address climate change, but we don’t have the technology to address climate change without sacrifice.

ChimneySmoke

There are people who will voluntarily sacrifice to reduce their pollution, but that’s not most people.  Even among the upper middle-class households in my neighborhood (by world standards, quite wealthy), most people react by denying the problem or denying their ability to have any impact on it.

Broad support for national or international strategies to reduce carbon emissions quickly dissipates if those policies turn out to be expensive (see Spain’s abandoning renewable subsidies) or if other priorities come to the fore (see how Germany’s decision to ditch nuclear power has led to increased coal-fired generation).  In the developing world, where incomes are much lower and the other threats to life are more immediate, sustained support for more-expensive alternative technologies will almost certainly be even more scarce.

These political realities also point out another, related, reason to lean towards greater R&D funding.  Any shift away from fossil fuels will create losers (think coal miners, oil drillers, Big Carbon shareholders).  If the loss is directly attributable to regulation (or even pricing GHGs) there will be tremendous pressure to loosen the regulation.  If it’s due to a new technology then all the government needs to do is step back and let the market have its way.  “Regulation is killing our industry” carries a lot more political heft than “A new lower-cost technology is killing our industry and we need government regulation to slow it down.”

Digital photography destroyed the film industry without a murmur of government intervention.  If the shift had been due to expensive regulations on film (even if they were good public policy), we’d still be getting our photos developed at the local drug store.

With apologies to Donald Rumsfeld (now there’s a phrase I didn’t ever imagine I’d be writing), we have to go to war against climate change with the human and political constraints that exist, not the benevolence, rationality, and far-sightedness that we wish existed.

Cross-posted from Energy Economics Exchange (tag line: Research that Informs Business and Social Policy), a blog of the Energy Institute at Haas.

Bookmark and Share
Comments to "What wood smoke has taught me about fighting climate change":
    • Cam

      Curious, but well-meaning, and persuasive post.

      Had no idea, as I live in the Midwest, despite friends and family in your area, that such a ban was in effect. It is interesting that so many would turn to wood-burning stoves, and fireplaces, in cool weather in the Bay.

      Obviously, your winters are far milder than ours, but do not most homes and apartments have heating systems? (That question might sound naive, but after discovering, years ago, the near-absence of window screens in Berkeley, I no longer make assumptions!)

      Here, where our winter has been quite brutal for a very long time, relatively few that I am aware of turn to burning wood as a means to increase heat. Our biggest problem, to my knowledge, when temps drop unusually low is the improper, and dangerous, use of space heaters…

      Anyone who has built fires–inside or out, for heat, cooking, trash incineration, or the primal pleasure of simply being close to them–knows that burning wood is highly polluting, and difficult for those in the immediate vicinity, as well as on general air quality. One near neighbor here likes an occasional fire in her fireplace; I can tell very quickly when she is burning wood simply by the smell, not unpleasant but sometimes irritating, in the air.

      It is difficult to imagine just how irritating our local air might be if many of my neighbors decided to make fires…!

      This is a curious situation; the Bay Area is generally associated with higher than normal levels of awareness of environmental issues. Why are people doing this?

      [Report abuse]

    • Robert

      From Spare the Air website: “In the wintertime, wood smoke from the 1.4 million woodstoves and fireplaces in the Bay Area contributes about one-third of the overall PM pollution. Cars and other motor vehicles also contribute significant amounts.”

      Should not driving be similarly restricted?

      [Report abuse]

    • UCBstaff

      Don’t volcanoes emit much more air pollution than our fireplaces? And haven’t volcanoes been erupting since the beginning of time? How has the climate been able to manage all these years?

      [Report abuse]

    • Mcath

      There is no such thing as an EPA-approved “clean burning” wood stove. They do reduce the volume of carcinogenic pollutants somewhat, but people tend to continue to burn improperly, so that bit of advantage is lost.

      Within a few months of use they also lose much of the advantage of reduction of pollutants. Fifty-seventy percent of the smoke finds its way into the neighbors house also.

      Wood smoke is toxic we need to accept this and move on to cleaner fuels.

      [Report abuse]

    • laura

      This opinion piece fails to mention the availability of clean-burning EPA-certified wood stoves capable of considerably reducing fine particulates. We received a federal tax credit to install an energy-efficient stove; the federal government considers wood a renewable biofuel. (See this EPA FAQ.)

      Open wood-fire cooking is all the rage, yet you neglect to mention the inherent hypocrisy in exempting restaurants from Spare the Air Day restrictions.

      [Report abuse]

    • Anthony St. John

      what advice do social scientists have for the human race that will motivate us to work together to protect the planet so that all of our descendants will have an acceptable quality of life?

      [Report abuse]

Leave a comment

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


1 + 8 =