No wood stove would pass a basic vehicle emissions test, yet the Comox Valley allows them to burn day and night, for weeks and months, with almost no regulation, polluting our air and posing serious public health risks
This article was updated twice on Nov. 2
The Comox Valley has a dirty little secret, and we’ve only recently begun to acknowledge it. The prevalence of wood stoves has made our air quality one of the worst in British Columbia.
It’s estimated that more than a third of Comox Valley households have some type of wood-burning appliance that gets fired up in the fall and then idles all day long, week after week for the next five or six months. And they cause more pollution and risks to public health than any other heat source.
For many, wood burning is part of the northern culture, a lingering nostalgia for living self-sufficiently off the land or a childhood memory of the coziness of gathering around a wood stove. It’s a logger’s ritual of gathering, chopping and stacking wood.
But for others, wood smoke is a nightmare that causes respiratory diseases and increases the risk of heart attacks. It means spending money on air purifiers and medications, or losing money from taking sick time off work.
Comox Valley air quality was among the province’s top 10 worst for fine particulate matter (called PM2.5) for the last six years in a row, according to the BC Lung Association. Courtenay was the only one of 13 communities in the Georgia Strait Air Zone that failed to meet Canadian standards for PM2.5.
The Comox Valley regularly has three or four multi-day air quality advisories every winter, while Vancouver might have one and more often none.
“One only has to drive around older neighborhoods or low-lying areas in the winter, especially in the evening, to see that there is a lot of smoke coming from wood stoves,” says Jennell Ellis, a spokesperson for the nonprofit Breathe Clean Air Comox Valley.
Comox Valley municipalities have started to address the problem.
Cumberland has banned the installation of wood burning appliances — stove and fireplaces — in all new construction. The Comox Valley Regional District has offered incentives to upgrade old, uncertified wood stoves to cleaner, healthier options. Courtenay Council passed a regulation last winter about moving in this direction (low interest loans, not incentives), but it is not in place.
The Town of Comox has taken no action on wood stoves yet. But Mayor-Elect Russ Arnott announced at an air quality information session this week that he expects that to “change in the next three months.”
“I’m hoping to have it brought up quite soon after the new council comes together,” Arnott told Decafnation after the meeting. “My feeling is that this council will want to act on it … So, while I don’t have consensus at this time I’m confident we can work something out.”
The situation is urgent for many people.
A 2017 multi-year heart attack study conducted in Kamloops, Prince George and Courtenay showed that short-term exposure to fine particulates increased heart attack risk in seniors by 6 percent, and by 19 percent when exposed to wood burning.
Ellis said the young and elderly are most at risk of health problems from wood smoke.
Studies have shown that smoke from a wood stove releases carcinogenic toxins equivalent to 1,000 cigarettes.
“Inhaling wood smoke is secondhand smoke,” Ellis said. She adds that PM2.5, the harmful fine particulate in wood smoke is easy to inhale, but difficult to exhale, which leads to deep respiratory problems.
North Island Medical Health Officer Dr. Charmaine Enns has yet to mandate any restrictions on wood burning devices, but she has noted their accompanying health risks.
“It’s understanding the fact that there is no healthy level of air pollution. And exposure over time does impact chronic disease progression,” Enns has said.
FURTHER READING: How to read the Comox Valley air monitor readings
Perhaps it’s that pioneering tradition of burning wood for heat that clouds our judgement of its negative environmental impacts.
“There’s no wood stove that would meet a vehicle emissions test, yet we allow many of them to idle where we live, every day and next to schools,” Ellis told Decafnation via email.
“And if someone isn’t burning well, we end up investing taxpayer’s money into education and then enforcement if they still ignore best practices. No other heating appliance requires this kind of ongoing investment. No other heating appliance has so many proven health impacts,” she said.
What are the solutions
Ellis told Comox residents attending one of Breathe Clean Air’s roving information sessions at the Comox United Church Oct. 30, that to make a transition from wood stoves affordable requires a two-part strategy:
One, incentivize and regulate a transition out of wood stoves completely; and, two keep BC Hydro rates down.
But, the overall goal is to really transition people to cleaner heat sources, particularly in populated areas which will require education, incentives and regulation/enforcement. It is also important that people who are being impacted by neighbourhood smoke have bylaws available to deal with that, just as they do with undue amounts of noise or other disturbances.
“The solution is definitely not to move people to newer wood stoves, especially in more densely populated areas,” she said. “A recent study from the UK showed that an eco-certified stove, operating at factory testing levels, puts out more fine particulates than 18 Modern Diesel Passenger cars.”
Ellis diagramed the rating of heating sources for her Comox audience.
Wood fireplaces are the worst emitters of PM2.5, plus they suck the heat of a house, making them the most inefficient heat sources. Pellet burning stoves are slightly better than wood burners. They emit 27 pounds of annual pollution. Oil furnaces emit a quarter-pound of pollution, and gas a sixteenth of a pound.
Electric powered heating devices are the best, emitting zero pollution annually, she said. And electric heat exchanger systems are the best, drawing a minimum amount of power.
Ellis advocates for a Valley-wide approach, with consistent regulations across jurisdictions. Right now, the Valley’s four municipal governments all have different bylaws governing wood stoves and open burning of yard waste.
Cumberland, Comox and Courtenay all ban backyard fires to burn leaves or other debris, but it is allowed in regional electoral areas A, B and C.
Protect yourself
Ellis said there are methods for Valley residents to protect themselves, including running HEPA-rated air purifiers inside, and turning off the ‘fresh’ air intakes in homes and vehicles during heavy smoke periods, usually early winter evenings when mini-atmospheric inversions coincide with people stoking up their stoves. Wearing N95 or N99 rated masks may also help when outside, but only if the mask fits very well.
People can also install localized air quality monitors available from PurpleAir.
The Breathe Clean Air event at Comox United Church in Comox was sponsored by SAGE: Sustainability Action Group for the Environment.
We all pay for health care through our taxes and the Australians and New Zealanders have calculated that each wood stove costs the health care system $3,000 each and every year to treat smoke related diseases. Even if one is fortunate to live in a smoke-free area we all pay for the cost of those inconsiderate enough to burn wood. However. Comox Valley is colder than Australia and the costs will be much higher as more wood has to be burned. Perhaps $9,000 ?
I attended the talk in Comox to hear Jenn’s talk.Her charts were informative to those unaware of smoke effects.However, like many other single issue folks today, it was not,in my opinion,balanced. To play the devils advocate, perhaps big diesel trucks which are the largest selling vehilce in Canada offend me? Perhaps I want to outlaw heat pumps because a neighbour has one and it is noisy? We live in a democracy where we have to give and take while accepting others point of view.The solution is not to try and ban or eliminate all woodstoves.One needs a license to drive a car or deal with fines.One has to follow speed limits,pay taxes, support things in our communities which do not directly benefit ourselves.But we do it to be good citizens.Do we ban all drivers because of the few who speed and are dangerous? No, there are punitive responses to these issues.Simply put, a more reasonable approach Jenn might be to push for requirements for current technology in stoves.Second, eliminate those which are outdated through inspections by local fire departments.Third,if the users are creating smoke particlarly on poor venting days, then bylaw enforcement is needed.A current stove using dry fuel produces little or no visable smoke.Last but not least, from a and security point of view, who in their right mind wants to leave themselves vulnerable in times of crisis.For example, we lose our power where we live on a regular basis.So, we utilize electric, gas and wood heat to ensure that we are ok in any eventuality.Most are aware that Fortis is restricting gas consumption at present.Now, what would happen to all the folks who are completely dependent on gas and/or electric in the event of a serious problem like an eartquake, massive series of storms, etc? Only a fool would agree to limit their options from a risk management point of view.I have friends on the islands who have gone up to six days without power in the winter and wood heat kept them going and their houses safe.We already have open burning bans and restrictions in place.Most people follow them and I like to think that most folks care enough not to smoke out their neighbours. But for those who do, a bylaw ensuring approved heaters are utilized, burning on venting approved days and enforcement by fire departments on offenders is appropropriate.Iddy bitty lots, houses jammed together in much of the valley….maybe think about a move to the rural areas where a liitle bit of wood smell is commonplace and just fine,thank you?
I too have burned wood in the past and many of my friends still use wood stoves. I love sitting beside a woodstove or fireplace. However, I also suffer in the winter from poor air quality. The amount of pollutants and C02 released in comparison to other fuels is a fact. There are creative ways that our local governments can support affordable transitions through Local Improvement charges, incentives etc… A valley wide effort to promote electric heat pumps for all buildings would improve air quality and reduce C02 emissions. The province and federal governments seem more interested in purchasing pipelines and supporting LNG. They should be helping out here, but we cannot wait for them to support these actions. We have a serious air quality issue that needs to be dealt with.
We’re fortunate to have the time and resources to leave the Comox Valley’s AQ problems for most of the winter, but it’s not entirely by choice. I miss Christmas at home, all the festivities, company, and snowshoeing with local friends. Since being diagnosed with asthma 2 years ago – asthma triggered specifically by wood smoke exposure and nothing else – our life had to change or advanced respiratory problems and possibly COPD would be health outcomes for me in the future. So for those individuals who feel they can or need to burn wood to save money, you’ve just put a price tag on my health and the health of your family, neighbours and friends. Such a selfish approach! If there are people struggling to get by and can’t afford to heat their homes without burning wood, then that’s who we need to help . . . so their wood burning doesn’t harm others.
George, this is a very emotional and biased report. It strikes a blow against and advocates solutions that would impact the lives of other folk all across our Valley, many of whom are just getting by. We live on the Wet West coast. I am a home owner who is neither a logger nor a nostalgic relic. It is a lot of work to locate a supply of good dry wood, and burn it responsibly. However, there really is nothing like living in a dry, warm house, and getting cozy by the fire after a long walk in the rain.
Even with this auxiliary heat, by bills from B.C. Hydro have been climbing higher every year. Natural gas is already an expensive alternative. Having the woodstove on enables me to air- dry much of my laundry instead of using the electric dryer. I can heat food and water during power outages. In fact, the kettle is always “on”, no need to plug it in.
When I purchased my wood burning stove, I did my homework, and choses one of the least polluting models on the market. It was installed professionally, the chimney is cleaned regularly, no buildup of creosote is occurring. I buy the best wood available and let it dry in a well- aired covered shed for up to a year or more.
Heat exchangers are very expensive to retrofit: I cannot afford that conversion. I would never dismiss or underestimate the concerns of those with health issues. However, as a senior on a fixed income, who does not want to live with moldy walls and cold floors, I get chills reading this blanket condemnation from Decafnation.
Diane, I understand what you are saying. I too loved wood heat when I lived up North. However, since moving here I have learned enough about what is in wood smoke, and how it impacts people, to never want to use it in an urban or densely populated area.
Well-run, certified stoves are definitely better than older stoves loaded with wet wood. But they still put out exponentially more harmful fine particulates than gas or electric forms of heat (gas = 1/6 lb. fine particulates per year, certified wood stove = 97 lbs of fine particulates per year = over 580 times as much. Electric = 0). A perfectly run certified stove puts out as many fine particulates per hour as at least 18 newer diesel cars.
Stoves are also known to degrade in efficiency over time so the comparison will only get worse (and if your stove has a catalytic converter, please be aware it must be changed every 4-5 years or else it ends up emitting as much as an uncertified stove. That part cost me $400 a number of years ago).
And the list of health impacts is huge, including increased risk of heart attacks in seniors such as yourself. But the list goes on. Proven impacts include: higher risk of stroke, lung cancer, asthma, shorter life, and lower birth weights. Research is also pointing to strong connections between fine particulate pollution and Alzheimers, learning disabilities, depression, diabetes and more (and this is all from information presented by our Medical Health Officer).
All of this costs individuals more for medications, air purifiers, time off work, etc. There was a letter to the editor last year from a senior, like yourself, on a limited income. She talked about having to pay for more medications every winter because of wood smoke in the valley. I have a long list of stories of real impacts on people, financially and/or health wise. It also costs all of us as more use our health care system.
If you are buying your wood, you must know that prices have jumped notably in the last couple of years and will likely keep going up. Research we have done shows that running a wood stove and running a heat pump cost about the same (if you buy your wood).
Yes, the heat is likely not as nice (though you also get an air conditioner in the summer and heat goes up/down with a simple push of a button), but you are also not pumping out the equivalent of 1000s of cigarettes every night. There are different incentives to help people make the switch to this cleanest heat source and I think there needs to be more.
The solution isn’t just to let people continue to burn and impact public health simply because they can’t afford otherwise; it is to help people transition to cleaner sources of heat because all of us can’t afford to continue to pay for the health costs and health impacts.
Please comment on the risk from breathing (!) during the summer forest fires. I’m seriously concerned about the health of residents of Edmonton who had to breath BC forest fire smoke for weeks and weeks and weeks this summer.
Comments about how to burn a wood stove to create less pollution would also be helpful … thanks.
The Irony: Cumberland is holding a wood stove festival via the Cumberland Culture & Arts Society.
To improve air quality, given that we rate as the worst in British Columbia I will:
• Declare publicly, once and for all that Cumberland has an air quality problem caused by wood stoves and have the commitment to eliminate the problem
• Implement the already proposed bylaw that addresses wood smoke issues, with the necessary amendment to guarantee the compliance
• Enforce the requirement from the provincial government to replace all the stoves that are not EPA approved
• Establish, beyond any argument, that all residents of Cumberland have the right to breathe air free of PM2.5
• Assist non-compliant wood stove owners in replacing them with a heat pump to make them affordable to all stove owners on a case by case basis depending on the household’s income limitations
• Implement particle reader sensors in several points of the village to establish the severity of the problem
• Implement a warning system to immediately warn residents of unacceptable levels of PM2.5
• Demonstrate that it is less expensive to heat a home with a heat pump that with a wood stove or natural gas
• Work with TimberWest to minimize wood waste burning and utilize the resource
• Eliminate land-clearing fires
• Eliminate yard waste fires
• Implement single recreational fire permitting
The problem is evident every day of the winter heating season, the air quality in Cumberland is the worst air quality in the entire British Columbia; only Houston, BC challenges us a few days per year. This is hardly a good reason for people looking for a place to live to choose Cumberland.
The solution is also evident, the faulty heating appliances that cause the problem need to be replaced, not an easy to implement solution, but simple: clean renewable energy from a heat pump (yes, Natural Resources Canada recognizes a heat pump as a renewable source of energy). Here is where it gets tricky; there is a new world accord, the Kigali accord, that amends the Montreal protocol, and it mandates that all Ozone Depleting Substances and all other current refrigerants, Fluorocarbons and Hydrofluorocarbons refrigerants that have a global warming potential 2,000 times of CO2, will be phased out, to be replaced with CO2 and Ammonia. The benefit is that the new CO2 heat pumps are much more efficient (up to 450% efficiency) and can also heat the domestic hot water.
Implementation of wood appliance replacement can be achieved by borrowing the money from a bank that has an environmental loan program, like the local credit union, and then applied through the Local Improvement Charges through the municipal tax collection, so the debt is transferred to the next owner if the house is sold. Replacing a wood stove with an air to water heat pump that delivers space heating by water radiators and domestic hot water will cost $125/month on equal payment plan, that it could go as low as $99/per month if carbon credits are obtained since a heat pump will reduce the carbon footprint of the house by 6.18 tons of CO2/year. this loan will provide $8,500 for 10 years at 3.25% interest.
The greenest. most renewable, and least expensive energy available is the energy that is never used: Financing Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency:
Local Improvement Charges (LICs) have long been used by municipalities to help cover the costs of infrastructure improvements (roads, sidewalks, etc.) deemed to benefit a specific neighbourhood. The benefiting landowners are assessed the LIC on their property taxes until their share of the improvements have been paid for.
This describes an innovative new use for LICs in which they are used to finance improvements in residential and/or commercial building energy efficiency. it describes the benefits of such an LIC program to municipalities and building owners, ways an energy efficiency LIC program could operate, the costs associated with it and ways they would be recovered, and potential difficulties and solutions associated with the use of LICs in this way.
The main advantage of using an LIC program over alternative methods of financing energy efficiency improvements is that it associates the repayment of the cost of efficiency improvements with the building property rather than with the current building owner. This means that permanent improvements like high efficiency windows, wall upgrades, heating, ventilation (HRV) systems, control systems and other features that have long payback periods are more attractive to home and building owners because both their costs and benefits are passed on to new owners. In the case of new buildings, it allows the additional cost of building to the highest levels of efficiency.
The Government of British Columbia has now enacted the Community Charter, replacing the old Local Government Act. In general, the Community Charter allows a much greater scope for action by local governments within British Columbia than the previous Act. The Charter explicitly allows municipalities to borrow money to cover LICs and specifies that a municipality does not need additional approval to borrow money if the full costs of the LIC are going to be recovered. This would provide all the legal means for a municipality to undertake a major energy efficiency LIC program. As such, the Community Charter appears to provide British Columbia municipalities with the ability to use LICs for energy efficiency purposes.
Why should municipal governments consider encouraging and financing energy efficiency within the community using a tool like LICs? For many years municipalities have directed staff and financial resources towards improving the efficiency of their own facilities — sometimes using innovative financing approaches like performance contracting and the investment of contingency funds in energy management because it provides a high return. For several reasons, many municipalities have begun in recent years to look beyond their own facilities to the community.
The role of local government is changing in response to the new challenges facing communities in the twenty-first century. One of the most pressing, and perhaps the most fundamental, of these challenges is the need for effective local government action to promote sustainable energy practices within the community. Another powerful driver is the increasing cost of energy.
Property owners are more and more concerned about the cost and availability of conventional energy sources and are looking to their governments for solutions.
Using LICs to finance energy efficiency improvements makes sense to municipalities on both counts.
A major driver for local government concern regarding energy use is global climate change, as most greenhouse gas emissions accelerating climate change come from the combustion of fossil fuels. Although the effects of climate change on Canada’s municipalities are inherently long-term and incremental in nature, a great many local governments in Canada recognize that climate change will have pervasive and profound effects on their communities. For this reason, they have
formally acted to reduce the severity of this threat.