Wood Burning vs. Natural Gas: No Contest

Families for Clean Air recently received a letter that asked for references backing up our assertion that the emissions from EPA-certified wood stoves are greater than those from devices that burn natural gas. This information is available from many sources, including the US EPA, but we think the chart below from the Puget Sound Clear Air Agency illustrates the point in a clear and simple manner (you may click on the image to enlarge):

As bad as this chart may make things look for wood burning devices, we’d like to note that it actually makes the relative performance of wood burning stoves seem more favorable than it actually is. First, the emissions of wood burning stoves are tested under laboratory conditions that bear only a passing relationship to how they are likely to actually be used in the real world. Second, studies have shown that the performance of EPA-certified wood stoves can deteriorate over time.

Thus, the wood stove data probably reflect ‘best case scenario’ stove performance in laboratory conditions.

Any way you slice it, it’s clear that gas burns much more cleanly than wood, leading to less particulate pollution.

New Evidence of the Effect of Wood Smoke on Climate Change

A recent study by scientists at the University of Leeds finds that the influence of soot generated by wood burning on climate change has been greatly underestimated.

This study, which is the first comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the role of soot in the climate system, concludes that particles from wood burning and diesel engines have twice the warming effect calculated in previous estimates. Soot, which is also called black carbon, is second only to carbon dioxide in terms of its effects on warming the climate. This study shows that black carbon has a warming effect approximately two thirds that of carbon dioxide.

Black carbon in the atmosphere absorbs solar heat. This not only heats the atmosphere but also melts the earth’s snowcaps and glaciers when these particles settle on the ground.

Eliminating or reducing wood and other biomass burning may be one of the easiest and most effective ways for us to curb global warming. Co-lead author Dr. Tami Bond notes, “Since black carbon is short lived, the impacts would be noticed immediately.” That’s because while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for relatively long periods, existing black carbon emissions are washed out of the atmosphere in just a few weeks.

“Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer as there are tandem health and climate benefits,” said Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds

This study highlights the fact that not only does wood smoke pollution have harmful effects on human health, wood smoke harms the health of our planet as well.

Reducing Wood Smoke Pollution Saves Lives

A new study  published in the British Journal of Medicine has found that reducing wood smoke pollution from wood stoves is associated with significantly reduced risk of death. The study, which was conducted in Australia, looked at a community in which wood stove prevalence fell from 66% to 30% after implementation of a series of interventions aimed at reducing wood smoke. This resulted in a 40% reduction in wintertime air pollution and in reduced all-cause, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality during the period of improved air quality.

The researchers note that their findings “highlight the potential for important public health gains from interventions to reduce ambient pollution from biomass smoke”.

Scientists have long known that air pollution contributes to human sickness and death. A study by Cornell professor David Pimentel estimates that air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year worldwide, and hundreds of studies document the harmful effects of wood smoke pollution on human health.

Simply put, reducing wood smoke pollution reduces deaths.

More Evidence of the Benefits of Reducing Wood Smoke Pollution

Want to live longer? Breathe clean air.

New data published in the journal Epidemiology show the importance of fighting to reduce the particle pollution that is generated by wood burning and other activities.

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health report that declining air pollution levels continue to improve life expectancy in the U.S. Specifically, data from 545 counties nationwide, both metropolitan and rural, show an average decrease of 1.56 micrograms per cubic meter in particulate pollution from 2000 to 2007 that parallels a life expectancy increase of an average of 0.84 years.

In the winter, wood smoke pollution is the largest source of particle pollution in many communities. Numerous studies have shown associations between acute and chronic exposure to fine particle air pollution such as wood smoke and cardiopulmonary disease and mortality. Studies have also shown that reductions in air pollution are associated with reductions in adverse health effects as well as with improved life expectancy.

“Despite the fact that the U.S. population as a whole is exposed to much lower levels of air pollution than 30 years ago—because of great strides made to reduce people’s exposure—it appears that further reductions in air pollution levels continue to benefit public health,” said lead author Andrew Correia.

The senior author, Francesca Dominici, told the New York Times, “Our paper is strong evidence that additional investment in cleaning the air is beneficial.”

Everyone wants to live a long and healthy life. This winter, let’s work together to reduce wood smoke pollution and breathe cleaner air.

Particulate Matter and Exercise

Most people are aware that particulate matter (PM) pollution due to wood smoke is especially harmful to infants, the elderly, and those with cardiovascular and lung problems. What’s less well known is that PM pollution from wood smoke harms healthy people as well.

A recent article [2] in the journal Sports Medicine, “Small Things Make a Big Difference: Particulate Matter and Exercise,” reviewed the short- and long-term responses to PM inhalation during exercise and examined how PM exposure influences exercise performance.

The researchers found that breathing polluted air while exercising results in pulmonary inflammation, decreased lung function (both acute and chronic), an increased risk of asthma, vascular endothelial dysfunction, mild elevations in pulmonary artery pressure, and diminished exercise performance. Not exactly what a weekend warrior hopes to accomplish during a workout.

Wood smoke makes up over 30% of wintertime particulate pollution in many communities. As individuals, we can help reduce this source of air pollution by choosing not to burn wood. This winter, let’s work to get the word out about the hazards of wood smoke pollution—for the runners, for the bikers, for the hikers, for our families, and for ourselves.

Wood Smoke from Wildfires Leads to Lower Birth Weight

We’ve known for years that exposure to high levels of indoor wood smoke harms babies and children in developing countries. This raises the question: Does shorter-term exposure to wood smoke affect babies in developed countries?

This question is difficult to address, but a new paper by researchers at UC Berkeley shows that pregnant women exposed to wildfire smoke during Southern California’s epic 2003 fire season had babies with lower birth weights.

Specifically, researchers compared the birth weights from pregnancies that took place entirely before or after the wildfire event (n = 747,590) with those where wildfires occurred during the first (n = 60,270), second (n = 39,435), or third (n = 38,739) trimester. They found that women who were pregnant during the wildfires had slightly, but significantly, smaller babies.

There is no need to panic if you are pregnant and breathing smoke from a wildfire. Dr. Richard Chinnock, head of the Pediatrics Department at Loma Linda University Medical Center, said the 10-gram decrease in birth weight observed in the study is so slight that no one would notice a difference in the delivery room.

The bottom line is that the air a woman breathes when she is pregnant can affect her developing baby. Smoke exposure “could be one insult that adds to another insult for a cumulative effect.”

A recent review concludes that greater exposure to air pollution during pregnancy leads to higher infant mortality, lower birth weight, impaired lung development, increased later respiratory morbidity, and early alterations in immune development. The Environmental Protection Agency provides these tips for reducing prenatal exposure to air pollution, including wood smoke.

Clean air is healthy air, especially for developing babies.

An Opportunity to Have Your Donation Doubled

Families for Clean Air has been given a limited time opportunity to receive up to $10,000 in matching grants. Any donations that you make over the next few weeks will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $10,000.

This is a great opportunity for you to help support our efforts to protect the public’s health from wood smoke pollution through education, advocacy, and community involvement. Your support will help us continue to work to improve the quality of the air we breathe.

Please help us to reach our goal of raising $10,000 to maximize the matching grants. Families for Clean Air is a 501(c)3 organization so your contribution is tax deductible and will be worth twice as much through this limited-time matching program.

You can make a secure on-line donation using your credit card or PayPal account by clicking on the button below.

You can also donate by personal or corporate check by making it payable to “Families for Clean Air” and mailing it to the following address:

Families for Clean Air
35 Miller Avenue, #146
Mill Valley, CA 94941

Wood Fires: A Traditional Source of Air Pollution

Many of our neighbors who like to use their fireplaces and backyard wood pits claim that burning wood is a traditional method of cooking and heating that goes back thousands of years. If wood has been burned for thousands of years, they reason, wood smoke can’t possibly be harmful, right?

Wrong. Not only do the bodies of the earliest humans show the effects of breathing wood smoke, many people in developing nations today are suffering and dying from the ‘natural and traditional’ use of wood fires. Even when biomass is burned in more modern cook stoves, soot is released at extremely high levels.

A recent article, “Killer cookstoves: Indoor smoke deadly in poor countries,” reiterates this point. The numbers are staggering, with about 2 million deaths annually attributed to cooking smoke. In addition, the World Health Organization attributes 35% of chronic obstructive pulmonary deaths and 21 percent of lower respiratory infection deaths to indoor air pollution from burning solid fuel.

Despite the fact that open-hearth fires are traditional, the smoke that is generated is extremely harmful. In efforts to decrease illness and mortality from the traditional use of wood fires, as well as to mitigate the enormous impact of these fires on global warming, developed countries have donated millions of dollars towards cook stoves intended to lessen the harmful health effects of traditional fires. Unfortunately, such stoves continue to emit extremely high levels of soot, offering little if any improvement over traditional fires.

The bottom line? Wood smoke from traditional (and not-so-traditional) fires is harmful to your health. And this tradition is one that continues to kill, thousands of years after its inception.

Here at home, the time has come to adopt new traditions when we gather with family and friends. On a global scale, we must work to develop new, less toxic ways for people to stay warm and cook their food.

After all, ingenuity, innovation, and creative problem solving are American traditions as well.

EPA’s New Standards: Burning Up About Fine Particulates from Wood Smoke

We at Families for Clean Air are often asked why the EPA is not actively involved in addressing wood smoke pollution. The answer is complex, but right now there is an opportunity for the EPA to impact wood smoke pollution through their newly proposed particulate matter standards.

On June 14, 2012, the US EPA proposed strengthening the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particle pollution, also known as fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ). Full details can be found here. These changes are based on “an extensive body of scientific evidence that shows that exposure to particle pollution causes premature death and is linked to a variety of significant health problems, such as increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems, including non‐fatal heart attacks. PM also is linked to the development of chronic respiratory disease.”

In other words, the EPA has determined that the current fine particle standards are “not adequate to protect public health as required by law.”

Fine particle pollution is regulated to protect the public from the many harmful effects of long- and short- term exposure to PM2.5, such as the PM created by burning wood. The EPA is proposing that the allowable level of PM2.5 be lowered from the current level of 15.0 μg/m³ (set in place in 1997) to a level of 12.0–13.0 μg/m³. An area would meet the standard if the three-year average of its annual average PM_2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the level of the standard. EPA anticipates designating regions as attainment/nonattainment areas by December 2014, and regions will then have until 2020 to meet the new standard.

How will this impact wood burning? That remains to be seen. But tightening this standard will bring more attention to sources of fine particulate pollution, like wood smoke, that have previously been ignored in many areas of the country. By motivating regions to strengthen existing rules or to develop new ones, it will also create opportunities for every air basin in the nation to address wood smoke as part of their overall efforts to attain the new standard.

The EPA states that the proposed standards are expected to yield significant health benefits, with health savings valued at $2.3–$5.9 billion annually for a proposed standard of 12 μg/m³ and $88–$220 million annually for a proposed standard of 13 μg/m³. This represents a return of $30 to $86 for every dollar invested in pollution control. Not only is this proposal good for public health, it makes economic sense as well.

Unfortunately the proposal does not directly address localized PM sources. The EPA is proposing updates and improvements to the nation’s PM_2.5 monitoring network: No new monitors will be required, but a small number of monitors may be relocated to measure fine particles near heavily traveled roads.

This strategy ignores PM pollution “hot spots”, such as neighborhoods with wood boilers or older wood stoves, that are not near mobile transport corridors. In such areas, wood smoke can collect in valleys and have significant health impacts on the community. The EPA needs to hear that there are areas away from the freeways that are also bearing a heavy health burden from PM pollution.

We have an opportunity to tell the EPA that we want PM standards that are as stringent as possible. We need to let them know that we want wood smoke pollution addressed as part of their strategy to reduce the impact of fine particulates. Comments must be sent by August 31^st, and final standards will be issued by December 14, 2012. In addition, two public meetings are being held in Philadelphia and Sacramento. Click here for information about how to comment electronically  or by mail or in person.

Let’s make our voices heard: Everyone deserves to breathe clean air.

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Climate Change: New Connections Between Climate Change and Wood Burning

Burning wood produces soot and methane, the second- and third-leading causes of global warming, respectively. Soot, also known as black carbon, kills approximately 1.5 million people per year worldwide, and methane increases ozone, which negatively impacts global health.

Not only are black carbon and methane themselves pollutants, but increasing levels of these combustion products lead to temperature increases that in turn worsen the health effects of air pollution. A recent study at Stanford University notes, “Controlling soot and methane may be the only methods of preventing loss of the Arctic sea ice and a tipping point to more rapid global warming.”

The impact of black carbon on climate change, especially as it impacts California, was the focus of the California Air Resources Board Meeting on May 24, 2012. Scientists from the EPA, Stanford University, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory described how soot and brown carbon (a combination of soot, methane, and other fine organic particles) are affecting our climate at the regional and global levels in ways that undermine the very foundations of our climate systems.

The presenters noted that black and brown carbon are principally regional pollutants formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass such as wood. The resulting fine particles go directly into the atmosphere, remaining aloft for days or weeks. According to the EPA, “Controlling direct fine particle emissions from sources can be a highly effective air quality management strategy, with major public health benefits. Targeted reductions in black carbon emissions can provide significant near-term climate benefits.”

Reducing wood burning reduces the production of black and brown carbon as well as methane and may help slow climate change. In addition, reducing wood smoke will improve air quality, improve public health, and relieve some of the burden on the climatic systems that sustain life on earth.