Montreal City Weblog

Kate 21:46 on 2020-01-15 Permalink Reply  

• Ian 22:04 on 2020-01-15 Permalink

  Golly it’s almost as if getting rid of fireplaces wasn’t the solution after all and maybe idling heavy trucks should actually have been regulated in a meaningful way.

• Chris 23:19 on 2020-01-15 Permalink

  Uh: perhaps getting rid of fireplaces was necessary but insufficient. I don’t recall anyone saying getting rid of fireplaces alone would be a magic bullet.

• Ian 02:32 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  Not true, it was suggested the majority of winter pollution was fireplaces. I know it doesn’t seem realistic, but here we are with no fireplaces allowed in most boroughs but still the same amount of smog.

• John B 09:07 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  I, too, remember numbers like “85% of the Montreal’s winter smog is caused by wood-burning stoves” being trotted out, (I don’t remember the exact number but it was well above 50%, maybe even above 90%), and things like “replacing your polluting wood stove with a gas one is good for the environnement!” (while conveniently ignoring that wood is not a fossil fuel, but gas is).

  I guess the real test will be how many of these smog days there are. Is this the first this winter, or do I remember another around Christmas?

• qatzelok 09:47 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  The ear-worm line “chestnuts roasting on an open fire” is responsible for how many cases of asthma and premature lung problems?

• nau 10:09 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  Walking in my neighbourhhood makes it clear that people are still using wood fireplaces, though the overall campfire smell is weaker than it used to be. Not to say, that there’s anything wrong with regulating heavy trucks or other diesel vehicles, of course. And yes, there was definitely at least one smog day already.

• Ian 10:17 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  I have the Environment Canada weather app so I get “weather alerts” on my phone. Smog alerts are pretty common for Montreal, we have had at least 3 this winter before this last stretch.

• Mark 10:40 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  Saying the fireplace regulations didn’t work because we’ve had a few days of smog is like saying climate change isn’t real because it’s going to be cold this week. You have to look at long term data.

  This site only goes back a few years but is well done (scroll to the bottom to see historical data).

  http://aqicn.org/city/montreal/

  I am not saying there is a clear pattern here yet, but the new regulations came into place in Oct 2018. The weather has a big impact on air quality in the winter as temperature inversions trap pollutants, but over a period of 10 years, patterns will emerge.

  Lastly, since we do add 50,000 cars to the region every year, it would be interesting to see how much higher these levels would be had there not been increased regulations. There will always be smog in Montreal in the winter, the question is, how often and how bad is it going to be, and what can we do about it.

• Chris 10:45 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  Ian, that’s not what I meant by ‘magic bullet’. There’s no contradiction in wood burning being a major contributor yet not being a magic solution on it’s own. A multi-pronged attack is needed.

  Ian & John, instead of frail human memories, how about some citations?

  ““Wood burning is one of the main causes of wintertime smog,” the city stated. According to officials, it causes about 39 per cent of fine particle emissions, coming second only to transportation, at 45 per cent.”

  https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-looking-to-impose-stricter-wood-burning-regulations-1.4716307

  To solve this smog problem we need to attack both wood burning and transportation, and whatever #3 and #4 are. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

• Ian 14:22 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  Whatever, Chris, I’ll concede the point but still that should mean we have 39% fewer smog days, that’s nearly half… and that’s not happening, we still get lots of smog days. Go play captain google on someone else’s dime, this is simple reasoning here. If the city says no more fireplaces but does nothing about idling despite existing laws on the books, you can easily deduce that they are shooting for easy targets because it’s all about optics and blameshifting in city politics, not solving problems.

• John B 15:13 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  > you can easily deduce that they are shooting for easy targets because it’s all about optics and blameshifting in city politics, not solving problems.

  So this. The CBC has been running pieces recently on climate change recently, and this one has this bit:

  “Since making real economic changes is politically difficult, politicians prefer ineffective window-dressing that does little except making voters think they are taking action.

  “These might include funding for electric vehicle rechargers, a tax-break for wind power, training for electric car technicians, grants for biofuel producers, climate research, adaptation planning, an educational kit for schools … subsidies for home insulation … funding for urban transit feasibility studies…” writes Jaccard in a much longer list.

  While wintertime smog and climate change are different problems, it’s the same thing: go after something easy, like fireplaces, while leaving the other problems alone.

• nau 17:32 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  Jaccard is undoubtedly right, but in contrast to the things he listed (re climate change), eliminating wood-burning fireplaces is a meaningful contribution to reducing wintertime smog. Surely you’re not saying they have to start with the politically or practically more difficult measures. Should they attack all sources, well, sure, but since that means targeting not just idling heavy vehicles but in fact the whole motor vehicle fleet, that involves butting heads with the people who are wedded to their cars, and we know how that tends to play out politically, so I won’t hold my breath. In the meantime, at least when we have smog days in winter, the air quality should be better (maybe even up to 39%) thanks to reduced emissions from fireplaces. As for the quality of our politicians, I don’t see that improving until we first have better voters.

• Kevin 23:53 on 2020-01-16 Permalink

  If you look up other articles from the distant past, you’ll see that politicos were picking and choosing data to blame fireplaces.
  At one point one poorly maintained chimney next to an air quality monitor was responsible for the majority of winter smog days in Montreal.

  Chimneys and pizza ovens are not a major cause of smog. Temperature inversions where we live cause smog.

• Chris 10:05 on 2020-01-17 Permalink

  >but still that should mean we have 39% fewer smog days, that’s nearly half… and that’s not happening

  Who says it’s not happening? Like Mark said, it’s only been 15 months since the new regulations came into place, there hasn’t been enough time to collect enough data to conclude either way.

• nau 15:45 on 2020-01-17 Permalink

  Temperature inversions are necessary for winter smog but not sufficient. There also needs to be pollution for the temperature inversion to trap. Burning wood produces such pollution (particulates, NOx, SOx, etc.) and undoubtedly contributes to winter smog. Now, are the figures bandied about accurate? Suppose they’re not. That would mean that more of the winter smog we undeniably have is coming from motor vehicles. Is it because people are so keen for more controls on motor vehicles that they bemoan effort wasted on controls on fireplaces?

  >still that should mean that we have 39% fewer smog days.

  No. It’s not as if specific smog days are caused by single sources. What it should mean (if 39% is correct and if burning wood is completely eliminated as a source) is that the amount of pollutants (or more likely, whatever particular pollutant the 39% figure was based on) should be 39% lower when there are temperature inversions. That could result in no smog days or just as many smog days as before depending on what air quality reading we get at 61% of previous emissions and on where the line is drawn to say when air quality gets this poor, we call it a smog day.