Montreal City Weblog

Kate 13:11 on 2020-01-31 Permalink Reply  

• Blork 14:56 on 2020-01-31 Permalink

  I couldn’t see the other side of the river from the 132 in Longueuil this morning. Most of it was “sea smoke” but there was a thick layer of orange haze on top.

• Ian 15:12 on 2020-01-31 Permalink

  Man people must really have been using their fireplaces a lot, eh.

• Chris 18:03 on 2020-01-31 Permalink

  Ah, Ian, ever dependable!

  Did you bother to read the articles?

  “”In Quebec, wood heating is the main source of fine particles that contribute to smog during winter,” Environment Canada said.”

• Ian 18:39 on 2020-01-31 Permalink

  Oh my.
  I know that typing on the internet doesn’t communicate tone, but I had imagined that I was referring specifically to that line would have been obvious to even the most obtuse reader. Apparently I was mistaken.

• JaneyB 23:01 on 2020-01-31 Permalink

  Oh, that’s what it is! I kept thinking: Spring dust already or is it my eyes? Of course, the legacy of the Ice Storm.

• Tim 01:07 on 2020-02-01 Permalink

  I call BS on Environment Canada. How many people are still using wood burning stoves when the power is not out? They need to provide a date for this data. They could be referencing data from 15 years ago.

• Kate 09:23 on 2020-02-01 Permalink

  I agree it seems unlikely that the trend for wood stoves (or even a few places cooking bagels or pizzas with wood fires) is dominant enough in our era to cause the kind of urban smog problem we’ve had now for more than 24 hours. Something else is up, but either the authorities don’t know what it is, or don’t want to cop to it.

• Ian 11:12 on 2020-02-01 Permalink

  Weeell see here’s the crazy thing – smog is just fog with whatever pollution happens to be around. Even if nobody lived here at all, we would still get atmospheric inversions because of a bunch of geographic factors.

  Whether it’s wood smoke or vehicle exhaust or whatever, all pollution is going to get trapped just as often and for as long, regardless. My gripe is the article blaming fireplaces for smog (legacy of the ice storm? 24 years ago?) when realistically the pollution doesn’t cause atmospheric inversions. Toronto gets nasty sooty smog that smells like fish, it’s not because there are a lot of fireplaces there.

• Chris 22:56 on 2020-02-01 Permalink

  >My gripe is the article blaming fireplaces for smog

  But it doesn’t, not exclusively. It says: “the main emissions causing the smog come from transportation and wood-burning”. Or do you mean your gripe is that wood-burning is ascribed any portion of the blame at all?

  According to the City, wood burning *was* a close second (39%) of PM2.5 particle emissions. Hopefully that’s lower now, thanks to the new regulations. We need more time have enough data to know.

  >when realistically the pollution doesn’t cause atmospheric inversions

  Did anyone claim it did?

• Ian 12:19 on 2020-02-02 Permalink

  Chris, I know you’re scrambling to regain credibility, but I thought we already agreed that I was referring to that one specific line at the end of the CBC article that you accused me of not reading.

• CE 15:00 on 2020-02-02 Permalink

  Are wood burning furnaces still allowed off island?

• Chris 15:27 on 2020-02-02 Permalink

  CE, they sure are! There are regulations about minimum standards for wood burning appliances, but Montreal is the only place mentioned by this Quebec government page with any ban.

• Ian 17:07 on 2020-02-02 Permalink

  Even some places on-island – some of the demerged cities and towns don’t have a full wood-burning stove & fireplace ban. Pointe Claire grandfathered in old fireplaces and wood stoves, Kirkland allows wood burning stoves and fireplaces as long as they aren’t the primary heating system, Westmount has no ban at all as far I know… not all the demerged towns and cities, though – Hampstead banned wood stoves & fireplaces even before Montreal did.