 |
| Tony Ramos - Publisher |
 |
| Carol Daus - Editor |
'As residets of California, we are accustomed to state politicians’ attempts to enact laws and regulations to maintain our state’s reputation as the most environment- and health-conscious state in the union. Some of these rulings are sound, such as the state’s 1994 ban on cigarette smoking in workplaces and the 1998 ban on smoking in restaurants and bars (which most states and many other countries have since adopted).
Others are questionable. The latest of these is the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 445 on Wood-burning Devices. Beginning in March 2009, only fireplaces fueled by gas may be installed in new residential or commercial buildings. Further, starting in 2013, fines as high as $500 will be imposed on homeowners who burn wood in fireplaces on high-pollution days during the winter months (about 20 days, in a typical year). Other air-quality–management districts in California are considering similar bans.
We question the rationale for such drastic measures. From a health standpoint, is fireplace smoke really as harmful as exhaust from automobiles? Regulators have stated that 106 tons of fine-particulate pollution (from all sources) are pumped into the Los Angeles basin per day, yet the fine-particulate pollution from fireplaces represents only a small percentage of this amount, and these emissions are limited primarily to the winter wood-burning season.
On May 1, 2008, the American Lung Association released an interesting report stating that during the past 10 years, year-round particulate pollution in Los Angeles decreased by nearly one-third—and this was without a mandatory ban on wood-burning fireplaces.
In addition to the concern about inhalable fine particulates (which regulations such as Rule 445 address), a growing number of environmentalists have argued that fireplaces contribute to overall climate change. Has this been scientifically proven? We understand that fires release carbon dioxide, methane and particulates into the air, but can they be directly linked to the dwindling polar-bear population? The next thing you know, fireplaces will be blamed for rising autism rates.
Further, it has been proven that the total carbon dioxide and particulates emitted from fireplaces don’t even come close to the amount of greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and trucks, coal-fired electric plants, and landfills (which are the largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions).
Even though it’s impossible to determine exactly how much fireplaces and stoves contribute to global warming and potential health problems, one fact remains undisputed: hearth manufacturers have developed numerous products that are clean burning and environmentally friendly. Products that are cleaner and more efficient than earlier generations of hearth products are now available in a wide variety, from low-emission wood-burning fireplaces and pellet stoves to gas inserts and electric fireplaces.
Manufacturers such as Hearth & Home Technologies, Harman Stove Company, Lennox Hearth Products, Napoleon Fireplaces and Travis Industries have been leaders in developing eco-friendly hearth products that offer high aesthetic value, as well as warmth. Many smaller hearth companies have also made huge strides in this area.
Leslie Wheeler, director of communications for the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, says, “As we move forward, we will continue to see even more options available for consumers seeking fuel-efficient and clean-burning hearth products.” She cites ICC–RSF’s Vesta Award-winning Renaissance Rumford 1000, which has been lauded for its clean-burning features. Independent certification testing demonstrated that the Renaissance’s emissions are 68% less than those of a typical fireplace when its door is open and 88% less when its door is closed.
Third parties are also helping to identify environmentally friendly hearth products, which will help consumers in selecting clean-burning models. For example, both the National Green Building Standard™ of the National Association of Home Builders and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes Green Rating System of the U.S. Green Building Council have already identified direct-vent fireplaces, EPA-certified wood-burning products and pellet stoves as green hearth products.
The HPBA is also currently planning to hire a third-party expert to identify, formally, products that are environmentally friendly. According to Robert Dischner, vice president of sales and marketing for Lennox Hearth Products, these guidelines will be extremely helpful to consumers. “We’re getting inquiries from our customers about wanting to buy eco-friendly products, but it’s hard for them to know which ones comply with the requirements spelled out by these third parties,” he says.
In spite of all these new green hearth products, regulation is not going to go away—not only in California, but in other states that usually end up taking cues from our progressive lawmakers. As this occurs, we have to wonder if the real issue here isn’t global warming or health, but is, instead, control. Unfortunately, such stringent bans affect people’s lives, particularly those who are dependent on wood to keep their homes warm at a fraction of the cost of electricity or fossil fuels. Further, for many people, a fire crackling in the fireplace is something that they don’t want to lose, since it promotes relaxation and family togetherness.
We recognize that there are many new eco-friendly products that can offer the same aesthetics and warmth as traditional wood-burning fireplaces. We’re just concerned that California regulators are imposing bans without considering other viable alternatives, such as tax credits for consumers who purchase green hearth products or voluntary bans that would encourage homeowners not to use their fireplaces when air quality is poor. Outlawing such a well-cherished icon as the hearth seems somewhat draconian when our society faces so many other pollution issues.
PHPR May/June 2008 |
