Too many people burning wood in Dulwich - Southwark needs to enforce Clean Air Act

[Abe_froeman]

It's particularly valid to compare the two when they produce the same pollutants but only one of them is being punished by taxation

[pinkladybird]

'What I don?t quite understand is how the OP?s house is smelling of smoke. Presumably she has a flat in a house and people using the communal entrance would allow smoke into the hallway etc but for it to permeate all the flats appears to be extraordinary unless her windows need attention.'

Keano77 - I don't think you've thought this though. How do you think houses have air in them! Would you suffocate if nooone opened a door and you had breathed on all the oxygen?

Smoke particles - which include particulates - black carbon and polycyclic aromatic compounds are around 1/1000 of a mm. Imagine that there were 500 people lined up - at 3 people a metre that would be 166m - that is the space a particulate would experience in just a 0.5mm crack. Thousands would float in no problem.

And ALL houses have far more than a 0.5mm crack. I have double glazing. Double glazed windows have ventilation grills! They have to. All houses have to have air flow or you will get damp. They have air bricks for example. This is why particulate levels in houses with all the windows closed are 75-80% that of outside.

'The smoke from neighbouring chimneys enters houses through windows, systems of ventilation and fine cracks in the outer walls. In the night people can not air the bedrooms without getting the rooms filled with wood smoke.' http://www.forskningsdatabasen.dk/en/catalog/2389107281

[keano77]

You?re correct pinkladybird. Houses are not hermetically sealed. I don?t really know what to say except that we must all be doomed. There must be at least 30 vehicles a minute running up and down Lordship Lane between 8am and 10 pm and fumes from thousands of central heating boilers, gas fires and cookers 24-hours a day during the winter entering people?s homes although I don?t notice the smells.

I suspect there isn?t a corner of the world where people don?t light real fires, from the Amazon to the Himalayas, it?s what makes us human.

[Frenchy]

Football / lemon an exaggeration for effect, not a statement of fact. Apologies if it seemed glib.

It's not really a case of variables, it's a case of The Whole Picture. Particulate data is not The Whole Picture. To simply cite output particulate data i.e. what comes out at the end, without any reference to what goes into it at the beginning, how it gets there, what happens in the chain along the way (from SE22 to the wider world), the alternatives and their consequences, as well as the actual real world impact (apart from on Christmas Day) - is a little un-nuanced. Of course, if your house smells of someone else's smoke of course, nuance is of no comfort - I appreciate that.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say - I don't think a lot of people will. Chimneys should not emit dark smoke, agree. Open fires are illegal in London, true. The legislation should be enforced, agree. But I don't believe the natural conclusion is 'too many people burning wood'.

Totally admit that we (like everyone else) do it because 'we like it'; but if I did want to present a soap-boxy argument: why dismiss one of the few carbon-neutral, renewable fuels on the planet; one that - quite literally - grows on trees, just because current legislation is laughably unenforced and the current technology is at present, more primitive than it could be? Enforce the legislation, improve the technology.

We?re an out of sight, out of mind race though. Whack the central heating on for the whole of a poorly-insulated house for a whole day (despite only sitting in one room watching the telly) and let the associated CO2, NOx, etc spill out in someone else?s backyard / country at point of production.

Abe: wood fuel is taxed in the same way as every other fuel if you buy it from a reputable supplier, which of course you should.

[Sue]

pinkladybird Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the specific incident described takes place

> near North Cross road.

I also live near North Cross Road and I wonder if we experienced the same incident.

I was sitting in my living room last night and became aware of a terrible smell of burning. Having gone all over my house and (thankfully) found nothing amiss, I opened my front door and it was clear the very intense smell was coming from somewhere nearby.

A passerby was coincidentally also trying to identify the source of the smoke, as he (and then I) was worried a house might be on fire. Neither of us could see smoke coming from a chimney in the road, but we could see smoke drifting over the rooftops.

Having waited a while and wondered whether to knock on doors (in case of an undetected fire) we decided that it must be from an open fire somewhere nearby rather than a house on fire.

Legality aside, it does seem very anti-social to continue to burn fuel producing so much smoke and smell, particularly once you have been told your neighbours have lung problems (and what must it be doing to young children's lungs, too?)

I have asthma, and have encountered the same sort of response when asking drivers to turn off their engines outside my house instead of just sitting there with the engine running. The only reason I knew they were doing it was the fumes coming into my living room.

ETA: The smell I smelled last night in the street was not like woodsmoke, however. I like the smell of woodsmoke. It was more like coal smoke.

[Abe_froeman]

You can see how bad the pollution on Lordship Lane is here:

https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp

You can also see a couple of hotspots on North Cross Rd....

[bobbsy]

I don't think it is as simple as comparing PM2.5 emissions between a stove and cars.

The key comparison to me, is what source of energy the wood burning stove is displacing. The previously posted link makes this point: The net benefits or dis-benefits from using biomass as a fuel depend on what fuel it replaces.

If, in winter, the wood burning stove is substituting for an electric heater, it is likely displacing power derived from a coal fired power station - which in winter is the marginal power source. As such it is likely no better or worse. If it substitutes for gas powered central heating, it is likely producing higher PM2.5 emissions. If it is replacing an open fire, it is likely producing less PM2.5 emissions.

[James Barber]

I've asked GLA Aseembly Member Caroline Pidgeon to find out what thE London Mayor can do to help fight this aspect of air pollution.

This is the response she organised from her office:

"

James,

I think there is a bit of uncertainty as to the provisions of the 1956 Act in relation to wood stoves ? and we should not forget that the main purpose of the Act was to tackle very different forms of air pollution that plagued London at the time.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/52/enacted

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1956/52/pdfs/ukpga_19560052_en.pdf

There is in fact widespread support for new and updated clean air legislation ? see this recommendation from the House of Commons Environment Audit Committee.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2017/joint-improving-air-quality-report-publication-17-19/

Sadiq Khan to be fair has also backed the need for such legislation quite some time:

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-unveils-action-plan-to-battle-toxic-air

Of course wood burning stoves are a serious cause of air pollution (and it is a growing problem) ? this is an excellent report from Tom Edwards of the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38746482

However, whether London Boroughs have real legal powers to take effective enforcement action against many of them at present is not absolutely clear, and the call for extra powers is quite obvious from the Mayor?s reply to a question Caroline has already asked:

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/0354

I thought this reply to another Mayoral Question might also be of interest:

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2014/1351

I will liaise with the Southwark and also with London Councils on this.

"

[Earl Aelfheah]

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think it is as simple as comparing PM2.5

> emissions between a stove and cars.

>

> The key comparison to me, is what source of energy

> the wood burning stove is displacing. The

> previously posted link makes this point: The net

> benefits or dis-benefits from using biomass as a

> fuel depend on what fuel it replaces.

>

> If, in winter, the wood burning stove is

> substituting for an electric heater, it is likely

> displacing power derived from a coal fired power

> station - which in winter is the marginal power

> source. As such it is likely no better or worse.

> If it substitutes for gas powered central heating,

> it is likely producing higher PM2.5 emissions. If

> it is replacing an open fire, it is likely

> producing less PM2.5 emissions.

I think this is more to do with overall impact in terms of greenhouse gasses, rather than local particulates pollution. It's the latter that the OP was raising as a concern as I understand it.

[goldilocks]

>

> I think this is more to do with overall impact in

> terms of greenhouse gasses, rather than local

> particulates pollution. It's the latter that the

> OP was raising as a concern as I understand it.

Agreed - whilst it may be possible to make an argument re using woodburners from a greenhouse gas perspective, The concentration of particulate matter in the air generated by woodburners in cities and dense housing areas is proven to be one of the key contributing factors.

Whilst in rural areas the arguments re biomass fuel may hold true, the proliferation of wood burners is a genuine problem for places like Dulwich and thus the argument that its 'no better or worse' than central heating isn't entriely true. Its the basis on which burners are sold, and all the marketing states this but in reality its creating a health issue now which is worse for those with existing respiratory problems, but not unique to this group!

Its a bit like the diesel car issue all over again - people being encouraged to buy something to cut down on CO2 emmissions, which then turn out to create an even bigger problem.

[Abe_froeman]

PM2.5 emissions cause defective lung and brain development in young children growing up in the places those particulates are emmitted as well as contributing to lung cancer and heart disease in all people.

The damage done to children in East Dulwich is caused by burning wood in East Dulwich.

There are no coal fired power stations causing particulate emissions in all of London so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

[pinkladybird]

Frenchy and bobbsy - There appear to be 2 issues here,CO2 emissions and particulate localised emissions. Of course they both need taking into account.

Wood burning doesn't stand up to either.

1. CO2 - Wood burning was advertised as being 'green'and carbon neutral.Stove companies propogated this with vigour and still do. It's now thought that although technically renewable it is NOT carbon neutral. That is taking into account life cycle, chain etc... 200 scientist wrote to the EU to change policy ?bioenergy [from forest biomass] is not carbon-neutral? this was for drax wood pellets, but applies to all wood burning. No space for details but check out: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-impacts-global-climate

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-says-biomass-is-carbon-neutral-but-scientists-disagree/

Comparison - Gas vs Wood - 'biomass generated around 18TWh of renewable energy in the UK between April and June this year, second only to onshore wind as a renewable energy source, which delivered around 23TWh. However, the NRDC argues recent science, including from the former Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), shows many forms of biomass, and in particular feedstock from forest wood, results in higher carbon emissions than even coal and natural gas.'

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2474217/is-biomass-really-more-polluting-than-coal - looks like gas is be emerging as somewhat better.

Comparison Electricity vs Wood - Wood would win here.

Localised Emissions - You can't just look at CO2 emissions - Local ones are incredibly important. Especially in a city!

At the point of use, gas is the cleanest fuel we have. Negligible particulates -the most toxic form of pollution.

N2 (nox formed after emission) - Both wood and gas. Not sure which produces more.

Wood contains particulates AND PAHs - the same toxic compounds in cigarettes. When you burn biomatter whether tobacco or wood you get similar stuff. Wood smoke has effects that are IN ADDTION to those from particulates (PM). I.e more potent lung cancer risk and alzheimers risk. On top of that from car fumes.

Lets pretend that wood burning is co2 neutral. That does not change anything. I object for my health to be sacrificed, and that of hundreds of people for miles around, suffering increased risk of so many diseases just so a few people can make crazily insignificant reductions to their CO2 impact. I'm afraid the logic is just not there.

British Medical Journal:

woodsmoke causes '..increased exposure of just 1 ug/m3 PM2.5 increases the risk of Alzheimer's by 15%..'

https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k167/rr-3

They go on to list loads more depressing statistics... 1ug/m3 is really not much.

[pinkladybird]

I addition to my last post - should just add that using seasonal and time related data Kings college pollution researchers concluded that wood burning is for aesthetic reasons! I've seen people have central heating AND a burner.

And note that just 4% of London households burning wood legally or illegally produce 23 -31% of particulate emissions in London (not sure if annual or winter).

I don't blame anyone who has bought a wood burner - they are not to know. The Stove companies advertising is like the wild west - such blatent distortions I don't know how they get away with it.

The info that people should know - the science - is hidden away in dusty 'papers' that noone sees. Stove companies are doing all the education here.

[pinkladybird]

James Barber - That is really useful info. Thanks.

[Sally Eva]

HMG has put out a "strategy" to tackle wood-burning stoves amongst other sources of pollution. Not clear if it's a green paper or a white paper or a discussion document

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46823440

[Fabhat]

There is a piece about it on you and yours today on R4

[ianr]

Sally Eva Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> HMG has put out a "strategy" to tackle

> wood-burning stoves amongst other sources of

> pollution. Not clear if it's a green paper or a

> white paper or a discussion document

There's already been an initial consultation. This is the resulting white paper / policy document, "Clean Air Strategy 2019". Links to both at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/air-quality-draft-clean-air-strategy-2018. Official announcement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-world-leading-plan-to-tackle-air-pollution. It covers most types of air pollution.

Dr Gary Fuller of KCL Environmental Research Group, was interviewed on BBC R4 PM programme today. From which:

"There's a calculation that's been done that says, if you take one of the most modern wood-burning stoves,

it's equivalent to driving about six of the most modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your road."He also reckoned that there are about two million wood-burning households, half of which use open fires, and that the best stoves produce about one fifth the pollution of an open fire.

[goldilocks]

Its clear theres a problem, and its also clear that people will be unlikely to voluntarily give up their woodburners - mainly because the mainstay of public opinion is that 'wood burners are a clean, efficient means of heating homes' as a result of the sales pitch from the manufacturers.

In terms of what to do - whilst there's a longer term education process about just how dangerous producing particulate matter in densely populated areas really is, is there anything that can be done to reduce the impact of such burners until such time that the legislation catches up with the need?

Does anyone know whether there are particular types of wood that could be used to lessen the impact of wood burning?

[Sue]

I'm pretty sure that the pollution referred to by the OP was nothing to do with a woodburner.

It was the same again on early Sunday evening when we went out - horrible choking fumes from somewhere in the North Cross Road area, spreading all down the adjacent roads.

It wasn't woodsmoke, and as before it smelled like some sort of coal - or other non-smokeless fuel - being burned on an open fire.

At least we were going out, so didn't have to sit in my living room breathing it in.

[Huggers]

what about firepits? produce loads of unfiltered smoke

[Nigello]

I'll say it again -- try miscanthus. https://www.terravesta.com (I have no connection to this firm about from having bought its products and liked them.)

[ed_pete]

ianr Wrote:

> Dr Gary Fuller of KCL Environmental Research

> Group, was interviewed on BBC R4 PM programme

> today. From which:

>

> "There's a calculation that's been done that says,

> if you take one of the most modern wood-burning

> stoves,

> it's equivalent to driving about six of the most

> modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your

> road."

Interesting that one of pro-CPZ lobby justifications is the basis it'll reduce pollution. I wonder how many own wood burning stoves ?. Accepted that they aren't used all year round though. It'd be interesting to know whether monitoring can tell the source of the particulates.

[pinkladybird]

Sally Eva Fabhat Thanks for the links

So not much will be done about wood burning except for 2022 stove legislation banning all but the cleanest (Ecodesign) stoves, which is not a government initiative despite Defra presenting it as such. It is EU legislation, which we will have to adopt as stove manufacturers are not going to make stoves just for the UK.

But these 'clean-er' Ecodesign stoves are not new and have been sold in some EU countries for years and have not solved emission problems. The 'er' is very important. These are not clean stoves.

As ianr pointed out they are

'...equivalent to driving about six of the most

> modern heavy goods vehicles up and down your

> road."

I don't think there is any justification for wood stoves in cities - especially London where we have gas. New York has had a ban since 2014 and had cleaner air than us to start with.

[pinkladybird]

Sue- the pollution that I was complaining about is an open fire but is woodsmoke - can smell the wood. It is from a house on Crystal Palace road a few houses before the junction of North Cross road. I think there is another house actually on North Cross road that burns too. There are quite a few houses that do it and so hard to tell where it comes from. Horrid burning smell in my garden this eve that didn't smell of wood..

But I was also talking about wood stoves because although you can't smell them they do give off a lot of pollution as well.

[Sue]

pinkladybird Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue- the pollution that I was complaining about is

> an open fire but is woodsmoke

OK, fair enough, there must be another open fire in the same area which isn't burning wood but isn't burning smokeless fuel either.