Notes on the Greenwashing of Oxford County

100% Renewable Energy Plan (draft)
Future Oxford Sustainability Plan

Oxford County's draft 100% Renewable Energy Plan was on the wrong track before it left the station.

The first problem: "renewable" does not necessarily mean "clean", "green", "low carbon", "safe", or "good for the planet".

Yes, "definitive action to address climate change is absolutely necessary" (Preface).
Yes, "the reduction of carbon emissions is arguably at the top of the list"  (1.4.3)
Yes, "If we are to reduce carbon emissions and avoid the continued acceleration of global warming resulting from copious carbon emissions, we need to stop burning fossil fuels..." (1.4.3)
...but NO, it's not "as simple as that", as the previous statement concludes.

We also need to stop burning wood, and everything else that falls under the category "biomass".  
Biomass is not a fossil fuel; it's the MOTHER OF THEM ALL.

Although wood fuel is sometimes labelled "renewable" (a replacement of the tree you burn today may grow back in a few decades), the emissions from its combustion are greater than those of any fossil fuel, including coal.
This inconvenient fact is either unknown to the writers of the report, ignored, or suppressed for other reasons.
The true renewables (solar, wind, water, geothermal) do not pump carbon, other greenhouse gases, or particulate matter into the atmosphere.  Combustion of  biomass does.

A credible action plan for carbon reduction in Oxford County (a worthier goal than 100% renewable energy) would address all the wood and biomass burning that is occurring now, with measurements and targets for reduction.
Current sources of combustion include:
- thousands of wood stoves used to heat homes and other buildings
- outdoor furnaces/wood boilers
- thousands of fireplaces and fire pits where wood is burned recreationally
- agricultural and "brush" burning
- commercial burning (e.g. wood-fired ovens in restaurants)

But the the "100% Renewable" plan appears to be concealing a different agenda under a thin layer of green camouflage: that of attracting dubious waste processing facilities to Oxford County.

Even more revealing are the linkages between the "100% Renewable Energy Plan" and its companion document "Future Oxford Community Sustainability Plan" (4.2).
Three areas of the ironically titled "Environment Oxford" subcommittee are discussed (4.2.1):

• Reforest Oxford: [why are we concerned with reforestation, unless deforestation is planned?  oh, yes, "biomass solid fuel is an untapped resource for future growth" (1.1.3)]

• Zero Waste Oxford: we are offered a teaser concerning "significant synergies" between the two plans, but the Future Oxford Sustainability Plan gives all away in its Goal 3iC, Action 61:  "Actively investigate the potential for waste to energy projects that support renewable energy principles and targets".  Waste to energy projects.  Take this to mean, "Toronto, send us your garbage, and we will burn it for you".

• Smart Energy Oxford:  probably the smart people who will come to make money by building an assortment of greenwashed projects.

The report reaches the height of hypocrisy when we are told to expect cleaner air and lower health costs (1.4.5); this coming from a jurisdiction where wood smoke abounds, and open air burning is legal in even the most densely populated areas.  The County's own Health Unit has posted warnings about wood smoke (ignored by local politicians),  and the short and long term health effects of exposure to wood smoke are well documented in scientific literature.  There is not a word in the report about monitoring or reducing emissions.
We don't even have any current or historical Air Quality Health Index data, as the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change doesn't have a single monitoring station in Oxford County.
The Future Oxford plan has a goal of protecting water (3iD), but nothing comparable for the air.

On the claim that biofuel is considered carbon neutral (8.1.4):  this bit of nonsense is regularly quoted by the wood-burning industry.  They presume that all of us have forgotten the "food chain" lesson from science class.
When biomass (e.g. a piece of dead wood) decays naturally, a significant percentage of its carbon is sequestered in other life forms:  the grubs and fungi that you can see, and the billions of bacteria that you can't.  If that piece of dead wood is burned instead, ALL the carbon is released to the atmosphere, plus an assortment of greenhouse gases, as well as lung-clogging fine particulate matter.

Earth to Oxford County Council:
You may be able to con the residents of Oxford.
You may be able to con yourselves.
But you will never be able to con the planet.

References from the report:
- "wood" and "biomass" both listed as Renewables (Chapter 1, Background), and as Targets (2.1)
- biomass solid fuel listed as an untapped resource for future growth (1.1.3)
- hope to attract energy production and service companies, new jobs (1.4.1)
- the inaccurate statement that biofuel is considered "carbon neutral" (8.1.4)
- the shockingly revealing statement: "Every time you enjoy a campfire, you are using biofuel"
(8.1.4)
- expect cleaner air and lower health care costs (1.4.5)

This plan deserves to be (well, not burned) shredded and composted.

Smog? In Woodstock, it's public policy.

With wry amusement I read the "Green Tips" column by the Woodstock Environmental Advisory Committee in the July issue of What's on Woodstock (p.12), entitled "Every breath you take".
To be fair, the concerns expressed about smog, its environmental and health effects, and the suggested tips, are all valid.
Conspicuous by its absence, however, is any mention of one of our greatest seasonal pollutants: WOOD SMOKE, which is all too often in evidence on calm summer evenings.
Is it not hypocritical of Woodstock to encourage me to avoid volatile organic compounds, while forcing me to inhale the same substances from nearby fire pits?

When the current Open Air Burning Bylaw was passed in 2013, the Fire Department reported that 1,282 burn permits had been issued; that worked out to about one toxic backyard incinerator for every 30 residents of Woodstock.  The northwest corner of the city, near Cowan Park, is peppered with them:  fire pits, chimineas, and (for those with a serious commitment to burning) large outdoor masonry fireplaces (gasp).
To put this situation in context:  it's illegal in Ontario to light a cigarette within 20 metres of playground equipment or a public sports field.  But properties near Cowan Park can light backyard fires, and blanket the soccer fields with wood smoke, thus exposing young athletes and their family members to lung-clogging fine particulate matter and an assortment of toxic substances.

Open air backyard burning is illegal in many cities, including Guelph, Waterloo, Hamilton, and Toronto.
Shouldn't our elected officials be protecting air quality and our health, rather than enabling wood smoke pollution?

Those of us who value clean air can only attempt to light a (metaphorical!) fire under Woodstock Council.

Excerpts from Oxford County's website, on Open-air burning:
"Burning wood will release various pollutants into the air that may be harmful to us and the environment, including particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapour. Wood smoke may also contain cancer-causing substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzene formaldehyde."

"Some of the substances found in smoke from open-air burning are so small that our noses and upper respiratory systems are not able to filter them out. As a result, they may end up settling deep within our lungs, potentially damaging cells that protect our airways. 

Breathing in wood smoke is associated with an increase in respiratory irritations and symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, asthma attacks and shortness of breath. Exposure to wood smoke may also decrease lung function and is associated with an increased number of visits to emergency departments and hospitalizations." 

The above text was published as a UR Opinion piece on the Sentinel Review's website on July 26, 2016.

Reply to Connie Lauder, part 2

Hello again, Councillor Lauder
If I may comment on Chris' list of cities that permit open air burning:
Cambridge and Ottawa do not permit burning in ordinary back yards.
In Cambridge, the fire MUST be 150 meters (492 ft.) from any building.
In Ottawa, fires are permitted in "mostly rural areas".
Also, in Burlington, one can complain if the smoke is a "nuisance" or if "the smell of smoke is entering your home".

I have links to their websites on the blog www.cleanairforwoodstock.blogspot.ca.
Thanks again for your attention to this.

Reply to Connie Lauder

Hello Councillor Lauder
Thank you for your reply to my concerns.

I am not asking you, or city staff, to waste time in analyzing other municipalities' motivations for allowing or not allowing open air burning.

I am asking you to apply your intellect to the issue.

There are TWO public safety concerns related to open air burning:  1) fire safety; 2) air quality.  The former has been apparent to mankind since fire first was tamed; the latter has become apparent only in recent years, but is now well documented.

Oxford County Public Health lists the pollutants produced when wood is burned, and some of the health effects, followed by the recommendation: Do not burn wood:
www.oxfordcounty.ca/Healthy-places/Air-Quality/Open-air-burning

The Lung Association has posted an expert opinion on residential wood burning:
www.lung.ca/news/expert-opinions/pollution/residential-wood-burning

The Government of Ontario informs us about fine particulate matter:
www.airqualityontario.com/science/pollutants/particulates.php

and provides us with the Air Quality Health Index:
www.airqualityontario.com/aqhi/

The Government of Canada tells us to avoid wood smoke:
healthycanadians.gc.ca/healthy-living-vie-saine/environment-environnement/air/contaminants/wood-smoke-fumee-bois-eng.php

The Public Health Agency of Canada warns those with chronic respiratory diseases:
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/crd-mrc/index-eng.php

Ultimately there is one question: is it safe to breathe wood smoke?
The answer is a resounding NO.

It's just like second-hand tobacco smoke.  Our society protects us from smokers in stores, workplaces, airplanes, trains, buses, restaurants, bars (even on patios!), but it is legal here in Woodstock for my neighbours to light a fire and fill my home (MY NON-SMOKING HOME!) with smoke.

To conclude: rather than researching other cities' bylaws, perhaps staff could attempt to find some reputable sources that would assure us that it is safe for all residents (including newborns, active toddlers, seniors with heart problems, and those of any age who suffer from COPD, asthma, or allergies) to be inhaling wood smoke?
If such sources can't be found, we should not be burning wood in backyards.

Thank you for your attention to this.

A message from the Government of Canada (e-mail to Council, July 3, 2016)

It's another smoky night in my neighbourhood, with multiple fire pits burning.  Ditto last night.

Could you spare a moment to read what your federal government has to say about wood smoke?

http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/healthy-living-vie-saine/environment-environnement/air/contaminants/wood-smoke-fumee-bois-eng.php

"Avoid wood smoke

The main pollutants in wood smoke that cause health concerns are:

• Particulate matter - This is the term for solid or liquid particles found in the air, which help create smog. They can be very small and can travel deep into your lungs, causing breathing and heart problems.
• Carbon monoxide (CO) - This is a colourless, odourless gas that is poisonous at high levels. It can make you feel sick and even kill you.
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - These are a wide range of compounds that usually have no colour, taste or smell. Some cause direct health effects, while others contribute to smog.
• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - These compounds are a health concern because they can cause cancer."

Do you have no concern for the poisoning of the local air, due to the Open Air Burning Bylaw?

As always, I would appreciate a reply acknowledging that you have read this.   

Replies:
Sandra Talbot, Shawn Shapton, Jerry Acchione, Connie Lauder

How bad will our air be tonight? (E-mail to Councillors sent June 25)

Today the Air Quality Health Index forecasts  a "moderate risk" reading of 4 all around Woodstock: London, Brantford, Kitchener, and Guelph.  See it at:
www.airqualityontario.com
How many homes in Woodstock will light their fire pits this evening...dozens? hundreds?
How bad will our local air be?
Given that wood smoke pollutes the air the length of a couple of football fields around each fire, how many vulnerable people will be exposed to dangerous levels of pollutants?
How many infants?
How many kids with asthma?
How many seniors with heart conditions?
How many people with COPD?
These are some of the most vulnerable populations, but of course wood smoke, like second-hand tobacco smoke, is bad for everyone.
What credibility does Woodstock have on ANY health or environmental issue, when you allow open air burning?
As always, I would appreciate an acknowledgement that you have read this.
Thanks for your attention.

REPLIES: Jerry Acchione, Sandra Talbot

E-mail to Woodstock Councillors, sent Friday June 24, 2016

I hope that you have read my latest UR opinion piece on the Sentinel Review's website (Too bad about Clean Air Day), and that you took time to consider the excerpts from the UPHE.

You are probably aware that there was a Special Air Quality Statement issued for much of southern Ontario including Oxford County on Sunday June 19.  I trust that you are familiar with www.airqualityontario.com.

I have two questions for you today:

1) When our background air pollution is typically in the 3-5 range on the AQHI, to what level might the index rise near a burning fire pit?

2) Officials are held accountable when local water supplies are poisoned (e.g. Walkerton, Flint  Michigan).  Why is poisoning of the air different?
(Remember that most open air burning is prohibited under the Ontario Fire Code, and that fire pits are legal in Woodstock only because the previous Council passed a by-law in 2013.)

As always, I would be pleased to hear back from you.

I hope that you enjoy your weekend, and that you have clean air to breathe.

NO REPLIES RECEIVED.