Go freeze in the dark

humans the ability to save themselves in a crisis.

In Montreal, beginning in October 2018, no traditional fireplace or wood stove “may be used or left to be used” by any resident, according to a new city bylaw. Only rigorously certified devices — properly registered with the authorities, of course — will be permitted to exist. Similarly, Vancouver is in the midst of a public consultation regarding its own proposed ban on fireplaces and wood stoves. If approved, Vancouver residents would be required to register all woodburning devices by 2022 and, as in Montreal, traditionalstyle fireplaces and stoves would be ineligible for registration. In 2025, it would become illegal to use any unregistered wood-burning system for warmth, cooking or esthetics.

Both pending bylaws claim to make exceptions for lengthy power outages, but the broader implication of these policies is clear. They will remove from existence the vast majority of legacy fireplaces and wood stoves and, given a hefty application of red tape, strongly discourage all new installations. The Vancouver proposal actually contemplates an annual fireplace registration renewal process, like a driver’s licence.

And it’s a trend that may be spreading. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has distributed a draft bylaw that can be used by any other municipalities also looking to ban fireplaces or wood stoves.

What does all this mean? The next time a devastating winter storm hits Montreal or something similar is visited upon Vancouver, many homeowners will no longer be able to heat their own houses off grid. Where official help is unavailable or misdirected, families will thus be deprived of the ability to fend for themselves — this despite the explicit recommendation of Ottawa’s emergencypreparedness program. And keep in mind, an exemption during a power outage is of no value if your fireplace or wood stove has already been removed or rendered inoperable as required by law.

The usefulness of fireplaces in an emergency remains real, even today in big, modern cities. “My own house was without power for most of three days,” Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said in January 2014 following a dramatic ice storm in Toronto, “but we have a working fireplace and could still cook on our gas stove.” By relying on heritage technology, Wynne was able to eat and her pipes didn’t freeze. (Vancouver, by the way, is also planning to eliminate gas stoves and furnaces.)

Bans on fireplace and wood stoves are driven by concerns over global warming, and the notion that heat from wood is inefficient and dirty. While it’s true burning wood or other biomass such as plant matter can release a range of pollutants, “biomass is generally considered carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from either burning or decomposing biomass approximately equals the CO2 that trees and plants take in from the atmosphere during their lives,” says the National Energy Board’s review of various energy sources. In other words, there’s no difference between burning a tree and letting it rot on the forest floor. This is why biomass can be considered an environmentally-friendly, cost-effective and renewable energy source.

An outright ban on wood burning is the wrong policy solution. Given the proven usefulness of wood heat in emergencies, it would be better to declare “no-burn” days when air pollution is an factor, as is already the case in some North American jurisdictions, and let fireplaces and wood stoves remain as a necessary backup in big cities.

Canadians shouldn’t be denied the right to help themselves in an emergency. Or, for that matter, the right to a pleasant source of warmth and ambience at Christmas — or any other time they feel like it.