That campfire smell is particulate pollution caused by climate change. You’re breathing the car industry, the fossil fuel industry, the cement kilns, the gas companies, and Doug Ford.
I believe the consensus is that much of the problem is not the simple explanation (CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) but more of "are we managing the forests, especially the forest floor, correctly".
For some tree species, fires are a necessary tool for propagation (e.g., letting seed out of cones). Just letting diseased trees and detritus build up on the forest floor (i.e., keep it wild and pristine!) only adds fuel to a forest fire no matter it is lit by careless campers, arsonists, or by lightning.
It's one reason why privately owned lands suffer less than government ones - the owners do the maintenance to keep their forests healthy to avoid the loss of that property that could have gone to a value-added purpose (building supplies, furniture, and the like) instead of only creating smoke.
How much of Canada's forests, Lloyd, are collectively owned through the Government? By not taking care of that collective resource, isn't Government, then, at fault?
I'm not aware of any requirements for Passive House certification that addresses the CO2 (or equivalent) generated by the materials used in construction of a building, as opposed to the ongoing operations.
For example, a passive house built near me several years ago needed a foot of virgin petroleum based foam under the slab to meet the certification requirements.
PH is a very worthwhile concept. But does the additional expense involved in meeting certification requirements produce a measurable climate benefit?
I believe the consensus is that much of the problem is not the simple explanation (CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) but more of "are we managing the forests, especially the forest floor, correctly".
For some tree species, fires are a necessary tool for propagation (e.g., letting seed out of cones). Just letting diseased trees and detritus build up on the forest floor (i.e., keep it wild and pristine!) only adds fuel to a forest fire no matter it is lit by careless campers, arsonists, or by lightning.
It's one reason why privately owned lands suffer less than government ones - the owners do the maintenance to keep their forests healthy to avoid the loss of that property that could have gone to a value-added purpose (building supplies, furniture, and the like) instead of only creating smoke.
How much of Canada's forests, Lloyd, are collectively owned through the Government? By not taking care of that collective resource, isn't Government, then, at fault?
Thanks, Lloyd. Smelling the smoke on Cape Cod. We need more people like you
to spread the news. Toronto needs to kick that fool to the curb.
I'm not aware of any requirements for Passive House certification that addresses the CO2 (or equivalent) generated by the materials used in construction of a building, as opposed to the ongoing operations.
For example, a passive house built near me several years ago needed a foot of virgin petroleum based foam under the slab to meet the certification requirements.
PH is a very worthwhile concept. But does the additional expense involved in meeting certification requirements produce a measurable climate benefit?
Great article Lloyd. About to listen to your interview in the demand reduction zero ambitions podcast.