"The issue: Many communities are trying to do their part to reduce the level of black carbon pollution in the air. It is difficult for a small city or town to restrict driving or to impose pollution regulations on trucks and automobiles. However, another source of soot is from the burning of wood in fireplaces and charcoal briquets in barbeques.

"Some communities have imposed a ban or sharp restriction on the recreational use of wood-burning fireplaces and barbeques. It is unclear whether these new regulations will be enforceable, nor how effective the new ordinances will be in reducing emissions. However, one could easily argue that these recreational activities are non-essential, and that anything which will help reduce soot production is worth trying."

Some basic principles might emerge from discussion:

• What is the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility?
• How does scientific information about the scale of the problem or possible harm affect an assessment of the balance (consider also second-hand smoke)?
• Does it matter that these sources are recreational, not commercial —and why?
• What is the relationship between the meaning of the pollution (its source) and its magnitude (sheer measured quantity)?
• How does this case relate to automobiles as individual point sources? What does this case add to understanding larger scale pollution?

The issue was downloaded from a more extensive case study on indoor and outdoor pollution from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory's Ethical, Legal and Social Issues Project.