 With so many positive points for the burning of wood it would be surprising to learn of a counter-argument. If you voyage over to our books section you should take a glance at the book by the Union of Concerned Scientists (ISBN 0 609 80281 X "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices - Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists" Michael Brower and Warren Leon - Random House 1999). This book details domestic wood burning as near the top of its list of environmental sins.
Apparently this point of view largely originates from across the pond in the USA and is focused upon wood-smoke as an aerial pollutant regardless of the wider issues. After reading this book we happened upon the web site (listed below) for the "Burning Issues" organisation founded by member of the Sierra Club. They too actively campaign to rid America of wood burning. Their web site lists the horrors of this heinous crime. Their concerns surround the particulate output in wood smoke and its effect upon human health. A basic examination of the facts does seem to render this point of view as vaguely preposterous. Whilst you cannot dispute the science the weight of evidence is firmly stacked in favour of wood burning as being beneficial to the environment. So, why should the US be so dead set against wood burning whilst those mild-mannered Europeans be so keen? We have yet to find the answer to this conundrum. The evidence is really clear cut. Although wood smoke is bad for your health the terrible statistics for the numbers of humans dieing originate from the use of open fires for cooking in poor third world countries. This bares no resemblance to the modern use of wood fuel in boilers and domestic heaters in the northern countries. The latest thread of argument from the anti-wood-burners is that wood burning is bad for the environment. This astonishing concept is borne of the idea that wood is better at capturing carbon if it is let to rot where it stood and release its carbon very slowly, ie, sequestration. Of course this ignores the fact that human beings then substitute the wood with fossil fuels. Hence the balance of the argument remains firmly stacked against the wood-burning doubters. The bottom line is this: you can burn wood perfectly safely to heat your house. It will not effect your health. It is carbon neutral and beneficial to everyone where it stops the extraction of fossil fuels from the bowels of the earth and its subsequent burning. However, top marks for the doubters for trying. There is every kind of argument presented over on 'burning issues' - most of which look like some nonsense dreamt up by oil men. Now - there's a thought! Apparently wood smoke could lead to solar dimming - or changes in rain patterns! Come on! Get real! At the end of the day, it may well be the only thing you have left to keep you warm. Would you rather freeze?  29th June 2010: We had an E:Mail from a lady in Essex, UK, who complained that woodsmoke is a terrible thing and that we should "try living near it" as she does. All we can say is: yes madam, we have tried living near it. Not only near it but under it. Since the Post Carbon Home is entirely wood heated and we live in a smoke control zone then we live with it on a daily basis. There is no problem what-so-ever. Now if someone chose to burn a stack of damp leaves in the garden next door that would be pollution and I wouldn't be happy about it. There is a world of difference between heating with wood and wood-smoke. Wood smoke is caused by the incomplete and inefficient burning of wood. It causes carbon particulates that damage our lungs and environments. Which is why you must NOT create wood smoke. You need efficient clean-burn technology. If you have ever seen a modern wood pellet boiler demolish a tonne of wood pellets into a handful of ash without the slightest smell of whiff of smoke you will understand what we mean. If you are aware of wood smoke then it is a pollutant and it is serving no purpose. It is a waste and it is mildly dangerous. The lady from Essex may well be surrounded by clean burn wood-burning technology. But she wouldn't know it. It only takes one person nearby to burn wood badly for it to become a problem. Then suddenly "burning wood" is the problem. This is wrong. Smoke is the problem.
|
| 
