|
 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. |
|
