Wood burners in the news
- Thread starter Suffolkrafter
- Start date
The problem is that many people just quote 'media science' - I can no longer be bothered arguing with people that are not prepared to analyse the numbers and take an objective view.
That doesn't just apply to wood burning stoves
That doesn't just apply to wood burning stoves
Interesting, thanks for the link.
I think that's a pretty good way of putting it. I think that's what bugs me about the slew of recent articles - George Monbiot's articles included. They seem emotive rather than factual. I'm all for being considerate of neighbours and I'm all for discusssing pollution and environmental issues. But I fear it is becoming a click bait topic.
Nothing more terrifying than reading about science that you do know something about in the media. 'Cause if they get that so wrong, just think about all the other stuff you take their word for...The problem is that many people just quote 'media science' - I can no longer be bothered arguing with people that are not prepared to analyse the numbers and take an objective view.
That doesn't just apply to wood burning stoves
Last edited:
Whenever I go kayaking and land on a random inaccessible beach, I often pick up various bits of plastic waste, fishing lines etc and take it back with me feeling like I've done something good... I don't do it for the glory from others, but I feel if I do my part then it's not a bad thing....right?
Went to Vietnam and kayaked around an island to an inaccessible (by land) beach... there was mountains of plastic waste, literal thick piles... that was not the first nor the last time I'd seen that level of desolation and destruction and pollution...
Now, I appreciate if we all do something because someone else did it, then we'll be in trouble, but frankly, the next place I live, it will either already have, or I'll install a woodburner. Even more so looking at energy prices and the huge profits that have been made....
When the cost of a product that a business purchases increases, I have no issue with the consumer price increasing, plenty of eateries have raised their prices due to increased product costs, but when you post record profits after that fact, it begs the question whether the prices ever did increase or whether we're all getting our pants pulled down.
Went to Vietnam and kayaked around an island to an inaccessible (by land) beach... there was mountains of plastic waste, literal thick piles... that was not the first nor the last time I'd seen that level of desolation and destruction and pollution...
Now, I appreciate if we all do something because someone else did it, then we'll be in trouble, but frankly, the next place I live, it will either already have, or I'll install a woodburner. Even more so looking at energy prices and the huge profits that have been made....
When the cost of a product that a business purchases increases, I have no issue with the consumer price increasing, plenty of eateries have raised their prices due to increased product costs, but when you post record profits after that fact, it begs the question whether the prices ever did increase or whether we're all getting our pants pulled down.
It seems to me that the big issue is people burning wood in cities. The problem being the concentration of pollution, where traffic fumes are already an issue. Those living in already well-insulated, centrally-heated homes simply don't need wood burners, so it's a lifestyle choice.
In rural areas, and for those off grid or close to, it is surely the best way to support local economies and keep warm for a reasonable price.
I agree with others that a blanket ban unfairly penalises many.
I also think that the small woods article isn't very in depth, and they're looking after their readership and they're sitting firmly on the fence, for good reasons to be fair. Also I think they're right for the jury to be out on the science.
I also think that this is a complicated and nuanced problem that is very difficult for the government to police. I don't believe anyone should be burning anything other than well seasoned wood (locally produced hardwood ideally). In a properly maintained stove. For their health and the health of their neighbours.
Sadly a lot of humans are selfish.
We are all downstream.
In rural areas, and for those off grid or close to, it is surely the best way to support local economies and keep warm for a reasonable price.
I agree with others that a blanket ban unfairly penalises many.
I also think that the small woods article isn't very in depth, and they're looking after their readership and they're sitting firmly on the fence, for good reasons to be fair. Also I think they're right for the jury to be out on the science.
I also think that this is a complicated and nuanced problem that is very difficult for the government to police. I don't believe anyone should be burning anything other than well seasoned wood (locally produced hardwood ideally). In a properly maintained stove. For their health and the health of their neighbours.
Sadly a lot of humans are selfish.
We are all downstream.
I assume after reading this that the advice is when camping, do not light a fire unless you are carrying kiln dried seasoned wood, Fire has been one of the staples of life, without fire we cannot exist, now I do understand that it is not nice living next door to someone who has a wood burning stove, as I do, and the smoke can sometimes be a bit strong, similar to someone who has a vintage car, that does not meet the current regulations regarding emissions , but the Govt think they are safe enough not to pay tax, or need an MOT. In fact pollution does not come into it, scientists will tell you that trees store carbon and only release the carbon when burnt, so maintaining the status quo, perhaps the answer is scented wood, so that when its burnt it gives off a smell like roses, and we can all skip happily along to the fragrance of the smell. Once Gas has gone, we will see a dramatic increase in the burning of wood, because people need warmth, need to cook, and with the prohibitive cost of normal household fuels such as Oil, Gas and Electricity, due mainly to Govt policies, we will see an increase in pollution due to the need to survive.
The problem is that people in wealthy urban areas have been sold on the idea that wood is sustainable, however this ignores the fact that burning anything causes pollution, and the more concentrated the area it is burnt in, the lower the quality of the air. It is not rocket science, it goes back to Paracelsus, in that it is the dose that makes the poison. There is also a matter of demand, when the demand for wood outstrips the rate of replanting, then it is no longer sustainable. Governments rarely make decisions based upon the science though, they pick and choose their advisors, and usually sack the ones who don't give them the answer they wanted. The vast majority of the voting public is ill informed about science and that would include me when it comes to some things, they get their information from the media, and the media is anything but an unbiased actor. Forty and fifty years ago, people were burning coal on my estate like there was no tomorrow, there were a lot of retired miners getting concessionary coal too. We are what is described as a "Marmot" city, from professor Marmot's observations about public health. People still have a huge disparity in life expectations here compared to those parts of the City where the Guardian is on sale, in no small measure because of that former industry and pollution, do the inhabitants of the wealthy suburbs really want to bring that on themselves?The problem is that many people just quote 'media science' - I can no longer be bothered arguing with people that are not prepared to analyse the numbers and take an objective view.
That doesn't just apply to wood burning stoves
I think there are those that are purely selfish and those that have their hands tied and their decisions are to either live extremely uncomfortably as a family or be offensive to others... and lets face it, the protestors for all their various causes are doing that to everyone, so a wood burning stove is joining the ranks of protesters.
Some facts for you guys:
Nearly 40% of UK energy is renewable (solar wind etc), about 15% of UK energy is from nuclear energy... so approx 55% of UK energy is produced from non gas and oil sources.... so why on earth have energy prices that we all pay sky rocketed? They are based on the price of oil/gas, yet 45% of our energy isn't from oil and gas...
I find there is too much pressure on "humans" or the population as individuals or civilians to make a change, yet at every twist and turn that we make there is a tax, a cost, a price an increase, so on so forth. Rising costs are inevitable, I can accept that. But honestly, if you have a wood burner, use it and enjoy it, as a non wood burner owner city dweller you have my blessings.
Prices fixed on the international market by fears of shortages from those heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil. Laws which apparently forbid oil companies to charge less than market price even if it costs them a lot less to produce it.
Thank you for this info. Despite not knowing it, this is eactly the point I was arguing with my last paragraph, we the average citizens are supposed to do it all to save the world, whilst getting shafted in return.
I'm all for switching off the lights and saving energy, but the reward should be we make savings, not we "get wrecked just that little bit less".
Generally speaking you don't leave your classic car running inefficiently 24/7 in winter, likely the worst time for pollution from wood burning, right next to your neighbours house. If you're actually got your classic car running it's very likely you're moving on or highways dispersing your fumes a lot better than your neighbour's woodburner.
A few years back when woodburners issues were being discussed with air quality and health there was some country wide air quality data reported on. Iirc imperial college were involved. In it there were more than a few really bad air quality areas in more rural areas too. Aiui there's protected "national Park" or AONB equivalent area in rural France that has had to put in a LEZ with charging because of pollution. Not sure whether that's purely cars or cars and woodburning.
Why are rural areas in most of UK not able to have other heating options than just woodburners? I know there are some villages without gas network but there are options. I lived in a house with oil based central heating. No gas connection when we moved in but long before we moved out gas came to the village and our street but oil systems were still used. Even without gas there are other options and tbh with cost of buying into country life there's a lot more who are as likely as urban dwellers to have GCH but still use woodburners. I wonder what proportion of uk rural population really only have woodburners for heat. There's also an element of lifestyle choice with ppl who live with just woodburners for heat too.
But it still comes down to whether a choice is right or not. If you have a polluting option when you don't have to...
BTW zero carbon or sustainability or whatever you claim for wood burning for heat how valid is it? I seriously don't know. Producing and burning firewood is polluting from the cutting down, transportation, often kiln drying, transportation to user the burning. Is that truly counterbalanced by carbon absorption during growth by the tree? Then there's production of the wood. I believe a lot of conifer wood production is on land that's of low economic value for farming. How much is grown on land that was put could be a carbon absorbing land of other types like peat bogs?
I have no idea about this all so just how does commercial firewood production for the majority of woodburner use really stack up in the carbon zero side? Not that the zero carbon matters much wrt to particulates anyway.
A few years back when woodburners issues were being discussed with air quality and health there was some country wide air quality data reported on. Iirc imperial college were involved. In it there were more than a few really bad air quality areas in more rural areas too. Aiui there's protected "national Park" or AONB equivalent area in rural France that has had to put in a LEZ with charging because of pollution. Not sure whether that's purely cars or cars and woodburning.
Why are rural areas in most of UK not able to have other heating options than just woodburners? I know there are some villages without gas network but there are options. I lived in a house with oil based central heating. No gas connection when we moved in but long before we moved out gas came to the village and our street but oil systems were still used. Even without gas there are other options and tbh with cost of buying into country life there's a lot more who are as likely as urban dwellers to have GCH but still use woodburners. I wonder what proportion of uk rural population really only have woodburners for heat. There's also an element of lifestyle choice with ppl who live with just woodburners for heat too.
But it still comes down to whether a choice is right or not. If you have a polluting option when you don't have to...
BTW zero carbon or sustainability or whatever you claim for wood burning for heat how valid is it? I seriously don't know. Producing and burning firewood is polluting from the cutting down, transportation, often kiln drying, transportation to user the burning. Is that truly counterbalanced by carbon absorption during growth by the tree? Then there's production of the wood. I believe a lot of conifer wood production is on land that's of low economic value for farming. How much is grown on land that was put could be a carbon absorbing land of other types like peat bogs?
I have no idea about this all so just how does commercial firewood production for the majority of woodburner use really stack up in the carbon zero side? Not that the zero carbon matters much wrt to particulates anyway.
I am tempted to say that whenever lighting a camp fire more time is spent staying out of the smoke. It is a matter of applying common sense really, if there are byelaws restricting pollution then follow them, if you are on your own or with a group of like minded people disturbing nobody and not destroying the natural environment, then do as you will, but don't get me started on barbecues. There is whole lot of difference between taking responsibility for what you do and accepting a level of risk to yourself, and just going out into the nearest piece of woodland, cutting down whatever to light a fire that permanently scars the ground and leaving your beer bottles and cans lying around.
Probably because most politicians are townies. That might sound harsh but I get tired of talking to people who have no idea about living anywhere apart from a town/city. Where I live there's no mains water for miles around, so no chance of gas - ever. Oil is just as polluting as wood an is not sustainable and to be frank stinks. Electric is likely to be the way forward but it is unreliable so a wood burner is frankly essential as a backup at least.
As for carbon costs, I only use about 10l of petrol a year for all our firewood that provides most of our heating and cooking, how much do you use just for fun in your car a year? When I fell a tree about 50% is left behind in the root system in the ground as carbon capture and I plant far more trees than I fell.
I've never really thought of lighting fires when camping. First I'm travelling light and often on the fells or I'm in the van at a site or in the van but camping on a site in a tent. Looking at the first case there is not any fuel and I'm not carrying wood up there. Second and third case there's often restrictions on fires such that it's rarely worth doing for us. Occasionally there's places where we get the fire pit out with a large glass fabric ground protection underneath. We use bought, dry wood. However even that's rare.
IMHO in the UK I wonder whether there's much sense in having a fire when I'm the hills. Not that pollution is likely to be a issue, its more about the potential of causing damage.
IMHO in the UK I wonder whether there's much sense in having a fire when I'm the hills. Not that pollution is likely to be a issue, its more about the potential of causing damage.
The majority of conifers were planted with construction in mind, traditionally firewood came from coppiced woodland that is the very essence of sustainability. Unfortunately a lot of coppice have been lost through lack of management (that’s right, if they’re not regularly felled they eventually die, go figure)
People in towns live in far greater density than ever before, they often wear inappropriate clothing for the season and expect a background temperature of between 18-21 centigrade in their home or workplace, that all demands energy from somewhere. Luckily for them they’re part of a national grid that supplies energy. Off grid energy such as oil or LPG typically costs a great deal more. LPG is extracted from petroleum and is quite different to natural gas. Heating oil is much worse for pollutants because amongst other things it contains high levels of sulphur which means burning it creates sulphur dioxide. (Acid rain) These are the options Paul_B.
The analogy of a classic car is surprisingly good. A classic car is a polluting monster but as there are proportionally very few of them their impact isn’t so great…but, if everyone got one in order to save on road tax then the emissions from the much greater number of classic cars would become a problem. Then imagine they began using these classics inappropriately, using the wrong fuels or not maintaining them and you have the situation that we face with wood burners. We need to consider not just the amount of pollution but the type of pollution and its impacts. Wet wood with bark of gives off excessive amounts particulates and wastes heat in evaporating its water content. Plastic packaging burns beautifully but is capable of giving off dioxins. Burning wood treated with lead paint or preservative will put persistent chemicals into the air (and into our lungs) these are the things that the legislation appears to be focused on.
People in towns live in far greater density than ever before, they often wear inappropriate clothing for the season and expect a background temperature of between 18-21 centigrade in their home or workplace, that all demands energy from somewhere. Luckily for them they’re part of a national grid that supplies energy. Off grid energy such as oil or LPG typically costs a great deal more. LPG is extracted from petroleum and is quite different to natural gas. Heating oil is much worse for pollutants because amongst other things it contains high levels of sulphur which means burning it creates sulphur dioxide. (Acid rain) These are the options Paul_B.
The analogy of a classic car is surprisingly good. A classic car is a polluting monster but as there are proportionally very few of them their impact isn’t so great…but, if everyone got one in order to save on road tax then the emissions from the much greater number of classic cars would become a problem. Then imagine they began using these classics inappropriately, using the wrong fuels or not maintaining them and you have the situation that we face with wood burners. We need to consider not just the amount of pollution but the type of pollution and its impacts. Wet wood with bark of gives off excessive amounts particulates and wastes heat in evaporating its water content. Plastic packaging burns beautifully but is capable of giving off dioxins. Burning wood treated with lead paint or preservative will put persistent chemicals into the air (and into our lungs) these are the things that the legislation appears to be focused on.
Last edited:
This debate highlights the issue of lack of context. Sure woodburners in crowded areas can cause a particulate issue. The context that is missing in that discussion is that Gas heating is burning fossil fuels & contributing to climate change - as is almost all electricity (even wind & nuclear have significant environmental footprints from construction & installation). Oil & propane heating (the other options for most rural dwellers) have significant higher long term environmental impacts over local wood.
In my area wood keeps many working people warm who otherwise could not afford heat. On the yard next to ours two retired farm worker brothers in their 70s cut, split and season wood for their tied cottages, hauling in local windblown trees with an old tractor
Of course people can have an opinion but those who want to prevent poor working people using sustainable, affordable heating should take a look at their own environmental footprints first. I certainly hope they don't have natural gas or electric heating, of course they never fly, drive cars or buy plastic wrapped, out of season imported food. If they do any of those things, they would of course be better addressing their own lives before criticising others.
In my area wood keeps many working people warm who otherwise could not afford heat. On the yard next to ours two retired farm worker brothers in their 70s cut, split and season wood for their tied cottages, hauling in local windblown trees with an old tractor
Of course people can have an opinion but those who want to prevent poor working people using sustainable, affordable heating should take a look at their own environmental footprints first. I certainly hope they don't have natural gas or electric heating, of course they never fly, drive cars or buy plastic wrapped, out of season imported food. If they do any of those things, they would of course be better addressing their own lives before criticising others.
Yep, such as asparagus from Peru, New Zealand Lamb, Bananas from Costa Rica, Wine from Australia ... the list could go on. I don't know anybody who could not reduce their own environmental footprint.
Similar threads
