The source of the wood is important, I'm in agreement with you in terms of industrial power generation like drax, but burning of local, naturally grown, waste wood in our wood burner cannot be criticised from a CO2 perspective.... Particulates yes, but not CO2 - ThreadSky

thunderbird787b.bsky.social • 13 days ago

The source of the wood is important, I'm in agreement with you in terms of industrial power generation like drax, but burning of local, naturally grown, waste wood in our wood burner cannot be criticised from a CO2 perspective.... Particulates yes, but not CO2

Comments

mikehinford.bsky.social•13 days ago

Totally disagree.

We have no need to burn anything.

Wood burning releases CO2. Gas burning less CO2 per unit of heat, and less pollution.
If we have to burn it should be gas, but rather nothing.

The only reason to burn wood is if it's free.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/policy-and-engagement/net-zero/profiles/heydon/up-in-smoke.aspx

thunderbird787b.bsky.social•13 days ago

It's such a marginal argument that for me it's simply not worth the effort, you're in danger of getting obsessed with the minusi when there are really massive things that can be addressed quickly and easily, you will alienate people with such arguments, I think it's quite frankly a waste of effort.

bettertimes.bsky.social•13 days ago

It isn’t a waste of effort! Living next to houses with wood burning stoves is horrible. Why should I have to breathe in toxic smoke?

mikehinford.bsky.social•13 days ago

Strange then the organisations Global Action Plan, Mums For Lungs, Impact on Urban Health, all include it in their campaigns.

Lots of others are putting in the effort, including the Climate Change Committee.

1/2

thunderbird787b.bsky.social•13 days ago

I've an EV, solar, batteries, next is a heat pump, but I'm not going to get rid of my wood burner to eliminate 0.01% of my carbon footprint, it's all about proportionality, and absolutes for me, I'm genuinely concerned that you do more harm than good by alienating people with arguments like this.

bettertimes.bsky.social•13 days ago

You are missing the point. The main reason for wanting to stop people burning stuff is that people living in the immediate neighbourhood are breathing in toxins which are a danger to health. I just don’t get how someone with an EV, solar panels and a heat pump doesn’t get that!

thunderbird787b.bsky.social•13 days ago

I agree with the local particulate issue, that's a real problem for those who live in built up areas, I live in a rural area, so not a problem for me.
It's only the CO2 argument that I dispute

mikehinford.bsky.social•13 days ago

And that's your decision.
But it's strange you say it's a poor argument when lots of organisations are making the argument.
Including Denmark's Consumer Ombudsman.

1/2
https://www.familiesforcleanair.org/wood-stove-industry-charged-with-making-deceptive-environmental-claims/

thunderbird787b.bsky.social•13 days ago

For me it's a bit like those that say don't buy solar panels or batteries because CO2 is produced in their manufacture.
I'll be honest, it's the proportionality of the CO2 argument that I struggle with, it's so tiny and not accumulative when compared the fossil fuels burning.

mikehinford.bsky.social•13 days ago

The main point I'm making is it's not carbon neutral.
Their are companies saying it is, so they can make money.

It's also not just CO2 emitted from wood burning. There's also climate damaging black carbon and methane.

Just don't say it's carbon neutral please.
2/2
https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

mikehinford.bsky.social•13 days ago

"Due to the high amount of greenhouse gases emitted when burning wood and solid fuels, the Climate Change Committee strongly advises that it needs to be phased out as it is not carbon neutral and has no place in how homes should be heated in the 21st century”
2/2
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/24/wood-burning-stoves-new-build-homes-england

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply