I think it will be a surprise if it survives at all.

There is a lot of pressure to ban woodburners and I think that pressure will increase.

Plus you have to love the picture of clearly imported kiln firewood from a Lithuanian company.

How can be banned to enjoy warm fire in hot stove  

Can you clarify what the poll is asking?  by firewood season, do you mean "burning season" (surely not its January and mid winter?)  or firewood cutting season, which for me is all year round because I season it for such a long time its irrelevant. 

There is nothing wrong with burning wood in a stove or fireplace. Yes this releases co2, but would be released anyway when the wood rots.  Because wood regrows very quickly I consider it sustainable. The government even burns biomass in certain power stations.

There is and has always been a separate problem of people burning wet or green wood or burning the wood slowly and inefficiently.  This causes excess smoke and air pollution.  The smoke from a hot fire is invisible.  This second issue is best managed via stove design or clean air zone rules not an outright ban.  

Sorry, yes I mean burning season

Your point about wood burning is valid, especially regarding its sustainability when compared to fossil fuels and the natural carbon cycle. Burning dry, seasoned wood in efficient stoves can indeed reduce environmental impact. However, it's important to also consider the carbon footprint from harvesting, transportation, and processing of wood.

Regarding your concern about wet or green wood, you're correct that it leads to more smoke and pollution. Addressing this through better stove design and clean air regulations is a practical approach, rather than an outright ban on wood burning.
 

Imported wood is not green, financially viable maybe

The eco/carbon arguments for and against wood burning are as crass as each other. Nobody has a bloody clue. Each side peddles propaganda. Worse than shooters and homosexuals. 

1 hour ago, AHPP said:

Worse than shooters and homosexuals. 

Isn't that already  banned?

7 hours ago, Peasgood said:

Isn't that already  banned?

What shooting homosexuals? 

I meant "antis" but I can't stand the term. Thought I'd reach for an entirely different slur to keep the site moving. 

15 hours ago, Woodbioma said:

Your point about wood burning is valid, especially regarding its sustainability when compared to fossil fuels and the natural carbon cycle. Burning dry, seasoned wood in efficient stoves can indeed reduce environmental impact. However, it's important to also consider the carbon footprint from harvesting, transportation, and processing of wood.

Regarding your concern about wet or green wood, you're correct that it leads to more smoke and pollution. Addressing this through better stove design and clean air regulations is a practical approach, rather than an outright ban on wood burning.
 

Yes even though I think this is more about air quality, we should recognise the carbon footprint from burning fossil fuels to cut, transport and process wood.  Burning wood to kiln dry firewood also feels a bit weird to me. I have no reference but my gut feel is my system is better than most given the wood all comes within a 1 mile radius and is air dried.  Also this carbon footprint should be considered in the round with the carbon footprint of everything aspect of modern life - air travel, importing salad or plastic toys from China etc. We had a carbon audit done for the farm recently, which because of its narrow-focused desktop approach, came out with totally nonsensical recommendations.

Quote

The smoke from a hot fire is invisible.  This second issue is best managed via stove design or clean air zone rules not an outright ban.  

A broadly agree  but I think its still an issue esp  with an urban pop density if too many stoves are running even the new eco ones.

In cities with mains gas and where  stoves are often a new trendy lifestyle choice of the wealthy, more than an economical pratical one, maybe they should be discouraged even if all are  eco stoves?

Quote

We had a carbon audit done for the farm recently, which because of its narrow-focused desktop approach, came out with totally nonsensical recommendations.

A co2 footprint between imported kiln dired wood from lithuania V some  arb waste from 1 miles away wood be interesting?

Obiviously the most eco log would be from a  coppiced wood close to the property, harvested &  by an axe and horse logging or another  very low co2 way but that is taking it to extremes.

Its viable imo that ideally each village or farm could have a  managed  woodlot located close by, producing enough to supply its needs but this doesn't scale up so well to towns & cities logistically or pollution impact wise.

Woodlots are  a  concept often promoted in third world places to relieve fuel poverty.

On the other hand  I think shipping & harvesting in bulk may be less  carbon intesive than many think?

Might give some effiency bonus with a large volume of product versus the fossil fuels burnt by harvest machinary & transport per log etc but im just guessing.....

Yes I agree with that.  If this is an urban problem, we already have rules for that - clean air zones. If the rules aren't resulting in clean air, changes the existing rules rather than a ban.

6 minutes ago, Muddy42 said:

Yes I agree with that.  If this is an urban problem, we already have rules for that - clean air zones. If the rules aren't resulting in clean air, changes the existing rules rather than a ban.

Well we've had clean air zones for decades, 1960s I think.

So either it's not enforced or it's something else.

The typical knee jerk reaction to just make more rules is backwards and a waste of time and energy.

It's like the current knife thing they are doing, knee jerk instead of enforcement of the current rules. It's like suicide is illegal, erm good luck with a prosecution!.

22 hours ago, GarethM said:

Well we've had clean air zones for decades, 1960s I think.

 

So either it's not enforced or it's something else.

 

The typical knee jerk reaction to just make more rules is backwards and a waste of time and energy.

 

It's like the current knife thing they are doing, knee jerk instead of enforcement of the current rules. It's like suicide is illegal, erm good luck with a prosecution!.

Clean air zones simply permit the use of authorised fuels and authorised stoves.  It wouldn't take much for Defra to restrict either the permitted fuels or authorised stoves.  Apologies for the slight differences for England/Scotland/NI.  Or just enforce the current rules better. 

37 minutes ago, Muddy42 said:

 

Clean air zones simply permit the use of authorised fuels and authorised stoves.  It wouldn't take much for Defra to restrict either the permitted fuels or authorised stoves.  Apologies for the slight differences for England/Scotland/NI.  Or just enforce the current rules better. 

So you want to ban existing efficient stoves or the fuel for them, what changes are you suggesting ?.

Nothing will ever be enough for these activists tho, until your eating the bugs and cowering under your duvet with equal measures of fear and frostbite.

2 hours ago, GarethM said:

So you want to ban existing efficient stoves or the fuel for them, what changes are you suggesting ?.

 

Nothing will ever be enough for these activists tho, until your eating the bugs and cowering under your duvet with equal measures of fear and frostbite.

No you misunderstand me, I don't want any change, I was just guessing at how wood burning restrictions could be enacted. However Id rather the clean air zone rules were amended than an outright ban which, would also affect rural areas.

12 minutes ago, Muddy42 said:

 

No you misunderstand me, I don't want any change, I was just guessing at how wood burning restrictions could be enacted. However Id rather the clean air zone rules were amended than an outright ban which, would also affect rural areas.

You're effectively advocating for a nation wide clean air zone.

Even the current system is woefully pointless as it's not enforced, most appliances sold are more than compliant but due to the cost of testing they aren't useable in a smoke control area.

For example a lot of things are blue angel, German version of DEFRA exempt but there is no EU wide standard.

4 hours ago, GarethM said:

You're effectively advocating for a nation wide clean air zone.

 

Even the current system is woefully pointless as it's not enforced, most appliances sold are more than compliant but due to the cost of testing they aren't useable in a smoke control area.

 

For example a lot of things are blue angel, German version of DEFRA exempt but there is no EU wide standard.

where did I say nationwide? I dont want anything to change, but if the government really feel that large numbers of school kids are getting lung problems because urban people are burning stoves incorrectly, I’d rather they amended or enforced the existing urban clean air zone rules than an outright ban.

I dont think that is controversial is it?

Most cities already are