Quite right too

Wood burning could be banned in some urban areas in a bid to improve air quality.

We banned coal burning in urban areas for a reason:

It is estimated that a quarter and a third of all fine particle pollution in the capital comes from people burning wood to heat homes.

You know, all that stuff they’re blaming on the cars?

20 comments on “Quite right too

  1. How long is before people accept that fossil fuels are the cleanest option of all, apart from nuclear?

    There is a reason we like fossil fuels so much.

  2. But, But,but…..soot and particulates from wood burning is SUSTAINABLE! It’s GOOD carbon, whereas Fossil fuels produce BAD Carbon!
    Wood burning is on the increase in UK because it’s a cheap fuel and can be scrounged – sorry, recycled-from a variety of sources. Thanks to 2 of the biggest scams the world has ever seen, Climastrology and the EU, energy costs are rising far more quickly than wages and pensions. For those low-income strugglers in our society, it’s a way to mitigate the effects of fuel poverty. Part of the answer is to build more efficient fossil fuel power stations, the technology for which exists and drive down the cost of energy to the consumer. The rent-seeking elites who have put their shirts on “renewables” will fight such innovation to the death.

  3. ^^^ Wot Kevin Lohse said ^^^

    This is the thing about the climate change scam that pisses me off the most…

    When I came here in 2002 energy was cheap – cheap I tells ya! – everybody heated their homes with the same cheap diesel that ran our vehicles.

    Since the EU cometh, diesel is expensive, the power station is fined by the EU for polluting so electricity is expensive and everybody burns wood instead… The air is choking on a still, cold evening in winter…

    But hey, I guess it is green choking (and obviously not like smoking) so it is okay…?

  4. Yes,yes, quite right, ban wood stoves!

    You mean those big ones that the Greens advocated, where they cut down trees in North America, chop them up then ship them 4,000 miles so we can burn them here?

    Oh, you don’t. Cos that’s Green and saving the planet. But people burning wood is bad.

    I do get easily confused in the 21st century.

  5. Kevin Lohse said:
    “Wood burning is on the increase in UK because it’s a cheap fuel and can be scrounged”

    That’s what I do in the country, but I doubt that’s the London problem.

    More likely to be the trendy types with their “back to the land in Hampstead” mentality, and they’ll be buying expensive pre-chopped wood from sustainable, organic sources.

    But I agree; what’s delicious about this is that it is mainly the greens and their trendy fellow-travellers doing this, thinking they are helping the planet, and it is lovely to see them banned by their own beloved eco-legislation

    I look forward to seeing the first Green or LibDem local council election candidate in court for burning wood in a controlled area.

  6. Fortunately I don’t live in an urban area, and will continue to utilise all three of my wood-burning stoves.

  7. Wood burning stoves are also a major source of dioxins but but it’s natural dioxin so it doesn’t really count.

  8. Load “clean” energy with tax, and ban the rest. There is a word for that sort of thing. Can’t quite place it…

  9. “Fortunately I don’t live in an urban area, and will continue to utilise all three of my wood-burning stoves.”

    Urban or not, if you have near neighbours then you’re still a selfish arsehole who should be subject to control.

    These grim things should be banned by default everywhere, and licensed upon application for use in exceptional circumstances.

    Mind you, it should be the emissions that are banned, not wood burning in itself.

  10. It is both amusing and annoying when someone gets self-righteous about how green they’re being when they’re doing something really quite ungreen. But I do wonder whether there is justification for some kind of public information campaign on this one – if you were to do an opinion poll them I’m sure Harris is correct that very many people would say that wood-burning is safe, natural, sustainable and environmentally friendly. Certainly people shouldn’t be fitting them without being informed of the nastier emissions – it really isn’t all about being “carbon neutral” and “natural”.

    (A bit further along the self-righteous-yet-uninformed track, I once met an advocate of a return to steam locomotion on environmental grounds. Steam, I was reliably told, is just water – so isn’t scarce or polluting at all!)

  11. I look forward to seeing the first Green or LibDem local council election candidate in court for burning wood in a controlled area.

    As with biofuels, they will be the first to condemn this pollution and will demand they are banned. They will deny ever advocating them, and the establishment media will conspire in covering up that they did.

  12. ” For those low-income strugglers in our society, it’s a way to mitigate the effects of fuel poverty.”

    Low income people in London live in flats and don’t have wood burners. Its the richer people who like the look of them in their living room and the pleasant effect on a winter evening.

    I was thinking about getting one, but now that the guardian is against them I’m definitely going to get one.

  13. I’ve never been able to track down the source, but I was told that the councillor who piloted Sheffield’s smoke control bylaws through to legislation was the first person caught by them.

  14. ‘The government has come under increasing pressure to improve the UK’s air quality, with air pollution causing 9,500 early deaths a year in London and 40,000 across Britain.’

    Until they produce a list of their names, they are fvcking lying.

    As Steve Milloy points out over and over at junkscience.com, air pollution kills no one. It may be unpleasant, but it’s not deadly. Not even in Chinese cities where you can’t even see the sky.

  15. A bit further along the self-righteous-yet-uninformed track, I once met an advocate of a return to steam locomotion on environmental grounds. Steam, I was reliably told, is just water – so isn’t scarce or polluting at all!

    I’m a big fan of steam engines, from an aesthetic viewpoint. They were replaced by diesels because their running costs were far higher and their availability far lower. So once McDonnell has renationalised the railways, Corbyn can reintroduce steam and create thousands of new jobs. Win-Win!

  16. @Chris Miller

    He can bring back the horse-drawn plough too, while he’s at it. Shire horses are aesthetically exquisite, as beasts of burden go, and the number of jobs created in blacksmiths and farm labour will massively outweigh those lost in tractor factories.

    Though if he really, really cares about the social dislocation wreaked by unemployment, the Scottish hand plough is the way forward.

  17. Why should freight be carried from New York to Chicago by railroads when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?
    ‘Economics in One Lesson’ (1946) Henry Hazlitt

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.