I use wood to heat my home in the winter. Is this a "green" practice?

Answer 1

It's not bad. Wood is not a "fossil fuel". The carbon in it was extracted from the atmosphere fairly recently, and putting it back isn't so bad.

You are putting it back much faster than it came out. So it's not perfect. But better than burning oil or, worse yet, coal.

When we are getting our electricity from non-fossil fuel sources; nuclear, solar, wind, electric heat will be even better. But for right now burning wood in a well designed stove isn't too bad.

Answer 2

Two thirds of the mass of the wood you burn is carbon, when you burn it there's a chemical reaction (oxidisation) which produces carbon dioxide. Basically the carbon stored in the wood is released back into the atmosphere.

If the wood is casualty timber it would rot of it's own accord anyway so you're causing no more harm than nature would have done. In fact, it's slightly beneficial as natural decomposition also produces other by products (including methane which is another greenhouse gas).

If on the other hand, the wood has been sourced by felling timber specifically for firewood then it's detrimental to the environment, even if it comes from a sustainable forest.

Try and source the wood from casualty timber. If you live in the country there will probably be places nearby where you can go and buy split logs (farmers often saw and split trees that have blown down, some builders do the same if they have to remove trees to make way for buildings, roads etc).

Answer 3

This depends on were you get the wood from. If you go and get the wood pre-bundled from the store this is probably from clear cut forest a by-product of the logging industry. However, if you go and get naturally felled trees, yes this is more "green" than using fossil fuels. The ideal situation would be for us to all use solar panels but this is expensive start up and difficult in some areas of the country due to the weather.

Answer 4

Absolutely.

I personally use a burn-barrel for cardboard so that no fossil fuels need to be used to transport them to and fro.

Plus, their destruction guarantees the economic incentive for additional tree farms to be planted.

Cans and bottles I throw in the trash, but that is a humanitarian decision rather than an environmental one. I don't know why people feel the need to cut hobos out of the loop when it comes to collecting cans and bottles. Why shouldn't they have a shot at the revenue instead of the town collecting a fraction of the cost to run their ludicrous recycling trucks.

Keep up the good work.

Answer 5

Depends on the wood, the stove and the area. Elevation makes a big difference. Too many people doing it in any area is bad. It's something you have to research. The newer wood pellet controls with electronic controls are very efficient and minimally polluting.

Answer 6

Greener than Skeeter's Peeter!

Good job...but it is that much sweeter when you fire up the chain saw and screech through one of Mother Earth's trees and watch it crash down to the ground, chop it up, dry it for a season or two and enjoy the fruits of your labor burning before you.

Answer 7

It depends, actually. Making the fire too hot is inefficient however, since it could be dangerous and not environmentally friendly as well but other than that, wood is an excellent source of energy compared to other fuels such as gas, oil, and coal.
Just try to make sure it is used as effectively as possible. :)

And of course, if you have other means of energy such as wind or solar power, I would recommend that first.

Answer 8

Iv've figured out that if it burns and you light it up somebody will complain about it being anti environmental. While back they went off on backyard BBQ grills.

Answer 9

Not really. You are spewing all kinds of soot into the air, not to mention other kinds of combustion byproducts. I suppose it is carbon neutral, if you are into that.