I, who do burn wood, upcoming winter with an EPA Insert for the first time, think the green heat claim for wood burning is an oversimplification and self-serving statement by would-be environmentalists. Ouch, that's what 80% of this forum is all about. My simple existence, I have a geothermal heat pump (a.k.a. Ground Source) driven about 50% from nuclear driven electricity) not an oil furnace, is that if one plants trees/etc. to offset oil burning hydrocarbons, they are just as green as the wood burner. I take this one further, the oil burner could just simply let the many live trees cut down for fire wood to simply continue to grow. True geothermal, wind, solar all come to mind as the cornerstones of clean energy in my mind. Hydro and nuclear are runners up in my mind. Edit: I see I skipped all the post on the last page when I made the... I've been in many times on the discussion on the label Geothermal, and that's what I call, as does the manufacturer, my ground source heat pump. The advantage I see of limiting the term Geothermal to mean drawing heat (never cold) from the earth to directly heat or drive generators (for example) helps us communicate in fewer words. Speaking of more words, the "ground source" heat pump is also a "ground sink" heat pump, and most use water (with antifreeze) as the intermediate transfer agent. Boy, it sure is easier to say Geothermal, still I respect the benefit of using more exacting language.