New Article About Fireplaces and Woodstoves

[DanCorcoran]

Interesting article that says good things about woodstoves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/garden/20fire.html

 

[BrowningBAR]

an article published in September by Shireen Qudosi, entitled “Breathe Easier With a Cleaner Fireplace,†argued that there is no such thing as an environmentally responsible fire: “Switching out one type of wood for another is still use of a natural resource that otherwise could have been spared,†Ms. Qudosi wrote. And last fall, an article on the Web site GreenBlizzard.com, “Cozy Winter Fires — Carbon Impact,†called wood-burning fires “a direct pollutant to you, your family and your community.â€

They sound super positive.

 

[oldspark]

Any thing good in the article was buried in a pile of bad.

 

[DanCorcoran]

I just saw it as trying to educate people who know nothing about burning wood, with the primary message being that open fireplaces produce significant pollution, modern woodstoves and inserts a lot less.

Oh, and I agree that Ms. Qudosi is a dingbat.

 

[oldspark]

Well that's one way of looking at it but I did not come away from it with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Well that's one way of looking at it but I did not come away from it with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Yeah, pretty much one and a half pages of a two page article talk about the evils of wood burning and then it ends with "FOR those who still want to build a fire..."

 

[DanCorcoran]

Remember, this article is written primarily for people who live in NYC, explaining why a fireplace may not be such a "hot" idea.

I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with everything in the article, but I do find it interesting to look at life from a lot of different perspectives. This is just one.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with everything in the article

Didn't mean to seem like I thought you were agreeing with the entire article.

 

[Big Al]

Remember, this article is written primarily for people who live in NYC, explaining why a fireplace may not be such a "hot" idea.

I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with everything in the article, but I do find it interesting to look at life from a lot of different perspectives. This is just one.

Folks from major metropolis's like that tend to take too much for granted...abundant convenient public transportation, heat included in rent, day to day necessities within walking distance. Makes it really easy for them to stand on their soapbox and preach the horrors of the automobile, wood heat etc. As if those subway trains run on oxygen and that heat in the apartment comes from the sun. How many cubic feet of wood can you cram in a Prius anyway, and six or eight inch flue out the top....

Not to say I don't try to be green in all that I do, my wife and I are always finding ways to be greener, but I don't get my stomach in knots as I light off my stove. Or when I take the occasional spin in the ol musclecar.

 

[Renovation]

an article published in September by Shireen Qudosi, entitled “Breathe Easier With a Cleaner Fireplace,†argued that there is no such thing as an environmentally responsible fire: “Switching out one type of wood for another is still use of a natural resource that otherwise could have been spared,†Ms. Qudosi wrote. And last fall, an article on the Web site GreenBlizzard.com, “Cozy Winter Fires — Carbon Impact,†called wood-burning fires “a direct pollutant to you, your family and your community.â€

They sound super positive.

Agreed that Ms. Qudosi is Unclear On The Concept. Wood stoves, particularly those with catalysts, release less pollutants than if the tree were left to rot. It is so unfortunate when people let their political biases, whatever they might be, blind them to reason.

That said, many thanks to Dan for sharing the article!

 

[Big Al]

I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with everything in the article

Didn't mean to seem like I thought you were agreeing with the entire article.

Same here. I get your point Dan. Thanks for posting the article

 

[MarkinNC]

I guess I will continue to avoid the New York Times.

 

[bjkjoseph]

that commie rag...fireplace's are dirty and epa wood stoves are clean...where do these people get this stuff from.

 

[bogydave]

Good article, to help more people understand how some people think.
Some opinions there that would wish the government put in more rules.
Lets keep the smoke in the country side, far away from where we can see on be aware of it.
Where the coal fired electric power plants, gas/steam turbines & nuclear plants are someone else's issues to deal with.
We here in NY are "Green", we use electricity.
The implication "Our electric fireplaces don't pollute" made me laugh. That was pretty funny.
An article that fits well with the NY Time's views & opinions.

 

[BrowningBAR]

that commie rag...fireplace's are dirty and epa wood stoves are clean...where do these people get this stuff from.

"For the last several years, TheDailyGreen.com, an online magazine, has advocated replacing all wood-burning fireplaces with electric ones; an article published in September by Shireen Qudosi, entitled “Breathe Easier With a Cleaner Fireplace,†argued that there is no such thing as an environmentally responsible fire: “Switching out one type of wood for another is still use of a natural resource that otherwise could have been spared,†Ms. Qudosi wrote. And last fall, an article on the Web site GreenBlizzard.com, “Cozy Winter Fires — Carbon Impact,†called wood-burning fires “a direct pollutant to you, your family and your community.â€"

 

[bjkjoseph]

browning bar that was called sarcasm...the article stated clearly that fireplaces are dirty and epa wood stoves are a cleaner alternative...this is a fact...my sarcasm was directed at the people who comment on the article with out even reading it..

 

[VCBurner]

Ther best thing about The New York Times, is that you can start a mean fire by simply crumbling a few pages and putting them on top and under your wood. :lol:

Now Dan, not to be a grump, but the more I read that article, the more I felt like the air was being squeezed out of my lungs. And it wasn't due to the pollution coming from my EPA rated stove! ;-P

One good thing about reading articles like this is: you realize how ignorant to the true dangers to the environment the population really is. A lot of people who read and preach this crap live in a city like New York or Boston or any other major city in the country where the environment has already been, but completely destroyed. How many fireplaces or stoves in New York state would be needed to rival the pollution created by New York City itself.

The people in the article made me sick, as if burning a log in your fireplace means you are killing the last tree known to mankind. How about the carbon footprint created by the people in the cities. All the energy used to run a city and provide everything to sustain its infrastructure.

The best advice to the fearful people in the article is: Move to the country, burn wood, support your local farmers and community. Then you can change the world into a better place. The internet is supposed to be able to keep us connected and reduce the need for major cities that have alredy killed their ecosystem and continue to kill ours.

Thank you Dan for exposing us to a reminder of how people have lost their way. We can educate people about the positive, zero net emissions, way of the Hearth.com community!

 

[greenbrierwv]

well im not so sure electric heat is a viable solution, as stated in the article, unless it is directly powered by solar electricity. Here in WV coal, as many people know, is a HUGE part of the electricity grid keeping most peoples houses lit and warm. What they may not realize is the incredible amounts of mercury and other various toxins that are pumped directly into the atmosphere which in turn rains down on our wilderness and habitated areas, which ultimately ends up in your drinking water. many of our streams and rivers in this state are slowly being added to the fish consumption warning list where you are only recommended to eat so many servings of fish per month safely. when i see that, i pretty much feel that no fish is probably the best bet, unless it is wild caught trout from some high mountain stream not directly downwind of a large coal fired power plant, even though in reality we are all downwind of something. So...when i cut my own dead wood from my property and load it into my efficient catalyst equipped stove i have no qualms. Im also in the process of becoming completely self sufficient by producing solar electricity and heating with wood and solar heaters so ive done some research. When the cities collapse these folks will be asking us how to survive. ha.

 

[bjkjoseph]

we need farmers and open country...but we also need cities...and we cant have clean air in the city because why?you lost me.

 

[BrowningBAR]

browning bar that was called sarcasm...the article stated clearly that fireplaces are dirty and epa wood stoves are a cleaner alternative...this is a fact...my sarcasm was directed at the people who comment on the article with out even reading it..

So, who was that in regards to, because everyone that posted about the article seemed to have read the article. And yes. I knew it was sarcasm.

The article went out of it's way to highlight that ANY wood burning is bad and you should feel guilty.

 

[BrowningBAR]

we need farmers and open country...but we also need cities...and we cant have clean air in the city because why?you lost me.

No one is saying Cities can't have clean air. But the solution (use more electricity, which the article clearly states) is not a solution as it is not clean. Maybe it is clean right were the electricity is being used, but it sure as hell isn't a "green" solution like the article wrongly states.

 

[bjkjoseph]

the article does not state that...read it again...did you people read the same article...the part with the epa stoves...they are talking about fireplaces...the article says if you want to burn clean,you can use an epa certified stove....they even have pictures....as for the electricity i agree.

 

[brianbeech]

the article does not state that...read it again...did you people read the same article...the part with the epa stoves...they are talking about fireplaces...the article says if you want to burn clean,you can use an epa certified stove....they even have pictures....as for the electricity i agree.

The entire tone of the article is that burning wood is bad for you. Look at all the evidence and accounts from people in the article saying wood burning is dangerous. Did you know it can even cause heart attacks. Then, they segway with: "FOR those who still want to build a fire".

I'm not sure if you're reading this line by line while forgetting the rest of the article, but it clearly paints the picture of being anti-wood burning. Sure, they highlight 'more' responsible ways to light fires, but the tone is clear.

 

[oldspark]

Yea after they punch you in the face, hit you over the head and kick you in the groin area they help you up and say have a nice day!

 

[brianbeech]

"Even the greenest of the green, though, sometimes throw caution to the winds when it comes to wood fires." - I don't see this talking about fireplaces, rather wood burning all together.