4 ms·

People aren't cutting down live trees to burn in their wood stoves.

eliaspro 6y ago
Even if (which is far from the reality) only dead wood would be collected from the forest, it's still releasing CO2 which would otherwise be mostly sequestrated by microorganisms and fungi in the forest soil and provide a key ingredient to a functioning soil ecosystem. The reality is: huge amounts of protected forests (e.g. in Romania or Estonia) are cut down and sold as firewood in central Europe.
- alamortsubite 6y ago
  Live trees are full of water, and take, in my experience, two years minimum after they die to season properly before their wood can be burned in a stove. If people are harvesting live trees for firewood, my guess is they're desperate for other options. I don't think that's the case in NZ (the context for this discussion), but I admit to being clueless about the situation in Central Europe. Also, if a dead tree is laying on the ground and your options are 1) use it to heat your home, or 2) leave it the to mushrooms and bugs and burn fossil fuel instead, then if the environment is your concern, I don't see how you could pick the latter. Keep in mind that one of the best things about heating with wood is that it takes a tremendous amount of effort on the part of the end user. Cutting, splitting, stacking, starting a fire, feeding the stove, adjusting the stove, taking out the ashes. Some of us enjoy it, but it's definitely a lot of hard work, and I'd argue all the time you put into it makes you far more in touch with how much energy you consume than someone who simply twists a dial on the wall and kicks back to Netflix. You might even choose a much smaller house and wear a sweater. I've hiked in a forest in Romania. Despite the fact that it was a great place to be eaten by a bear, it was spectacular and a resource to be treasured.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure live trees are harvested, cut to length and split into firewood, dried for two years, and sold. It's sort of necessarily true that the trees used are dead. I think the point is: many are killed specifically to produce firewood.
    - alamortsubite 6y ago
      Can you please provide a reference? Writing as someone with a wood stove, with neighbors with wood stoves, whose fuel comes from trees that are not felled for firewood, I'm very skeptical this is true in the context of the article we're discussing.
      - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
        I can't, and it's entirely possible you're right about your wood and your neighbors. Some of the wood I could buy in the U.S. is birch harvested in the Baltics. I've seen videos of harvesting operations that are definitely harvesting live birch and splitting it with equipment that's all designed with that in mind. But I've got no proof for you!
  - jpollock 6y ago
    In NZ, pine trees are an invasive pest. https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/weeds/common-weeds/wilding-conifers/ https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/weeds/commo...
    - alamortsubite 6y ago
      I can't imagine burning pine in a stove, except as kindling. The notable invasive species where I live is ailanthus. I've burned some out of curiosity. It's better than pine, but not worth the trouble when you're tripping over red oak.
      - bacon_waffle 6y ago
        Pine is one of the most common firewoods here. I tend to go for gum, which is also an introduced species. And, yes that's often felled to be used only as firewood. I should point out that there are plenty pine species that aren't considered invasive pests like wilding pines are; for example one of our bigger exports is radiata pine.
dredmorbius 6y ago
People did. That is largely a matter of scale. Woodstoves are not widely used in major habitated areas (cities and suburbs) in advanced countries. They're a primary heating source principally in rural areas, where population is sparse. Or, of course, in developing countries where other heating options aren't available. When woodfuel was a principle fuel source, forests were indeed being cut down faster than they could regrow just to provide fuel. And some of the oldest enviromental regulations and restrictions in the world address the sustenance and conservation of woodlands. The aphorism that "forests preceed mankind, deserts follow" has a great deal of truth to it. It was exhaustion of fuelwood throughout Great Britain, Ireland, and mainland Europe that lead to the adoption of coal, and the burning of coal which largely lead to the resurgence of European forests. In developing countries, fuel avaiability and woodstove (or other solid fuel, often animal droppings) particulate emissions are major energy security and health concerns. At small scale, and for occasional use, in areas with abundant tree growth, fuelwood is viable. Given present human population densities, at a large scale, it is not.
- eliaspro 6y ago
  > Woodstoves are not widely used in major habitated areas (cities and suburbs) in advanced countries. They're a primary heating source principally in rural areas, where population is sparse. Or, of course, in developing countries where other heating options aren't available. Unfortunately, that's not the case for large parts of Western Europe, where wood-based heating is considered eco-friendly, due to it being classified as "renewable". For example. in Germany you'll get 40% of a wood-pellet burner subsidized. Many villages and also towns are plagued by heavy air pollution. Emissions from those by now have surpassed those by cars, according to the German federal environmental agency. [1] Scientific findings and political action don't match up at all here - some other European countries slowly start to address this issue, but then again UK is pushing for the Drax power plant which runs exclusively on wood pellets whose wood sources are highly problematic [2]. [1] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/luft/emissionsminderung-bei-kleinfeuerungsanlagen https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/luft/emissionsminderung... [2] https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2021/draxs-pinewells-case-study/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2021/draxs-pinewells-case-st...
mauvehaus 6y ago
They are here in Vermont. When a woodlot gets cut, high grade gets sawn for lumber, stuff that doesn't make the cut for saw logs but can be pulped becomes paper and stuff that doesn't work for either of the above becomes firewood. There may be some variation based on pricing any given day, but my understanding is that this is pretty common when harvesting mixed forest (as opposed to a monoculture forest). We got three cords delivered last year that was mostly black birch, red oak, and white ash, and we burned two, supplemented by propane that kept the overnight low around 50F/10C inside. Our hot water, incidentally, is tankless propane.
- alamortsubite 6y ago
  > When a woodlot gets cut, high grade gets sawn for lumber, stuff that doesn't make the cut for saw logs but can be pulped becomes paper and stuff that doesn't work for either of the above becomes firewood. OK, but making complete use of the wood is hardly the same as harvesting timber specifically for firewood. Also, relatively speaking, little of the species you're burning are used for lumber. And you can't throw a rock without hitting a dead ash tree these days.

Even if (which is far from the reality) only dead wood would be collected from the forest, it's still releasing CO2 which would otherwise be mostly sequestrated by microorganisms and fungi in the forest soil and provide a key ingredient to a functioning soil ecosystem. The reality is: huge amounts of protected forests (e.g. in Romania or Estonia) are cut down and sold as firewood in central Europe.

alamortsubite 6y ago
Live trees are full of water, and take, in my experience, two years minimum after they die to season properly before their wood can be burned in a stove. If people are harvesting live trees for firewood, my guess is they're desperate for other options. I don't think that's the case in NZ (the context for this discussion), but I admit to being clueless about the situation in Central Europe. Also, if a dead tree is laying on the ground and your options are 1) use it to heat your home, or 2) leave it the to mushrooms and bugs and burn fossil fuel instead, then if the environment is your concern, I don't see how you could pick the latter. Keep in mind that one of the best things about heating with wood is that it takes a tremendous amount of effort on the part of the end user. Cutting, splitting, stacking, starting a fire, feeding the stove, adjusting the stove, taking out the ashes. Some of us enjoy it, but it's definitely a lot of hard work, and I'd argue all the time you put into it makes you far more in touch with how much energy you consume than someone who simply twists a dial on the wall and kicks back to Netflix. You might even choose a much smaller house and wear a sweater. I've hiked in a forest in Romania. Despite the fact that it was a great place to be eaten by a bear, it was spectacular and a resource to be treasured.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure live trees are harvested, cut to length and split into firewood, dried for two years, and sold. It's sort of necessarily true that the trees used are dead. I think the point is: many are killed specifically to produce firewood.
  - alamortsubite 6y ago
    Can you please provide a reference? Writing as someone with a wood stove, with neighbors with wood stoves, whose fuel comes from trees that are not felled for firewood, I'm very skeptical this is true in the context of the article we're discussing.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
      I can't, and it's entirely possible you're right about your wood and your neighbors. Some of the wood I could buy in the U.S. is birch harvested in the Baltics. I've seen videos of harvesting operations that are definitely harvesting live birch and splitting it with equipment that's all designed with that in mind. But I've got no proof for you!
- jpollock 6y ago
  In NZ, pine trees are an invasive pest. https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/weeds/common-weeds/wilding-conifers/ https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/weeds/commo...
  - alamortsubite 6y ago
    I can't imagine burning pine in a stove, except as kindling. The notable invasive species where I live is ailanthus. I've burned some out of curiosity. It's better than pine, but not worth the trouble when you're tripping over red oak.
    - bacon_waffle 6y ago
      Pine is one of the most common firewoods here. I tend to go for gum, which is also an introduced species. And, yes that's often felled to be used only as firewood. I should point out that there are plenty pine species that aren't considered invasive pests like wilding pines are; for example one of our bigger exports is radiata pine.

dredmorbius 6y ago

People did. That is largely a matter of scale. Woodstoves are not widely used in major habitated areas (cities and suburbs) in advanced countries. They're a primary heating source principally in rural areas, where population is sparse. Or, of course, in developing countries where other heating options aren't available. When woodfuel was a principle fuel source, forests were indeed being cut down faster than they could regrow just to provide fuel. And some of the oldest enviromental regulations and restrictions in the world address the sustenance and conservation of woodlands. The aphorism that "forests preceed mankind, deserts follow" has a great deal of truth to it. It was exhaustion of fuelwood throughout Great Britain, Ireland, and mainland Europe that lead to the adoption of coal, and the burning of coal which largely lead to the resurgence of European forests. In developing countries, fuel avaiability and woodstove (or other solid fuel, often animal droppings) particulate emissions are major energy security and health concerns. At small scale, and for occasional use, in areas with abundant tree growth, fuelwood is viable. Given present human population densities, at a large scale, it is not.

eliaspro 6y ago
> Woodstoves are not widely used in major habitated areas (cities and suburbs) in advanced countries. They're a primary heating source principally in rural areas, where population is sparse. Or, of course, in developing countries where other heating options aren't available. Unfortunately, that's not the case for large parts of Western Europe, where wood-based heating is considered eco-friendly, due to it being classified as "renewable". For example. in Germany you'll get 40% of a wood-pellet burner subsidized. Many villages and also towns are plagued by heavy air pollution. Emissions from those by now have surpassed those by cars, according to the German federal environmental agency. [1] Scientific findings and political action don't match up at all here - some other European countries slowly start to address this issue, but then again UK is pushing for the Drax power plant which runs exclusively on wood pellets whose wood sources are highly problematic [2]. [1] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/luft/emissionsminderung-bei-kleinfeuerungsanlagen https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/luft/emissionsminderung... [2] https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2021/draxs-pinewells-case-study/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2021/draxs-pinewells-case-st...

mauvehaus 6y ago

They are here in Vermont. When a woodlot gets cut, high grade gets sawn for lumber, stuff that doesn't make the cut for saw logs but can be pulped becomes paper and stuff that doesn't work for either of the above becomes firewood. There may be some variation based on pricing any given day, but my understanding is that this is pretty common when harvesting mixed forest (as opposed to a monoculture forest). We got three cords delivered last year that was mostly black birch, red oak, and white ash, and we burned two, supplemented by propane that kept the overnight low around 50F/10C inside. Our hot water, incidentally, is tankless propane.

alamortsubite 6y ago
> When a woodlot gets cut, high grade gets sawn for lumber, stuff that doesn't make the cut for saw logs but can be pulped becomes paper and stuff that doesn't work for either of the above becomes firewood. OK, but making complete use of the wood is hardly the same as harvesting timber specifically for firewood. Also, relatively speaking, little of the species you're burning are used for lumber. And you can't throw a rock without hitting a dead ash tree these days.