THE subject of wood-burning stoves as reported in The National and commented on about by George M Mitchell (Letters, March 26) is much more complex than it seems to be at first sight.
When considered in depth, the objection to the Scottish Parliament is spurious and falls into the category of the sniping letters which constantly criticise the government and has now been extended to the Green Party and its related ideas.
The demonisation of wood-burning stoves is one such attack. Green supporters like me often have stoves and it is a roundabout way of undermining them and creating the legend that Greens are polluters. The much greater pollution caused by aircraft and road vehicles is somehow lessened.
Mr Mitchell's letter rebuffs many of the subliminal ideas which are inherent in this programme of disinformation with robust common sense. In addition there are many weaknesses in the original submission to the parliament. My own stoves have a secondary combustion system which reduces outputs. When a stove is on, other heating sources are turned down, thus reducing the use of alternative fuels. The handling, storing and burning of logs gives great psychological and aesthetic satisfaction.
Stoves ventilate and dry the home and can be used for cooking. But most of all, logs are not a fossil fuel and their use can be balanced by tree-growing. This is an indirect benefit as trees are a principal tool for improving environment.
If offered a world operated around nuclear power, fracking and present systems of fossil fuel extraction or a world of wood-burning stoves, I know which one has my vote.
As the old saying has it, wood warms you three times: when you saw it down, when you saw it up and when you burn it. I add: when you plant a new tree.
Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell
While we fully support any call for action to improve our air quality, I urge Holyrood’s committee and like-minded campaigners to turn their attention to the issue of wood fuel quality rather than purge Scottish homes of their stoves.
Today’s modern stoves are rigorously tested and those which are Defra exempt and Ecodesign Ready have been proven to reduce emissions by 80-90 per cent compared to open fires and old stoves. A stove is only as good as the wood it burns.
Wet wood demands more heat to burn off the water before the appliance can give out the proper level of heat. As a result it creates a lot of smoke, which contributes to air pollution.
The industry is working together to be part of the solution, not the problem. We’ve gained the support of Defra and the Mayor of London for the Ready to Burn scheme which helps consumers identify dry, quality logs to reduce harmful smoke and emissions for the benefit of their stove and our environment.
The answer is not to dictate how people choose to heat their homes but rather the simple act of choosing the right fuel.
Bruce Allen
Chairman, Woodsure
I refer to the piece in Monday’s National (Holyrood urged to ban wood-burning stoves, The National, March 26) and I am at a loss to understand this and consequently conclude it is yet another “Look, there is a squirrel” diversion from more serious matters.
Some of my neighbours have these stoves and I find the smoke produced quite pleasant. There are, however, two houses nearby which burn sulphur-laden fossil fuel and the fumes from these are quite noxious.
It is not the stoves that are the problem but the fuels used therein.
The human race has evolved over a long period of time in the presence of wood and grass fire smokes. We are well used to this as part of the environment.
Robert Kerr
Carluke
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel