Gov. Consultation on wood & coal

Nick_C wrote: »

I live on the edge of a village, far from a main road.

I always wipe the washing line down before using it, and the cloth is black if I haven't wiped the line for a week. I suppose some of this could be particulate from diesel emissions.

In the winter, the air is often heavy with wood smoke. I quite like the smell, but I'm sure inhaling can't be good for you.

One of my neighbours lit a fire a couple of days ago when it was cold, and there was thick black smoke coming from their chimney. I assume they were burning coal.

I can see the sense in banning the sale of solid fuel.

And replacing it with what? There is no such thing as either free or 'pollution' free energy, despite the lies some generators tell. Everything has a cost, literal and environmental.

In any case, shouldn't diesel cars, buses and trucks come first if the ban stick is being waved around?

Nick_C wrote: »

Methane or Propane, which produce only Carbon Dioxide and water vapour when burned.

Electricity, produced by Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Solar, or Nuclear power. Or from burning fossil fuels and scrubbing the emissions.



We could do both.

Here's the good news. The eco movement already has both propane and methane in its sights as 'fossil fuels'. Gas is next on the list with a UK ban on gas cookers and boilers proposed for introduction by 2050.

Yes, they really are that crazy.

As for 'doing both' I'm afraid I can't take that seriously.

Personally, I would rather expand the medical health services to treat irrational angst-ridden 'Green' neurosis before it reduces us to the living standards of the 14th Century.

Nick_C wrote: »

Lung damage from breathing polluted air, and greenhouse gas emissions, are two completely different issues. Conflating them is not helpful to the discussion of this issue.

Clearly, you haven't read DEFRA's 'consultation', which is what we are talking about. That is precisely where conflation takes place.

A._Badger wrote: »

Having first campaigned vigorously in favour of wood burning, the eco warriors have now decided it is an evil. They have already succeeded in having it outlawed in parts of California (where so many idiotic notions come from). It was only a matter of time before they tried to import it to the UK.

This is nonsense. I know of no-one who could be described as a "green" who supports wood burning. Except for the eco-warrior at a weekend, while running an Aga type... but they don't count (I hope).

A._Badger wrote: »

These are the same people who brought us government incentives to drive diesel cars and biomass burning at Drax, using wood imported from native forests in the USA.

Greens supporting diesel? That's ridiculous. The people that supported diesel were those looking for easy answers to reduce carbon emissions and those with an incentive to sell more diesel cars, ideally with help from Government incentives. That's Government and car manufacturers respectively.

I think you have a skewed idea of those concerned about the environment, or maybe I'm misreading your term "eco warrior".

That said, there is a problem with wood burning in this country. It's not that all people who burn wood are a problem, it's that some people are. It's these people you need to aim your ire at.

Smiley_Dan wrote: »

This is nonsense. I know of no-one who could be described as a "green" who supports wood burning. Except for the eco-warrior at a weekend, while running an Aga type... but they don't count (I hope).

It most certainly isn't nonsense! Wood burning has been widely encouraged as 'carbon neutral'. I personally know a former Greenpeace bigwig who has made a career out of pushing wood and 'biomass'. Trying to pretend so-called Greens haven't been prime movers in energy policy is one of the most disingenuous things i have ready on this site in months.

[QUOTE=Smiley Dan;74727973
Greens supporting diesel? That's ridiculous. The people that supported diesel were those looking for easy answers to reduce carbon emissions and those with an incentive to sell more diesel cars, ideally with help from Government incentives. That's Government and car manufacturers respectively.
.[/QUOTE]

And who was it that invented the fuss about so called 'carbon emissions' in the first place? Who used its supporters in the media to apply pressure on government to 'reduce carbon emissions?' which a compliant government duly did via taxation policy?

It's quite bad enough that we have to live with some of these appalling decisions without having to witness so-called environmentalists trying to absolve themselves of responsibility when it goes horribly wrong.