View Single Post
Old 2nd May 2021, 11:31   #15
Darcydog
This is my second home
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,428
Thanks: 3,123
Thanked 3,170 Times in 2,096 Posts
Default

In some ways I’m pleased to see that the burning of wood is now seen to have negative consequences. Albeit primarily in our leafy lanes and suburbs where it became fashionable to have a wood-burner installed.

Dealing with the ash and dust was a bit of a wake up call for many tho’.

Broadening the issue out a bit, if Propane is burnt for heat and cooking it pretty much burns completely so no ash or dust. But Propane is of course a fossil fuel and so in the eyes of the likes of Greta the Doom Goblin - propane is akin to the Devils flatulence.

So it’s being banned and people in the Third World must not have it! So they do burn coal and wood for heat and cooking and often live in the room where the open fire is lit.

The effect on their health is enormous.

The effect on the Forests with people chopping down wood to burn contributes to Deforestation. Something in my book that is FAR more worrying than an increase in CO2 from 0.039% to 0.04%.

In fact NASA has shown that this slight increase in CO2 has contributed to the greening of the planet by supporting the growth of more plant biomass.

So - we in the U.K. are to be banned from burning coal and wood - but we also forbid poorer countries from having access to Propane so that they have to chop down trees and burn wet wood and sometimes coal.

I have yet to meet a so called “Climate Change Extremist” that can grasp this simple paradox. They are the only people I know that can put two and two together and swear blind the answer is three.
Darcydog is offline   Reply With Quote