Why burning firewood is NOT ‘carbon-neutral’
by Ken Winston Caine
A company selling high-efficiency woodstoves in northern New Mexico is advertising that burning firewood is carbon-neutral.
In other words, they are suggesting that it’s a clean, green-energy form of heating.
True science used to mislead
In the radio commercial, they say that the carbon released when the wood is burned is equal to the carbon that would be released if the tree naturally decayed after it died. And that it is equal to the amount of carbon that the tree removed from the atmosphere during its life. That much is good science, I believe.
But does that make wood-burning “carbon neutral?”
I don’t think so. Here’s why:
Man burns up natural balance sheet
Most hardwood trees have lifespans measured in the hundreds of years. Some live thousands of years. And then, when they die (usually due to pestilence or disease or periods of extreme climate change) they decay very very slowly.
So, the amount of carbon a tree releases needs to be measured against the number of years of its life and decay. Per year, the tree emits very little carbon on that basis. When you burn the tree, on the other hand, you release all the carbon at once. And then what do you do?
You stuff another tree in the stove. And burn it. And release more carbon.
You release in a matter of days or months, carbon that the tree sequestered over many decades or centuries. You can’t plant and grow trees at the pace you burn them.
That does not add up to “carbon-neutral” to me. Nor is it “clean” heat.
(If I’m wrong, correct me with some good science. But I’m getting irritated every time I hear this claim on the radio commercial.)
The emerging threat of bogus ‘green’ advertising
November 23rd, 2008 04:05
[...] sashok wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMan burns up natural balance sheet Most hardwood trees have lifespans measured in the hundreds of years. Some live thousands of years. And then, when they die (usually due to pestilence or disease or periods of extreme climate change) … [...]
April 1st, 2009 12:35
I think it is an interesting point though does not take in to account the whole system. When harvesting firewood a tree is taken from the forest, not as a standalone tree. In a well managed family forest, one is able to grow more firewood than one burns. If a tree is taken, the forest responds to the newly available resources: water, light, nutrients and space and the surrounding trees grow faster. “Carbon neutral” is based on time scales, and in any system if you look at a small enough timeframe it will look out of balance, the reason the carbon system is called a cycle is because the carbon moves, and it does not remain in each portion of the system for an equal period of time. When the argument is made that firwood is not carbon neutral it assumes that our carbon balance sheet is a 1 year snapshot of the carbon cycle. No cyclic system can be looked at with such a narrow view. The problem with petroleum fuels is that when they burn they are releasing carbon sequestered and stored millions of years ago, that had been removed from the carbon cycle, and the earth had since achieved equilibrium.
With all this said burning wood can cause air pollution if not burned appropriatly. One should always burn dry, clean, local wood minimize negative impacts and it should be harvested sustainably by respectable honest loggers.
July 7th, 2009 03:55
I had to switch from burning propane to burning wood simply because propane cost too much. It would have driven us into the poor house. I cannot afford solar panels or geothermal at this time.
I only usually burn wood from trees that are dead or fallen over. I am not too frenzied about the whole global warming alarmism thing. Some scientists are actually saying that the Earth is on a cooling trend and since this has been the 8th coolest June in the history of record keeping, I am inclined to believe it…