Whether it's the state of the planet or your wallet that's concerning you more, heating your home with electricity or gas accounts for a hefty amount of fuel usage, and depending on your lifestyle, may well be the largest single contributor to your carbon footprint. So it's no wonder that many are looking to alternative heating strategies for what may be a hard and frugal winter. But just how green are those alternatives, really?
By far the most popular option for those lucky enough to have a fireplace and workable chimney is an open fire: not only does this create a cosy atmosphere; it's cheaper to use coal and or wood for fuel, particularly if you live in a rural area where you can gather your own firewood. But what about the impact on the environment? Opinions are strongly divided on the greenness of burning either coal OR wood, and while many see open fires as a low-impact, potentially carbon neutral solution, others see them as a potential menace and pollution source.
A recent US government survey outed coal as 'the worst pollutant of them all', and of course, we all know about the smog that an excess of coal-burning can cause. But smokeless fuel is available now, and you could always stick to burning wood, either on the hearth of with a specially-designed wood burner. Is this any greener? Some would argue that burning wood is perfectly OK because the CO2 released cannot be more than the amount of CO2 absorbed out of the atmosphere by the tree in growth, making it a global-warming neutral energy source.
What do you think?
[Via the Guardian]
Leave a comment