If you pay attention to discussions of energy issues, you could hardly avoid the conclusion that there are no forms of energy that are any good. This is despite the fact that Canadian and US citizens still have a big appetite for energy of all types. The same people who, by any reasonable measure are excessive consumers of energy, fight strenuously to stop energy developments where they live. Apparently the only acceptable forms of energy are ones produced out of sight and out of mind.

Here is a list of the main energy sources and the perfectly valid reasons why they shouldn’t be used.

• We can’t keep burning the fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal because they cause smog, global warming and are getting scarce and expensive.
• We don’t want nuclear reactors because they cost too much and are scary now and deadly forever.
• We don’t like wind farms because big turbines make noise, kill birds and spoil beautiful views.
• No hydroelectric because dams kill fish and destroy river valleys.
• Say no to biofuels like ethanol and bio-diesel because they divert land from food crops and make little net energy.
• Solar electric is not a good source because it is too expensive and the manufacture of photovoltaic panels is toxic and consumes about the same amount of energy they produce in their useful life.
• We must not encourage industrial wood energy because it will decimate the forests.
• Residential wood heating should be discouraged because it smells bad, pollutes the air and makes people sick.

Hardly anyone agrees with every one of those statements, but various interest groups lobby against nearly all of them so loudly that they affect public policy. It seems most people have their own favourite energy boogeyman.

In the case of residential wood heating, the growing number of anti-wood burning activist web sites is getting more and more attention in the media and government. Their arguments sound convincing, but they want to ban wood heating without considering the environmental impacts of the other home heating options.

By saying that we shouldn’t burn wood, are they saying we should instead heat our houses with coal-fired electricity, which includes mountain top removal and sky-high greenhouse gas emissions? Or maybe nuclear electricity is more to their liking, provided the reactor isn’t in their neighborhood. Should we heat with oil pumped from aged and depleting wells or from Alberta’s tar sands operations that have made Canada a global outlaw for its stunning greenhouse gas emissions? Or they might prefer oil imported mainly from Middle-Eastern and African nations where international oil companies conspire with corrupt governments to suppress human rights? Do they mean we should heat with natural gas from depleting wells that is shipped by pipeline 3,000 Km? The way these anti-wood activists talk, wood is the only energy source that has an impact on the environment.

In reality, all the energy we use, with the possible exception of some forms of solar energy, have an impact on the environment. Considering the array of energy and environmental problems we face, a desirable source must have at least these three characteristics: low carbon emissions, a high energy return on energy invested and should be renewable. Wait, that sounds like an accurate description of firewood.

Studies of the issue reveal that, provided the firewood is processed from trees harvested using sustainable forestry practices, its efficient use produces lower net greenhouse gases than any other heating fuel. If firewood is consumed within, say, 100 kilometres (about 60 mi.) of the woodlot it came from, it has a higher energy return on energy invested (net energy) than any other home heating fuel. Firewood is a renewable energy resource because the wood is essentially stored solar energy.

Whenever wood heating is defended from attack, the following straw man argument is sure to follow: Yes, but if everyone decided to heat with wood, the forests would be destroyed and the air wood be polluted. True, but no one has ever suggested that wood heating is for everyone. In fact, it is folly to suggest that any single energy source is universally appropriate, although both the nuclear and natural gas industries promote their sources on that basis. Wood is clearly not a good fuel in densely-populated urban areas, if for no other reason than the fuel would cost more than other options due to shipping and storage costs.

The big problem with residential wood heating is the smoke created when wood is burned badly in older conventional equipment. A plume of smoke from a chimney cannot be justified, but at least it is visible for all to see, making the homeowners instantly accountable for their actions. Smoke is by far the largest environmental impact of wood heating; there are no environmental disasters hidden upstream in the supply chain, as there are with most other energy sources. Theoretically, a forest could be clear cut for firewood, but the economics of fuelwood production make that unlikely, even for a morally-challenged forester. So, while wood smoke is a serious problem in some places, it can be reduced to acceptable levels with readily available technology and responsible use.

One of the great advantages of wood heating is that it teaches its users all about the cause and effect relationships of energy production and consumption. Every single piece of wood that is burned for heat is handled a few times by somebody, and the process teaches us that supplying energy is complex and difficult and produces impacts on the environment. As a result, the families that heat with wood are more literate on energy issues than average homeowners.

With apologies to the memory of Winston Churchill (who was speaking of democracy), firewood is the worst possible energy source we can use, except for all the others.

JG