We don’t enjoy having to react to media sensationalism, however, there are times when it feels important to set the record straight. A negative narrative is being unfairly manufactured around the wood-burning stove industry, by anti-woodburning groups such as the ‘London Wood Burning Project’ and ‘Clean Air Hub’. Their campaigns repeatedly use misleading claims and stats to scare the public and they refuse to answer questions directly when challenged.

Therefore, we feel it is a duty to set the record straight, so people don’t succumb to the haze of misleading information out there. In this blog, we will shed light on some of the flawed data and unfair generalisations anti-woodburning groups are using.

​

What do they mean by wood-burner?

​

The campaigns paint a distorted picture, often using anxiety-inducing imagery and negative attention-grabbing headlines based on sweeping generalisations and weak or inaccurate data. They continue to mislead the public using stats that lump modern wood-burning stoves in with outdated, inefficient models, open fires and bonfires. It’s like saying cyclists are equally to blame for traffic congestion/emissions as lorries and private cars just because they all use wheels!  

They combine emission sources for a more impactful number, and then claim 17% of London’s emissions come from ‘domestic wood burning’ or ‘wood burners’. Catch-all terms the public understandably associate most readily with wood-burning stoves – especially because they create ad campaigns which prominently feature images of wood stoves. However, the actual contribution of modern wood-burning stoves is estimated by the UK government’s official figures at just 1-2%! (1)  

Differentiating between wood-burning practices is vital for progress  

Firefly London points out: “The irony of the billboard placement is that London’s tube network has appalling air quality, with PM 2.5 readings peaking at 600-700 ug/m3 – that’s 100 TIMES MORE PARTICULATES than an average London street…”

It is essential to differentiate between various forms of wood-burning. Chief Medical Advisor Chris Whitty in his report acknowledges this saying, “For air pollution emissions, there is substantial difference between the different open fire and stove designs, the age of the appliance and how well maintained it is, and the moisture content of the wood, for those who want to burn wood.”(2) 

While Ecodesign-compliant stoves are up to 90% more efficient than an open fire, ClearSkies Level 5 stoves, are even better still. They surpass Ecodesign standards, offering a further reduction in emissions by up to 30%! (3)  

This is where the anti-woodburning strategy is so incredibly counterproductive. In London 70% of wood burning still occurs on open fires. (4) If people were widely encouraged to switch to one of the many modern and efficient wood-burning stoves available, it would massively reduce urban PM 2.5 emissions. Just think, the emissions of 70% of London Wood burning could be reduced by 90%!  

Modern wood-burning stoves could help London reduce open-fire emissions by 90% ! 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

PM 2.5 comes from such a wide array of natural and man-made sources that a zero-emission world is impossible! The best we can do is reduce them as much as possible while maintaining our ability to heat our homes. That is exactly what modern wood-burning stoves help achieve.   

If improvements were what the anti-woodburning brigade was truly after, it doesn’t make sense to ignore the vast advancements in clean-burn technology now defining modern wood-burning stove heating. They are the ones being ‘careless’. 

PM 2.5 perspective: How stoves can HELP improve indoor air quality 

This is also totally misleading. We could draw on our sources, but more powerfully we can draw on the London Wood-Burning Project’s own report as a rebuttal to this one. 

On page 71 of their 127-page report (5), we find the page titled Key Findings. Below are 3 crucial pieces of information from this page:  

1/ Use of the clearSkies Level5 stove (which is Ecodesign compliant) demonstrated some benefits for indoor air quality. Indoor PM2.5 did not increase when adding fuel to the stove once lit… At times there was actually a decrease in indoor concentrations of PM2.5 when adding fuel.  

As we have long pointed out, a properly functioning modern wood stove draws particulates out of the room and up the flue, helping improve air quality and ventilation in the home. The stove used in this study was our Charnwood C-Five.  

2/ Increases in pollutant concentrations may be more affected by participant technique or specific airflow characteristics of an individual appliance, rather than to the type of appliance or fuel.  

We always encourage best stove practices and will continue to do our level best to educate new and existing customers and beyond.   

3/ However, the biggest increases in PM2.5 concentrations indoors did not relate to indoor wood or solid-fuel burning but instead were a result of cooking, especially frying, grilling and use of the oven, and particularly when the extraction fan was not used.  

This really provides perspective on the issue of PM 2.5 in the home. A slice of burnt toast or your Sunday lunch can contribute far more than a wood-burning stove.  

 It’s a shame they don’t plaster these findings on a bus or large poster. 

A lack of scientific rigour 

Imprecise methodology  

“The results were compared to modelled wood and solid-fuel burning emissions to identify areas where the measurements match well with predictions or where measurements may provide evidence of solid-fuel burning that were not predicted by the model.” (pg.9 of the LWBP report)  

They do not sufficiently differentiate between the different sources of ‘solid fuel burning’. Data collection relies heavily on estimations and ambient air sampling, offering a blurry picture at best. Traffic, construction, industrial processes and even natural dust all contribute to PM2.5 and cannot reliably be controlled in their methodology.