Cob: RE: Insulation

[Sojourner]

bluemoon wrote:
> 
> sojournr at missouri.org wrote:
> 
> Um, I have to disagree here. Burning wood is NOT polluting
> to our environment. Burning wood gives off the SAME gases
> as the wood would give off decomposing naturally.

Oh?  Trees naturally give off creosote when they decompose?

> And no, we wouldn't go through every burnable stick, there
> are already people who sell firewood by the cord AND practice
> replenishing their stock. Obviously if people are going to try
> to build sustainable, there's a good chance they will try to
> incorporate sustainable habits into their daily living.

No.  We would quickly burn up everything in sight.  Do you have ANY IDEA
of just how many people there are living in the US, and how many BTU's
need to be generated to keep the vast majority of them warm in the
winter?  (We can largely ignore populations of Florida and parts of CA,
they do some heating there but nothing compared to what happens further
north).

Aside from the creosote issue, imagine the concentrations of smoke in
urban population centers.  LA car smog would pale by comparison.

Granted it would only be in the heating season.  What's that, about 6 to
9 months in the northern portions of the US?  Probably worse in Canada.

Not to mention the air pollution caused by trucking all those cords and
cords and cords of firewood into urban centers and the suburbs.  These
guys living in town are NOT going to be burning the blue spruce in their
yards.

It's not practical for large scale applications, and if you think
deforestation in the name of paper and furniture is bad now (and I do,
apparently you either don't agree or are not informed on the matter)
just wait until people suddenly want that old-growth forest to keep warm
in the winter.

Now, if you're going to force everyone out of the city and into the
countryside, say 40 viable acres for each family group, well, after
scads of them die off due to disease, hunger, and general pestilence
(plus scads of us country folk when we're attacked by the starving
masses you've driven out of the city) what's left MAY be able to
sustainably heat their homes - what's left of them - with wood.

Spread out, nature can deal with MOST of the smoke caused by this sort
of burning before it gets concentrated enough to constitute pollution.

One guy peeing in a stream isn't polluting - an entire city dumping raw
sewage in there IS.

Pollution is caused when an excess or concentration of a substance is
created faster than natural processes can break it down or handle it. 
Everybody in New York City burning wood to heat their homes would most
DEFINITELY constitute a major pollution problem.

How long can you stand in the smoke of a campfire?  Everybody I know
moves out of the way when the wind shifts, coughing, choking, and eyes
watering.  Imagine being in an urban center, where the smoke is
everywhere during the heating season.

> Okay, I live in Ontario, Canada. Yes we have overcast days,
> but not the whole winter.

Good for you!  You're one of the lucky ones that doesn't have to deal
with a dreary winter.  Take advantage of solarizing your home to
maximize heat gain in the winter, you have a resource to use.

Everybody who lives in the North is not so lucky, however.  I know at
least one other respondent in this thread who specifically said that she
lives in an area in the NE US that IS cloudy and dreary all winter.

SO a solar heating effect isn't something that she can rely on.

> The concept of passive solar energy is to regulate your homes
> temperature throughout the year, solar energy does not mean HEAT.

Granted.  However, the guy who posted about double cob walls was more
concerned about staying warm in the winter so that's what I responded
to.

Frankly, that's what I'D be worried about, too, if I had to live where
he does.  I get cold at the drop of a hat.  That's why I moved as far
south as I could and still stay in the midwest - which for me turned out
to be S. Central MO.

Holly ;-D