[Fwd: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation]

[Sojourner]

I'm PRETTY SURE this was intended for the list as well.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Cob: RE: Insulation
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:02:29 +0100
From: Michael Saunby <mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK>
Reply-To: "mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK" <mike at Chook.Demon.Co.UK>
Organization: Teachmore
To: "'Sojourner'" <sojournr at missouri.org>

On 17 July 1999 13:28, Sojourner [SMTP:sojournr at missouri.org] wrote:
>
> Wood burning is actually sustainable only if it is practiced only by a
> small percentage of the population on enough land to maintain their own
> personal woodlots (and I do mean maintain - NOT just cut 'n clear until
> you run out of wood).
>
> Coppicing might work well with a masonry stove, but coppiced wood is not
> so good for the typical wood stove - has a high potential for increased
> creosote buildup in your chimney.
>
> If everybody in the country started burning wood the pollution would not
> only be incredible, we would run through every burnable stick quicker 'n
> you could say "jack flash".
>
> What's "sustainable" on a small scale is not always "sustainable" on a
> large scale.
>
> Of course, you could say that our current population level is itself
> "not sustainable".  But I'm not planning on doing anything to reduce the
> population level to one I think IS "sustainable", myself.
>

I guess your talking "middle scale" if such a thing exists.  I'm pretty 
sure that for domestic fuel wood is the human fuel of choice, i.e. if
you 
check per household globally the vast majority of the population (global
of 
course, anything else is largely irrelevant) nearly all use, and
probably 
prefer wood.  Now it is also likely to be the case that wood is being 
burned faster than it's being planted, though it's also likely that we 
could easily grow (in many parts of the world) a great deal more.

For the US I realise this is largely irrelevant, per capita fuel 
consumption is incredible, so I'm not too surprised by your figure of 40 
acres per family, but for most (global) households it would be just an
acre 
or so, much more realistic. But then they're already doing it, though
not 
always sustainably.

It doesn't help anyone to suggest that the only way to provide adequate 
fuel supplies for domestic use require gas, oil or nuclear power, or in 
truth any form of power distribution.  The large energy hungry cities of 
the northern hemisphere are a peculiar anomaly when you take a global
view, 
and their needs are not those of normal human families.  In most parts
of 
the world access to fuel wood is much more realistic than access to
other 
types of fuel.

In the long term I suspect that per capita fuel consumption in the
northern 
hemisphere will fall and that although most will choose to use
sanitised, 
switchable, metered power the source of that power could just as easily
be 
industrially grown wood as nuclear, wind, wave or any other power
source. 
 Because on a global scale wood does not pollute, the sun shines the
trees 
take chemicals from the air (almost nothing from the soil, and they
return 
that) and when burned the chemical return (in the same form, i.e. mostly 
CO2) to the atmosphere.

Michael Saunby