The weather is getting colder, and that means getting back to anti-wood-burning propaganda.
Did you know a wood burner can kill you? They pollute more than cars and cause cancer, “similar to cigarette smoke,” and so on.
Jeremy Vine is asking if it’s time to ban them.
This isn’t new – for want of a better word – “information”. We covered this last Christmas. Then over the summer, it was folded in with a barrage of “indoor air quality” fear-mongering, only to re-emerge now that the days are getting shorter again.
Sort of like reverse-hibernation.
A trendy wood burning stove almost killed me…they need to be banned before they do anymore damage
…screams the Daily Mail.
I like the word “trendy” — they keep using it — it’s so shamelessly manipulative, painting the humble stove as some pretentious luxury accessory, rather than the basic means of heating your home for literal millennia.
Anyway, the crux of the story is that this lady – Lizzie – had a severe asthma attack, and she “believes” it was linked to wood-burning stoves.
So they should be banned. Or something.
Then they quote a doctor:
‘This is why we want the government to launch a public awareness campaign on the health impacts and sources of pollution to empower the public to make cleaner choices and protect lung health, and other people like Lizzie.’
Then come the graphs. It’s all very predictable.
The Telegraph, more refined and less hysterical than the Daily Mail (which admittedly isn’t saying much) goes with…
Wood burners are bad for you. Here’s why you didn’t notice.
Detailing how new research has shown that wood burners are really terrible for everyone who uses them, but we just never noticed before.
Why didn’t we notice?
Oh, because the people who use them are “mostly” otherwise healthy and wealthy so the data was disguised by demographics.
Now, you might think that “research” which concludes “wood burning might make you sick, but being poor, eating badly or smoking are worse” is a shoe-in for the Well Duh! Prize at the annual Waste of Time Awards, but you’re wrong. It’s very serious.
Anyway, here’s their version of the doctor quote:
“It would be good to see increased awareness on the impact of wood burners, with clearer information and guidance from the Government on the health impact, as well as increased regulation around domestic wood-burning.”
No graphs this time, which is nice. But notice, like the Daily Mail article, the repeated association of wood burning with the upper class. It’s a luxury, not a right. That’s the message. The “expert” in the Telegraph even says, “primarily the reason for having a wood burner is the aesthetic of it.”
That’s a common sentiment, always presented without evidence.
That’s something I still find hilarious about the press — perhaps the British press in particular. These are identical stories, just in a house style. It’s like AI image filters, where you upload a photo of yourself and ask, “Show me this image as if it were painted by Van Gogh.” Or Rembrandt. Or Picasso.
“Tell me burning wood causes cancer in the style of the Guardian”. Or the Mirror. Or The Sun.
The aesthetic changes, the message does not.
And, of course, it’s not just the UK. When is it ever?
The devolved Scottish Parliament has already banned wood burners in newly built homes, with some local councils banning the installation of wood-burners in their council houses.
The anti-stove agenda clearly summers in Australia, because back in July, ABC were reporting on “the silent killer” of wood smoke, and how experts were calling for bans.
In New Zealand, government-commissioned research is blaming not just wood-burning stoves, but open fires, gas heaters and gas ovens for thousands of deaths per year.
In Canada, British Columbia is enforcing a registry for those who want to burn solid fuel domestically.
Hellbound and Down 