Good grief. Is this not, like, #126 on the Save the World to-do list? Maybe just ahead of banning gas stoves?

I appreciate that this is your speciality, and so you’re inclined to write about it. But articles like this exacerbate every cultural issue with climate change solutions. It’s just yet another thing we can’t / shouldn’t do in terms of production / consumption, and it’s way down the list of priorities for solving the catastrophic problem at our front door.

Normally I’m a “let’s do it all; all tools in the tool box; all hands on deck” type of guy. But here I see too much danger with counterproductivity. I’m liberal, but know how conservatives think, and shaming wood burning is just another reason to consider the whole campaign to fix the environment the product of left-wing radical lunatics. I mean, burning wood?? Sure, combustion can have harmful byproducts, even wood, but trees are a renewable resource, and forests are full of wood fuel load that even contributes to the intensity of wildfires. I mean… Jesus, in terms of net positives versus negative externalities, this one’s a squeaker.

Let’s focus on the major issues, like reducing fossil fuel production and scaling up renewables, making affordable low-carbon energy available to people, and figuring out how we’re going to collectively work on climate change amid deglobalization. We need to cool the poles, save civilizational infrastructure from catastrophic sea level rise, all while somehow convincing billions of people to be orders of magnitude less acquisitive. If we can do that, and if we don’t manage to all completely destroy ourselves in the process, we can tackle the wood issue.