Welcome, guest [login | register]

Posted by Bill S on February 4, 2008 at 8:37:26 pm EST
In reply to building a campfire - sometimes it's just not right posted by bheiser1 on September 11, 2007 at 7:08:52 pm EDT

The problem with the Sierra stove is that it still burns wood, which means you gather the downed wood that otherwise would decay and provide nutrients for the plants and provides habitat and nutrients for small critters (insects, worms, and lots of other invertebrates), most of whom provide nutrients for slightly larger critters, and so on up the food chain. The burning of the wood also releases CO2, which is the most significant of the greenhouse gases. If the downed wood were allowed to decay and provide nutrients for the next generation of plants, CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere, instead of being released. It is way too easy to think that "I am only burning a tiny amount of the downed wood, so the impact is negligible" and overlook the cumulative impacts. Also, it takes a battery to run the fan, and batteries contain various chemicals that impact the environment. Here in Palo Alto, we have a city battery recycling program, which still does release some contaminants into the environment, but way too many people just drop the batteries in the trash that goes to the landfill (or even leave them in the wilderness).

Yes, burning petroleum fuels (white gas, kerosene, butane, propane) also releases CO2 into the atmosphere, but it is less than getting the same heat for cooking from the wood fire in the Sierra stove (and similar designs), and far less than campfires.

More information can be found on the Leave No Trace website (www.lnt.org, with an "L" as in LNT). We should all be practicing Leave No Trace in the woods, and in our daily lives.

Replies

View: flat | threaded

There have been no replies

Post a Reply

Before replying, please read the complete thread.