Scottish Greens being sexist again

I stay regularly with friends on the Isle of Lewis. If they had to stop burning peat, which I'm pretty sure is horrific for particulate matter and all manner of phenols, not just in winter but a fairly large chunk of the rest of the year too, I'd be chatting to a couple of woman-shaped icicles the next time I went up. Traditional and romantic though, innit, from the point of view of Holyrood. Just absolutely bloody necessary if you live up there.

Nobody drives through Scotland on a winters night with their window open (or atleast no sane person does)
Large sections of Scotland either have no access to mains gas or lose all power for weeks at a time everytime there's a bad storm so wood burners or coal fires are all they have to heat their homes, which is why the ban on gas boilers and wood burning stoves was scrapped, not dieing from hypothermia is more important than smoke free air

And properties with no neighbours anywhere near? Testing levels in a real house and levels outside makes sense. I note that currently within a property a CO monitor is mandatory but not a particle sensor. I have stayed in a house where solid fuel is the only realistic heating option. The blanket ban is authoritarian.

Woodburners are a total pain in the arse. Enormously time and labour intensive. For some people, they are necessary.

Given fuel uncertainty and geo politics as they are, plus climate change, moving away from a cheap and plentiful and renewable source of fuel in favour of fossil fuels is foolhardy.

Maybe the problem is the conflation of 'smoke' and 'pollution'.

Because of course fossil fuels pollute, just different types of particulates.

There is a very long list in that link above of what you can and can't burn in a smoke-free zone.

Wood burners are harmful to the health of both owners and neighbours, in villages, towns and cities. Try driving through any Scottish village on a winter evening with your car window open and you'll be breathing in smoke. They cause a long list of very serious health problems. And if people have them as "back-ups" they will use them even when a back-up isn't needed. There's plenty of strong research on this, and it's recognised as a problem internationally. In the UK, wood burners cause more small particulate emissions than all of road transport. Those small emissions are the most dangerous kind.
Find someone who denies this and you've found yourself someone who has spent money on a wood burner, loves sitting in front of their wood burner and has maybe exposed their children to it - they're in denial.

https://www.gov.uk/smoke-control-area-rules

There's already legislation for that I think. Certainly is on coal burning in urban areas

I think there's a case for banning wood burners in built up areas. In sparsely populated areas the particulate emissions disperse rapidly rather than build up to concerning levels.

Polluting of what?

And the CO2 emissions?

I would be cautious about all research that supports oil and gas over timber, tbh. Who funded the research and how rigorous is it? I dont have time to dig right now but some of the studies were very flawed, lumping in open fires with stoves, and using tiny samples. Stoves create interior air pollution when refuelling, but so does a toaster while in use.

We can power our homes using renewable electricity. As a back up source, timber is cheap, renewable and plentiful.

Energy needs should be plural to cover shortages or power cuts.

The Scotgov tried to suggest that a portable gas fire was a better option than a woodstove for back up heating.

Madness.

On this occasion, @ArabellaScott I have to disagree with you. I rarely do.

This BMJ paper points out that even ecodesign wood burning stoves emit over 465 times the 2.5mm particulates that a gas boiler would. They are over 60 times as polluting as oil-fired heating.

https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s360

I accept that wood-burning stoves are much loved by many and may be easier to use for many who don’t have access to gas. Nonetheless they are far more polluting.

Problems with pushing buttons

🔘

https://nitter.net/DownWithTheSNP/status/2056741278662922615#m

From my knowledge of him, he consistently attended his regular surgeries in Leith and was fairly vocal in supporting local events. Has actual environmental experience.

On the other hand, he has pronouns in his Bluesky bio. And is part of the Scottish Greens which tells its own story.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26093816.ex-scottish-greens-top-candidate-resigns-bad-outweighed-good/

Poor Guy.

"pro-cycling and pro-environment"

In current day Greens? That will never do. 😉

Just a thought - if Mannivan were withdrawn, who would take his place? Looks like Chas Booth is the next on the list. I know nothing about him. From his facebook page he is strongly pro-cycling and pro-environment, so maybe not a bad choice.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fd5f742f-e4f6-40ce-9b60-7b4fc360246e

'Ian Blackford, the SNP’s former Westminster leader, said it “beggars belief” that the Greens had put forward a candidate for parliament who was in the UK on a student visa
.Speaking in a personal capacity, Blackford is a member of the recently formed ethics and integrity commission, which has a remit of protecting standards in public life across the UK.

He added: “Quite frankly this should be an automatic vetting fail as a candidate on a student visa does not satisfy the ability to enter into full-time work.
“Selecting such a candidate undermines trust in politics and how on earth some can expect to be sworn in as an MSP without establishing the right to work is beyond me.
“The Greens are treating the electorate with contempt and given that Q Manivannan cannot satisfy the right-to-work requirements he should not be permitted to take his seat. The Greens ought to propose their next-placed candidate in their place.”

Manivannan said:...
“I am a Commonwealth citizen and am currently on a student visa which will expire later this year. Having passed my grant-funded PhD and viva, I am able to work full time.
“I am in the process of transitioning to a graduate visa which will allow me to stay in the UK for a further three years.'

so, self ID appears to extend to nationality.

A wood burning stove is a sensible heating method for many, and far more sustainable than fossil fuels.

The Scottish Greens recommendation for back up heating was gas fires. Over a wood stove. I'm not even kidding.

Its bollocks, though.

The wood burning stoves is another red herring in my view - like the uk gov wanting to stop trail hunting - just pure spite against '?toffs' - FGS fix the nhs, fix schools and the education standard, stop with the stupid sops to people - just to get stupid people clapping and a distracting headline - there is so much wrong in the uk and no money to fix it - what are the policies to fix that - oh, they have none or we'd hear about them........they're all uselss

Also, if the price of oil doesn't come down again before winter, I won't be able to afford to fill my tank so the fire will be our only heat source

I have an open fire, love it. Oil is all well and good for the radiators but a real fire is cosy. Also handy when there is a power cut in winter and the boiler won't work

That's a terrifying article:
"Even a modern, approved, “eco-friendly” wood burner produces 750 times as many fine particulates as a heavy goods vehicle. - These poisons can affect every organ in the body. Tiny particles pass straight through your lungs into the bloodstream. Wherever they lodge they cause harm. They’re associated with a wide range of cancers, heart and lung disease, strokes, dementia and the loss of intelligence. They age your skin and damage your liver. They harm foetuses in the womb and children’s development."

Things have moved on since he wrote that article. Wood-burning stoves are not now restricted to the upper middle classes. I live in a working-class area and I'd say that every second house has one of these stoves. Some people use them all day and half the night. And it's getting worse, quickly. No thought seems to be given to the fact that this affects not just the house owners but also the neighbours. Smoke gets in through any kind of crack in your house, the windows obviously, and if you step outside it's often like being next to a bonfire.

But I think it's become an obsession for a lot of people, so politicians won't act on it. Of course, the NHS won't be able to cope with the impact.

It used to be a key accoutrement for a certain type of environmentalist BC the wood was natural and it wasn't using fossil fuel

Monbiot has gone all struggle session

https://www.monbiot.com/2023/01/12/burning-shame/

I'm with the Greens on banning wood-burning stoves. I don't know why people have to have the right to cause serious everyday pollution to their neighbours, simply to produce heat in their living room, when other options are available and already installed in their homes. Where I live there's often a thick smog of wood smoke. I imagine it's similar to living in the London smog of 75 years ago. Smoke gets into other people's houses even if they never open a window.