> Burning wood is also completely unnecessary, because in the developed world we invariably have better and cleaner alternatives for heating our homes.
This assumption seems to be at the center of his argument (about the fireplace, not the analogy-part). However, in my modern apartment here in Norway it is regularly so cold that I am unable to heat it properly without using my wood-burning stove. So it is not recreational.
With regards to environmental impact, Norway is no stranger to legislation and have mandated that all new stoves are catalytic [1] since 1998. I am not sure how this impacts the findings referenced in the article, but I am sure that this is one of the possible things to consider other than "ban everything" or "legislate nothing".
In conclusion: Of course smoke is bad for you. Bad air quality is a big problem in winter in my town. But I need the heat!
In general, no, natural gas is not part of our infrastructure and people don't use it for heating. This has to do with our easy access to hydroelectric power.
I don't know about US, but in Europe we have modern woodstoves like this maker: http://www.hase.eu/
Well installed, they burn almost everything, leaving only mineral parts of the wood. That means more energy-efficient burning, and less smoke. In addition since they're completely close all the smoke goes through the chimney, nothing gets in the house.
Correctly used, you get almost no smoke (because everything burns). The only reason a recent woodstove would produce a visible amount of smoke is if you burn stuff you're not supposed to burn (some people use their chimney/woodstove as a garbage bin) or if you burn wet wood.
So even when other energies are available, it's a pretty good way to heat your house: cheap, efficient, nice warm feeling, limited pollution.
This assumption seems to be at the center of his argument (about the fireplace, not the analogy-part). However, in my modern apartment here in Norway it is regularly so cold that I am unable to heat it properly without using my wood-burning stove. So it is not recreational.
With regards to environmental impact, Norway is no stranger to legislation and have mandated that all new stoves are catalytic [1] since 1998. I am not sure how this impacts the findings referenced in the article, but I am sure that this is one of the possible things to consider other than "ban everything" or "legislate nothing".
In conclusion: Of course smoke is bad for you. Bad air quality is a big problem in winter in my town. But I need the heat!
[1]: Or "clean burn". Unsure about the English nomenclature here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood-burning_stove#Catalytic_an...