The Scottish Government have published the results of a recent study they commissioned that looked into assessing the potential health benefits of further policy actions affecting domestic solid fuel burning in Scotland. Three options were taken forward for more detailed modelling, one of which was “Burning Better”. Here’s why that is not a solution that should be contemplated.
Burning Better will not help our health because whenever anything is burnt, chemicals are released. Even if the burning of coal and Manufactured Solid Fuels was replaced with burning wood instead, harmful chemicals would still be released. Below are three reasons that show that burning better is not a good solution to pollution.
- For modern stoves (including a Blue Angel stove), PM2.5 emission factors are higher for dry wood than for seasoned wood.
- A 2025 University of Surrey study found that multifuel Ecodesign stoves emit more ultrafine particles than a standard Ecodesign stove, and wood briquettes and smokeless coal increased ultrafine particle exposure by 1.7 and 1.5 times, respectively, compared to seasoned wood.
- This report shows, an Ecodesign stove has an estimated emission rate of six times the mass of PM2.5 than a diesel Euro 6 HGV
Burning dry wood is not better
Burning dry wood in modern, efficient wood-burning stoves can paradoxically result in high counts or specific spikes of Ultra Fine Particles because clean, hot combustion breaks volatile gases down into microscopic particles less than 100 nanometers wide. So even though wet wood produces much more visible smoke and larger fine particulate mass; dry wood produces lots of Ultra fine particles which are also very bad for our health and invisible to the naked eye.
Burning wood increases lead pollution in the air too. For many decades we used leaded petrol and this lead is still in the soil and will continue to be in the soil for hundreds of years.Trees have uptaken this lead from the soil and into their tissues. That lead is released into the air when those trees are burned – whether the wood is wet or dry is irrelevant.
Below are the readings taken from an air pollution sensor located on the side of the house next to a wood burning stove user. These are from a person burning dry wood on a wood burning stove that was installed in 2015. As we can see, there are significant levels of PM2.5 being released for prolonged periods of time even though this person is lighting the stove properly, using kiln dried wood and getting the chimney swept regularly, all of which would be part of the burn better messaging.
Burn better is an industry influencing tactic
Back in the 70s cigarette smokers were encouraged to switch to low-tar and low-nicotine cigarette brands by public health officials who believed the tobacco companies’ claims that they were creating “a less hazardous cigarette.” This kind of “harm reduction” (education) into which the “burn better” message falls is, like the smoking campaign before it, an industry influencing tactic.
“Burn better” advice convinces wood burners that they aren’t polluting, and justifies them to continue to pollute the air in their neighbourhood. It also keeps the practice culturally entrenched and socially acceptable -again like some of the smoking messages of the past.
Burn better has failed in other countries
In the US, a study was done on improving indoor air quality for asthmatic children in wood-burning homes. The intervention involved replacing wood stoves in the study homes with new certified ones and providing “education” on best burning practices. The intervention was ended early because it was found that those interventions didn’t make a difference and did not improve indoor air quality.
In Australia, where similar messaging to burn better has been used has also been criticised by health professionals. One researcher, Professor Fay Johnston of one study said: “There is no evidence that Australia’s main strategies of ‘public education on heater operation’ or gradual tightening of wood heater emission standards, has improved community-level air quality anywhere. The only interventions with good evidence for improving the air are those that reduce wood heater numbers.”
It’s not fair to the wood burners themselves, either. They are led to believe they are burning “cleanly” and aren’t hurting themselves or their families, when in fact burning dry wood in an eco-stove can create indoor ultrafine particle pollution levels that are much higher than what would be found on an urban street during rush hour.
Burn less or not at all
The only solution for better health is to not burn at all which we know is impossible for some properties in Scotland, so the better option that the Scottish Government should adopt is to BURN LESS. Krakow in Poland started cracking down on the burning of solid fuels in 2013 by subsidising a switch to cleaner forms of heating and replacing dirty stoves. The full ban on solid fuel burning came into effect in 2019. This has saved 5,897 lives over a decade, according to the European Clean Air Centre.
Marcel Mazur’s research has separately shown that there were 17% fewer cases of asthma and 28% fewer cases of allergic rhinitis in children in 2018 than in 2008.
This progress was a result of rare consensus from all political parties who all understood the urgent need for clean air. This is what the Scottish Government should be doing to protect the health of its citizens.