Moondog55 wrote:. . . But honestly bushwalkers campfires are hardly the source of global warming, I'd produce more CO2 driving to the start of the walk. Camp fires contribution is negligible; especially compared to the hundreds of thousand fireplaces in caravan parks around the place and the millions of backyard firepits in this country and the millions of wood stoves used for cooking and heating in country Australia. Where bans exist for good reason I'll adhere to them as I naturally do for total fire bans and cooking fires in hazardous conditions.
sandym wrote:There are simply too many people out there who are not taking adequate precautions.
peregrinator wrote:I cannot see any other compelling reasons why campfires continue to be used.
Lophophaps wrote:
Interestingly, some huts have a camp fire ban but have a stove or fireplace. This is so for much of Kosciuszko and Alpine National Parks. Hut fireplaces are quite inefficient, and some hut stoves are badly designed. Popular places like the Guthega Power Station-Schlink corridor (Kosciuszko NP) and Feathertop (Alpine NP) have many summer and winter visitors. Some commercial groups have a tendency to lack awareness of camp fire protocols.
peregrinator wrote:I grant you that gas canisters have negative environmental consequences. But if I boil water using a small portable stove to prepare a dehydrated meal, taking five to ten minutes, that’s a tiny amount of fuel compared to what is burnt in a single typical wood campfire that might burn for many hours.
sandym wrote:My opinion is that the age of campfires is over. There are simply too many people out there who are not taking adequate precautions. Why anyone wants to sit around breathing in toxic particulate matter is an anathema to me. I also find the ubiquitous fire pits unsightly and polluting.
ribuck wrote:peregrinator wrote:I grant you that gas canisters have negative environmental consequences. But if I boil water using a small portable stove to prepare a dehydrated meal, taking five to ten minutes, that’s a tiny amount of fuel compared to what is burnt in a single typical wood campfire that might burn for many hours.
"Every ton of steel produced in 2018 emitted on average 1.85 tons of carbon dioxide" (source)
A gas canister containing 100g fuel weighs about 200g total, i.e. the canister itself weighs about 100g. So manufacturing one empty cannister causes the emission of 185g carbon dioxide. Butane is C4H10, so 100g butane contains 83g Carbon, which burns to produce 303g carbon dioxide. So the total greenhouse gas consequence of burning 100g gas is 488grams of carbon dioxide. (Propane is C3H8, and the carbon impact is not hugely different).
Burning local wood releases exactly the same amount of carbon that the wood captured while it was growing, in other words it's carbon neutral over a timespan of less than a century.
peregrinator wrote:Is burning wood “carbon neutral”? I’m reading contrary arguments? Can you suggest links that support your opinion so that I may examine them?
peregrinator wrote:Bear in mind though that steel can be recycled, so the figures must be revised to reflect that.
peregrinator wrote:Is burning wood “carbon neutral”? I’m reading contrary arguments? Can you suggest links that support your opinion so that I may examine them?
peregrinator wrote:There are several reasons why leaving dead wood on the ground has benefits for habitats. See, especially point 6...
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests