Ben Paul of Neu Architects puts his case for why he believes architects should not specify wood burning stoves as part of future homes, based on the reality of their use.
As the UK moves toward net zero and cleaner, healthier housing, architects are increasingly asked to specify energy-efficient and resilient systems. Yet claims that modern wood burning stoves provide a “low carbon” or “sustainable” option do not withstand scrutiny. Independent evidence shows that wood burning is a source of harmful pollution, misleadingly marketed as green, and incompatible with the Future Homes Standard’s environmental and health ambitions.
Low carbon, local fuel source?
Wood burning is routinely described as ‘carbon lean’ because trees absorb CO2 as they grow. But burning wood releases that carbon back immediately, while new trees take decades to reabsorb it – time we do not have in a climate emergency.
More importantly, trees should be recognised for what they are: a living carbon capture system, not a fuel source. Left standing, they absorb carbon, filter pollution, cool urban areas, and reduce flood risk. Burning them undermines one of the most effective and affordable forms of carbon capture we currently have.
The UK Climate Change Committee has warned explicitly against relying on domestic biomass heating, stating that its carbon benefits are overstated when compared with genuinely low-carbon systems such as heat pumps.
The reality of what people burn
The stove industry presents an image of burning neatly stacked, seasoned hardwood. In reality, many households burn far less suitable, and far more dangerous, materials, including:
- Treated timber, releasing arsenic and chromium from CCA preservatives, and copper or borates from other treatments
- MDF, chipboard, and plywood, which emit formaldehyde, isocyanates, and phenols from glues and resins
- Painted or varnished wood, producing dioxins and furans – among the most toxic and persistent known compounds
- Unseasoned or ‘green’ logs, which burn poorly, waste energy, and generate dense smoke and particulates.
These substances are not just harmful but also carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and persistent in the environment. They accumulate in the air, soil, and even food chains.
Even with so-called ‘approved fuels,’ enforcement is practically impossible. Local authorities cannot police what people burn in their living rooms, so real world emissions are far worse than test data suggests.
Cleaner technology?
Even the most advanced Ecodesign stoves burning properly seasoned wood emit around 335 g/MWh of PM2.5 compared to just 0.72 g/MWh for a gas-fired boiler. So while they may be ‘cleaner’ than an open fireplace, they are still almost 500 times more polluting than a gas boiler (based on Defra data).
Meanwhile, they also emit ultrafine particles, PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), benzene, toluene, and black carbon (soot).
The industry often compares eco stoves to open fires, but that is irrelevant; open fires are already obsolete, and so extraordinarily polluting that anything will look better in comparison.
Health
Wood burning (however efficient it may be) generates pollution, which is not in question, and people will breathe it in. It is not feasible to go out and buy ‘bottled’ air to avoid it. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is one of the most dangerous pollutants known, and linked to asthma, heart disease, dementia, and premature death.
The World Health Organisation has confirmed there is no safe threshold for exposure. Installing a pollution source inside a sealed, high-performance home directly undermines occupant health, their neighbours’ health and national air quality goals. Are we happy to continue to use the life-giving shared resource, our air, to dispose of our toxic waste?
Sustainability & supply chains
The stove industry’s portrayal of wood as a local, circular fuel masks its true environmental cost. Large volumes of logs are kiln-dried–consuming significant energy and many are imported from across Europe or further afield, adding transport emissions. Even domestic supply involves cutting, processing, and distribution, all of which carry carbon costs. Truly local, properly seasoned wood is scarce and cannot scale sustainably.
Crucially, burning happens far faster than growing. This undermines the sustainability claim and creates a carbon debt that lasts for decades to centuries. In January 2018, over 800 scientists – including Nobel laureates – warned the EU Parliament against forest biomass burning. Their message was clear: harvesting wood specifically for combustion increases atmospheric carbon even if forests regrow.
If architects and planners are serious about embodied carbon and resource efficiency, promoting the combustion of a material that could otherwise store carbon or serve in long-lived construction makes little sense. Burning wood emits more CO2 per unit of energy than fossil fuels due to its inefficiency. Worse still, scientists caution that adding carbon now risks triggering irreversible damage, glacier melt, permafrost thaw, and ocean acidification.
The resilience argument
Stoves are often marketed as providing heat security during power cuts. But designing pollution into every home for an occasional event is not resilience – it is regression.
Cleaner, future proof options exist: battery storage, solar PV with backup, hybrid systems, or district heating redundancy. For rural homes, combining insulation upgrades with local renewable generation offers far greater reliability and comfort, without harming health.
Policy does not equal best practice
The Scottish Government’s U-turn and the Future Homes Standard’s allowance for stoves do not reflect scientific consensus. They reflect political compromise and industry lobbying.
Permitting a technology is not the same as endorsing it as best practice. Architects should lead with independent evidence and ethics, not follow industries whose business models depend on perpetuating combustion.
The role of architects
Architects have a professional and moral responsibility to protect both planetary and human health. We cannot ignore the evidence that domestic wood burning worsens air quality, accelerates carbon emissions, and introduces toxic pollutants into homes and neighbourhoods.
Warmth and atmosphere in a living space are products of design quality, not combustion. The notion that a wood stove adds ‘character’ belongs to the past – not to a Future Homes Standard built around clean air, efficiency, and decarbonisation.
Conclusion
Wood burning stoves are neither low carbon nor low impact. The industry’s narrative of sustainability and resilience collapses under scrutiny. Policy may permit stoves, but architects are not obliged to specify them. Our duty is to design for health, integrity, and a genuinely sustainable future – one that leaves wood burning firmly in the past.
Ben Paul is a director at Neu Architects