"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...

VisionSet wrote:
"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
VisionSet wrote:
Every year I produce many piles of holly clippings like those below
from
the
trees shown.

http://i3.tinypic.com/wgufdc.jpg

You could always burn them, holly burns very well!

I know, but I've no where to burn it, I don't want to **** the neighbours
off and mulching is more enviro. But I will be burning the bigger stuff
in
the fireplace.

--
Mike W

Why is mulching more environmentally friendly than burning. ok is
doesn't make visible smoke but if was well dried there would be no
smoke. Whether its mulched and decomposes or is burnt the end result is
the same. I would put it that burning is more environmentally friendly
since you have not used electricity to shred the stuff and therefore
did not consume any fossil fuel at all. Also take into account the
carbon produced in making and transporting the shredder and the carbon
cost of recycling it at the end of its life.
I like the way that our local council gave everybody a huge green
wheelie bin then every two weeks come around in a huge diesel lorry
collecting grass clippings then say it is environmentally friendly. Yeh
right.

Kevin


Burning does produce smoke whether you can see it or not. and produces
carbon dioxide and a plethora of other substances ,some of which are highly
toxic, depending on what plant material you are burning. Composting and
mulching keeps the carbon locked in a more complex form.