And composting produces CO2, the organisms that live on the decaying
fibres produce CO2. I accept that burning does produce some nasties but
then so does using a shredder by virtue of the production on the
electricity, making the shredder, the packaging, transportation etc
etc. Plethora of other substances seems a bit OTT given that a tree is
only made up from CO2 taken from the atmosphere and a few trace
elements taken from the soil.
Given the few other substances given out by burning verses those given
by buring fossil fuels, not to mention the noise pollution, I don't see
why burning is looked down upon.

Kevin


All true, where the balance of pollution lies I do not know, but although
bonfire ash is good for nutrients when put on the soil I would miss the bags
and bags of mulch my shredder produces each year, and I suspect my
neighbours prefer it to my having bonfires (although I have never asked them
one way or the other)
I think if we are to have less rain mulching more makes sense to avoid
having to water.
--
Charlie, gardening in Cornwall.
http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs)

David Hansen wrote:

The likely alternative is people putting grass clippings into the
"normal" rubbish bin, where it will add to the landfill mountain.
Better to separate it out and use it for composting by the council.
Better still to encourage people to compost most of it themselves.

Unless your council is hell-bent on burning refuse:-(

Burning is for perennial weeds, unless one puts them in the council
composting bin.

Or into a black plastic bag, letting the anaerobes sort them out.

Douglas de Lacey