2010
(Now that Jól is past I have had time to reflect on what the holiday means to me. I have also had time to reflect on various environmental issues. There is a symmetry that exists for Pagan peoples where religion and environment are concerned that is perhaps missing for some, and this article is meant to address one particular aspect of that symmetry. My goal here is to offer food for thought, rather than solutions – Hrafnkell)
People like fireplaces and wood burning stoves – not to mention a good bonfire. Not only for the warmth they provide, but for aesthetic reasons, particular on a cold winter’s day. Few will disagree that the sight and sound of flames licking at wood is a recipe for contentment.
But for Heathens, a wood fire can have religious connotations that might be lacking for those who follow other religious paths (the idea of the Yule log is not unique to Germanic Paganism).
No doubt there are few who have not heard of the Yule log. Fewer are probably aware of its Pagan antecedents. For a Heathen, the Twelve Days are unimaginable without a decorated tree (the decorations were originally gifts to the tree) and a burning log in the fireplace.
We cannot always get oak, but we can get wood – actual wood rather than Duraflame’s napalm-like qualities, or the logs made out of coffee grounds. But wood, after many millennia, is becoming a politically incorrect and environmentally inexpedient commodity.
People have become aware of the polluting qualities of burning wood. We live in environmentally conscious times, and we are daily bombarded with studies revealing the origins and causes of various forms of pollution.
I first encountered the idea of particulate pollution when I moved (briefly) to Florida. Florida, I learned at the time has (or had) a problem with particulate matter floating around in the air and this was a cause of concern, given my allergies. I knew that stuff wasn’t good for you.
The U.S. Department of Energy has identified some of the problems related to wood-burning fireplaces – they emit various nasty substances, including the above-mentioned particulate matter, but also nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and organic gases. That a wood-fire can therefore be harmful to a person’s health scarcely needs saying. It is particularly bad for people who already suffer from various health problems or whose health is precarious because of age or pregnancy.
There is the added issue of fireplaces serving as a means of escape for heat – thus leading to increased energy consumption to keep your home warm. For this please see the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Savers Blog.
Clean Air Revival informs us about the dangers of particulate pollution:
Burning solid fuel yields particulate pollution – solid particles smaller than a red blood cell which have been implicated in 30,000 deaths in the US and 2.1 million deaths world wide per year. . “Particulate pollution is the most important contaminant in our air. …we know that when particle levels go up, people die1. ” Indeed, wood smoke is chemically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco2.
1. Joel Schwartz, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health, E Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2002
2. Wm. A Pryor, Persistent Free Radicals in Woodsmoke: An ESR Spin Trapping Study, Free Radical Biology and Medicine 1989, 7(1): 17-21
Perhaps unsurprisingly, wood smoke can contribute to the risk of cancer: A July 11, 2005 study published in Chest informs us that exposure to wood smoke may increase the risk of lung cancer via a mechanism similar to that of tobacco: “… our findings demonstrate that wood smoke could produce similar effects on p53, phospho-p53, and MDM2 protein expression as tobacco.… It is important to consider wood smoke exposure as a possible risk factor for the development of lung cancer in nonsmoker subjects.”
Not a pretty picture by any means. I learned long ago that grandma made me sick by using wood cutting boards and preparing raw meat and veggies on the same surface; now I learn than her fireplace was giving me cancer!(For more on the dangers of wood smoke see Clean Air Revival and Wisconsin Department of Health Services.)
The situation is so serious (or at least, perceived to be – there are critics of the measures) that some parts of the country are placing limits on burning wood. Planetizen.com reports that “Five years ago, the Central Valley became the first area of California to ban indoor wood burning when an ‘alert’ was called by the air district; other air districts followed in 2008.” On October 17, 2008, “Regulators in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are clamping down on wood burning between November and February as a way to meet a new federal law limiting the amount of breathable, fine particles.” On March 9, 2009, the Connecticut Legislature considers HB6616 An Act Establishing Wood Smoke to be a Public Nuisance (!) On December 29, 2009, it was reported that Bay Area inspectors in California caught 47 fireplace violators on Jól day.
Ouch. Happy Jól, folks.
In many cases you can only have a fire if you have the proper type of wood stove. In others, no fires at all.
What’s a conscientious but devout Heathen to do?
Will the day come when across the fifty states we are barred from burning a Yule log? And should a religious waver be possible? A spokesman for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District does not offer an encouraging answer: “We know a lot of people like to burn on this holiday, but it’s our duty to protect public health,” said Ralph Borrmann, the spokesman.
While the dangers of wood smoke cannot be denied, it seems hypocritical that those who cause the worst levels of pollution – big corporations – proceed with doing untold harm to our environment with hardly a comment directed at them. You can watch their chimneys belch smoke into the sky but you can’t burn a Yule log for your gods?
Still, legal and regulatory hypocrisies aside, it’s a bit of an ethical conundrum. If Paganism is nature-based religion, how does one reconcile concern for the environment with concern for showing proper devotion to one’s gods?
I would argue for one obvious (and partial) solution: that even where bans do not exist, one solution might be to burn less frequently. Obviously, a person could choose to burn wood only for religious reasons and on religious occasions. Most of us do not require the use of a wood fireplace to heat our homes (not that the heat we obtain via the power company comes pollution free!). For most of us, aesthetics are at the heart of a fire.
A simulated fire is obviously inadequate. This would amount to pretending to toss a pinch of incense on a flame or pretending to pray. It is the cultic act that has significance. Faux piety is no piety at all.
Wood pellets are offered as an environmentally safe option when burning wood. They produce less soot and ash (and no creosote – the stuff that causes chimney fires) and they are made from wood that would otherwise go into a landfill. See Treehugger.com. But while wood pellets produce far less pollution, burning wood pellets does not have the same effect as a log. While aesthetic considerations might be set aside in the normal course of events, religious reasons render this a far less attractive solution.
For those who are interested in both the ethics and the environmental issues involved, please see Burnwise, a partnership program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Hm. I’m still not sanguine with calling heathenism a “nature-based” religion, in part because I’ve fought that battle with neopagans too many times as a recon.
But laying that aside…as an environmentalist and a Heathen… for those of us who don’t live in a house with a fireplace (or a house at all, for that matter), wood fires are not any kind of option. I assume you meant “simulated fires” as in “gas fire places complete with fake jumping flames,” rather than candles or alcohol fires, which is what some of us have to resort to. I’m far less attached to the trappings than the intent of the ritual. And near as I can tell, the gods don’t care, either.
To tell the truth, cinnabari, it once made me cringe too, but a very wise Icelandic Heathen put me on the right track. He reminded me that (in his words): “there is a very strong thread of “earth-centeredness” in heathen mythology as I see it. Sacred kingship was imagined as the king’s “marriage” to his earth, his land – and compared with Óðinn’s marriage to Jörð, the Earth-giantess. Most giants represent either natural forces, phenomena of the earth,
or wild animals of the earth, air, ocean, and fire.”
Nor can we forget that Freyr and Freyja – as deities of the earth – are nature deities. DuBois (who refers to “Nordic agrarian religions” points out that, “As the coital act emerged as a prime metaphor for the mystery of agricultural fecundity, the gods responsible for the seasonal cycle, sunshine, rain, and plants took on the characteristics of human sexuality…This stratum of Nordic religious life appears to have held great significance for people dependent on the seasons and the vagaries of agricultural production.” (DuBois 1999:54-55)
For my part, I think much of my original objection was based on Wicca’s sometimes dubious claims about the nature of ancient religion but I’ve come to the conclusion that just as something isn’t automatically wrong because Christianity believes it (after all, they stole enough from Paganism that to disregard everything they say would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater), disregarding something simply because it is endorsed by Wicca is not to be preferred.
To some extent, I think we Heathens have a false sense of superiority. Yes, I have myself spoken out against the nonsense sometimes uttered by Wiccans but as I’ve shown here before, Heathens can utter some pretty ridiculous things as well. It’s truly breath-taking sometimes.
And you raise an excellent point about “intent” over “trappings.” The same, I suppose, can be said about “blood sacrifices.” I can’t sacrifice my own cow or goat and when I buy the meat in the store it doesn’t have much blood (the life force) in the package, so when I make an offering of the meat the act is based more on intent than on the trappings (the nature of the meat itself).
In the end, we do the best we can with what we have.
I think what still makes me cringe is the assumption that “earth-centered” means “earth-goddess-centered,” and what I see as an oddly romantic approach to nature that comes of that. I don’t disagree that there are nature gods in our lore; just that the focus of the religion did not seem to be on how one gets along with nature, but on kinship and social bonds. That nature is, sometimes, incorporated into those social bonds (personified in the Vanir or however else) still does not make it *the* focus, but *a* focus. I think that distinction is key. (See me pick nits. Blame the academic.)
You’re totally right that we Heathens have our share of people who say stupid things (cough, folkish, cough) that are a lot more damaging than “all pagans are nature-worshipers.” That said… if I hear “but Loki is just like Coyote! A trickster!” one more time, I may snap. *g*
Oh geez, yes, that’s another kettle of fish entirely, cinnabari!! There should be no assumption of “earth-goddess-centered” particularly since the idea of the all-prevailing goddess has been debunked by scholarship. Not that there were earth goddesses and that they didn’t play an important role, but the whole “once there was matriarchy” routine doesn’t carry weight any more.
I won’t even get into the whole Loki thing. I’m pretty fed up with the crazy things I hear in that regard as well. That would be a whole new post, my friend.