Firewood Banks Aren't Inspiring. They're a Sign of Collapse

> Rural communities are banding together to chop firewood so that people in need can heat their homes. This shouldn’t be necessary.

Headlines like this are so commonplace these days I instinctively avoid them. They're telling you what your opinion should be, not educating you so you can make an informed decision.

> No paperwork. No means tests. No government forms. Just a pile of hardwood that shows up because someone else’s house would be cold without it.

Smells like LLM.

this seems overly polemic. My parents live on a small farm and heat their home with firewood. My dad likes splitting wood, and it’s marginally cheaper since they own a plot of woodland. Although, they have a brand new heat pump they prefer to use their wood burning stove. It’s fairly common but in my experience it’s primarily a lifestyle choice not economic . People who chose to live out their also like the resiliency given their libertarian/prepper tendencies. it’s annoying because this entire piece is predicated on ignoring everything locals actually say.

But, but this is what they vote for. "Government is bad, we can do it ourselves!"

Some billionaire is eating food flown around the world this very moment.

The article sort of has a point; in a healthy economy this kind of labour would be done with capital equipment. A sawmill is much more efficient than a bunch of individuals chopping wood with axes. (Safer too, probably, when talking about injuries per unit.) The inability for this work to be done efficiently with capital reflects a flaw in the economic order. (The classic: poor people don't have the stuff to do things efficiently, and so remain poor.)

But this article has a certain feeling of contempt for hicks doing something as backwards as burning wood for warmth. Maybe it sticks out to me because I'm in Canada, where a significant % of all households (of all social classes) rely on wood. Because wood happens to be the cheapest source of heat. The fact that we burn wood is not a sign of industrial decay or primitiveness. It's a sign of there being a lot of trees and logging around these parts.

But at the same time, yes, it is associated with poverty. Wood smoke is unhealthy. And wood heat one of the highest rates of injury or fire in terms of home heating. Some people resort to it out of desperation, particularly junk wood and garbage that shouldn't even be burned. But not necessarily so. Back to the point of the article: is there quantified evidence that use of wood for heat is increasing in America among the poor? Or is this based on the author's impressions?

This article has so many things wrong with it, it is hard to know where to start.

The core assumption, I suppose, is that this is a sign of collapse because the systems and institutions worked before.

Unfortunately for the author, it's evident that they never did. The gaps were merely papered over by cheap propane and heating oil.

Living in a rural area is expensive, you need to maintain your own water supply, sewage system, and either have fuel delivered or chop wood or pay out the nose for electric heating.

It’s much easier to be poor in a city than in a rural area, when you move into an apartment you just start paying the various utilities and you get water and natural gas and your sewage is connected to a shared system. There’s no water pumps to replace or fuel deliveries.

I find it very telling that most comments are supposedly seeing contempt for rural people in this piece, or that it classifies wood burning as primitive. I live in a country where wood still is the most common fuel, even in the urban areas sans the capital city. People do it because is cheaper, and that fact is the thrust of the piece, people normally buy it.

A food bank is a noble thing, but more people relying in it is obviously a sign of socio-economic decay. Food and heating in winter are literally the most basic humans needs, if you need free firewood you aren't doing well. It's not "cute" that grandma's pension doesn't cover food and a delivery of wood from a sawmill. People are nay-saying and flagging because realizing that your country is becoming poorer sucks ass, so "coastal elite" pearl clutching is easier.

I concur with several other comments that criticize the strained prose and probable AI assistance in the article.

The point being pushed is valid - in this age, we as a society and in this country should have access to stable energy sources for heating, and somewhat stable prices to do so. If as this article implies, millions potentially cannot, and are needing to go to donation stations to be able to keep their home warm, then our governments are not meeting their obligations.

Lordy this comment section is tiring:

* The number of wood banks are increasing in Maine because of rising cost of living meaning residents can't afford the $300/cord anymore and because of cuts to the LIHEAP program.

* Wood banks function identically to food banks except it's for heat. A rise in the number of food banks as well as a rise in demand from food banks is a natural signal of economic conditions on the ground.

* Just like food banks, these wood banks are a source of community for the participants. Volunteering at a food bank stocking pantries and putting together bags with your friends is actually kind of fun which is where the heartwarming angle comes from.

* If you believe that it shouldn't be the community's job to come together to provide their neighbors food and heat and that's what government is supposed to be for then this reasonably looks like a failing.

* This failing combined with the economic conditions that necessitate additional assistance signaling a downward spiral is broadly the author's thesis.

* Some general additional context: heating your home with wood is actually pretty great. It's often cheaper than other sources of heat, it's a form of renewable energy (and actually qualified for the Biden tax credit because of it) and there are high efficiency stoves that get the wood burning "clean" as well as tip the economics even more in favor of wood.

This writer has lost the plot. Humans have been storing up for winter for millennia. The author wants us to live in a magic fairy tale where heat in the winter "just happens", and in fact, fairy tale style, a friendly woodcutter shows up to cut firewood for you in this article, but somehow that's a sign of societal collapse. The author needs to get out and not touch grass, but touch a tree, and maybe chop it down.

The American rurals overwhelmingly vote to shit on their own dicks every four years and I’m supposed to feel bad that they were successful?

The cost of health insurance is going up by a factor of 8x per month for some people next year. Everything costs more.

People in rural communities are aging more rapidly than in more densely populated areas. Wood heat is more common in rural areas, and is more labor intensive if you're splitting it yourself.

> No paperwork. No means tests. No government forms. Just a pile of hardwood that shows up because someone else’s house would be cold without it.

Hate AI writing style

> You don’t start a wood bank in a country with functioning institutions.

A wood bank is a functioning institution, you clown.

This is a terrible article.

I dug into the figures behind some of the claims made in the article and they seem a bit hyperbolic, for instance:

>You don’t start a wood bank in a country with functioning institutions. You start one when heating assistance programs can’t keep up, when the grid flickers every time the wind shifts, when propane and heating oil costs swing so hard that families can’t budget more than a week out.

The linked articles cite a 8.4-16.4% price increase for natural gas, and a decrease of 4% and 5% for heating oil and propane respectively. While I understand some people might be living paycheck to paycheck, characterizing this as "costs swing so hard that families can’t budget more than a week out" is a stretch.

Other parts of the article are equally misleading. For instance

>Rural families don’t get to pretend. They know exactly what it means when the power goes out for the third time in a month and the utility company shrugs because the profit isn’t there to fix it.

That gives you the impression that electricity companies are refusing to fix broken electricity grids, leaving people to freeze, but the first link is actually a story about people being disconnected after they don't pay their bills, and the second is about lack of maintenance for California's grid. Both are vaguely related to the original claim, but are cited in a highly misleading way. While it's regrettable that customers are disconnected for bill non-repayment, you obviously can't also have an utility operate where there's no consequences for non-payment. And while PG&E should be raked over the coals for their lack of maintenance, it's a stretch to link it to people in the north east freezing.

I guess this is one of the other articles it is referencing: https://www.mainepublic.org/2025-11-20/wood-banks-in-maine-a...

Communal chopping of firewood is something I remember from like.... two decades ago?

Maybe it's less of a "collapse" thing, and more of a "we haven't invested enough time & resources to get better cheap distributed heating solutions that don't create so much pollution"?

Human volunteer power to cut down some local trees is a lot cheaper than, e.g., buying a geothermal installation, with solar and battery backup (battery backup would need to last for days in rural Maine if a winter storm breaks the solar).