Good points. I do think economical geothermal AC shouldn't be too difficult in many places, but money has a way of influencing things; look at the septic industry horror stories. I'm curious about how urban vs rural AQIs look for different areas. It does seem more and more like climate control is used to control people through moral and consequently legal claims, and some whistleblowers seem to support that idea. Any skepticism is labeled "conspiracy theory".

Also mentioned here, modern double and triple burning stoves are much more efficient, and catalytic combustor stoves leave almost nothing but CO2 and water vapor coming out of the flue pipe. At least for stoves and enclosed fireplaces, if temporary smoke from an initial burn is still a concern, then I'm sure a separate pipe with a fan could be set up to draw air through the flue until a thermometer reaches a certain temperature. A fresh air intake should eliminate smoke leakage during startup. A strong flame used to start the fire, and a draft can also reduce the total smoke produced during this process. Alternative formats like rocket mass heaters may help with this as well.

Rather than draw attention to a real danger, encourage education, and distribution of better technology to help people burn a renewable resource safely, some would rather ban a medium that supports the survival of the poor completely. And some here would condemn all wood burners as ignorant archaic people who poison everyone around them and are too unintelligent to realize it. Sam Harris's post, (https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-fireplace-delusion) also has this air of incredulity that anyone would burn wood since science shows that it produces harmful byproducts. He seems to fail to realize that wood can burn cleanly, and suggests that we burn gas, which we know also often produces harmful levels of benzene; he suggests that we burn nothing at all, while even the electricity we use comes from coal burning, and alternative "green power" still has a large carbon footprint at this point, no? Geothermal seems good, and avoids radon issues, but is a specialized wood-burning system better if geothermal won't be enough? How do we move forward knowing that industry often influences studies? He writes, "The unhappy truth about burning wood has been scientifically established to a moral certainty". This is yet another "scientist" saying, "The science is settled." Unfortunately for him and climate alarmists, no it hasn't been, and posturing himself as correct because he believes in "scientific rationality" while simultaneously missing simple solutions to simple problems seems typical for him. That said, I do think sharing this info with communities who burn wood inefficiently is a good idea, and I see why their arguments about tradition and it being natural are criticized. He seems to see no exception to this "traditional" attitude among those who burn wood. If these communities don't care about inefficient burning, and aren't regulated, move away; stay mobile. Alternatively, perhaps using an air filter with a high MERV rating helps.

Why ban a viable, renewable heat source that can be used to teach people valuable lessons? So that they can become dependent on wind turbines, such as the ones that froze in Texas a year or two ago, leading to the deaths of many who were wholly dependent on electric heat? I'd rather breath some smoke than freeze to death anyway; banning wood burning is worse than imposing regulations to make it almost completely safe, and seeing conclusive opinions before people consider alternative burning systems concerns me, especially when the alternatives posed are often just as dangerous. The most important thing is educating people though. When they know why a safety regulation exists, they're much less likely to hate it and disobey it, as long as it doesn't restrict alternatives and freedoms that it shouldn't.