I'm fairly certain that even the most extreme environmentalists wouldn''t say that a wood fire or a butane stove is going to affect the environment in any way (except if you start a forest fire).

I have been an outdoors person all my life and can say that a butane stove with butane fuel bottles is probably the most compact (and efficient) way to go but I now prefer a propane system for convenience. I'll use a fire to cook meat though that's just for flavor.

And if you think about it, if you are outdoors instead of at home, you are probably using less overall energy especially if you turned your lights off and turned your furnace and hot water heater down when you left home.

Please be sure to practice zero trace camping.

Edit: Jeff M, a piece of wood burning is emitting different products into the atmosphere than a piece of wood undergoing bio-degradation (rotting). Further, wood may undergo anaerobic bio-degradation which produces methane instead of CO2.

So this comparison is not as easy as pie like you claim. It's better to just say that they both will have a negligible effect on the environment and stop wasting energy typing about it.

Butane is a hydrocarbon much the same as methane and any other type of fossil fuel is. When burned and oxidized it conforms to this reaction:

2 C4H10 + 13 O2 → 8 CO2 + 10 H2O

The carbon stored in the wood will eventually be released into the atmosphere regardless. When a tree decays it also releases the CO2 into the atmosphere. It is still part of the carbon cycle. The carbon emitted from the burning of butane, which is not part of the carbon cycle, is additional carbon emitted into the atmosphere that would not be there otherwise.

Note: I am answering which form is better for the environment.

Ottawa Mike: The carbon released as a result of the burning of wood is still in the carbon cycle. The products of wood degradation would be released into the atmosphere regardless. Butane, a fossil fuel, consists of carbon that is not part of the carbon cycle and has been out of that cycle for a very long time. You are attempting to argue with me by stating "Well the products released due to wood degradation vary from instance to instance" which really has very little to do with my main statement. That being fossil fuel use adds elements to the environment that would not be there otherwise and, as a result, the impacts of those elements are felt. I have not looked into the elements emitted when wood degrades compared to when it is burned, however, I'm sure even you agree that the burning of fossil fuels is worse to the environment than using wood for fuel.

You butane camp stove will have no impact on the environment as long as your not throwing the empty bottles at the wildlife.

Yes

I remember there is a question similar to your question asked by someone few days ago. Someone has answered it very well, and the answer has been chosen as the best answer. You can try to search it in search function above, hope you luck

Please dont worry about it. Humans have little impact.
Termites produce more methane than humans and cows combined.
The earth puts out hydrocarbons on it's own.
Massive factories have the capability of poisoning waterways by large amounts of contaminants, you can camp all you want and not impact the earth in any way.

Actually wood would have less of an impact.

The problem with burning fossil fuels, which is where butane comes from, is that it releases carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years.

The wood is part of the current carbon cycle, so there isn't a net change.

The denialists are being contrary because it's all they can do.

n

The ultimate CO2 % for butane is 14.05 to the atmosphere. Where wood is considered carbon neutral.

As an environmental consultant, we have to be careful of using words like impact that sometimes have a greater impact than they deserve. If you pee in the ocean, it will have an "impact" but it isn't likely to swamp many boats in Miami. Similarly using butane camp stoves will do almost nothing. You would emit less by adding air to your tires before you drive a mile.

Their worst environmental impact seem to be that gas bottles, for one reason or another, empty themselves into the atmosphere. You may have gotten dust in a thread or valve, you may not have turned the stove off adequately - doesn't matter. When you most need the stove there will be no fuel. The butane is a minor pollutant, you will cause some noise pollution when you discover you're out of gas, and you get no hot food because all the deadwood in the area has been used up by previous people with the same problem.

White gas stoves, on the other hand, lose no fuel unless you spill it, put out twice the heat of butane or propane stoves, and don't care what the outside temperature is when you use them. Heating food quickly and efficiently and being able to turn the fire off without worrying about residual effects means the white gas approach gets my vote.

The biggest reason that wood fires aren't so good for camping is that people strip the landscape near the good places to camp. Regarding the "environment" the impact is completely irrelevant.

There are ways around this...

You can get a small camp stove that is designed for wood, and pick up a little wood here and there and carry it with you to where you camp.
http://www.litt…

I use this.. it uses so little fuel and its really efficient
http://www.kell…

The worst thing about butane is you have to pack all that crap in and out with you -- and you can run out of fuel.

Ya if you use neither you'll most likely get some sort of food poisoning from the uncooked food and the bacteria contained within.

Then how will that effect your environment ?