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?