EPA issue ban on wood stoves

[chopped]

AHHH ha????I dont understand. I thought this is what the forums were about and why people died for peoples freedom of speech?

You are not the OP Roy. You are the poster who called everyone who doesn't agree with what you think, a lefty idiot.

 

[Sodo]

AHHH ha????I dont understand. I thought this is what the forums were about and why people died for peoples freedom of speech?

Forum topic on woodstove pollution got chopped again. Methinks I must have made a point.

 

[dave1949]

AHHH ha????I dont understand. I thought this is what the forums were about and why people died for peoples freedom of speech?

I know you don't understand, and I completely support your right to say so.

 

[ultrarunner]

Making wood stoves burn cleaner is simply a no-brainer.

And it is if it stopped there.

As mentioned... I have one of the super low emission Cat stoves and only burn well seasoned Oak from storm damage on my property.

The Regional Air Board has told me face to face that they don't have the enforcement staff to differentiate who burns clean from those that don't.

So, burn bans include everyone.

 

[dave1949]

Here are some pollution pictures suitable for framing.

The title: "The dirtiest cities in the world"

Cities shown: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guanzhou, China; Osaka, Japan; Tehran (with a note that Ahwaz in southwest Iran is even more polluted), Iran; New Delhi, India, Mexico City, Mexico; Santiago, Chile, Los Angeles, CA; Ulan Bator, Mongolia; Berlin (fog (nebel), not smog), Germany.

Öko - taz.de

 

[RoyJackson]

If these lefties responding here were really serious, they'd get rid of those smelly tractors and get a horse or ox for those chores.

Getting back to it, posting a picture of pollution in Bejing (pretty sure it's Bejing) isn't really on topic or even close to it. Typical misdirection or scare-mongering.

IF the US was serious about pollution, we would require importers of goods to certify that the countries who manufactured the goods had strict pollution programs in place....otherwise, a heavy tariff on those goods.

But as I wrote, the EPA is picking on an industry that is too small to fight back...with suspect data to support their endeavors.

 

[Sodo]

Getting back to it, posting a picture of pollution in Bejing (pretty sure it's Bejing) isn't really on topic or even close to it. Typical misdirection or scare-mongering.

IF the US was serious about pollution, we would require importers of goods to certify that the countries who manufactured the goods had strict pollution programs in place....otherwise, a heavy tariff on those goods.

Roy, I'm not convinced you know what the topic is….. Just to be clear, we're discussing that when they come to take away your stove they're taking your guns too. That's why it's patriotic to support pollution. Lets try to keep on-topic OK? That's just for you Roy.

=================

IF the US was serious about pollution, we would have strict(er) pollution programs in place. We're not that serious.

Even so, the good ole' USA has cleaned up the air in our cities to be far healthier than they were in the '70s. Even with the population increasing.

So, burn bans include everyone.

Ultra, I see you have a home in WA state. In WA State, if the only heat source in the home is a woodstove you are allowed to use it during a burn ban. If you have other (cleaner) heat it is expected that you not add to the current pollution problem your neighbors are experiencing. It seems like we have 2 or 3 burn bans every year in the heavily populated Seattle area, and they last for a couple days each. I can't speak for other areas.

I know there are cities in Montana that are having a terrible time with air pollution, very very unsafe conditions due to the topography and weather inversions.

 

[RoyJackson]

As I wrote, you're either an EPA or other government employee, or you're very naive...
As far as the topic...I used to work for a wood stove manufacturer (Vermont Castings) and don't even think I don't know exactly what the topic is...and how invasive the EPA is...

Roy, I'm not convinced you know what the topic is….. Just to be clear, we're discussing that when they come to take away your stove they're taking your guns too. That's why it's patriotic to support pollution. Lets try to keep on-topic OK? That's just for you Roy.

=================

IF the US was serious about pollution, we would have strict(er) pollution programs in place. We're not that serious.

Even so, the good ole' USA has cleaned up the air in our cities to be far healthier than they were in the '70s. Even with the population increasing.


Ultra, I see you have a home in WA state. In WA State, if the only heat source in the home is a woodstove you are allowed to use it during a burn ban. If you have other (cleaner) heat it is expected that you not add to the current pollution problem your neighbors are experiencing. It seems like we have 2 or 3 burn bans every year in the heavily populated Seattle area, and they last for a couple days each. I can't speak for other areas.

I know there are cities in Montana that are having a terrible time with air pollution, very very unsafe conditions due to the topography and weather inversions.

 

[dave1949]

If these lefties responding here were really serious, they'd get rid of those smelly tractors and get a horse or ox for those chores.

Getting back to it, posting a picture of pollution in Bejing (pretty sure it's Bejing) isn't really on topic or even close to it. Typical misdirection or scare-mongering.

IF the US was serious about pollution, we would require importers of goods to certify that the countries who manufactured the goods had strict pollution programs in place....otherwise, a heavy tariff on those goods.

But as I wrote, the EPA is picking on an industry that is too small to fight back...with suspect data to support their endeavors.

Well Roy, you've been dishing it out, I hope you can take it ...

If the wing-nuts posting here could read, they wouldn't get punked by a Forbes writer who makes part of his living waving red meat lies in their faces. The EPA did not issue a ban on wood stoves. The EPA did compile a 20 page list of wood stoves that already meet the proposed Phase 1 standards. BTW, the other part of the Forbes article writer's living comes from being a spaceship interior decorator.

But getting back to it, the pictures are not scare tactics, they are real. They demonstrate the necessity of controlling air pollution by an agency empowered to do that, such as the EPA. The same EPA that the original article attacks via wood stoves, followed by similar attacks from wing-nut posters that the EPA ought to be gotten rid of. The pictures are entirely appropriate to the context and purpose of the article and poster's comments--including your own.

If the OP of this thread really gave a rat's butt about pollution and wood stoves, the thread title would have been "Can Wood Stove Manufacturers Meet a 1.5 PPM Standard In Five Years?" We could have had a rational discussion about the technical issues involved, what type of stove would be needed to achieve that, costs, and so on.

Some of that did happen, but it is clear that for many, beginning with the OP, their primary interest was in blaming the EPA for everything under the sun and making up stuff they cannot find sources to support.

The articles below show a growth in wood heat use and support for developing cleaner wood heat appliances. There is a market for wood heat manufacturers to grow and do well in. I think that is great. We use a carbon-neutral fuel that supports and employs local people, helps forest landowners pay the tax bill, and keeps our fuel dollars in our region and communities. There is no reason for that increased reliance on wood to come at the price of higher pollution and the attending health impacts.

I really don't care that you think the EPA data is suspect. Unless you are a medical professional experienced in statistical analysis of disease incidence, you have no rational basis for suspecting anything. You have no rational basis for saying Obama is killing the wood stove industry either. That is typical off the wall, fantasy built on ignorance wing-nut stuff that righties are infamous for. It would be laughable were it not so sad.

The EPA is proposing a five-year goal for future appliances. It will take many years for those new appliances to make up an appreciable percentage of in-use stoves. As with the last time, when the EPA set the 7.5 ppm stove particulate standards in 1988 the world did not end. There will be a gradual upgrading of in-use stoves. If current consumer and fuel trends continue, a growing percentage of future wood heat appliances will not be stand-alone, in-room traditional firewood burners.

2012 census shows wood heating continues growth streak | Biomassmagazine.com
Governor Cuomo Announces Funding to Promote Growth and Commercialization of High-Efficiency, Low-Emission Wood-Fired Heating Equipment | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
http://www.forgreenheat.org/resources/press.pdf

 

[RoyJackson]

Well Roy, you've been dishing it out, I hope you can take it ...

Of course I can take it...

Anyway, I am always suspicious of government statistics...a healthy skepticism is important. Transparency in government isn't so transparent...and bureaucrats do manipulate their statistics for their own agendas.
Sort of like "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan..." blah, blah, blah.

I'll read your links when I get home tonight...but I did scan the one about Cuomo. In his case, he's got so many upstate New Yorkers PO'd about that idiotic gun ban as well as his comments afterward, he's doing anything he can to mollify those folks. There's more issues in upstate NY as well, but that's probably the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back".

The EPA hadn't bothered with wood stoves since about 1990 (give or take a couple years)...why now?