EPA issue ban on wood stoves

[Sodo]

There's barely any point to concern society with the needs of those who will be gone within one generation. You still get the pass, but might as well get used to being at odds with legislators.

How is it with more than 60 years of air pollution controls... going all the way back the PVC valves on cars and CATs on California Cars over 40 years ago and we still seem to be almost at square one when it comes to air pollution?

Lots of questions Ultra, and some good ones…..but what makes you think this is true? We're not at square one.

Population in 60 years ago was 154 million. Today its 316M, double that and the air is much cleaner than it was in the '70s. You appear to be as able as anybody to verify simple info like this, I'm curious why you would post such a thing.

 

[Avidpulp]

Well I live in Canada but had to jump in on this one....... EPA stands for Environmental Protection right, so stop people heating with wood they gotta heat there homes somehow, here in Canada if you don't use wood (wood is net 0 carbon btw, very environmentally friendly compared to and fossil fuel) you use oil or propane or natural gas. Well oil in Canada either comes from Alberta tar sands that the environmentalists are pissed about, propane that's made from oil or ng that the gas companies are :fracking:Hmmm seams like wood is by far the lesser of all the otherv evils. Oh I forgot electricity that they burn coal to generate or nuclear reactors that produce some pretty bad waste. I think if your going to protect the enviorment that a efficient woodstove is the way to go! But then again the burocrats cant really regulate that and the big power producers cant sell it to you........hmmmm. just my 2 cents worth

 

[Sodo]

Avid, you're 100% right. Although the title of this thread is "EPA issue ban on wood stoves" there is no ban on woodstoves. I think most people know that. The entire reason for this thread was BS, created to get rural people's undies in a bundle. Problem is, there's always some who are gullible enough to believe it, or WANT to believe it.

Woodstoves are highly efficient for rural areas. They can cause problems when used in cities, or in polluted areas or some weather conditions. I suspect a lot of TBN members live in cities but don't want to help solve the problem, and if they act like they're rural that's their excuse. And good point wood doesn't create the pollution of coal, nuclear, and the unseen (yet) pollution of Fracking.

 

[dave1949]

How about all the water aquifers contaminated by mandated MTBE

The MTBE contamination I am aware of is largely related to leaking tanks at filling stations. That would be an argument for more regulation of tanks rather than blaming someone/something else because the tank was bad.

I think jacspath was referring to more primitive cooking conditions such as open pit fires, not wood cook stoves with flues and chimneys.

 

[KSinWI]

I just can't imagine what motivates a guy to consider opposing those who want to reduce air pollution. Do you think pollution will just kill off all the bad polluters, (and not you or your grandkids?). Are you completely unaware that China let it go for too long and they are choking NOW?

"Head in sand" is appropriate metaphor, watch out sand will fall off your head into your keyboard. :laughing:

The notion that gov't should not protect our air, water etc is kind of ludicrous. Here's a pic where a gov't waited too long, China. It's too late now, and the people are choking. They will choke for YEARS, until the gov't finally gets their act together (as the USA is trying to do).

Gov't HAS to do the things that the people won't do. Its entire reason for existence should be, to look farther ahead than the people will look, and preserve a quality of life for the next generations. But that's just my point of view. A lot of people think the gov't should simply enrich them (And do it NOW!).

I don't see what benefit you're trying to get, by opposing efforts to keep the air clean while the rest of us are yearning to breathe free.

Woodstove pollution is a city problem, for city people. If you live in a rural area, wood heat will NEVER go away. City problems often spill over and affect rural people, but not this. This is just a silly attempt of city people trying prevent changes to their lifestyle by scaring rural people.

And if rural people are actually being scared, it's either because you're NOT rural, or you ARE gullible.

Ahh yes the true colors come out! Just because i'm skeptical of the EPA and the motivations for bringing this discussion up, i'm obviously against clean air and probably want dirty water also right? I won't even get into the craziness you exhibited on my other comment that was my example. Seriously, are you trying to compare our pollution standards to those of China? I'm all for reasonable standards but we have done a significant job already of cleaning up our act. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything further but it also means we have to balance the cost of each regulation we decide to enact. It doesn't do any good to put segments of our business sector out of business in the name of clean air if many other developing nations continue to be far worse pollution creators and don't enforce their industry and business to establish the same standards. If the reduction can be made with a reasonable cost and with a reasonable effort meanwhile keeping us competitive on the world market, I'm all for it. However if you think that you can push for regulation based solely on the fact it would make things cleaner, than your missing the big picture. It doesn't matter how good our air quality is if our GDP plummets and our business is no more. Somehow clean air doesn't feed and clothe Americans very well. AS for the wood stove argument? I'm only saying i'm skeptical of the conversation and where it may lead. Just because it is a problem as the result of air inversion in Fairbanks, doesn't mean we need the EPA to pass some nationwide regulation. Government runs so much more efficient on the local level than it does with blanket rules that don't fit the situation everywhere else. If States or localities want to pass regulations, they must answer to the local constituents. The EPA is pretty much a faceless organization that doesn't really have to face the average joe on a daily basis but yet they affect their lives in many ways for good and bad.

BTW At least you totally took veil off your politics when you started arguing about population control. Ask China how that's working out for them and the devastating future effects it will have on their country. Way to see only half the picture.

 

[ultrarunner]

There's barely any point to concern society with the needs of those who will be gone within one generation. You still get the pass, but might as well get used to being at odds with legislators.



Lots of questions Ultra, and some good ones?.but what makes you think this is true? We're not at square one.

Population in 60 years ago was 154 million. Today its 316M, double that and the air is much cleaner than it was in the '70s. You appear to be as able as anybody to verify simple info like this, I'm curious why you would post such a thing.

I'm currently living in the San Francisco Bay Area... pick just about any media environmental report and you will find doom and gloom. It's like all the work done so far has just scratched the surface with all the real work ahead... which means commisions, inspectors, policy folks, etc.

Some might find it hard to believe but I, as a young engineering grad interviewed for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District... I was ready to tackle the problems of the world... at least those of the SF Bay Area.

Working from behind the scenes it really is an us against the public attitude in many cases...

To generalize: the public is not smart enough so we have to guide them... draft model legislation, implement through an administrative agency and then enforce saying it's now the law... and the big one... long range planning willing to take incremental steps to sway public opinion over the course of generations.

A good friend of mine retired from the Air Board and he had some misgivings towards the end of his career... he was very proud of the clean up during the early part of his career and as he got older questioned if it was really worth the across the board costs going after the last 20%. The most good was done in the early years when simple steps produced huge results.

At one time, the push here was simply to get old cars off the road... I restore old cars from the teens and twenties.

There was such a huge grass roots movement on the steps of the Capital to make a difference... now, almost 20 years later the issue is all but gone... some might ask how?

Few antique cars are driven much... some are almost never driven like my 1905 Oldsmobile... as cars age they are also retired... the air district voluntary buy back program has been very successful... much better approach than as one media outlet reported by saying "Thousands of Peasants with Pitchforks converged on the Capital to have their voices heard... never thought of myself as a peasant with a pitchfork... but, I'm ok with it... by the way, it was the most peaceful and respectful mass prostests in Sacramento History...

 

[ultrarunner]

How about all the water aquifers contaminated by mandated MTBE

The MTBE contamination I am aware of is largely related to leaking tanks at filling stations. That would be an argument for more regulation of tanks rather than blaming someone/something else because the tank was bad.

I think jacspath was referring to more primitive cooking conditions such as open pit fires, not wood cook stoves with flues and chimneys.

And the reason the tanks leaked is because the mandated rust proof fiberglass tanks required here are not compatible with MTBE

Ask anyone in the boating and the problems with fiberglass fuel tanks and MTBE are horrific... even to the point some area marina are again permitted to sell without it.

Not everyone is a loser... the local mower shop was able to expand his business simply because of all the fuel issues it caused in the name of cleaner air.

 

[chopped]

AAHAH there it is I agree with this SO regulate it locally and not nationally. lol But that how we do things these days one size fits all..

Woodstoves are highly efficient for rural areas. They can cause problems when used in cities, or in polluted areas or some weather conditions. I suspect a lot of TBN members live in cities but don't want to help solve the problem, and if they act like they're rural that's their excuse. And good point wood doesn't create the pollution of coal, nuclear, and the unseen (yet) pollution of Fracking.[/QUOTE]

 

[dave1949]

And the reason the tanks leaked is because the mandated rust proof fiberglass tanks required here are not compatible with MTBE

Ask anyone in the boating and the problems with fiberglass fuel tanks and MTBE are horrific... even to the point some area marina are again permitted to sell without it.

Not everyone is a loser... the local mower shop was able to expand his business simply because of all the fuel issues it caused in the name of cleaner air.

There seems to be a lot more to the MTBE tanks issue than the EPA mandated it to put in EPA mandated tanks that were not compatible.

This is a long read, but if accurate it portrays a lot fingers in the MTBE pie. Not saying the EPA was blameless, but I don't think they were in control either. I was living in Germany years before and after this 1990 Clean Air Act update. I don't have any personal recollections about it. I was probably totally and blissfully unaware of the issue.

http://eprinc.org/download/congressionalactiontomandateMTBE.pdf

 

[Sodo]

It doesn't matter how good our air quality is if our GDP plummets and our business is no more. Somehow clean air doesn't feed and clothe Americans very well.

I suspect the people in this pic are warm, well fed, and well clothed. But they are choking, and their gov't has allowed their environment to become unhealthy. Without your health you have nothing.

Just because it is a problem as the result of air inversion in Fairbanks, doesn't mean we need the EPA to pass some nationwide regulation. Government runs so much more efficient on the local level than it does with blanket rules that don't fit the situation everywhere else.

You're right. That's what the EPA document says. They are proceeding slowly, letting local gov't take care of local problems.

BTW At least you totally took veil off your politics when you started arguing about population control. Ask China how that's working out for them and the devastating future effects it will have on their country. Way to see only half the picture.

You got me on that one! I guess we'll have to wait and see. When China enacted population controls (1979, = 35 years ago), starvation was imminent. It was a genuine threat and they tried to slow population growth (forcefully) and increasing their GDP, now they can buy more food from abroad. Maybe today they can afford to feed all those people, or reduce the lifespans of the city people. At least they were looking ahead for their future but as often, from one solution comes another problem. In my (veiled) opinion we shouldn't copy their mistakes, and I think we are being smarter about it (most of us). Luckily we still have a democratic government, to have a say in the process.