Latest EPA Wood Stove News

[Chris-PA]

S


I'm going to talk real world here. I expect that wood stoves will be outlawed in the future. I might just support that too. Our populatiou is booming--at least out here and folks are living closer together than ever. Wood heat is not made for use in population clusters. Real world: Voter power is in the cities. How King County (Seattle area) votes is what wins here. I expect other states are the same. That's self explanatory. I expect the regulations will end when stoves are illegal. I'm telling you what you don't want to hear. But you asked.

Do I support it? If it makes our area healthier I do. I like clean air. Maybe there's some sort of technology out there that'll help. Like affordable, longer distance electric cars. Affordable electric or hybrid pickups that'll pull loads and go around on woods roads. Maybe even another source of fuel that is non-polluting will be found.
Wood and coal are going to be fuels of the past, unless the technology exists to make them non-polluting. Oil? We've already got folks lying down on the railroad tracks to stop oil trains. I don't support that. I like cheap gas and we have no reliable substitute to use---yet. I hope smart folks are working hard on that.

I'm thinking about moving to town. Will I heat with wood there? Probably not. I might have a stash for emergency use or have a propane fake woodstove for power outages installed. I've had one of those before and they are nice. Wood heat is not a good thing to have in town.

Oh, doing away with wood heat isn't anything new. Back in the 1960s or 50s there was a town by Grand Coulee Dam. They named it Electric City. Their claim to fame was that there were no chimneys in Electric City. Electric heat was the modern way to heat your house. It wasn't law, they were just proud of being modern.
Electric City never got very big, but it still exists. I imagine it has chimneys, although wood might be hard to come by without a lot of driving. Sagebrush doesn't grow very big.

There is an air quality testing site up on the White Pass Ski Area. According to the guys who take the readings, it is either the cleanest or second cleanest air in the country. You easterners ought to be glad. Sometimes, you are downwind.

I certainly understand the problem for places where atmospheric and geographic issues cause concentration of pollutants. however, they cause concentration of pollutants from all sources. Wood heat might not be appropriate there, and in other concentrated population areas either. But there is no reason for a national regulation to prevent burning of wood stoves in other ares however. That is foolish, misguided and counterproductive.

Unfortunately what will happen if fewer people burn wood for heat is that they will turn back to fossil fuels. Those produce a lot of direct toxic pollution in the place where they are burned too, but also huge amounts of pollution and environmental damage in other places - which stay out of sight and out of mind, allowing those in the urban areas to ignore it. And fossil fuels also produce huge amounts of CO2 which wood does not, and this is the crucial difference from decades ago where environmental regulations were focused only on directly toxic emissions and totally missed the dangers of CO2. We now understand the major error that represented, but regulations such as these proposed new wood burning rules are still missing - they are based on and obsolete understanding of risks and dangers.

The energy in fossil fuels and in wood is stored in the molecular carbon bonds, and the carbon is released when the energy is released. There isn't any way to use it without releasing the carbon, but the carbon in the wood was taken from the atmosphere in the last several decades and will be released again (mostly into the atmosphere) anyway - burning it has no net effect. The carbon in fossil fuels has been sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years, so burning it is a major change.

It really doesn't matter to me if some locals ban wood stoves - it may be the best decision for them. There isn't enough wood for everyone to burn wood for heat anyway, and in some places it makes no sense. But I will not accept being forced back to fossil fuels here in rural PA because it's a problem in, say Seattle.

You can do whatever you want to Iowa though

 

[Whitespider]

I'm going to talk real world here.

Not exactly.
You're comparing a world of the past to the world (or possibly the utopia) you believe it should be now.... but the "real world" is somewhere between those two points.

You refuse to understand the reality of the world, and more importantly, the country you live in. The premise of our country is based in liberty, not a life without risk. In not one single line will you find where our our founding documents promise you clean air, a safe job, or even healthiness... they only promise you liberty and freedom to pursue happiness. In fact, many of those documents explain the the price of liberty is, in fact, the acceptance of risk (or personal responsibility). Personally, I choose liberty... because, without it, nothing... nothing... nothing else matters.

For some indoctrinated reason you believe, because you live "there" (wherever that may be), no one can do anything to interfere with your happiness... even if it means to the detriment of theirs. That is an ideology of error (and selfishness)... but you are at liberty to pursue happiness elsewhere if you so choose. You expect government to provide your happiness (or at least protect it)... that ain't liberty, it ain't even close.

And no doubt (mark my words) your next argument will be about your "rights"...
*

 

[Oxford]

It must be winter. Whitespider is back on his horse, educating all of us poor morons on the immortal, infallible wisdom of the Framers and all of the ways his understanding is superior to ours, and the usual amen chorus is right along. Leaving aside, of course, that had the clock stopped in May, 1790, we'd still have slavery, your wife wouldn't be able to vote, and on and on. Lost in the 50s, indeed. The 1750s.

 

[Whitespider]

Infallible Oxford?? Where did I state that??
I'm willing to consider a better plan than liberty though... do you have one??

Oh... and the founders left open the amendment process which ended the slavery, women's vote, and on and on deficiencies. They had actually learned from the "Articles of the Confederacy" that the amendment was a necessary process... but they didn't make it easy.
And by-the-way, liberty is not something allowed to be changed by amendment.
Educate yourself.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

You're comparing a world of the past to the world (or possibly the utopia) you believe it should be now.... but the "real world" is somewhere between those two points.

Says the guy who wants to turn back time to some fantasized version of 1789. That was the point where a bunch of wealthy elite got scared of the democratic trends of the population and drafted their own new anti-democratic constitution. They owned all the press, and rammed it through the states in a time too short for 18th century news to carry information about what was really in it across the territory. Pennsylvania had something like 3 weeks to ratify it - few had even read it, and it passed with something less than 10% of the electorate voting for it. It was an overthrow of the state constitutions that people had actually fought for, a consolidation of power into the hands of the elite, but a couple of hundred years later many think it was some sacred act.

History is what actually happened, not the propaganda. There's been a whole lot of change and history since that time - you can try to ignore it, but that just leaves you irrelevant.

 

[Whitespider]

Says the guy who wants to turn back time to some fantasized version of 1789. That was the point where a bunch of wealthy elite got scared of the democratic trends of the population and drafted their own new anti-democratic constitution.

And thank the lord they did... or we'd be living under a Democracy rather than a Republic.
(You do realize that a Democracy is basically mob-rule??)
*

 

[Chris-PA]

And thank the lord they did... or we'd be living under a Democracy rather than a Republic.
(You do realize that a Democracy is basically mob-rule??)
*

Well, so says some guy in Iowa - you'll have to pardon me if I don't accept your opinion on the matter. History gets re-written by the victors, and we don't know how the first government of the nation (the one people fought for) would have worked long term, as it was overthrown after only a few years. For those few years it was an economic catastrophe for the common people, and a boon for the elite as they re-enacted the policies of the British for their own benefit, but the people were becoming organized under the powers of their state constitutions.

We don't know what would have happened, and it isn't relevant now. We've had a different and constantly changing government for over 200 years since, and it will keep on changing regardless of how much any of us want to stem that tide. Which is why constantly bringing up what was written in 1789 every time someone tries to have a discussion about, say, new wood stove regulations, is so pointless and irrelevant.

One thing that is the same - as a guy in Pennsylvania in 2014 my opinion on what is going to be enacted is every bit as meaningless as were the opinions of ordinary Pennsylvanians in 1789.

 

[Whitespider]

I'm totally confused... so mob-rule is a good thing??
Maybe you should research what is a "Democracy" and what is a "Republic".
We use the "Democratic Process" to elect our government... but our system of government is a "Republic"... and that's a fact.
I'd try to explain it to you... but this sums it up...

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”
Our Constitution created a limited representative republic. A republic is different from a democracy. In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws. Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

Read it... and weep, Chris-PA.
*

 

[slowp]

The circle of BS has gone around too many times and it's boring now. I'm outta here, unless the insults are too overboard. You wanted my opinion in that last post, and you got it. I don't care if you like it or not. I answered. Truthfully. Now go threaten the city people, or something. I don't care. It's Iowa. It's not here. Spidey, how do you ever make a living with all the time to participate in the circle? I sure couldn't do that. I'd get fired, or demoted and....I worked for the gubmint! Now go be productive.....beat up that city guy, or something. Get some professional help.

 

[pro94lt]

Don't worry guys he's not an actual person he's just a paid operative. No soul no person just a worker working for the greater good...

 

[pro94lt]

No joke either guys he's just another paid operative

 

[Whitespider]

"Regulations" on wood stoves is not the disease... it's just one of the symptoms.

The world saw one other highly successful "Republic" in its history... much greater, successful and longer lived than ours...
The Roman Empire.
Don't confuse the bloody and brutal empire you learned about in school (and from the bible) with the great and successful empire that prevailed before it... the empire you learned about was in the stages of rapid decline. Before that time the "people" were left alone to prosper (thereby building the great empire)... the "people" lived a life of liberty and self responsibility... they lived better and more comfortably than any other "people" on the planet. The "people" built one of the greatest nations this planet has ever seen...

There's a ton of opinions on what "actually" brought down the Roman Empire... what was the final nail, so to speak. But one thing most scholars and historians agree on... the "decline" began when the government made the shift to a "welfare state" complete with "regulation" and handouts. Shortly after that government and private corruption became rampant, the people demanded more and more from the government, which gave government more power, which bred more corruption... and the rest is history...

Right now we are in a decline that directly parallels the early stages of Roman decline... it's scary... and it ain't hard to see, unless you refuse to.

And that's the reality... that's the "real world" of it.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

I'm totally confused... so mob-rule is a good thing??
Maybe you should research what is a "Democracy" and what is a "Republic".
We use the "Democratic Process" to elect our government... but our system of government is a "Republic"... and that's a fact.
I'd try to explain it to you... but this sums it up...


Read it... and weep, Chris-PA.
*

You call it mob rule, they called it liberty - that's what they meant by the word. Apparently you think it was a good thing it was taken from them?

 

[Whitespider]

Now go threaten the city people, or something. I don't care. It's Iowa. It's not here. Spidey, how do you ever make a living with all the time to participate in the circle? I sure couldn't do that. I'd get fired, or demoted and....I worked for the gubmint! Now go be productive.....beat up that city guy, or something. Get some professional help.

Still workin' the marginalization angle, ain't ya??
Just so ya' know slowp, I work in the private sector... I had well over 40 hours in by noon Thursday... which gave me half of Thursday and all of Friday to "participate in the circle" without wasting my employers time. Rather than getting fired or demoted... my loyalty, commitment, hard work, and long hours is being rewarded. Which, unlike a "gubmint" job, is how it works in the "real world".
*

 

[Whitespider]

No, Chris-PA, your view ain't correct...
The original government formed under the "Articles of the Confederation" was based more on a "Democracy" than a "Republic". We were not a "nation" proper... the states had simply entered into an agreement of cooperation. It was becoming obvious that "liberty and justice for all" was compromised under such a system... the majority was gaining power over the minority, there were no safeguards for the individual. Basically, under the original system, if the majority wanted to forbid anyone with, say, green eyes, from owning property... the majority (of a state) needed only to vote such law in.

It was the new government, the "Republic" government (complete with the "limiting" constitution) that made it possible for things like abolition, suffrage, and civil rights possible through amendment. It was the new constitution that guaranteed liberty for all, not just the majority. The "propaganda" is in your words, not mine. The "rewriting" of history is in your words, not mine.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

There's a ton of opinions on what "actually" brought down the Roman Empire... what was the final nail, so to speak. But one thing most scholars and historians agree on... the "decline" began when the government made the shift to a "welfare state" complete with "regulation" and handouts. Shortly after that government and private corruption became rampant, the people demanded more and more from the government, which gave government more power, which bred more corruption... and the rest is history...

Sorry, but this is pure BS. I have never read such nonsense in any history of Rome. Pre-imperial Rome is referred to as a republic to differentiate it from the later imperial phase, but it certainly was not some egalitarian paradise. Rome was a huge empire, but just another of many civilizations to follow the standard pattern of rise and collapse. The same ride we're on. All of these things you seem to think are the driving factors (like layers of embedded bureaucracies pursuing actions that have become irrelevant) are just typical symptoms of the real driving forces. Just like all the discussions about how to fix or bring back some favorite and glorified time of the past - irrelevant, as things have changed.

The original government formed under the "Articles of the Confederation" was based more on a "Democracy" than a "Republic". It was becoming obvious that "liberty and justice for all" was compromised under such a system... the majority was gaining power over the minority, there were no safeguards for the individual. Basically, under the original system, if the majority wanted to forbid anyone with, say, green eyes, from owning property... the majority needed only to vote such law in.

That is the standard propaganda written later to justify what was done. It is not an accurate description of what was actually happening. What the few who were benefiting from the system feared as "mob rule" was the people organizing and using the constitutional powers granted to them to fix a corrupt government, and to try to end an economic crisis deeper and longer lasting than the great depression of the 1930's. When they succeeded in taking away the charter of Morris's bank, the very wealthy panicked - we got a new constitution, and the big bank was back in business.

Ben Franklin was invited to the convention as a last minute addition; he was not really a part of the group that drove it.

 

[Whitespider]

What the few who were benefiting from the system feared as "mob rule" was the people organizing and using the constitutional powers granted to them to fix a corrupt government...

If I'm the one spewing pure BS... well...
So you're claiming the people could use their "constitutional" powers to fix a corrupt government... what "constitutional" powers?? There wasn't a constitution... heck, there wasn't even a (federal) government.
Yes, there were state constitutions... but nothing in the new federal constitution nullified the states, nothing in the new federal constitution removed any state constitutional powers from the people.
In fact, the new federal constitution didn't even apply to the states or the people, it simply limited the power of federal government. Not even the Bill of Rights placed limits on states until the SCOTUS began incorporating them one at a time.

Calling cold owl squat watermelon candy don't make it so.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

If I'm the one spewing pure BS... well...
So you're claiming the people could use their "constitutional" powers to fix a corrupt government... what "constitutional" powers?? There wasn't a constitution... heck, there wasn't even a (federal) government.
Yes, there were state constitutions... but nothing in the new federal constitution nullified the states, nothing in the new federal constitution removed any state constitutional powers from the people.
In fact, the new federal constitution didn't even apply to the states or the people, it simply limited the power of federal government. Not even the Bill of Rights placed limits on states until the SCOTUS began incorporating them one at a time.

Calling cold owl squat watermelon candy don't make it so.
*

There were state constitutions, and the new federal constitution was specifically designed to preempt them. Among other things it gave the federal government the power to tax and to enforce collection, because they had been unsuccessful in getting local officials to do so.

So we've established that you are anti-democracy, anti-liberty, anti-local & pro-federal, and pro tax. I think my work here is done.

I'm gonna go sharpen some chains.

 

[Whitespider]

So we've established that you are anti-democracy, anti-liberty, anti-local & pro-federal, and pro tax. I think my work here is done.

L-O-L ‼
Good play... I didn't even see it coming.
*

 

[olyman]

Right on que...........

should have known,,you be one of them......