EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves In a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next

[longknife]

February 5, 2014, By Sara Noble

As of January 3rd, the EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves and fireplace inserts in the United States. Stoves which are used to heat 12% of the homes in America and are especially needed in outlying rural areas. Fireplaces are also being looked at.

The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. That is equivalent to a person smoking 3 to 4 cigarettes in a small confined space.

They'll ban BBQ grills next? Or wood burning stoves in the patio? At what point does the EPA stop sticking its bureaucratic nose in your home? Read more @ EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves In a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next | www.independentsentinel.com

 

[SSDD]

This sort of thing doesn't surprise you does it. Us skeptics have been saying all along that the AGW hoax is all about control and political power. The only thing surprising about this is that they waited this long to announce the plan.

 

[paperview]

As usual, pile of dung.

No. " EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves" is not true.

If it comes from a conservatives blog, chances are 90% it is full of distortions, misleads and half-truths

 

[Samson]

The EPA is asking for input on wood-burning stoves using the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734 and comments can be sent in any of the following ways:

1.Regulations.gov Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2.E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected].
3.Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744.
4.Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
5.Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. To make special arrangements or for questions, call (202) 566-1742

 

[paperview]

here's some things to get you started:

Monday, February 3, 2014

4 Myths About the EPA’s Proposed Wood Stove Regulations


In the weeks since the EPA unveiled their new regulations on residential wood heaters, many myths are starting to circulate in the right-wing media about what they mean. It’s sometimes hard to tell if the authors are intentionally spreading misleading information about the regulations, or they simply haven’t done enough research to know that they are spreading rumors. Probably some of both.

​

Next week we will be taking a look at the language used by some environmental activists who want much broader bans on wood heating. And sometimes it’s hard to tell who is on the right and who is on the left. One off-grid newsletter was touting the benefits of unpasteurized milk, organic vegetable gardens – and the evils of the EPA who cozy up to big business and threaten our freedom to live healthy lives.


After reading quite a few of the articles decrying the wood stove regulations, it’s clear that they are feeding off one another and often quoting one another. Many of the articles are from small fringe groups and websites, but some are from mainstream ones like Forbes and from ideologues at think tanks like the Heartland Institute. Here are some of the most common myths in the making:




- See more at: Heated Up!: 4 Myths About the EPA?s Proposed Wood Stove Regulations

 

[longknife]

As usual, pile of dung.

No. " EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves" is not true.

If it comes from a conservatives blog, chances are 90% it is full of distortions, misleads and half-truths

Well, instead of spouting your vile refutation, why don't YOU find links with FACTS to show the OP is false?

 

[paperview]

As usual, pile of dung.

No. " EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves" is not true.

If it comes from a conservatives blog, chances are 90% it is full of distortions, misleads and half-truths

Well, instead of spouting your vile refutation, why don't YOU find links with FACTS to show the OP is false?

He said, right after a post showing facts and a link.

 

[longknife]

As usual, pile of dung.

No. " EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves" is not true.

If it comes from a conservatives blog, chances are 90% it is full of distortions, misleads and half-truths

Well, instead of spouting your vile refutation, why don't YOU find links with FACTS to show the OP is false?

He said, right after a post showing facts and a link.

Yep -- sorry but didn't see it.

However, what makes YOUR site more valid than MINE?

 

[Katzndogz]

It is very necessary to ban wood burning heating. Otherwise, when all other forms of heating are banned the basic wood burning will still be available.

 

[flacaltenn]

Still with Paperviews rebuttal, we still have most of the facts intact..

1) Tho there IS a grandfather clause, IF YOU LIKE YOUR WOOD STOVE YOU CAN KEEP IT, kind of deal, it is true that 80% of current stoves are non compliant. Sound vaguely familiar?

2) Costs of COMPLIANT stoves will be much higher, creating a problem for anyone replacing a wood stove in the interim. Local exemptions for low income folks are no comfort in general.

If the GOVERNMENT designed wood stoves are like my govt designed toilets and heat pumps -- they will just waste fuel and water and refuse to work when I need them to...

 

[JimBowie1958]

EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People - Forbes

While EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit. To put this amount in context, EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.

Most wood stoves that warm cabin and home residents from coast-to-coast can’t meet that standard. Older stoves that don’t cannot be traded in for updated types, but instead must be rendered inoperable, destroyed, or recycled as scrap metal.

The impacts of EPA’s ruling will affect many families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 survey statistics, 2.4 million American housing units (12 percent of all homes) burned wood as their primary heating fuel, compared with 7 percent that depended upon fuel oil....

Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earth Justice.

Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish.

“Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.

And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.

What a lot of people don't know is that the EPA has a revolving door with environmental groups, many of its employees leaving the government to work for environmental groups for a short time, then returning to the government with more experience and thus higher pay as well.

This gives incentives to the EPA to cooperate with environmental groups no matter how ridiculous their regs they push may be.

Why do wood burning stoves have to be about 300 times cleaner than legal restrictions for smoking cigarettes?

It makes no sense, but this bureaucratic gambit that keeps expanding regulatory interference by the government into our daily lives is a cancer that is killing our government and our freedom.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Think I am gonna go crank up the wood stove which I KNOW is WAY outside their rules here in a minute...that son of a gun smokes like crazy..its old what can I say...in your honor EPA

 

[Spiderman]

Wood is actually a carbon neutral heat source. Heating with wood should be embraced not banned.

I will say that pellet stoves and furnaces are are more efficient than wood stoves and should be the first choice.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wood is actually a carbon neutral heat source. Heating with wood should be embraced not banned.

I will say that pellet stoves and furnaces are are more efficient than wood stoves and should be the first choice.

Which demonstrates that all this Global Warming hype is just bullshit.

The EPA and envirowacko groups don't give a damn about the environment; they just want power.

 

[editec]

If you're burning good wood and doing it right, it ought not to smoke excessively.

 

[Seawytch]

I live in California that has some of the most stringent environmental laws in the country. Since a woodstove is my primary source of heat, I'm exempt from things like "spare the air days", but I do have to have an especially efficient woodstove...which saves me a lot of work in the summer because we use less wood.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People - Forbes

While EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit. To put this amount in context, EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.

Most wood stoves that warm cabin and home residents from coast-to-coast can’t meet that standard. Older stoves that don’t cannot be traded in for updated types, but instead must be rendered inoperable, destroyed, or recycled as scrap metal.

The impacts of EPA’s ruling will affect many families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 survey statistics, 2.4 million American housing units (12 percent of all homes) burned wood as their primary heating fuel, compared with 7 percent that depended upon fuel oil....

Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earth Justice.

Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish.

“Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.

And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.

What a lot of people don't know is that the EPA has a revolving door with environmental groups, many of its employees leaving the government to work for environmental groups for a short time, then returning to the government with more experience and thus higher pay as well.

This gives incentives to the EPA to cooperate with environmental groups no matter how ridiculous their regs they push may be.

Why do wood burning stoves have to be about 300 times cleaner than legal restrictions for smoking cigarettes?

It makes no sense, but this bureaucratic gambit that keeps expanding regulatory interference by the government into our daily lives is a cancer that is killing our government and our freedom.

Seems obvious you'd give an exception to rural area stoves people depend on for warmth and food. If they don't they should file a class action lawsuit against the EPA for not doing so.

 

[rightwinger]

Hasn't this story been identified as bullshit in several threads?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you're burning good wood and doing it right, it ought not to smoke excessively.

There is nothing excessive about 12 parts per million, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hasn't this story been identified as bullshit in several threads?

No.

It is still being carried by Forbes.

Can you prove them wrong?

Given your history of being a bald faced liar I would guess that would be 'no'.