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

[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.

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.

Yes and mandate the stores give a credit for exchanging the old stove that would be reimbursed by the EPA.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Eventually it will be banned.

 

[JimBowie1958]

here's some things to get you started:

Monday, February 3, 2014
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

From the article that supposedly refutes the stories that are still being carried by Forbes and others.

"True, the EPA will “ban” the production of those models 5 to 8 years from now, but those articles often do not clarify that existing stoves are not affected and are grandfathered. "
- except if the stove breaks down and needs replacing. Then you are out big bucks and not able to buy a cheaper replacement comparable to what you once owned.

"Another article simplified this by saying “trading in an old stove for a newer stove isn’t allowed.” This nugget of misinformation started by quoting language about trade-out programs and then got applied to the new EPA stove regulations. "
- So what are the actual guidelines? Are we just supposed to take the authors word for it hat there is no big deal here? Why? If the EPA is being so ridiculous as to ban stoves that only clean the exhaust to 15 parts per million, then there is no grounds to assume that they are being reasonable at all.

"Part of this is sheer myth and part is a skewed analysis of what is going on. First of all, the EPA has statutory authority already given to it by the US Congress in the Clean Air Act of 1970 (under Richard Nixon) that was updated in 1990 (under George H.W. Bush). The agency does not need to expand its powers and, for example, has the authority to regulate fireplaces but is choosing not to use that power. "
- absolute bullshit. What is possible legally is not necessarily plausible when you factor in political blow back and bureaucratic inertia. These 'Sue and settle' tactics work because they give CYA to all participants (That mean old judge made us do it!) and they are costing the government billions in new regs and the nation even more.


"Second, the lawsuit filed by 7 states and another by 5 environmental groups has nothing to do with the merits of the regulation, but only to force the EPA to issue regulations and not keep delaying them."
- Because they are being delayed by the other 43 states has no merit? lol, so the seven manage to bully the other 43 states by getting a judge to do their dirty work? How does that make this situation any better? Answer: It doesn't.


"No matter how often the EPA says that existing units are grandfathered and not impacted, this myth was going to gain traction. There may be some local areas that pass “sunset” laws, like in Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington, where use of old, uncertified stoves will not be allowed as of Jan. 1, 2015. But low-income families are often exempted, or provided funding to trade up. Most people assume that this will add some cost to most new stoves (estimates range between $100 and $1,000) and that low-income families will be even more likely to buy and install an old, uncertified stove rather than buying a new one. This is a legitimate issue and will undoubtedly get lots of public attention over the next year. "
- Well, Lordy, a so-called myth that is labeled 'legitimate issue' even as it is also labeled a myth! You just cant make this shit up it is so fucking stupid.

4 Myths all BUSTED!

 

[JimBowie1958]

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,

Yeah cause that's never a lie, lol

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.

Because that only happens 'often' not always and then the bureaucratic process of proving yourself to be poor by their definition is also problematic.

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...

Exactly but it does give the fascists more power and that trumps everything else.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

At my hunting camp in New Mexico, I use a wood stove that puts out some serious heat during the winter and it is good to cook on. They are very beneficial when the electricity goes out plus they are cost effective using wood as a natural resource. In rural America, this will have a tremendous impact on peoples daily lives when it becomes neccessary to use them in their homes. This is another example initiated by the constitionally ineligible president getting the government to intervene in our lives.


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

Obama regime bans wood-burning stoves. Wants you to rely on government for heat.

EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Deals Blow to Rural Homes

 

[natstew]

I say BAN the EPA!

 

[flacaltenn]

Merging this thread with existing topic in Environment Forum..

flacaltenn

 

[g5000]

First, wood stoves have not been banned by the EPA. So the topic title is a willful lie.

Second, if you like the wood stove you have, you can keep your wood stove.

The new EPA rule means that all future wood stoves sold must not emit particulates in excess of 12 micrograms per cubic foot of air. This is reduced from the current standard of 15 micrograms.

Perhaps a go-getter journalist should look into whether a certain wood stove manufacturer bribed government officials to tighten the standards to run his competitors out of business.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, we now have government agencies ruling over us and Congress

You have to love that hope and change eh?

what will they rule over you next? you voted for it...ENJOY

 

[flacaltenn]

First, wood stoves have not been banned by the EPA. So the topic title is a willful lie.

Second, if you like the wood stove you have, you can keep your wood stove.

The new EPA rule means that all future wood stoves sold must not emit particulates in excess of 12 micrograms per cubic foot of air. This is reduced from the current standard of 15 micrograms.

Perhaps a go-getter journalist should look into whether a certain wood stove manufacturer bribed government officials to tighten the standards to run his competitors out of business.

Just like the other "you can keep it" lie -- this one doesn't help you a whit if YOURS is at the end of life or you're buying a house that needs a replacement. It WILL cost more, and probably need modifications for installation and venting. The current designs are being made illegal.. That's the equivalent of banning them.. The lightbulb nazis played this same card for the past years -- denying that any lightbulbs were being "banned".

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

No woodstoves are being banned.

Kook fringe righties, however, are pissing themselves again, mainly because they were told to piss themselves. And because they've grown to enjoy sitting in their own urine. They feel something is missing from their lives if they don't piss themselves over some issue at least once a day.

In other words, nothing new to see here.

Oh, my woodstove is very efficient and would pass, since the baffle-thingies at the top re-ignite the smoke. You want to burn most of the particulates, not send them up the chimney. And it's considerate not to choke the neighborhood.

 

[SwimExpert]

IF YOU LIKE YOUR WOOD STOVE YOU CAN KEEP IT

I literally laughed out loud for a good 30 seconds on that one.

Seriously though, the government should enact an individual mandate for every home to have a wood stove and a fireplace. They eliminate warming after all.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/reports/1207_ETRA_HazeReport_lr.pdf

Enter Sue and Settle. Beginning in 2009, a
group of nonprofit environmental advocacy
organizations—Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians,
Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks
Conservation Association, Montana Environmental
Information Center, Grand Canyon Trust, San
Juan Citizens Alliance, Our Children’s Earth
Foundation, Plains Justice, and Powder River Basin
Resource Council—filed lawsuits against EPA
alleging that the agency had failed to perform its
nondiscretionary duty to act on state submissions
for regional haze. Rather than defend these
cases, EPA simply chose to settle. In five Consent
Decrees negotiated with environmental groups12—
and, importantly, without notice to the states that
would be affected13—EPA agreed to commit itself
to various deadlines to act on all states’ visibility
improvement plans.

The Forbes Article referred to this pdf on proof of what's going on at the EPA and how it is implementing new regulations via LEGAL MANIPULATION.............

Costing states BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.............

The 4 myths article is BS cover story. The EPA is changing the rules and will eventually shove anything they want down the people's throats without Congressional Approval............

If they are changing the regs on wood burning, which they are, they will force more EPA BS into a standard fire place or insert..............Excuse me EPA..........Shove your regs where the sun doesn't shine................wood, match, air and a stack.................burns and gives out heat...................

Let's let these idiots now tell us to stick a dang scrubber up a chimney or something, and allow you to get a waiver through RED TAPE if you are poor or in a rural area.............How about the EPA stop attacking every dang thing including a fire place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thread summary:

No woodstoves are being banned.

Kook fringe righties, however, are pissing themselves again, mainly because they were told to piss themselves. And because they've grown to enjoy sitting in their own urine. They feel something is missing from their lives if they don't piss themselves over some issue at least once a day.

In other words, nothing new to see here.

Oh, my woodstove is very efficient and would pass, since the baffle-thingies at the top re-ignite the smoke. You want to burn most of the particulates, not send them up the chimney. And it's considerate not to choke the neighborhood.

Lol, wood stoves are being banned by the EPA, dumbass and had you read the OP link you would have seen it, and even the rebuttal post agrees.

You are such a flaming fool.

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

IF YOU LIKE YOUR WOOD STOVE YOU CAN KEEP IT

I literally laughed out loud for a good 30 seconds on that one.

Seriously though, the government should enact an individual mandate for every home to have a wood stove and a fireplace. They eliminate warming after all.

Of course all the rich yuppies that voted for Obama would get an exemption......

 

[JimBowie1958]

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/reports/1207_ETRA_HazeReport_lr.pdf

Enter Sue and Settle. Beginning in 2009, a
group of nonprofit environmental advocacy
organizations—Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians,
Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks
Conservation Association, Montana Environmental
Information Center, Grand Canyon Trust, San
Juan Citizens Alliance, Our Children’s Earth
Foundation, Plains Justice, and Powder River Basin
Resource Council—filed lawsuits against EPA
alleging that the agency had failed to perform its
nondiscretionary duty to act on state submissions
for regional haze. Rather than defend these
cases, EPA simply chose to settle. In five Consent
Decrees negotiated with environmental groups12—
and, importantly, without notice to the states that
would be affected13—EPA agreed to commit itself
to various deadlines to act on all states’ visibility
improvement plans.

The Forbes Article referred to this pdf on proof of what's going on at the EPA and how it is implementing new regulations via LEGAL MANIPULATION.............

Costing states BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.............

The 4 myths article is BS cover story. The EPA is changing the rules and will eventually shove anything they want down the people's throats without Congressional Approval............

If they are changing the regs on wood burning, which they are, they will force more EPA BS into a standard fire place or insert..............Excuse me EPA..........Shove your regs where the sun doesn't shine................wood, match, air and a stack.................burns and gives out heat...................

Let's let these idiots now tell us to stick a dang scrubber up a chimney or something, and allow you to get a waiver through RED TAPE if you are poor or in a rural area.............How about the EPA stop attacking every dang thing including a fire place.

This is classic fascism and the silence and CYA of the press for Obama is clearly pro-fascist.

 

[eagle1462010]

The EPA's back door regulations or new regulations due to legal cases are costing states and businesses BILLIONS...............and the people of this country are feeling the other end of this equation with higher bills each month..........Most simply don't understand why they get rate hikes when they get their higher utility bills............

Should the EPA and Enviro wacks get their way, utility rates will continue to SKY ROCKET as they KILL COAL............then say use gas but you can't run a pipe line................

Perhaps they were dropped on their heads at birth or something. Brain damage.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I suspect there will be PLENTY of older stoves on Craigslist as needed. (That's where I got mine...I just fed it, the date cast into the front of it is 1959.)

 

[eagle1462010]

Southern Co says Kemper coal plant costs still climbing | Reuters

Jan 28 (Reuters) - Southern Co will take a $25 million charge in the 2013 fourth quarter as the cost for its coal-gasification power plant in Kemper County, Mississippi, climbs to more than $5 billion, the company said in a filing with regulators on Tuesday.

Original projections of costs were at 2 Billion. Then it went to 3 Billion. Now, since it is new tech it's costing them 5 BILLION...............

The plant isn't on line but 186,000 customers have already gotten a 15% hike in power bills. It was requested at over 21%...............They have plans to increase it again after the initial shock to the people has worn off.................

This is the EPA and ENVIRO WACKS at their finest.........forcing new tech that costs BILLIONS............As the average Joe gets.............BOHICA...............

 

[mamooth]

So you're blaming the EPA for the coal industry being incompetent in building a plant? That's ... interesting. Is there anything that happens on the planet which you don't blame the EPA for?