feds banning wood stoves??

[Gotrek]

You account for the carbon it has absorbed in its life time, which it releases back as it decomposes or burns it is almost carbon neutral then. As close as anything else I can think of.

 

[woodhog73]

It could happen. Perhaps not anytime soon but of course woodstoves could be outlawed. Lots of things have been outlawed over the years.

Outdoor wood boilers are already illegal in certain areas, even some rural ones.

Live in New York City ? Forget a wood stove, even a new EPA stove it's outlawed.

It would be ignorant to believe it could never happen. It can certainly happen. But probably not in my life time.

 

[Mt Bob]

There's exhaust one way or another!

Don't forget,we should eat less meat because cow farts are killing the planet!

 

[Dieselhead]

Seems like this year is right on cue, cold air has arrived so we got the first few posts of my new stove is clogged or wont make heat (due to wet wood) and now the post of the feds want to ban wood burning.
Give it a few more weeks and we'll get the guy who connects his new stove to the oil burner chimney (with the oil burner still connected) or connects a stove to single wall pipe as the whole chimney connected to the side of the house here come the holidays

dont forget if you use pine your gonna burn your house down

 

[firefighterjake]

dont forget if you use pine your gonna burn your house down

Well we all know that one is a fallacy . . . burning pine is fine . . . but it will make you go bald . . . at least that's my theory as to why I am slowly losing my hair.

 

[firefighterjake]

Didn't even bother watching the video . . . since it seems that every year there is a thread like this one about the feds taking/banning woodstoves and generally there is little to no truth in it.

For the record while I am not a born-again hippie, I really like the EPA stoves -- not so much for their cool stealth burning capabilities vs. some neighbors who look like they're running a factory out of their home with a steady supply of dark smoke billowing from their chimneys, but rather due to the fact I kinda like getting as much heat (if not more) while burning less wood than with an older woodstove.

Of course, some of these same neighbors I see outside on the weekends just now bucking up and splitting their firewood so even if they had the best, most efficient woodstove they're still gonna have a creosote factory going in their home.

 

[jhjove]

Seems like this thread has crossed over from carbon neutral to the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy.....taking energy from a usable state to an unusable state...sooner or later (well very much later) the universe as we know it will enter "heat death". But not this winter. Time to reload the Mansfield.

Don't forget,we should eat less meat because cow farts are killing the planet!

 

[jetsam]

Might depend on what you ate for lunch

Field tests have shown that a subject (me) using a 1.5 man pull saw to cut oak produces vastly more noise pollution and gaseous emissions than the same subject using a chainsaw.

Also, much of the noise emitted during the pull saw test was not suitable for children.

 

[blades]

Anything that comes from liberal greenies and the EPA I have extremely negative views of. As Owb's are concerned - well there did need to be something wiggled around on those - brought on by the bulk of users practices in semi urban areas. But I will also place at least 50% of the blame on the various mfgs. of which at least 50% are fly by night outfits.

 

[bholler]

Anything that comes from liberal greenies and the EPA I have extremely negative views of.

So you have an extremely negative veiw of that nc30? How about your cars and or trucks that get much better gas meilage because of regulations? What about the fact that you have clean water to drink? I can see you criticizing certain things but there has been allot of good that came out of environmental regulations as well. Modern stoves that meet epa requirements are way better in just about every way than the old ones that do not.

 

[Ashful]

Anything that comes from liberal greenies and the EPA I have extremely negative views of. As Owb's are concerned - well there did need to be something wiggled around on those - brought on by the bulk of users practices in semi urban areas. But I will also place at least 50% of the blame on the various mfgs. of which at least 50% are fly by night outfits.

Those liberal greenies, as annoying and sanctimonious as they may be, do have some good points. If they could learn to curb the "pay their fair share" bullshit, they'd likely win more ears toward their more noble causes. Clean water, lower pollution, it's hard to argue with these goals.

If you don't like the justification of preserving the environment for your grandkids, just remember that lower pollution is most often achieved thru improved efficiency, which means less wood processing for you!

 

[velvetfoot]

co2 < > pollution

 

[bholler]

co2 < > pollution

yes co2 is a form of pollution but there is allot more to it than that particulates are a major polluter from solid fuel burners also.

 

[velvetfoot]

yes co2 is a form of pollution but there is allot more to it than that particulates are a major polluter from solid fuel burners also.

Without CO2, there would be no trees.

 

[bholler]

Without CO2, there would be no trees.

Yes but we are producing way more co2 than the trees we currently have can deal with. So the excess is pollution.

 

[velvetfoot]

If it does no harm, it is not pollution.

 

[bholler]

If it does no harm, it is not pollution.

The problem is that is does cause harm.

 

[sportbikerider78]

I'm a really conservative guy,,and infowars still doesn't hold much credibility with me.

But Agenda 21 is very real. The UN's version of "sustainability" might not be what Americans want for the country. And what input should the rest of the world really have on how we run things? Why should a diplomat in China have any input? Doesn't make sense to me.
It has lost a ton of momentum, but mainly because of resistance all over the US. There are plenty of people (liberal and conservative) that think its all a bad idea.

Best thing we can do is remove ourselves from the UN and move on solving our own problems.

 

[bholler]

But none of this matters when it comes to tis video. The "feds" are not banning wood stoves period. They just are not. Some localities have but no federal entity has or is planning to ban wood stoves.

 

[velvetfoot]

The problem is that is does cause harm.

Says who?

 

[bholler]

Says who?

Just about the entire scientific community.

 

[jetsam]

I'm a really conservative guy,,and infowars still doesn't hold much credibility with me.

But Agenda 21 is very real. The UN's version of "sustainability" might not be what Americans want for the country. And what input should the rest of the world really have on how we run things? Why should a diplomat in China have any input? Doesn't make sense to me.
It has lost a ton of momentum, but mainly because of resistance all over the US. There are plenty of people (liberal and conservative) that think its all a bad idea.

Best thing we can do is remove ourselves from the UN and move on solving our own problems.

The UN can't even manage to annoy a dictator in a third world country. They most especially cannot influence domestic policy in a country that holds permanent veto power over any resolution that they might make (that would be China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US).

Even if the UN did somehow manage to pass a resolution requiring the US (or any other country) to do something- anything- they have no practical way to enforce it.

Anyone saying that the UN is doing XYZ to one of its permanent member nations.... Well, they might be an infowars reader.

 

[Ashful]

If it does no harm, it is not pollution.

Please inform the residents of Mexico City, Linfen, and Yangquan.

 

[velvetfoot]

Just about the entire scientific community.

good luck with that

 

[sportbikerider78]

Those liberal greenies, as annoying and sanctimonious as they may be, do have some good points. If they could learn to curb the "pay their fair share" bullshit, they'd likely win more ears toward their more noble causes. Clean water, lower pollution, it's hard to argue with these goals.

If you don't like the justification of preserving the environment for your grandkids, just remember that lower pollution is most often achieved thru improved efficiency, which means less wood processing for you!

I agree..yes and no.

To give all the credit to regulation through environmentalism is a huge disservice to innovation, engineering and materials sciences. Sometimes they work together and sometimes they really don't. How long do we really think Americans would have put up with cars that emit smoke and stink...to the point of making you gag? Did it need to be regulated exactly when it did, or would the market have corrected and a demand created for a cleaner car that doesn't smell? Or did we absolutely need the regulations we had, when we had them?

How many trees do you think email and mobile phones saved? Hundreds of millions so far..and many millions to come? Those were market driven, capitalist inventions..and have hugely positive environmental impacts.