New Wood Burning Era?

God, let's hope.

Let's hope not. Efficiency > smoke. Not to get too political, but the EPA has been around through both left and right in the past for a damn good reason.

KimiBwoah said:

Let's hope not. Efficiency > smoke. Not to get too political, but the EPA has been around through both left and right in the past for a damn good reason.

Click to expand...

It's not a binary choice...it is entirely possible to achieve the sweet spot between efficiency and performance; ideology makes that balance an improbability.

Texas123 said:

It is apparent under President Trump we might be having higher tariffs on all imported goods and a relaxing of the EPA supervision in many areas. Has anyone considered how this affects us wood-burners? Could we be going back to the time of American made smoke dragons as the dominant type of wood stove? These are not joking questions.

Click to expand...

I think folks forget that a president is not a king. Certainly there are a lot of powers that a president has but ordering the willful disobeyance of law is not one of them. He could as the chief executive make the agency impotent through lack of employees, but he can't order an employee to not enforce a regulation. Which is a slippery slope because judges can rule the enforcement if a challenge is brought. These successful challenges often cost much more than the initial enforcement would have due to reporting burdens placed on agencies. All i can say is i thank the lord everyday that our founding fathers created 3 divisions of government.

The laws might be relaxed for powerful interests like oil and coal companies, auto makers, big pharma and the like but stove makers don't fall into that category. I don't think we would see new smoke-blowers, even if the laws were relaxed, since you can buy old Fishers all day on CL for $200.

rwhite said:

He could as the chief executive make the agency impotent through lack of employees, but he can't order an employee to not enforce a regulation. Which is a slippery slope because judges can rule the enforcement if a challenge is brought. These successful challenges often cost much more than the initial enforcement would have due to reporting burdens placed on agencies. All i can say is i thank the lord everyday that our founding fathers created 3 divisions of government.

Click to expand...

The president can and has in the past made employees not enforce regulations/laws.
Look at what Obama did relative to immigration.
Our Gov't ignores its own rules and regulations all the time.
The acting AG was just fired for ignoring the law.

I would argue that just like Executive orders regulations put forth by an agency can be changed at the drop of a hat. Especially orders that are less restrictive. Congress has abrogated its authority in creating laws by allowing agencies such as the EPA to write many of the regulations.

The EPA is run by an appointee of the president, that appointee will do as the president wishes and therefore so will that agency.

I agree about our 3 branches of Gov't. but unfortunately they are too politicized. Look at what is going on with Judge Gorsuch, he is without a doubt qualified but its not about qualifications its about political leanings. After all if politicians are the ones to approve him then it will be about politics, not qualifications.

I'm starting a pool for the number of posts here before a moderator goes nuclear on it. I've got "no more than 15 posts."

(Be nice, everyone!)

I see no issue on the importation of stoves, with maybe the exception of some of the Norwegian products. I don't know any Mexican stove makers. Plenty of Canadian manufacturers though and he stated that his tax and importation regs will not be applicable to Canada.

Regarding the EPA... I think nothing will happen regarding stove regs. Perhaps they might consider gasification stove technology in the home that is not heavily regulated... who knows. I see no real issues.

It would be pretty easy to delay the implementation of the 2020 regs for at least a year. Just extending the current status quo.

Karl Hungus said:

The president can and has in the past made employees not enforce regulations/laws.
Look at what Obama did relative to immigration.
Our Gov't ignores its own rules and regulations all the time.
The acting AG was just fired for ignoring the law.

I would argue that just like Executive orders regulations put forth by an agency can be changed at the drop of a hat. Especially orders that are less restrictive. Congress has abrogated its authority in creating laws by allowing agencies such as the EPA to write many of the regulations.

The EPA is run by an appointee of the president, that appointee will do as the president wishes and therefore so will that agency.

I agree about our 3 branches of Gov't. but unfortunately they are too politicized. Look at what is going on with Judge Gorsuch, he is without a doubt qualified but its not about qualifications its about political leanings. After all if politicians are the ones to approve him then it will be about politics, not qualifications.

Click to expand...

I realize that it is often semantics and the end game is often the same, but executive orders are not law but must be supported by law. That's where the challenges come. Laws are very often poorly written and agencies must wait for direction on implementation. Often that direction comes in in form of executive orders. Like I said previously, a president cannot direct an agency to ignore law. What they can do, and what is effective is just ignore process. Immigration is a great example, it's illegal to enter the country without proper documents. That's law. There is no law saying agents must stop you and check (that's orders). So basically agencies never get to a point to determine if a law is being violated. The EPA is much more ripe for challenge because citizens are more likely to bring suit. Agencies ( or the president) can basically say "we are going to enforce the law" "by the way, don't leave the office to monitor compliance ". In that manner they have made the agency non-effective. Agencies also often have broad discrection in penalties and can recommend either administrative (slap on the hand) or criminal penalties. That's another area where they can be directed to soften penalties, but they still cannot be told to ignore law. There's also the fact that executive orders are to be supported by law. Right or wrong judges either rule that it is supported by law or there is no law that prevents it. Long diatribe to say it's semantics that the courts often have to sort out. The Clean Air Act is something that citizens often don't turn a blind eye to. There's to many watch dog organizations to let violations go unnoticed. I can guarantee that any relaxing of enforcement will result in challenges brought to the courts.

While I don't see EPA rules changing for wood burning appliances (we're small fish) I do see more wood burners coming due to the chances of higher fuel prices / higher unemployment rates.
I voted for Trump so take this with a grain of salt, a lot of his foreign policy changes are going to affect us negatively at first (no one likes change) Just like the first few years with Reaganomic's to keep inflation in check unemployment spiked, interest rates spiked and real-estate spiked. For better or for worse, we are going to end up with more wood burners.
My only advice I can give is if your looking at buying a piece of land right now, or a house and your going to mortgage it, get it done now while interest rates are still manageable and people are moving, I foresee some stagnation in the future.

I predict that, through the efforts of Mr. T, the puppet-master elites will finally release free energy to the masses, and we won't need internal combustion engines, gas, oil, wood stoves, furnaces or utility companies. We will make everything from almost nothing, we won't need to go to any stupid jobs, and we'll finally be able to get on with our lives and work on what's really important.........yeah, right.

I work for industry and occasionally deal with emissions limits. It real easy to adopt the Not in my backyard mentality with respect for emissions. If you are aware of the tragedy of the commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons its very applicable to emissions. The current poster child for what happens is the Chinese cities where folks have to wear dusk masks 24/7 and run air filtration systems. Living in Northern New England a large amount of our air pollution comes from he Midwest where large coal fired plants have very high stacks that transport the pollution to our backyard. The nearby rivers near me the upper Connecticut and the Androscoggin both start in pretty much wilderness with no development yet the amount of atmospheric mercury dumped in the rain from upwind coal plants hundreds of miles away make the states have a fish advisory limiting consumption. Regionally we were getting hammered by acid rain from Midwest coal plants, EPA acid rain regs went in place and now the woods are returning back to more normal. Locally I had a neighbor who decided to buy a used OWB and it took quite awhile and government prodding to get his install to the point where he doesn't gas out his neighbors. What is comes down to is the EPA has to establish limits or industry will always sell smoke dragons. Everyone knew the loopholes for EPA exempt stoves and plenty of clueless folks bought them because they were cheap.

The easy part with executive orders and sudden regulatory changes is they make great press but their consequences take years if not decades to come to roost.

So far, the only tariff that I have heard discussed is one on Mexico. How many stoves are made there?

I think people have seen the value in a stove that you put less wood in and more heat out.

Can't predict the future. Wait and see...it hasn't been long at all and there is no evidence to support the idea that Trump's administration cares less about the environment than any other administration because nothing has been done yet but appointments.

KimiBwoah said:

Let's hope not. Efficiency > smoke. Not to get too political, but the EPA has been around through both left and right in the past for a damn good reason.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is no good reason to want to go back to a less efficient time. The future (even looking beyond present decision makers) of wood burning (and other fuels) will certainly depend on the ability to reduce or eliminate (when possible) emissions.

I am not a fan of trump or his policy's but I understand how some people do. I think it is dangerous how he seems to take pleasure in dismantling environmental protections that I think the majority of people agree are important, although they may take it for granted. I take solace in the fact that even if trump guts the EPA and rolls back regulations, state and local governments will enact codes and refs to keep water and air clean for residents. The not in my back yard applies here too.

There are many abuses of power from the EPA that need to be rolled back. Farmers that can't plow their fields because their land is classified as a wetland because 4" of water is in it 3 months of the year. Stuff like that, needs to be shut down.

Useful regulations need to be kept and others modified. Lets face it, for the average person, its not regs that keep us from polluting, it is our own moral compass. Fines don't keep people from littering. There is garbage all over the city I work in every day. It's gross.

sportbikerider78 said:

There are many abuses of power from the EPA that need to be rolled back. Farmers that can't plow their fields because their land is classified as a wetland because 4" of water is in it 3 months of the year. Stuff like that, needs to be shut down.

Useful regulations need to be kept and others modified. Lets face it, for the average person, its not regs that keep us from polluting, it is our own moral compass. Fines don't keep people from littering. There is garbage all over the city I work in every day. It's gross.

Click to expand...

On a level I agree. But it not often the regulation that requires roll back it's the agency interpretation. Like I said previously, Congress can write some pretty well intended laws with very poor language. Then it requires someone (usually GAO) to run down the history so the agency can interpret the law. That can lead to results which are not what the legislation intended. As to plowing wetlands: on going farming is exempt from a 404 permit. New activities only require a permit if there will be discharge into a waterway. The residual effects of quite a few herbicides are long lasting. Plowing and releasing them into waterways is quite a real issue. So yes when a private land owners activities can effect a down stream or down wind population they are regulated.

rwhite said:

On a level I agree. But it not often the regulation that requires roll back it's the agency interpretation. Like I said previously, Congress can write some pretty well intended laws with very poor language. Then it requires someone (usually GAO) to run down the history so the agency can interpret the law. That can lead to results which are not what the legislation intended. As to plowing wetlands: on going farming is exempt from a 404 permit. New activities only require a permit if there will be discharge into a waterway. The residual effects of quite a few herbicides are long lasting. Plowing and releasing them into waterways is quite a real issue. So yes when a private land owners activities can effect a down stream or down wind population they are regulated.

Click to expand...

I apologize if this is derailing the thread, but I wanted to comment on this. I have a field with some low ground. Water stands there for a month or two in the spring, delaying field work most years. It's usually possible to plant it eventually, just quite late. I would like to dig a pit on my own land, concentrating the water, creating a permanent wetland, and freeing up the rest of the land. It would not affect the flow of anything across property lines. But I can't. Multiple agencies have told me that I would be subject to daily fines if I did that. It is strictly agency interpretation, but it has the force of law. So it's not just things that affect downstream or downwind. (the reason given is that it might affect the migratory birdies in the spring.)

Coyoterun said:

I apologize if this is derailing the thread, but I wanted to comment on this. I have a field with some low ground. Water stands there for a month or two in the spring, delaying field work most years. It's usually possible to plant it eventually, just quite late. I would like to dig a pit on my own land, concentrating the water, creating a permanent wetland, and freeing up the rest of the land. It would not affect the flow of anything across property lines. But I can't. Multiple agencies have told me that I would be subject to daily fines if I did that. It is strictly agency interpretation, but it has the force of law. So it's not just things that affect downstream or downwind. (the reason given is that it might affect the migratory birdies in the spring.)

Click to expand...

Hard to comment sight unseen but remember, they have to quote you line and verse where it says that. Wire the agency requesting a formal letter as to why then you can go from there. They can't just say "because I said so".

rwhite said:

Hard to comment sight unseen but remember, they have to quote you line and verse where it says that. Wire the agency requesting a formal letter as to why then you can go from there. They can't just say "because I said so".

Click to expand...

Oh, I've been given references to the Migratory Bird Act. I don't know if they could be fought, but it's not really worth lawyer time to try it.

Coyoterun said:

I apologize if this is derailing the thread, but I wanted to comment on this. I have a field with some low ground. Water stands there for a month or two in the spring, delaying field work most years. It's usually possible to plant it eventually, just quite late. I would like to dig a pit on my own land, concentrating the water, creating a permanent wetland, and freeing up the rest of the land. It would not affect the flow of anything across property lines. But I can't. Multiple agencies have told me that I would be subject to daily fines if I did that. It is strictly agency interpretation, but it has the force of law. So it's not just things that affect downstream or downwind. (the reason given is that it might affect the migratory birdies in the spring.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, wetlands. They are pretty important for the ecosystem. But here's how my neighbor got around it. First, he was in the Sicilian Mafia and had an attitude similar to...well let's just say someone we all now know...then with his HUGE backhoe played around in the wetlands all he wanted, as where, I, had to put up setback posts on my property and was not allowed to almost look at it. When I confronted the wetlands commission and put it to them straight, they basically said there isn't really anything legally that they could do to stop him when it came right down to it. These are rules - guidelines as it were for people who don't break the law, but the mob (as we are seeing) has a whole different set of laws and values and can get away with pretty much anything if they so choose. I moved. Problem solved.

sportbikerider78 said:

There are many abuses of power from the EPA that need to be rolled back. Farmers that can't plow their fields because their land is classified as a wetland because 4" of water is in it 3 months of the year. Stuff like that, needs to be shut down.

Useful regulations need to be kept and others modified. Lets face it, for the average person, its not regs that keep us from polluting, it is our own moral compass. Fines don't keep people from littering. There is garbage all over the city I work in every day. It's gross.

Click to expand...

I'd like to believe that most people will "do the right thing" without government forcing them to... however history sadly proves that is not the case