Slashdot Mirror


EPA Makes Most Wood Stoves Illegal

First time accepted submitter Jody Bruchon writes "The Environment Protection Agency has lowered the amount of fine-particle matter per cubic meter that new wood stoves are allowed to release into the atmosphere by 20%. Most wood stoves in use today are of the type that is now illegal to manufacture or sell, and old stoves traded in for credit towards new ones must be scrapped out. This shouldn't be much of a surprise since more and more local governments are banning wood-burning stoves and fireplaces entirely, citing smog and air pollution concerns."

47 of 1,143 comments (clear)

  1. Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Bomarc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would love to know which gas / propane / electric company bought this rule....

    1. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by blankinthefill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, I don't think is was bought. Wood burning stoves are a huge, huge source of dangerous particulate pollutions in many states in the north, where there is not the option to use gas, and oil is too expensive for many families. Fairbanks, AK, a community of about 100,000k people, has some of the worst particulate pollution in the developed world because of the amount of woodburning that goes on there during the winter.

    2. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      where there is not the option to use gas, and oil is too expensive for many families.

      Fuck the poor, they should freeze to death in the winter. The old liberal mantra, demand people live your way of die off quickly.

    3. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pah. Those of us with asthma aren't Real Americans.

      Excuse me, I have asthma. And this bullshit about "particulate" count is just that, bullshit. The reason wood burning stoves are being banned in municipalities is because some people don't like the smell of burning wood, or the lingering smoke... and yes, on some days, it can linger. If everyone in suburbia was burning wood during the winter, we'd look like Shanghai. That's true; But that's not because wood stoves are environmentally unfriendly, but because we've packed ourselves in like sardines to the point where large cities create their own weather patterns; So-called heat oasis.

      At an eco-system level, burning wood is better for the environment than the total pollution from extraction,refining, and transport, of natural gas and propane. But at the local level, our high population density makes things rather problematic; Even just near freeways, boulevards, and other high-traffic areas, only certain types of plants can be put there because otherwise they'll die due to the pollution. The air quality in many cities is already too low; So ostensibly, we have to reduce it any way we can, not for environmental reasons per-se, but quality of life. Cars stink. And burning wood would just make the cities stink that much more.

      But no, it's wrong to classify this as an environmental issue; It's a by-product of urbanization, and to maintain our cities we have to rely on this expensive and polluting infrastructure -- which puts the pollution outside the cities. We need natural gas, etc., because of urbanization, not because of environmentalism.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by adolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as we're generalizing with wild assertions:

      You know what else takes about 10 years off your life expectancy?

      Slaving away at a stressful job that you don't have your heart in during the winter months, largely just to make money to pay someone far away to refine/convert/combust some manner of fossil fuel into "natural gas" or "electricity..." just to stay warm for the few hours a day that you actually get to be at home.

    5. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It also looks like this has become a minor right-wing cause. Jack-booted thugs coming to take away your wood-burning stoves, and all that.

      The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms. This particular rule may or may not be a good idea, but the healthy thing for society is to look at all new regulation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion.

    6. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The right wing tends to be against regs that they /think/ affect people like them. Other people? Fuck 'em, I got mine.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The right wing tends to be against regs that they /think/ affect people like them. Other people? Fuck 'em, I got mine.

      That's American culture. I am reminded of that each time someone in a car pulls out in front of me, nearly causing an accident, when a five-second wait would have left the entire road to himself. Any sort of kindness or patience is viewed as submission and subservience, it would seem.

      The failure of course is a simple misunderstanding. Kindness and patience are about what sort of person I am, not what sort of person the other guy is.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Here is another way to think about it...

      Lets say we live next to each other, lets say that you are struggling and have little money. For whatever reason, the only way to earn money that you have right now is to accept barrels of toxic chemicals and store them on your property (the chemical company pays you for this).

      Now lets say one or two start leaking and it starts to affect the health of my family.

      It strikes me as reasonable to ask the government to step in and tell you that you can't have such things on your property because it affects me.

      Why the government? Because my other option (if we remove government) is to come over to your house and shoot you. I don't think we want to live in THAT world.

      So back to government. The government (local, state, federal, whatever) passes a law that says you can't store toxic chemicals in your backyard.

      You complain saying that this is hurting you, you have no other money and this is your only way to survive. Fine, but your right to make money and survive doesn't give you the right to screw up the environment around you and harm others, you'll have to figure something else out.

      Otherwise, people like me will hire our government (via our tax dollars) to send some people over and make you stop. Because we don't want you to do what you're doing because it harms us.

      Just food for thought...

    9. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Again, you're so small-minded that you can't conceive that air pollution (smoke) is bad for other people.

      I must have been *imagining* that my dad's woodstove made me use my inhaler more often. Fuckwit.

      Perhaps your anger (or passion, if you prefer) is supposed to make you more convincing. It only actually makes you appear more malicious and less reasonable. The more important and close-to-home the subject is, the more critical it is not to succumb to such petty temptations.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bet most foods are too salty for you, aren't they? I remember in art metals class in college, I was melting some beeswax for a pattern. A fellow student walked up to me and told me I was heating the wax too hot and the burning wax smoke (there was no smoke) was carcinogenic. I asked him if he liked candles, he said yes. He didn't get it.

    11. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We speak of a group that is all about power. The labels: "Liberal"; "Progressive"; "Communist"; "Fascist" swirl about to keep the water muddy.
      Watch what is done with power, and money. The gubernatorial race in Virginia was bought with a river of advertising bile.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    12. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We need the EPA. We just need to put people in charge there that have a clue. That, of course, would take a government that had a clue. Sadly........

      No, we don't need the EPA. We need the legislative branch to stop ceding its responsibilities to the executive. Where laws are required, they must come from the legislature, not random executive departments gone haywire.

    13. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Piata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I grew up in a house with a wood furnace, that house still has a wood furnace and not a single member of my family that either grew up or continues to live in that house has any kind of lung ailment. Hell, I run marathons.

      More to the point though, you seem to have confused fireplace with furnace. The only reason smoke would get in your house from a furnace is if something was terribly broken.

      Thankfully I live in Canada so this law won't effect all the people I know that rely on wood furnaces for heat and would likely have to invest $10,000+ if they ever had to switch away from wood as a fuel source.

    14. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by JaiWing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also looks like this has become a minor right-wing cause. Jack-booted thugs coming to take away your wood-burning stoves, and all that.

      The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms. This particular rule may or may not be a good idea, but the healthy thing for society is to look at all new regulation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion.

      You have got to be joking. The same right-wing that is calling for anti-abortion law across all the state where they have uncontested power? The same right-wing that is taking away the right to vote in the same states?

      That right wing?

    15. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Environmentalism isn't a joke, the fact is that there are cities in the world today that you can go to and they are so filled with smog that you can hardly breath. We had this problem back in the 60's and 70's, which is what created the EPA in the first place.

      The issue isn't *you* and the single stove, it is 10 million people doing the same thing. Each small bit adds up to a large bit.

      The thing is, burning wood is fine, if you have a modern stove that does it at the right temp, you use dried out wood, and you don't release so much crap into the air.

      The EPA isn't saying you can't have a wood burning stove, they are just saying that you need one that doesn't suck.

    16. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also a good idea to use a healthy dose of skepticism when you read apocalyptic predictions of disaster from government regulations.

    17. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I've figured out how redistribution works. Like paying taxes so a rich, smug, socialist can get a tax credit on a $70,000 electric car or solar array for his backyard.

    18. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The part I thought was weird that was his purported only option without nanny government being there was to shoot his neighbor.

      Must suck to live in his neighborhood.

    19. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, I have asthma. And this bullshit about "particulate" count is just that, bullshit. The reason wood burning stoves are being banned in municipalities is because some people don't like the smell of burning wood, or the lingering smoke

      Your whole post is complete and utter bullshit. Wood smoke is the single largest source of PM air pollution in the Bay Area in the winter, and had been for decades (yes, more than cars). You didn't cite a single source in your post because you can't.

      At an eco-system level, burning wood is better for the environment than the total pollution from extraction,refining, and transport, of natural gas and propane.

      Holy shit, that's so untrue it's mind boggling. If you want to compare current gas use vs current wood use, sure, but if you were to replace gas with wood YOU SAID SO YOURSELF we'd look like a polluted Chinese city (probably worse). So, what a horrible false analogy!

      The air quality in many cities is already too low; So ostensibly, we have to reduce it any way we can, not for environmental reasons per-se, but quality of life. Cars stink. And burning wood would just make the cities stink that much more.

      Another awful misconception! You think the only problem with air quality is the smell? Seriously?? How on earth is "quality of life" from *breathing* not an environmental issue? As an anecdote (that I mentioned in another thread) about 5 years ago there were major fires south of the Bay Area, CA that resulted in some horrible air quality (sort of like a lot of people burning wood). It's the first time in my life I had asthma, and I was freaked out and went to the doctor. She said she had seen a bunch of cases of people who had it for the first time because of massive amount of wood smoke coming from the fires that year. Not surprisingly, I have never had it again.

      So, yeah, sure, replace all of the natural gas heat with wood stoves, and see what that does for "quality of life"...

    20. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by KingMotley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's fine. At least you aren't taking 10 years off your neighbor's life as well.

    21. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Either the government will send people over to force the issue, or I could do it myself.

      If you are doing something that I want stopped and you won't stop, my only two options are to pay the government (via taxes) to force the issue, or to force it myself.

      The idea is that if someone wants to be difficult, sooner or later, someone (or multiple people) with guns will have to resolve the issue.

      If two people disagree, and can just leave each other alone, fine. But if one side or the other decides that the current situation is not acceptable and the other side won't discuss it, then violence is the only remaining solution.

      Works at the local level, works at the national level, we called them duels back in the day, when nations do it, we call them wars.

      .........

      BTW, if you missed the third option, which was to move, then you missed the whole point. I can't move, I live on Earth and have no where else to go. The pollution that humans have been doing for the past hundred years affects us all, I can't move far enough away to get away from it. You're my neighbor if you live next door, or 10,000 miles away.

    22. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One family does not a significant sample make.

    23. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I grew up in a house with a wood furnace, that house still has a wood furnace and not a single member of my family that either grew up or continues to live in that house has any kind of lung ailment. Hell, I run marathons.

      Wow. You sound exactly like those people who say "I smoke 20 a day for 50 years and I'm fit as a fiddle". Lucky you, if it's true, but even so we are pretty sure cigarettes cause cancer now. The effects of particulate matter, especially PM2.5, are well understood. Denying the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence is just dumb. Sorry, but it is.

      Note also that not all furnaces have been banned, just the ones that don't capture the particulate matter and vent it into the atmosphere. You can still buy good quality ones, just not the high pollution varieties.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by Daemonik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      However, if I talk to someone and ask them for something and they consensually provide it, then the government has no right to influence that situation unless its willing to breach individual rights.

      Right, so the liberty loving conservatives make no effort to interfere with abortion (between a woman & her doctor), homosexuality (who's business is it what two or more people do in their bedroom), drugs (it's a private transaction between you and your drug dealer!) etc etc.

      One, many people will simply not follow the law and there is no means to actually enforce it. You're not going to inspect kitchens in rural house holds.

      Which is exactly why there is a national ban. It's not to remove the equipment currently in place, it is to ensure that when that equipment is due to be replaced or in new construction that less polluting options are the only ones available on the market. Dumbass. I really wish you rural hick inbreds would get off of that "black helicopters coming to take mah guns and fireplace" nonsense and grow up.

    25. Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit, government regulations aren't absorbing growth, the god damned greedy, selfish rich are.

      There are so few CEO's that they can't be the main problem. If you confiscate all the wealth of all the billionaires, in total, you get 2 months of government spending.

      In 1970 a CEO earned 14 times as much as a janitor, now he "earns" 400 times as much. We need more regulation, not less, starting with a far higher minimum wage. Ours is pathetic compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

      That's not how money works. Whatever the minimum wage is, that's the low bar. Set it to $100 an hour. What's the person who's now making $20/hr going to do? The prices in the stores have all gone up to pay $100/hr wages, so he needs to get $250/hr. All you've done is erode the value of everybody's savings.

      What is true is that in 1964, the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and gas was 25 cents a gallon. That $1.25 could be paid in five quarters of real money. That same money now has an intrinsic value of about $22. If you want to go by gas prices alone, that's $15/hr, but gas production has become much more efficient, so if you study actual gas production costs, that's really $30/hr.

      After the Vietnam War bankrupted the US government, it embraced socialist money (August 1971). The real inflation rate since that time is tremendous. Not only did that leave the minimum wage behind (which is used as a political football) it meant that everybody who wanted to have savings needed to push that money to Wall Street (401(k), etc.) because local S&L interest rates never kept up with real inflation. That giant sucking sound is all the local economies crumbling because of a lack of capital for small business, which lead to the big box revolution, hedge fund domination, and the like.

      If you want the poor to do worse, you'll favor ever increasing regulation. That is, after all, what the rich people who control the government continually get. And a $7 minimum wage that is insulting to humanity.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Horrible for the rural poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in rural South Carolina where wood stoves are the only source of heat for many many people. There is no gas infrastructure here, and many people can't afford a $10K electric heating system that will cost them HUNDREDS per month to heat their homes in the winter. At ~$4/gallon, Propane and Oil are similarly prohibitive for the rural poor.

    The busybodies in our government have no problem throwing the poor under the bus to achieve some feel-good goal so they can go home to their mansions at night and feel good about themselves. They're hurting real people.

    1. Re:Horrible for the rural poor by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The presence of a propane tank does not imply there is propane in it.

    2. Re:Horrible for the rural poor by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The busybodies in gov't also have no problem subsidizing their energy costs, but that gets blocked in favor of 'deficit reduction' despite the fact that it's not even a drop in a the swimming pool much less the bucket. There's a reason why Red States get more tax dollars than Blue ones. The Blue ones are full of busy bodies trying to help.

      OTOH, the wealthy living in rural areas because they left the rotting cities don't much like the poors dirtying up the air. Read some of the other posts. Wood burning stoves in reasonably well populated areas put out a lot more particulate than you think.

      So the next time you blame a liberal busy body stop and think about what's really going on and who really benefits...

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    3. Re:Horrible for the rural poor by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The busybodies in our government have no problem throwing the poor under the bus to achieve some feel-good goal so they can go home to their mansions at night and feel good about themselves. They're hurting real people.

      Those with the inefficient wood stoves are the ones "hurting real people". Those "rural South Carolina" homes can continue to use their old crappy stoves. Any new homes just need to get more efficient-burning models that run about $700. Not a big added expense, and will burn 1/3rd less wood for the same amount of heat, SAVING money in the long-term.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Horrible for the rural poor by swamp_ig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The busybodies in our government have no problem throwing the poor under the bus to achieve some feel-good goal so they can go home to their mansions at night and feel good about themselves. They're hurting real people.

      All this rule changes is the efficiency for NEW wood burning stoves. It doesn't make them even cost any more. It just means they run more efficiently and put out less smoke. Pre-existing stoves don't need to be pulled out or anything.

      So for the rural poor that means less cost for heating (or work of chopping wood if you prefer), and less lung disease, for really no increased cost.

      Can't see that as a bad thing.

    5. Re:Horrible for the rural poor by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in rural South Carolina where wood stoves are the only source of heat for many many people.

      I did a Google search for "buy efa-compliant wood stoves" (duh) and found lots of stoves for under $1,000, some of them $6-700.

      They can continue to use their old wood stoves. They just can't buy a new wood stove that isn't compliant.

      There's a reason for that. Wood (and coal) stoves really are dangerous to have in your home, because of the air pollution. It's like smoking a pack a day of cigarettes. They increase the rate of lung and heart diseases significantly.

      If they do buy a new stove, they won't have those pollution problems.

    6. Re:Horrible for the rural poor by j-beda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps you live right next to 100 houses all burning wood and your air is polluted as hell but that's still a local problem, for you and your local government and courts to deal with, not something EPA should regulate nationally.

      There are some efficiencies in having consumer standards that are more widely applied than at the local level however. It is convenient to have all stoves manufactured be legal to operate in all places in the country, much less convenient to have a gazillion different standards and enforcement systems across the country. We see these difficulties with auto emission standards which are different in different states for example. Having standards that are mutually exclusive can even happen, when meeting the standards in one region forces you to contravene the standards in another.

      With that said, I think the data on particulate air pollution is fairly well understood, and requiring new stoves to be cleaner does not seem too unreasonable.

  3. Harder on people, easier on corps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meanwhile, Diesel trucking rumbles on.

  4. Re:I don't know how to feel about this. by nctritech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's one major reason I wanted to bring this story here. Poor choices regarding the regulation of wood stoves can (as those regulations squeeze the availability of these stoves) result in deaths, especially since manufacturing repair parts for "illegal" stoves is a consequence of "you can't manufacture these stoves."

    It's not like people use wood stoves to drive the kids to school; they're mostly used to avoid the hazards of freezing temperatures in the winter. Frostbite and hypothermia aren't commonly seen as positive outcomes of government regulations.

  5. Not that big of a deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who lives in a rural area and burns wood as a secondary heat source (oil is primary), I think this may be getting blown out of proportion. For years they've been driving up efficiency of wood-stoves, and most stoves on the market today probably already meet the new standards. Looking at the list, the (non-catalytic) stove I bought 8 years ago (to replace a 30% efficiency old stove) will still be legal to sell under the new rules. I do find the practice of banning the use of existing stoves terrible, but driving up the efficiency of stoves is a good thing, and my current stove produces much more heat than the stove it replaced.

  6. Re:When are they going to weigh-in on by Zcar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just about everything I find on that are temporary bans due to wildfire hazards. Hardly think that counts as liberal fascism.

  7. Re:Most fireplaces also inefficient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other news, most fireplaces are inefficient anyways.
    http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/fireplace.htm

    Currently home builders have little incentive to put an efficient stove into their buildings. At least in my neck of the woods. This is just a step in that direction: Efficient wood burning devices that pollute less.
    Joseph Elwell.

    Wood burning stoves and fireplaces are not the same thing.

  8. My modern stove doesn't make smoke by rcb1974 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a Jotul F500 stove. It is 75% efficient. http://jotul.com/us/products/stoves/jotul-f-500-oslo When I burn dry wood and the stove is hot, there is no smoke coming out the chimney. Everything gets consumed. The stove recirculates any smoke inside the stove until it is completely burned. If you stand outside my house no matter which side you're on, you don't smell any smoke, and the gases coming out the chimney are clear. I'm guessing that many perceived problems with stoves are caused by people who don't know how to properly operate their stoves. They're burning wet wood, they have a very old inefficient stove, they aren't controlling the airflow well, they aren't burning outside air, etc. A modern wood stove is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to heat your house. You're burning renewable energy. I'm bothered by people here in upstate NY who put anti-fraking signs in their hard but who also heat with gas. Hypocrites.

  9. Re:Good by guises · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How efficiently? I'm burning wood right now too, but I don't have any delusions that it doesn't cause pollution. I'd have difficulty quantifying how much exactly, but that's what the EPA is for. Apparently, it's too much. If they really want to make a difference, they're going to have to crack down on coal burning stoves too: wood stoves are designed to burn hot, to make the fire more efficient and less polluting, but since coal doesn't have that problem you can get a coal burning stove that will happily maintain a very low fire. And there's no reason you can't just put your wood in there...

  10. Because lung cancer is great for the rural poor! by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's possible to assist the poor with buying better stoves, and the up-front costs of doing so would probably be lower than the residual Medicare and Medicaid payouts for respiratory diseases caused or worsened by their old stoves. A higher quality stove with better fittings would also produce an incredible increase in heat output; replacing an old model can truly make the difference between shivering around the stove at night and being perfectly comfortable anywhere within 25 feet. If they pay for the wood, the stove will definitely pay itself off eventually; even if they cut wood themselves the time savings will be substantial and that time could be put to higher value activities like work, study, or even hunting.

    But I guess it's easier to denigrate every federal employee as a rich, do-nothing "busybody" who drives home to their "mansion" after "throwing the poor under the bus" than it is to see an obvious solution where the poor are healthier and more comfortable for less money than we're already putting out, and everyone breathes less soot.

  11. Re:Good by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The price difference between the 13 and 16 SEER units? Total of about $4000, that will be paid back in less than 2 years with the power savings (our old units were 13 SEER models).

    For an awful lot of people, $4,000 is a lot of money and not something that they'd say it "isn't that much".

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  12. Re:Good by DrLang21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The price difference between the 13 and 16 SEER units? Total of about $4000, that will be paid back in less than 2 years with the power savings (our old units were 13 SEER models).

    It's a damn shame that apartment owners don't care how much you spend on heating and AC. Idealy there should be higher standards on rented units especially given how many properties are being converted to rentals.

    --
    I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
  13. Its always nice to see them focus on the issues by dk20 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wood burning stoves - Banned
    Big rigs and trains putting out black smoke so think you cant see through it - No issues found.
    Oil wells blowing up dumping thousands of gallons - No issues found.

  14. Re:Good by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The kinds of stoves and fireplaces that the EPA is banning are the bullcrap kinds that builders put in new homes. These are not serious devices for heating homes, they are purely entertainment, so people can watch the pretty flames. Some fireplaces are so poor that they actually have negative efficiency. The house would stay warmer if the fireplace was not used.

    Most people don't understand how bad a typical fireplace is. They're hung up on the romance of it. People don't remember what it was like 100 years ago, before we had central heating and A/C. Heating a home with a wood burning iron stove in the kitchen and fireplaces in half the rooms was hugely labor intensive. Takes a lot of wood to keep all that going. Have to gather wood and chop it into small pieces. Have to clean the ashes out regularly, and check on the fires frequently, make sure they are under control. There's nothing romantic about all that labor to those who lived that way. They were glad to be done with fires when alternatives became available. And fire is dangerous. An accident can easily burn the house down. Burns from accidentally brushing against the stove were another danger. Finally, they don't heat a house that well. Heat doesn't circulate that readily. The iron stove can keep the kitchen too hot while the bedrooms remain freezing cold.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  15. Re:I don't know how to feel about this. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I used to do that too, until really good rainwater shower heads came out.

    I now have installed "compliant" showerheads that actually do a really good job because the designers took the new lower water amount and did some pretty cool things with it.

    Consider giving it a try, you might be surprised.

    Likewise with the new toilet designs, they do an amazing job with less water. Progress isn't always bad.

  16. local and state issue by stenvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, I don't think is was bought. Wood burning stoves are a huge, huge source of dangerous particulate pollutions in many states in the north

    The effects of this are local, not national. Northern states and towns should be able to make these tradeoffs locally. There is no reason for the federal government setting rules or the entire nation.