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."

14 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 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.

    3. 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...

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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"
  5. 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.