As previously pointed out. Your solution of making people stop is not a solution because they won't.
Your idea has been rejected. Don't blame me. I didn't reject your idea. Everyone did. Its dead. You're giving CPR to a skeleton. He's dead Jim.
I know you want to just push your idea again. And you'll say that any failure is due to the idea not being pushed hard enough.
Well... you're going to have to kill people to get your way. By the billions.
Short of that... all you'll do is inconvenience a few people that were unfortunate enough to be under your influence. Those outside it will CONTINUE to ignore you.
Actually, I'm just making a point on a complicated and controversial issue that is sadly read by emotional ten year olds with delusions of sophistication.
It would be great if this worked. I just fear that the government might kill some of this technology instead of helping it along.
There are various ways they can do this unintentionally.
1. Take all the profit out of dominating the market removes most of the profit incentive to developing new technologies. If the government just owns this thing or gives it away then the factories that tool up to build it might not be able to recuperate capital expenses to produce the tech because they won't be able to initially charge higher prices.
2. Possibly they'll put all sorts of regulations on the production, pricing, distribution, or installation of these batteries resulting in them being effectively expensive because of regulatory overhead. There are many instances of the government doing this both intentionally and unintentionally. They kind of do it to anything they pay any attention to by default. Given that they are paying attention to this thing... it worries me. I just suspect these batteries might come with forms that have to be filled out in triplicate and then snail mailed to 5 different PO boxes in Washington DC by the end of every fiscal year... or some other such nonsense.
3. They could also give manufacturing rights only to a few companies that are suspiciously campaign donors of whatever administration is currently in power while not permitting anyone else to produce the batteries. Later on it will be determined that the contractors chosen were not actually competent to produce them, cost over runs happened, quality was horrific, and the whole thing will go down in scandalous flames.... with no one getting anything useable out of it. AKA Solyndra.
You can manipulate the numbers all you like but the market doesn't lie. People throughout the western world are expressing a feeling that they're over taxed. The politicians have gamed the numbers so much that its hard to show statistically but it shows up in people's over drawn bank accounts.
Regardless, you said you could do it WITHOUT high costs. So I'm holding you to that. So no big taxes. Or you're admitting that you do need to actually do a lot of expensive stuff.
Which is fine. Its at least honest. But then that gets us back to my initial point which is that people already rejected that idea.
So again... come up with another idea unless you want to pound your head against a concrete wall.
Luddite implies anti technology. I am not anti technology.
I am anti pointless controversy that just annoys people while pushing economy destroying reforms that have been rejected by every economy and political system that MUST accept them for them to have any meaning.
Does it matter if Iceland goes green? No.
China MUST or your reforms are pointless.
Come up with something china won't laugh at or ignore and you might have something.
What those economies require is something equal to or superior to fossil fuels. Produce that.
Spend all the money you're now spending trying to get people to adopt reforms they will not accept instead on better technology.
Number 1: We need better means of energy storage. Flywheels so far seem to be the best idea for municiple and home storage of renewable electricity. Yes, you lose some energy from friction but if you're using most of the stored energy every night it isn't a big deal. Further, flywheels can store a lot of energy very cheaply, have no toxic components, are very simple, and all you need to do is change the lubricant every so often to maintain them. Is that a Luddite idea? Or are you just so myopic that you can't consider other perspectives? That's rhetorical... I point that out because you're being dense.
Number 2: We need much cheaper renewable energy systems. They don't even need to be more efficient. They just need to be dirt cheap and extremely low maintenance. Something you can throw up on your roof for a nominal cost and ignore for the next ten years. Existing systems are too expensive, require maintenance, and replacement. These systems need to be so cheap that people don't even think about them. Will that mean less energy from them? Sure. But that energy will be sustainable economically. Environmentalists frequently don't think about what the word "sustainable" means. It doesn't just imply environmental sustainability. For example, can I live on nothing but rice? No. I won't get enough nutrition. It isn't sustainable for me. I will die. Can I fly everywhere in private airplanes? No. I can't afford it. It is not financially sustainable for me. Likewise, the renewable systems need to be cheap enough that the average family can afford to maintain them. Currently only the upper middle class to rich can really afford them.
Number 3: A huge amount of energy is spent on heating and cooling homes. The issue is not just insulation. We also totally ignore geothermal energy which is foolish. I am NOT talking about geothermal power stations that tap high temperature pockets to boil water and drive turbines. Instead, I am talking about the background temperature of the earth itself. If you go down about 60 feet the earth is about the same temperature all over the planet and it maintains about the same temperature in summer and winter. Which means the earth tends to be cooler then the air during the summer and warmer then the air during the winter. Why not use the earth to cool and heat our homes? Ever entered an old cathedral in the middle of summer? It can be 100 degrees outside and in the cathedral it will be 75 degrees with the doors wide open and no air conditioning. You get the same thing in New Mexico with old native american structures that are sunk into the earth a bit. Its cool in there in the middle of summer in the middle of desert. If we employed this to building standards the amount of heating and cooling required to keep people comfortable would fall radically. Sound very Luddite? Nope. Just different and not your accepted orthodoxy so you'll mindlessly reject it like a little robot.
I could go on but you probably don't qualify as a sapient agent in this discussion given that you won't read, understand, or think about anything that isn't on your approved talking points.
And it didn't at once time. But when it was developed there was an explosion in the rate of evolution. Because sexual recombination is a superior form of evolution to simple mutation.
That said... I'd like to think that genetic engineering is the next step after sex in the evolution of evolution.
That is... intelligent design. Organisms making themselves into what they want to be... deliberately.
Sure... they need a person to man that... but its only one person. One guy just putting the milking cups on as the thing spins.
I'd like to see a rotary version of this milking machine. Something where the laser 3d scanner puts the cups on the cow and then shifts it over to the next stall. To be really useful this machine would have to deal with hundreds of cows at once.
Chinese are also dealing with huge clouds of deadly smog. They're not stopping coal because of global warming. They're stopping coal because its making air in their cities toxic.
Completely different.
They have ZERO respect for the global climate change movement.
They "nothing" it.
As to a tech site... you're clearly a foaming at the mouth political asshat... so I don't really see how you have any grounds to judge me... especially when all I'm pointing out is that the current strategy has only succeeded in pissing people off.
That's literally all you've got to show after spending BILLIONS trying to convince people. Nothing but anger and confusion.
Why? Because you forced people. And worse, you did it through a political system that is corrupt. Think everyone has to play by the climate control rules? Not if you have a friend in government. Then its just everyone else. Which serves the interests of the politicians being their friend becomes more and more important.
And who gets screwed in the end? The guy that never gets an exemption. That would be YOU and ME. We're the political nobodys in the system. And when they decide who gets the short straw... it will be you and me. Lots of people don't like that.
People don't like being lectured about carbon footprints by celeberties that fly in private jets all over the world. Or by politicians that have 4 mansions and fly in private jets... or yaht around between legislative sessions.
Its not practical.
And if you live in a democratic society you need to actually get the votes of these people. And they have to believe that you're looking out for their interests and their lives will improve for choosing you.
Guess what... this idea won't do that. Not in the short or medium term. Maybe in the long term... MAYBE... but people aren't going to vote on that. And you can't even promise it with any credibility.
So change tactics. Offer people something better or get used to failure.
Environmental policy is a project for a prosperous society. When countries get poor they put zero dollars into it.
That's something the environmental lobby should try to remember for the future. If your program makes us poor in the process. You will be defunded.
Your programs will be funded only so long as there is lots of excess money to dedicate to them.
When money gets tight... the game of musical chairs starts.
What would you rather do... provide food for people or build wind farms?
That is literally the sort of issue you run into here. And the wind farms are going to lose.
So really this is now an intelligence test. This is the shocking button in a room with a test monkey. Press the button once and you learn what the button does. Press the button twice and you're an idiot.
Moral of the story? Don't f'ck the economy if you whole platform depends on lots of discretionary spending.
Doesn't matter what the australian government is doing. That is one data point in a cloud of data points.
If I showed you ONE weather station that had consistent cooling over the last 100 years would that convince you that global warming wasn't happening?
No.
So... why are you ignoring the fact that this legislation is unpopular throughout the world and not being accepted.
Again. The chinese and indians have said they won't even consider it.
The middle east won't accept it.
Russia won't accept it.
Japan is rejecting it.
Australia IS REJECTING IT.
And most of the laws pushing this sort of thing in the EU have either been bypassed, loopholed, and/or are deeply unpopular.
So... the pattern... do you see it? Good. That's my point.
Now that you see the pattern... you must acknowledge that you should try something else. Or you want to keep spinning your wheels and see where that gets you.
Further, you know that the developed world either has a static or declining population growth rate right? Which means you idea would first be to stop or reverse the population growth rate of the undeveloped world...
So... how are you going to do that?
Further to be effective you're going to have to lower the population of the planet by BILLIONS. How?
Thermonuclear war? Germ warfare?
That is literally what it would take.
So... Just put that idea in the suggestion box over there.
Lets say its entirely accurate. Why do we have all this contention? Think the various factions actually care either way about the science?
Neither side cares.
The issue is rather that the science is being used to justify policy changes and those policy changes are politically contentious.
That is the heart of it.
More to the point, those policy changes are being rejected pretty much everywhere. The Japanese, the Australians, the French... the list goes on and on. And of course the chinese and indians have been very clear that they won't even consider such things.
So what is the point? Come up with a solution people don't hate and maybe you'll get somewhere. Till then... the science doesn't even matter... TO EITHER SIDE. Its all just politics and money.
Japan is rejecting its existing CO2 commitments, Australia is rejecting existing and new CO2 laws, and we're seeing rejections of carbon trading systems in Europe.
So what is the point?
The only reason we have such intense political conflict over the issue is that it is used to justify taxes, restrictions, and various other regulations.
Well... Those aren't going to be happening any time soon indifferent to the science.
The economy is terrible.
People already feel over taxed.
Any further taxes, restrictions, or regulations along these lines won't be accepted.
So why are you guys still trying so hard? For now at least... its over. Its done.
AGW may be the doom of humanity and we might all be living under water while Kevin Costner drinks his own pee while shooting "smokers" in their mad max oil tanker.... But that won't change the fact that people will vote these regulations down.
So... if you're interested in doing anything besides spinning your wheels uselessly... figure out another way to contribute to a solution besides unpopular heavy handed government restrictions.
I say that with the full knowledge that about a dozen people are about to tell me that that is the only thing that will work. Well, no it won't because it won't be accepted and therefore won't work. So if that is all we've got then there is no solution. If people won't accept it... then it won't work. Unless you want to try an Eco-dictatorship where you just shoot people that disagree. Have fun with that.
The point is that the law is only relevant for communities that use wood burning stoves.
Those are rural communities.
And now you're dealing with trying to regulate something in the homes of rural communities that anyone can make out of spare scrape metal... and once it is made doesn't need to be replaced... ever. The damn thing can be passed on from one generation to the next unchanged and functional pretty much indefinitely.
So again... have fun with the regulations. If they get paranoid about your inspections they'll just not burn anything when the inspector comes... and he won't sneak up on them.
Its a bad idea.
Again...
1. Wood burning stoves in low population areas don't matter.
2. They need wood burning stoves to heat their homes.
3. Many of them have brush etc that needs to be burned since there is no other means to dispose of it. Makes some sense to use that energy rather then just burning it in an open field which is the alternative.
This is a dumb law written by people that don't have to live with the consequences and don't understand what they're talking about.
Its right up there with some 85 year old senator passing laws regulating the internet. People that don't understand something shouldn't presume to regulate it. This of course would invalidate about 90 percent of standing law... but then about 90 percent of standing law is utter garbage. I'm not talking about little things like murder being illegal etc. More along the lines of endless ticky tack regulations that attempt to micromanage everything.
You say your community has a problem with smog? I didn't say anything about your community deciding on its own to regulate something. That's probably fine. But the federal government has no place in the matter.
Moving America Forward
Rebuilding Middle Class Security
Putting Americans Back to Work
The Middle Class Bargain
Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share
Economy Built to Last
America Works When Everyone Plays by the Same Rules
Wall Street Reform
21st Century Government: Transparent and Accountable
Lobbying Reform and Campaign Finance Reform
Greater Together
Strengthening the American Community
Protecting Rights and Freedoms
Ensuring Safety and Quality of Life
Stronger in the World, Safer and More Secure At Home
Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
Disrupting, Dismantling, and Defeating Al-Qaeda
Responsibly Ending the War in Afghanistan
Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons
Countering Emerging Threats
Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions
Promoting Global Prosperity and Development
Maintaining the Strongest Military in the World
Advancing Universal Values
Notice anything in there about freedom or individual rights? Then where is the liberty in liberal?
That is their national platform from their own website.
Slashdot Mirror
Very well, full steam ahead.
I apologize for suggesting your head was not an appropriate implement for breaking rocks.
As previously pointed out. Your solution of making people stop is not a solution because they won't.
Your idea has been rejected. Don't blame me. I didn't reject your idea. Everyone did. Its dead. You're giving CPR to a skeleton. He's dead Jim.
I know you want to just push your idea again. And you'll say that any failure is due to the idea not being pushed hard enough.
Well... you're going to have to kill people to get your way. By the billions.
Short of that... all you'll do is inconvenience a few people that were unfortunate enough to be under your influence. Those outside it will CONTINUE to ignore you.
Actually, I'm just making a point on a complicated and controversial issue that is sadly read by emotional ten year olds with delusions of sophistication.
*wink*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_for_the_National_Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
Just saying... :D
It would be great if this worked. I just fear that the government might kill some of this technology instead of helping it along.
There are various ways they can do this unintentionally.
1. Take all the profit out of dominating the market removes most of the profit incentive to developing new technologies. If the government just owns this thing or gives it away then the factories that tool up to build it might not be able to recuperate capital expenses to produce the tech because they won't be able to initially charge higher prices.
2. Possibly they'll put all sorts of regulations on the production, pricing, distribution, or installation of these batteries resulting in them being effectively expensive because of regulatory overhead. There are many instances of the government doing this both intentionally and unintentionally. They kind of do it to anything they pay any attention to by default. Given that they are paying attention to this thing... it worries me. I just suspect these batteries might come with forms that have to be filled out in triplicate and then snail mailed to 5 different PO boxes in Washington DC by the end of every fiscal year... or some other such nonsense.
3. They could also give manufacturing rights only to a few companies that are suspiciously campaign donors of whatever administration is currently in power while not permitting anyone else to produce the batteries. Later on it will be determined that the contractors chosen were not actually competent to produce them, cost over runs happened, quality was horrific, and the whole thing will go down in scandalous flames.... with no one getting anything useable out of it. AKA Solyndra.
They outright said they wouldn't accept any new socialist provisions masquerading as environmentalism.
That would include all the carbon trading schemes. So... try again.
You can manipulate the numbers all you like but the market doesn't lie. People throughout the western world are expressing a feeling that they're over taxed. The politicians have gamed the numbers so much that its hard to show statistically but it shows up in people's over drawn bank accounts.
Regardless, you said you could do it WITHOUT high costs. So I'm holding you to that. So no big taxes. Or you're admitting that you do need to actually do a lot of expensive stuff.
Which is fine. Its at least honest. But then that gets us back to my initial point which is that people already rejected that idea.
So again... come up with another idea unless you want to pound your head against a concrete wall.
Luddite implies anti technology. I am not anti technology.
I am anti pointless controversy that just annoys people while pushing economy destroying reforms that have been rejected by every economy and political system that MUST accept them for them to have any meaning.
Does it matter if Iceland goes green? No.
China MUST or your reforms are pointless.
Come up with something china won't laugh at or ignore and you might have something.
What those economies require is something equal to or superior to fossil fuels. Produce that.
Spend all the money you're now spending trying to get people to adopt reforms they will not accept instead on better technology.
Number 1: We need better means of energy storage. Flywheels so far seem to be the best idea for municiple and home storage of renewable electricity. Yes, you lose some energy from friction but if you're using most of the stored energy every night it isn't a big deal. Further, flywheels can store a lot of energy very cheaply, have no toxic components, are very simple, and all you need to do is change the lubricant every so often to maintain them. Is that a Luddite idea? Or are you just so myopic that you can't consider other perspectives? That's rhetorical... I point that out because you're being dense.
Number 2: We need much cheaper renewable energy systems. They don't even need to be more efficient. They just need to be dirt cheap and extremely low maintenance. Something you can throw up on your roof for a nominal cost and ignore for the next ten years. Existing systems are too expensive, require maintenance, and replacement. These systems need to be so cheap that people don't even think about them. Will that mean less energy from them? Sure. But that energy will be sustainable economically. Environmentalists frequently don't think about what the word "sustainable" means. It doesn't just imply environmental sustainability. For example, can I live on nothing but rice? No. I won't get enough nutrition. It isn't sustainable for me. I will die. Can I fly everywhere in private airplanes? No. I can't afford it. It is not financially sustainable for me. Likewise, the renewable systems need to be cheap enough that the average family can afford to maintain them. Currently only the upper middle class to rich can really afford them.
Number 3: A huge amount of energy is spent on heating and cooling homes. The issue is not just insulation. We also totally ignore geothermal energy which is foolish. I am NOT talking about geothermal power stations that tap high temperature pockets to boil water and drive turbines. Instead, I am talking about the background temperature of the earth itself. If you go down about 60 feet the earth is about the same temperature all over the planet and it maintains about the same temperature in summer and winter. Which means the earth tends to be cooler then the air during the summer and warmer then the air during the winter. Why not use the earth to cool and heat our homes? Ever entered an old cathedral in the middle of summer? It can be 100 degrees outside and in the cathedral it will be 75 degrees with the doors wide open and no air conditioning. You get the same thing in New Mexico with old native american structures that are sunk into the earth a bit. Its cool in there in the middle of summer in the middle of desert. If we employed this to building standards the amount of heating and cooling required to keep people comfortable would fall radically. Sound very Luddite? Nope. Just different and not your accepted orthodoxy so you'll mindlessly reject it like a little robot.
I could go on but you probably don't qualify as a sapient agent in this discussion given that you won't read, understand, or think about anything that isn't on your approved talking points.
You make me sad.
Are they or are they not given grants BY special interest groups depending on whether their research is assumed to be favorable to those interests?
Yes or no?
Cognitive dissonance makes communication difficult unless you're aware you are under its influence.
The scientists are not represented by any major faction. The scientists are at best pawns used by either faction as it suits them.
Try again.
And it didn't at once time. But when it was developed there was an explosion in the rate of evolution. Because sexual recombination is a superior form of evolution to simple mutation.
That said... I'd like to think that genetic engineering is the next step after sex in the evolution of evolution.
That is... intelligent design. Organisms making themselves into what they want to be... deliberately.
This isn't useful for massive milk operations. Look at this thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjx0EgXflPM
Sure... they need a person to man that... but its only one person. One guy just putting the milking cups on as the thing spins.
I'd like to see a rotary version of this milking machine. Something where the laser 3d scanner puts the cups on the cow and then shifts it over to the next stall. To be really useful this machine would have to deal with hundreds of cows at once.
If the cost is close to zero then you won't need to enact any taxes, carbon trading, or restrictions.
All of that has a very high cost. But you said you had a low cost. So you won't use any of that.
How will you reduce carbon emissions without racking up costs?
I'm assuming unicorn magic now because short of major technological innovations that's about all we've got.
This is clearly illegal.
Chinese are also dealing with huge clouds of deadly smog. They're not stopping coal because of global warming. They're stopping coal because its making air in their cities toxic.
Completely different.
They have ZERO respect for the global climate change movement.
They "nothing" it.
As to a tech site... you're clearly a foaming at the mouth political asshat... so I don't really see how you have any grounds to judge me... especially when all I'm pointing out is that the current strategy has only succeeded in pissing people off.
That's literally all you've got to show after spending BILLIONS trying to convince people. Nothing but anger and confusion.
Why? Because you forced people. And worse, you did it through a political system that is corrupt. Think everyone has to play by the climate control rules? Not if you have a friend in government. Then its just everyone else. Which serves the interests of the politicians being their friend becomes more and more important.
And who gets screwed in the end? The guy that never gets an exemption. That would be YOU and ME. We're the political nobodys in the system. And when they decide who gets the short straw... it will be you and me. Lots of people don't like that.
People don't like being lectured about carbon footprints by celeberties that fly in private jets all over the world. Or by politicians that have 4 mansions and fly in private jets... or yaht around between legislative sessions.
Its not practical.
And if you live in a democratic society you need to actually get the votes of these people. And they have to believe that you're looking out for their interests and their lives will improve for choosing you.
Guess what... this idea won't do that. Not in the short or medium term. Maybe in the long term... MAYBE... but people aren't going to vote on that. And you can't even promise it with any credibility.
So change tactics. Offer people something better or get used to failure.
Environmental policy is a project for a prosperous society. When countries get poor they put zero dollars into it.
That's something the environmental lobby should try to remember for the future. If your program makes us poor in the process. You will be defunded.
Your programs will be funded only so long as there is lots of excess money to dedicate to them.
When money gets tight... the game of musical chairs starts.
What would you rather do... provide food for people or build wind farms?
That is literally the sort of issue you run into here. And the wind farms are going to lose.
So really this is now an intelligence test. This is the shocking button in a room with a test monkey. Press the button once and you learn what the button does. Press the button twice and you're an idiot.
Moral of the story? Don't f'ck the economy if you whole platform depends on lots of discretionary spending.
China's will was accomplished through a military dictatorship... and men with guns that will literally kill you if you disobey.
That is your will. How is that different from war? Is the violence suddenly okay when your own government does it to you?
I didn't insult you. I called a duck a duck. Your population reduction program will require force. Violence.
And you can either own that or delude yourself.
Doesn't matter what the australian government is doing. That is one data point in a cloud of data points.
If I showed you ONE weather station that had consistent cooling over the last 100 years would that convince you that global warming wasn't happening?
No.
So... why are you ignoring the fact that this legislation is unpopular throughout the world and not being accepted.
Again. The chinese and indians have said they won't even consider it.
The middle east won't accept it.
Russia won't accept it.
Japan is rejecting it.
Australia IS REJECTING IT.
And most of the laws pushing this sort of thing in the EU have either been bypassed, loopholed, and/or are deeply unpopular.
So... the pattern... do you see it? Good. That's my point.
Now that you see the pattern... you must acknowledge that you should try something else. Or you want to keep spinning your wheels and see where that gets you.
And how are you going to do that?
Further, you know that the developed world either has a static or declining population growth rate right? Which means you idea would first be to stop or reverse the population growth rate of the undeveloped world...
So... how are you going to do that?
Further to be effective you're going to have to lower the population of the planet by BILLIONS. How?
Thermonuclear war?
Germ warfare?
That is literally what it would take.
So... Just put that idea in the suggestion box over there.
Sure. Try to fly to the moon by flapping your arms... then call anyone that says that's impossible stupid.
Keep up the good work.
So?
Lets say its entirely accurate. Why do we have all this contention? Think the various factions actually care either way about the science?
Neither side cares.
The issue is rather that the science is being used to justify policy changes and those policy changes are politically contentious.
That is the heart of it.
More to the point, those policy changes are being rejected pretty much everywhere. The Japanese, the Australians, the French... the list goes on and on. And of course the chinese and indians have been very clear that they won't even consider such things.
So what is the point? Come up with a solution people don't hate and maybe you'll get somewhere. Till then... the science doesn't even matter... TO EITHER SIDE. Its all just politics and money.
Japan is rejecting its existing CO2 commitments, Australia is rejecting existing and new CO2 laws, and we're seeing rejections of carbon trading systems in Europe.
So what is the point?
The only reason we have such intense political conflict over the issue is that it is used to justify taxes, restrictions, and various other regulations.
Well... Those aren't going to be happening any time soon indifferent to the science.
The economy is terrible.
People already feel over taxed.
Any further taxes, restrictions, or regulations along these lines won't be accepted.
So why are you guys still trying so hard? For now at least... its over. Its done.
AGW may be the doom of humanity and we might all be living under water while Kevin Costner drinks his own pee while shooting "smokers" in their mad max oil tanker.... But that won't change the fact that people will vote these regulations down.
So... if you're interested in doing anything besides spinning your wheels uselessly... figure out another way to contribute to a solution besides unpopular heavy handed government restrictions.
I say that with the full knowledge that about a dozen people are about to tell me that that is the only thing that will work. Well, no it won't because it won't be accepted and therefore won't work. So if that is all we've got then there is no solution. If people won't accept it... then it won't work. Unless you want to try an Eco-dictatorship where you just shoot people that disagree. Have fun with that.
What if they didn't. What if they were perfect guns. What would the ATF say then? Exactly.
The point is that the law is only relevant for communities that use wood burning stoves.
Those are rural communities.
And now you're dealing with trying to regulate something in the homes of rural communities that anyone can make out of spare scrape metal... and once it is made doesn't need to be replaced... ever. The damn thing can be passed on from one generation to the next unchanged and functional pretty much indefinitely.
So again... have fun with the regulations. If they get paranoid about your inspections they'll just not burn anything when the inspector comes... and he won't sneak up on them.
Its a bad idea.
Again...
1. Wood burning stoves in low population areas don't matter.
2. They need wood burning stoves to heat their homes.
3. Many of them have brush etc that needs to be burned since there is no other means to dispose of it. Makes some sense to use that energy rather then just burning it in an open field which is the alternative.
This is a dumb law written by people that don't have to live with the consequences and don't understand what they're talking about.
Its right up there with some 85 year old senator passing laws regulating the internet. People that don't understand something shouldn't presume to regulate it. This of course would invalidate about 90 percent of standing law... but then about 90 percent of standing law is utter garbage. I'm not talking about little things like murder being illegal etc. More along the lines of endless ticky tack regulations that attempt to micromanage everything.
You say your community has a problem with smog? I didn't say anything about your community deciding on its own to regulate something. That's probably fine. But the federal government has no place in the matter.
This is from their website:
Moving America Forward
Rebuilding Middle Class Security
Putting Americans Back to Work
The Middle Class Bargain
Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share
Economy Built to Last
America Works When Everyone Plays by the Same Rules
Wall Street Reform
21st Century Government: Transparent and Accountable
Lobbying Reform and Campaign Finance Reform
Greater Together
Strengthening the American Community
Protecting Rights and Freedoms
Ensuring Safety and Quality of Life
Stronger in the World, Safer and More Secure At Home
Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
Disrupting, Dismantling, and Defeating Al-Qaeda
Responsibly Ending the War in Afghanistan
Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons
Countering Emerging Threats
Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions
Promoting Global Prosperity and Development
Maintaining the Strongest Military in the World
Advancing Universal Values
Notice anything in there about freedom or individual rights? Then where is the liberty in liberal?
That is their national platform from their own website.