# feds banning wood stoves??



## trx680 (Nov 22, 2016)

Any truth to this?


----------



## bholler (Nov 22, 2016)

Not even a bit of truth to it.  I havnt watched the whole thing yet but the first half is simply paranoid delusions not based in reality


----------



## georgepds (Nov 22, 2016)

Don't know about the US, but my friends in London can only burn coal, not wood

https://www.gov.uk/smoke-control-area-rules

The current maximum level of fine is £1,000 for each offence.


----------



## Pertzbro (Nov 22, 2016)

I wouldn't say so much the feds but local areas are getting more strict every day.


----------



## bholler (Nov 22, 2016)

georgepds said:


> Don't know about the US, but my friends in London can only burn coal, not wood


That may be true but it does not make that video any more true.


----------



## edyit (Nov 22, 2016)

Pertzbro said:


> I wouldn't say so much the feds but local areas are getting more strict every day.



well i can see why tbh, i css to get ahead for at least a year so my wood is seasoned and dry and my neighbor right across the road has his load of logs dropped off around the beginning of october, that's what he burns this year in his outside wood boiler. On a damp cold morning that thing makes the area look like a fog bank has rolled in off the ocean. I know more than a few of my fellow neighbors have petitioned the town board about, and i honestly cant blame them. the sad thing is all it takes is one individual like this to give those of us that try to burn clean and reap the rewards from wood heat a bad name. . .


----------



## kennyp2339 (Nov 22, 2016)

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


----------



## Gotrek (Nov 22, 2016)

Wood is carbon neutral so if the argument is pollution they have no leg to stand on.  Insurance on the other hand I could see an angle.


----------



## husky345 vermont resolute (Nov 22, 2016)

edyit said:


> well i can see why tbh, i css to get ahead for at least a year so my wood is seasoned and dry and my neighbor right across the road has his load of logs dropped off around the beginning of october, that's what he burns this year in his outside wood boiler. On a damp cold morning that thing makes the area look like a fog bank has rolled in off the ocean. I know more than a few of my fellow neighbors have petitioned the town board about, and i honestly cant blame them. the sad thing is all it takes is one individual like this to give those of us that try to burn clean and reap the rewards from wood heat a bad name. . .


Well said


----------



## jetsam (Nov 22, 2016)

It says "INFO WARS" right on the splash screen.

You don't have to watch the video to know that it contains a whole lot of stupid (assuming you're familiar with infowars).


----------



## nola mike (Nov 22, 2016)

Carbon neutral isn't the same as the particulate matter. I love pointing out my chimney to people, and having them comment that it doesn't look like anything's burning. No smoke, no "wood smell". Exactly. One of my neighbor's chimney looks like he's trying to get the attention of a search party...


----------



## bholler (Nov 22, 2016)

Gotrek said:


> Wood is carbon neutral so if the argument is pollution they have no leg to stand on. Insurance on the other hand I could see an angle.


It is not carbon neutral at all.  It is better than many other forms of heat in that respect but absolutely not carbon neutral.   Even if it was carbon neutral that does not mean it does not produce pollution.  That is a totally different issue. 

But again this video is total bs no truth to it at all.


----------



## jetsam (Nov 22, 2016)

I take the carbon out of the woods, refine it in my BK Carbon Extractor, then scatter it on my garden and lawn.

Not sure if that's neutral or not, but the carbon doesn't seem to mind!


----------



## venator260 (Nov 22, 2016)

edyit said:


> well i can see why tbh, i css to get ahead for at least a year so my wood is seasoned and dry and my neighbor right across the road has his load of logs dropped off around the beginning of october, that's what he burns this year in his outside wood boiler. On a damp cold morning that thing makes the area look like a fog bank has rolled in off the ocean. I know more than a few of my fellow neighbors have petitioned the town board about, and i honestly cant blame them. the sad thing is all it takes is one individual like this to give those of us that try to burn clean and reap the rewards from wood heat a bad name. . .



It's one small example, however, Allegheny County, pa (contains Pittsburgh) regulates outdoor burners only. They have to have stacks higher than any rooftop within 100 feet, and I think some other requirements as well. Indoor solid fuel burners just have to be installed to code. 

So while there may be some push on owbs as places get more populous, indoor burners could still be fine.


----------



## venator260 (Nov 22, 2016)

jetsam said:


> I take the carbon out of the woods, refine it in my BK Carbon Extractor, then scatter it on my garden and lawn.
> 
> Not sure if that's neutral or not, but the carbon doesn't seem to mind!



My understanding is that wood releases carbon when it decomposes, either through burning or rotting. So no carbon is added to the atmosphere that wouldn't have found its way there anyway


bholler said:


> It is not carbon neutral at all.  It is better than many other forms of heat in that respect but absolutely not carbon neutral.   Even if it was carbon neutral that does not mean it does not produce pollution.  That is a totally different issue.
> 
> But again this video is total bs no truth to it at all.



My understanding is that the act of burning wood, in and of itself, can be carbon neutral, provided the area the tree was taken from is to remain forested. If so, new trees replace the ones burned and reabsorb the carbon. And if a tree is removed, it will release carbon when it decomposes regardless if that's via fire or rotting. 

Collecting and processing firewood is what makes the process not carbon neutral.


----------



## bholler (Nov 22, 2016)

venator260 said:


> My understanding is that the act of burning wood, in and of itself, can be carbon neutral, provided the area the tree was taken from is to remain forested. If so, new trees replace the ones burned and reabsorb the carbon. And if a tree is removed, it will release carbon when it decomposes regardless if that's via fire or rotting.
> 
> Collecting and processing firewood is what makes the process not carbon neutral.


Like I said better than most other forms of heat but not carbon neutral.


----------



## begreen (Nov 22, 2016)

Pertzbro said:


> I wouldn't say so much the feds but local areas are getting more strict every day.


The EPA last year made its first woodstove reg change since 1988. More local areas are adopting OR and WA state regs to mitigate local or regional pollution. In some cases the local regs are much more strict and there's been some pushback, like in Utah.


----------



## T-roy_ (Nov 22, 2016)

bholler said:


> Like I said better than most other forms of heat but not carbon neutral.


Kinda splitting hairs......


----------



## bholler (Nov 22, 2016)

T-roy_ said:


> Kinda splitting hairs......


No not at all.  It is either carbon neutral or it is not.  And the whole process of burning wood for heat in your home is not carbon neutral.  I didnt say that was a good thing or a bad thing but it is a fact.  And being carbon neutral does not mean it is free of pollution anyway.


----------



## Mt Bob (Nov 22, 2016)

Not gonna watch it,agree with begreen.Many areas of this low population state has outlawed OWB because of poor burning,and the fact most live in the valleys,with temp inversions.Really dont see this as a bad thing.


----------



## begreen (Nov 22, 2016)

Yes, in areas that are prone to temperature inversions that trap the gases it is a more serious issue. Unfortunately a few poor burners in a neighborhood can ruin it for everyone, especially if they burn damp wood. This is why we advocate only burning fully seasoned wood.


----------



## T-roy_ (Nov 22, 2016)

bholler said:


> No not at all.  It is either carbon neutral or it is not.  And the whole process of burning wood for heat in your home is not carbon neutral.  I didnt say that was a good thing or a bad thing but it is a fact.  And being carbon neutral does not mean it is free of pollution anyway.


If you use no power tools then it would be carbon neutral?


----------



## bholler (Nov 22, 2016)

T-roy_ said:


> If you use no power tools then it would be carbon neutral?


Some say yes some say no.  I think it would be close enough to neutral for me to call it that.


----------



## begreen (Nov 22, 2016)

T-roy_ said:


> If you use no power tools then it would be carbon neutral?


Might depend on what you ate for lunch


----------



## T-roy_ (Nov 22, 2016)

begreen said:


> Might depend on what you ate for lunch


There's exhaust one way or another!


----------



## Gotrek (Nov 22, 2016)

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


----------



## woodhog73 (Nov 22, 2016)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Mt Bob (Nov 22, 2016)

T-roy_ said:


> There's exhaust one way or another!


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


----------



## Dieselhead (Nov 22, 2016)

kennyp2339 said:


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


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


----------



## firefighterjake (Nov 23, 2016)

Dieselhead said:


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



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


----------



## firefighterjake (Nov 23, 2016)

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

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

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


----------



## jhjove (Nov 23, 2016)

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


bob bare said:


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


----------



## jetsam (Nov 23, 2016)

begreen said:


> Might depend on what you ate for lunch



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

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


----------



## blades (Nov 23, 2016)

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


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

blades said:


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


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


----------



## Ashful (Nov 23, 2016)

blades said:


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



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

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


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

co2 < > pollution


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> co2 < > pollution


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


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

bholler said:


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


Without CO2, there would be no trees.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Without CO2, there would be no trees.


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


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

If it does no harm, it is not pollution.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> If it does no harm, it is not pollution.


The problem is that is does cause harm.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Nov 23, 2016)

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

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

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


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

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


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

bholler said:


> The problem is that is does cause harm.


Says who?


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Says who?


Just about the entire scientific community.


----------



## jetsam (Nov 23, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Ashful (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> If it does no harm, it is not pollution.


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


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

bholler said:


> Just about the entire scientific community.


good luck with that


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Nov 23, 2016)

Ashful said:


> Those liberal greenies, as annoying and sanctimonious as they may be, do have some good points.  If they could learn to curb the "pay their fair share" bullshit, they'd likely win more ears toward their more noble causes.  Clean water, lower pollution, it's hard to argue with these goals.
> 
> If you don't like the justification of preserving the environment for your grandkids, just remember that lower pollution is most often achieved thru improved efficiency, which means less wood processing for you!


I agree..yes and no. 

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

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


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

Ashful said:


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


co2 is laying waste to those places?


----------



## jetsam (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> co2 is laying waste to those places?



Like bourbon, like bacon, like women: we would die without it, and yet it's killing us. Ain't life grand?

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases


----------



## Ashful (Nov 23, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> How long do we really think Americans would have put up with cars that emit smoke and stink...to the point of making you gag?  Did it need to be regulated exactly when it did, or would the market have corrected and a demand created for a cleaner car that doesn't smell?  Or did we absolutely need the regulations we had, when we had them? .


The least expensive solution always wins.  If the stinky car costs 20% less than a clean car of equal performance, size, and styling, then the stinky car will outsell the clean car.  There are far more Kobalt ratchets sold every year, than Snap-On.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> good luck with that


We dont need luck we have facts on our side.  




sportbikerider78 said:


> To give all the credit to regulation through environmentalism is a huge disservice to innovation, engineering and materials sciences. Sometimes they work together and sometimes they really don't. How long do we really think Americans would have put up with cars that emit smoke and stink...to the point of making you gag? Did it need to be regulated exactly when it did, or would the market have corrected and a demand created for a cleaner car that doesn't smell? Or did we absolutely need the regulations we had, when we had them?
> 
> How many trees do you think email and mobile phones saved? Hundreds of millions so far..and many millions to come? Those were market driven, capitalist inventions..and have hugely positive environmental impacts.


We are not giving all the credit to the regulations at all.  Without the engineers ect that developed those products the regulations would have done nothing at all that is obvious.  And yes some changes would have happened without regulations.  But it would not have happened as fast or as well without those regulations.  

And yes email and phones have saved allot of paper without a doubt but that was not the goal.  We just got an added benefit from it.  

I am not saying that all the regulations are right by any means but most of them have pushed us in the right direction.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Nov 23, 2016)

bholler said:


> Just about the entire scientific community.



Sorry...that is not true.  This is said time and time again to make anyone feel stupid for questioning "the 95%+ consensus".  

After all..the majority of scientists have never been wrong....right?


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

jetsam said:


> Like bourbon, like bacon, like women: we would die without it, and yet it's killing us. Ain't life grand?
> 
> https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases


This web page may change in the not so distant future.


----------



## Gotrek (Nov 23, 2016)

Co2 levels are actually at a dangerously low level when looking at co2 trapped in ice layers.  Humans have negligible impact on co2 anyways.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Sorry...that is not true. This is said time and time again to make anyone feel stupid for questioning "the 95%+ consensus".
> 
> After all..the majority of scientists have never been wrong....right?


Show me some actual facts that say that excess levels of co2 in the atmosphere does no harm.  There can be a debate about how much of a role we have played in that happening but it is very clear that high levels of co2 cause many problems.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> This web page may change in the not so distant future.


An election does not change scientific fact no matter how much you want it to.


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

bholler said:


> An election does not change scientific fact no matter how much you want it to.


Science should  involve argument, not declarations by self-serving groups,  say, a UN Panel, especially when redistribution of wealth is concerned.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Science should involve argument, not declarations by self-serving groups, say, a UN Panel, especially when redistribution of wealth is concerned.


No science should rely on facts.  I will agree we dont have all of the facts that tell us without any doubt whatsoever that humans are causing climate change.  So that part can be debated.  But the fact that increased co2 levels cause problems cannot be debated it has been proven many times in many different ways.  I do agree that it should not be dictated by declaration though.  But when you have people who refuse to acknowledge the facts what are you to do?


----------



## blades (Nov 23, 2016)

And that  , Veltvetfoot, is it in a nutshell.  Hate to say it but like everything else-- just follow the money trail.


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 23, 2016)

bholler said:


> But when you have people who refuse to acknowledge the facts what are you to do?


Yes, re-educate them, perhaps by sending them to camps for years of hard labor.

Unsubscribed.


----------



## heavy hammer (Nov 23, 2016)

Look at all the changes that have happened over the years with burning technology.  Some like the changes while others don't, regardless you can still burn wood.  It is probably something that won't be taken away any time soon.  These are just ways to get people arguing, look at how long they have been trying to ban guns.  There has been a lot of change and regulation over the years, but you can still buy and own a firearm.  For them to actually make, pass and inforce such a law is about impossible.  I believe video's like that are there just to do exactly what it did get a certain demographic of people arguing.  I say just try and burn correctly and we should all be good, plus it's thanksgiving everyone enjoy.


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> Yes, re-educate them, perhaps by sending them to camps for years of hard labor.


just asking for education no re education needed.


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 23, 2016)

Here is some real good science on fire and wood from Richard Feynman.  One of my favorite Youtube clips.


----------



## Gotrek (Nov 23, 2016)

heavy hammer said:


> Look at all the changes that have happened over the years with burning technology.  Some like the changes while others don't, regardless you can still burn wood.  It is probably something that won't be taken away any time soon.  These are just ways to get people arguing, look at how long they have been trying to ban guns.  There has been a lot of change and regulation over the years, but you can still buy and own a firearm.  For them to actually make, pass and inforce such a law is about impossible.  I believe video's like that are there just to do exactly what it did get a certain demographic of people arguing.  I say just try and burn correctly and we should all be good, plus it's thanksgiving everyone enjoy.


Don't become complacent though or it might before you can even realize it or do something about it...


----------



## bholler (Nov 23, 2016)

Gotrek said:


> Don't become complacent though or it might before you can even realize it or do something about it...


Nope not gonna happen.


----------



## jetsam (Nov 24, 2016)

velvetfoot said:


> This web page may change in the not so distant future.



That web page is going to have an Exxon-Mobil banner across the top, and a link to Breitbart news and infowars.com. :/


----------



## jetsam (Nov 24, 2016)

bholler said:


> An election does not change scientific fact no matter how much you want it to.



But scientific fact doesn't write web pages- people do.

When people write their web pages, will they seek consensus and researched facts to populate their web pages, or will they be influenced by someone who wants to sell more stuff so they can buy themselves a fourth gold-plated private jet?

Both things happen. One happens more than the other.

What happens even more than both of those put together makes little sense if you're not interested in human nature. We need to belong to a group and be accepted. We seek out groups and acceptance all of our lives. We are more likely to agree with the group where we find acceptance, and disagree with anyone who disagrees with them.

"We" is good; "They" are bad. They wouldn't say that disagreeing stuff if there wasn't something fundamentally wrong with them!

This one trait can almost completely negate the impressive powers of observation and reason that your brain has.

Once feeling acceptance from your group has become important to you, facts take a back seat to good old us vs. them.

Deny it all you want- it happens to all of us to greater and lesser degrees, and we're all members of multiple groups.

Giant corporations and political parties exploit this every single day. People are out right now arguing violently against their own self-interest because they feel acceptance from a social group (which was probably invented by a think tank to drive profits).

The short version of that is "All people are really crazy and you shouldn't expect to hear any sense out of them", but it's kind of fascinating to watch them interact. Include yourself in your observations- that's been pretty interesting for me to do, anyway.


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 24, 2016)

You guys are traveling down the Ash Can road.  No bueno.


----------



## begreen (Nov 24, 2016)

An on that note...


----------

