# EPA JUST A SNIFF AWAY IN ALASKA...NYT ARTICLE



## Phoenix Hatchling

HERES A LINK TO SHOW JUST HOW PRESSURED OUR HOBBY/INTEREST/HEATING CHOICE IS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/u...ying-warm-a-thick-coat-of-dirty-air.html?_r=0


----------



## jharkin

What it shows is that we have to be mindful of the adverse health effects of our hobby.  If you become the one who got lung cancer you would not think it's unreasonable scrutiny.


Question is, are all these folks using EPA stoves and do they have well seasoned wood and know good burning practices?


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Veterinarian and air quality activist. Sounds fishy. Also it's in the New York slimes. I do agree that people probly need epa stoves and some more knowledge. Dad told me back in the 70s oil embargo everyone heated with wood and it was downright nasty in certain places.


----------



## DBoon

Maybe someone who actually lives in Fairbanks, Alaska can chime in on this one...


----------



## Phoenix Hatchling

jharkin said:


> What it shows is that we have to be mindful of the adverse health effects of our hobby.  If you become the one who got lung cancer you would not think it's unreasonable scrutiny.
> 
> 
> Question is, are all these folks using EPA stoves and do they have well seasoned wood and know good burning practices?



Very true on all counts, but must be mindful that with the stroke of a pen, a lifestyle and heat source dating back eons can come to a halt. Comply or else. If I were one who got lung cancer, I firstly would question everything in my life I had done or come across. Lifestyle, food, friends, occupation, materials exposure, etc. Then, more likely than not, I would not be able to define what got me. Contributory negligence as it were. Ironically, as houses have become more "efficient" and green, the lower the quality of the indoor air. Samplings of air taken inside well sealed houses with windows SHUT, have proven to contain more pollutants than the "fresh" outdoors. Not debating you in any way, and respect your views, but simply raising awareness of conflicting views.


----------



## rwhite

I can see how folks are worried. I live in an area of many valleys and cold air pockets.  Luckily I live up high. We are very sparsely populated but the air and smoke sinks into those valleys and sits there. As you drive down the roads it smells like a forest fire every time you get to a low spot. I'm glad my house is not down in there. I'm all for clean air but the sad part will be that by the time they study this, create a program and pay someone to enforce they could probably just buy everyone a New EPA stove and have it installed.


----------



## ddddddden

If I were not burning wood, I would be burning electrons, generated by burning coal.  ~50% of electricity in my state is generated by burning coal. Last I heard, "clean coal" burning was an unrealizable fantasy. They're converting some powerplants to biomass or natural gas, but until they quit burning coal on such a large scale, going after wood burners is silly, IMO. YMMV in other areas.


----------



## Highbeam

ddddddden said:


> If I were not burning wood, I would be burning electrons, generated by burning coal.  ~50% of electricity in my state is generated by burning coal. Last I heard, "clean coal" burning was an unrealizable fantasy. They're converting some powerplants to biomass or natural gas, but until they quit burning coal on such a large scale, going after wood burners is silly, IMO. YMMV in other areas.



I agree but wood burners are an easy target. No big money or lobbyists looking out for us. Very little political protection. You "need" electricity, burning wood is just redneck, dangerous, and wasteful right? Might as well be burning tires!


----------



## begreen

Heavens! Folks want to be able to breathe and would like pre-EPA stove burning to be stopped before it stops them. Don't let big bad gubmint do this.


----------



## ddddddden

Agreed, BG.
Anyone burning anything should do so as cleanly as reasonably possible.

Just sayin', coal is the elephant in the room. Not the elephant that nobody talks about, but still a big elephant. Big and full of mercury.


----------



## tarzan

As a side note, wow! an objective article from the New York Times. Well done!


----------



## gregbesia

rwhite said:


> I can see how folks are worried. I live in an area of many valleys and cold air pockets.  Luckily I live up high. We are very sparsely populated but the air and smoke sinks into those valleys and sits there. As you drive down the roads it smells like a forest fire every time you get to a low spot. I'm glad my house is not down in there. I'm all for clean air but the sad part will be that by the time they study this, create a program and pay someone to enforce they could probably just buy everyone a New EPA stove and have it installed.


Maybe in some cases having an EPA stove does not solve everything. My next door neighbor has what I think is a big Regency wood stove with secondary combustion. ( I have seen it only once few years ago so no model #) He buys wood in log length, after waiting 1 year he then cuts , splits and calls it seasoned. He makes huge splits ,like 8x8x18 . Red oak that still weights a ton . He uses that so it lasts longer in his stove. His chimney smokes for hours, big time. Good thing not in my direction. He tells me that he has to clean his chimney every few weeks and removes buckets of creosote. He is a nice guy otherwise,but he is resisting to change his ways. When I try to talk to him about what I learned on this site: css, wait 2-3 years, burn , he looks at me like I'm crazy. When I told him that I love pine for shoulder season and to burn down the coals, he almost called the state to have me committed.           I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.


----------



## ddahlgren

ddddddden said:


> If I were not burning wood, I would be burning electrons, generated by burning coal.  ~50% of electricity in my state is generated by burning coal. Last I heard, "clean coal" burning was an unrealizable fantasy. They're converting some powerplants to biomass or natural gas, but until they quit burning coal on such a large scale, going after wood burners is silly, IMO. YMMV in other areas.



It depends on what coal they are burning and the actual plant's s state of repair and compliance. Columbia is exporting a lot of anthracite cheaper than we can mine it here. Anthracite burns very clean certainly as clean or cleaner than wood than what the average person will do. What has to be remembered is the people willing to ask for help and give help here are a very small percentage of people that burn wood. We care about doing it right most don't. Some power stations burn bituminous coal that if not burned hot and fast is very dirty. Those are the problem power plants not coal in general. I switched from wood to coal out of frustration buying wood as not able to cut my own and not enough room to store 3 years ahead as there is no such thing as seasoned wood for sale that has a realistic price tag.


----------



## rwhite

Certainly EPA stoves are not a panacea. There will always be folks that burn green wood or refuse to change. But there will always be people that cut the cats off of cars, burn tires and dump oil in a hole outside their shop. But I am optimistic that given the chance most people do the right thing. For all of EPAs  faults (and there are many) I can't imagine what our air and water would be like without regulation.


----------



## ddahlgren

I think the key is there is regulation and there is REGULATION.


----------



## begreen

Ironically many EPA regulations come about from the states suing them, then other states sue because they don't like being regulated. 

http://projects.registerguard.com/r...75/wood-emissions-epa-federal-states.html.csp


----------



## ddddddden

I didn't mean to suggest that burning dirty is okay, just wanted to look at the scale of burning for residential heating...reminds me of all the PR promoting residential recycling, which is a drop in the bucket compared to industrial recycling.(I do recycle, even though the service here sucks.)

Of course, scale means nothing if one of the 13-percenters with the dirty OWB going 24/7 is upwind of you. I reckon it boils down to having obnoxious neighbors. If they are stubbornly obnoxious or stubbornly incompetent burners, all you can do is move. Competence can't be legislated.


----------



## jharkin

tarzan said:


> As a side note, wow! an objective article from the New York Times. Well done!



The fact that the conclusions of articles don't agree with your personal politics has nothing to do with how objective they are.

There are many fact checking organizations around, and the NYT non-editorial reporting generally checks out pretty straight.


----------



## ddddddden

p.s. A hot issue in my state is where to dump all the coal ash. Haven't heard of any locals getting riled up over ash from biomass.


----------



## volunbeer

I wanted to do a wood boiler, but Washington State bans them.   I am on 21 acres with very few neighbors and I am above all of them and the prevailing wind does not hit their house from mine.   I was highly upset that WA state bans boilers.   First and foremost, I think that any wood burning device has the potential to adversely affect my neighbors so it is something to be cognizant of.   I am on the hill in a valley and at times in the winter the air sinks and air does not move much.   I take this into account when I want to burn a slash pile because I want to be a good neighbor.    I do not agree with blanket bans of wood burning devices.   Like everything in life, it is highly dependent on numerous factors such as location, quality of wood and stove, etc etc.   

Issues like these are better left to local communities.   I can burn wood all day long where I am at and it will have minimal impact on anyone else.  I have also seen the wood boiler in action in a trailer park burning green wood - that is not cool.    Bottom line, allow local communities to regulate air quality from wood burning.   In a state like Washington, that has a hundred thousand plus acres burn every summer it is hard to swallow a "one Earth air policy"  that factors into the government decision.   On the other hand, I don't have any issue with EPA stoves or cars that do not belch exhaust on everyone behind them.    It is a balance and like everything with government - someone will not be happy.


----------



## ddahlgren

ddddddden said:


> p.s. A hot issue in my state is where to dump all the coal ash. Haven't heard of any locals getting riled up over ash from biomass.



It is currently used in at least paving and concrete and certain anything that needs a good filler agent it would work just fine.


----------



## bholler

ddahlgren said:


> Anthracite burns very clean certainly as clean or cleaner than wood than what the average person will do.


Cleaner in some ways yes but it still puts allot more chemicals into the environment than wood.  Believe me I work in some areas where coal is still the primary fuel used for heat and during cold spells you can smell the sulfur and feel it in your eyes and lungs.  And yes all that is burned there is anthracite this is the center of coal country pa with some of the best anthracite in the world.  Yes bituminous is much worse but anthracite is not as clean burning as many claim.  



ddahlgren said:


> It is currently used in at least paving and concrete and certain anything that needs a good filler agent it would work just fine.


Unless it is anything that will be affected by the acid casued when water mixes with the coal ash.  So no re bar in the concrete ect.  It is also a very soft aggregate so no high strength concrete either.


----------



## tarzan

jharkin said:


> The fact that the conclusions of articles don't agree with your personal politics has nothing to do with how objective they are.
> 
> There are many fact checking organizations around, and the NYT non-editorial reporting generally checks out pretty straight.



It has nothing to do with my personal politics. I commended the  article because the writer didn't interject theres. Something that's becoming increasingly rare amongst news organizations.


----------



## blacktail

gregbesia said:


> I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.



This.


----------



## Rearscreen

I think the EPA is history soon. Move on folks, nothing to see here....


----------



## Poindexter

DBoon said:


> Maybe someone who actually lives in Fairbanks, Alaska can chime in on this one...



OK.

I read the article.  For as deep as it goes (not very), both sides are reasonably well represented.  

Lance Roberts and Tammie Wilson are both on (or recent members of) the borough assembly.  As borough mayor, Karl Kassel presides over the 9 members of the assembly at borough meetings.  Jean Olsen, the veterinarian is a private citizen.  Tammie has done a recent stint in the Alaska Legislature, I live outside both her historic borough and legislative districts.  I do live inside the regulated burner "rectangle of death."

The link between elevated PM2.5 concentration and cumulative lung damage is statistically very strong.  It is, I think, most correct to refer to "the preponderance of evidence."  When Roberts and/or Wilson say "unproven" they are technically correct, but overlooking the preponderance of evidence when they do so.  

The air quality in Fairbanks does suck, often.  Wintertime inversions are bad.  One sticky point not covered in the linked article is the EPA is doing nothing, and proposing nothing, to ameliorate summer time air quality when forest fire smoke blows into town.  

You know how in the lower 48 forest fire control is all about protecting structures, real property?  How many houses are threatened?  If we have, again this summer like last summer, a 10k acre fire 30 miles out of town not threatening any structures the forest service does jack-doodle because no structures are threatened, when the wind blows the smoke into town it counts against our EPA measured air quality score, so we are supposed to get our year round air quality scores low enough to meet the benchmark by changing our behavior on the things we can control while the forest fires burn, often all summer, and hurt our annual AQ score.  There are lots and lots of otherwise reasonable people very very pissed off about this little detail.

With a gentle pencil, Lance and Tammie are all about property rights, what you do on your land is your business.  While I do agree with this in principle, we do have a law up here that you can't run a pipe across the lawn to dump raw sewage from your toilet onto the lawn of your next door neighbor.  I think that is a good law.

What we don't have here is a consensus public opinion that wood stove exhaust is more or less the same, though even Lance and Tammie agree we share a less than ideal air shed. Recently the borough passed an ordinance that you don't have to show cause to lodge a complaint.  The vote was 8-1, Lance Roberts the only assemblyman opposed - so Tammie Wilson must still be in the state legislature.  I think the community would have been better served long term by a class action lawsuit filed by many many people who can't burn wood while the AQ is bad (Stage III) against the borough for not having shut down the few folks with dirty stacks.

What I see with my own eyes driving around Fairbanks and North Pole and the surrounding area is the vast majority, say 99% or even 99.9% or so of wood burners are running clean plumes.  I am not an EPA certified Visual Emissions Evaluator, but I have done the course work to take the test to become one.  My own opinion, based on personal observation of many many chimneys in the borough is we could significantly improve our wintertime AQ by changing out another 20-30 wood burning appliances.  It might or might not be enough to bring us in to EPA compliance, but as usual it only takes those one or two jackholes to ruin it for the rest of us.

The borough AQ ordinance has only been on the books about a year, year and a half now.  Mayor Kassel was very very gentle the first winter with enforcement,  He issued an edict that anyone found in non-compliance was to be brought to his attention before they were ticketed and he called them, each and every one.  Made home visits.  Wheedled.  Begged.  Behaved like a public servant.  

He did eventually give the sheriff permission to ticket one of the offenders after several personal home visits.  The accused made the front page of the local paper, above the fold, with a list of the dates and times the mayor had visited the home to offer the accused an upgraded wood stove.  Still presumed innocent of course, but good luck finding 12 impartial jurors for that one.  Pretty sure that one was settled without a court date.

It does gall me that builders with "No Other Adequate Source of Heat", the NOASH permits, get the same tiered verbal warning system ahead of ticketing that supplemental burners like me get.  I think anyone committing to heating their home with wood only ought to know what they are doing and surrender all (or all but one) of their verbal warnings before they get ticketed and fined for AQ offenses.  Instead, as written, they can basically continue to pollute for the rest of this winter before they get ticketed in late spring.

With four kids of my own, I am all about saving money on utility bills.  As a Registered Nurse I think clean air is a good thing.  Let's get these 20-30 worst offenders cleaned up and see how much of a problem we have left to deal with.

Don't get me started about natural gas.  On the North Slope at the oil wells they are re-injecting trillions and trillions of cf of NG every day.  Its a really big number that starts with a 2 and has lots of zeros.  "They" could possibly build a NG pipeline beside the existing oil pipeline from the north slope all the way down to Valdez, AK.  Then "we" could export NG and crude oil both.  But "they" have been talking about since the 1960's and haven't done it yet.  Given historic ice data, it makes a lot more sense to wait a few more years, build a liquefaction plant on the north slope, and then use LNG tankers to sail the stuff down to Seattle or Tokyo where it will be worth real money and bypass Fairbanks (and pipeline construction expense)  entirely.  Unfortunately LNG is coming out of the south Pacific so cheaply that the electricity plant in Anchorage, AK is buying LNG from the Phillipines rather than out of the North America infrastructure at the Seattle terminal.  Economic reality is what it is.

M2c anyway.


----------



## bholler

Rearscreen said:


> I think the EPA is history soon. Move on folks, nothing to see here....


Yeah that is not going to happen.  They may loose some funding and some power yes but they are not going away sorry


----------



## Poindexter

Y'all, here is a screengrab of a NYT shot captioned "smoke billowing from a home outside Fairbanks, AK..."

What do you think?







My opinion is the steam plume is attached to the stack.  Hard to be sure, on magnification the image pixelates too soon to be sure.  But it looks attached, so the ambient temp when this pic was taken was probably less than 0 dF. 

I see a perfectly normal steam plume and woodsmoke opacity under 20% if the temp is negative.

Above 0dF if that is a detached plume I think the actual smoke that clears the steam plume is at or near 20 % opactiy, so a legal burn either way.

That ain't billowing smoke by any reasonable observation.  The reason the NYT published a pic of a steam plume is probably they didn't have time to look at 1000 stacks to find the one bad burner...

@begreen?

If you want to see a billowing cloud of smoke google up images related to "Wood River Elementary School Fairbanks Alaska Air Quality."


----------



## bholler

Looks like steam to me but regardless it certainly isn't billowing at all.


----------



## jetsam

The link is about doctors in Alaska asking for the government to push the thinking-impaired into getting EPA stoves (which are better and more convenient in every way except that you can't burn your garbage in them, which is a second win for breathable air).

You have to squint pretty hard to get "GUMMINT COME GET MAH STOVE" out of that.


----------



## tarzan

Poindexter said:


> OK.
> 
> I read the article.  For as deep as it goes (not very), both sides are reasonably well represented.
> 
> Lance Roberts and Tammie Wilson are both on (or recent members of) the borough assembly.  As borough mayor, Karl Kassel presides over the 9 members of the assembly at borough meetings.  Jean Olsen, the veterinarian is a private citizen.  Tammie has done a recent stint in the Alaska Legislature, I live outside both her historic borough and legislative districts.  I do live inside the regulated burner "rectangle of death."
> 
> The link between elevated PM2.5 concentration and cumulative lung damage is statistically very strong.  It is, I think, most correct to refer to "the preponderance of evidence."  When Roberts and/or Wilson say "unproven" they are technically correct, but overlooking the preponderance of evidence when they do so.
> 
> The air quality in Fairbanks does suck, often.  Wintertime inversions are bad.  One sticky point not covered in the linked article is the EPA is doing nothing, and proposing nothing, to ameliorate summer time air quality when forest fire smoke blows into town.
> 
> You know how in the lower 48 forest fire control is all about protecting structures, real property?  How many houses are threatened?  If we have, again this summer like last summer, a 10k acre fire 30 miles out of town not threatening any structures the forest service does jack-doodle because no structures are threatened, when the wind blows the smoke into town it counts against our EPA measured air quality score, so we are supposed to get our year round air quality scores low enough to meet the benchmark by changing our behavior on the things we can control while the forest fires burn, often all summer, and hurt our annual AQ score.  There are lots and lots of otherwise reasonable people very very pissed off about this little detail.
> 
> With a gentle pencil, Lance and Tammie are all about property rights, what you do on your land is your business.  While I do agree with this in principle, we do have a law up here that you can't run a pipe across the lawn to dump raw sewage from your toilet onto the lawn of your next door neighbor.  I think that is a good law.
> 
> What we don't have here is a consensus public opinion that wood stove exhaust is more or less the same, though even Lance and Tammie agree we share a less than ideal air shed. Recently the borough passed an ordinance that you don't have to show cause to lodge a complaint.  The vote was 8-1, Lance Roberts the only assemblyman opposed - so Tammie Wilson must still be in the state legislature.  I think the community would have been better served long term by a class action lawsuit filed by many many people who can't burn wood while the AQ is bad (Stage III) against the borough for not having shut down the few folks with dirty stacks.
> 
> What I see with my own eyes driving around Fairbanks and North Pole and the surrounding area is the vast majority, say 99% or even 99.9% or so of wood burners are running clean plumes.  I am not an EPA certified Visual Emissions Evaluator, but I have done the course work to take the test to become one.  My own opinion, based on personal observation of many many chimneys in the borough is we could significantly improve our wintertime AQ by changing out another 20-30 wood burning appliances.  It might or might not be enough to bring us in to EPA compliance, but as usual it only takes those one or two jackholes to ruin it for the rest of us.
> 
> The borough AQ ordinance has only been on the books about a year, year and a half now.  Mayor Kassel was very very gentle the first winter with enforcement,  He issued an edict that anyone found in non-compliance was to be brought to his attention before they were ticketed and he called them, each and every one.  Made home visits.  Wheedled.  Begged.  Behaved like a public servant.
> 
> He did eventually give the sheriff permission to ticket one of the offenders after several personal home visits.  The accused made the front page of the local paper, above the fold, with a list of the dates and times the mayor had visited the home to offer the accused an upgraded wood stove.  Still presumed innocent of course, but good luck finding 12 impartial jurors for that one.  Pretty sure that one was settled without a court date.
> 
> It does gall me that builders with "No Other Adequate Source of Heat", the NOASH permits, get the same tiered verbal warning system ahead of ticketing that supplemental burners like me get.  I think anyone committing to heating their home with wood only ought to know what they are doing and surrender all (or all but one) of their verbal warnings before they get ticketed and fined for AQ offenses.  Instead, as written, they can basically continue to pollute for the rest of this winter before they get ticketed in late spring.
> 
> With four kids of my own, I am all about saving money on utility bills.  As a Registered Nurse I think clean air is a good thing.  Let's get these 20-30 worst offenders cleaned up and see how much of a problem we have left to deal with.
> 
> Don't get me started about natural gas.  On the North Slope at the oil wells they are re-injecting trillions and trillions of cf of NG every day.  Its a really big number that starts with a 2 and has lots of zeros.  "They" could possibly build a NG pipeline beside the existing oil pipeline from the north slope all the way down to Valdez, AK.  Then "we" could export NG and crude oil both.  But "they" have been talking about since the 1960's and haven't done it yet.  Given historic ice data, it makes a lot more sense to wait a few more years, build a liquefaction plant on the north slope, and then use LNG tankers to sail the stuff down to Seattle or Tokyo where it will be worth real money and bypass Fairbanks (and pipeline construction expense)  entirely.  Unfortunately LNG is coming out of the south Pacific so cheaply that the electricity plant in Anchorage, AK is buying LNG from the Phillipines rather than out of the North America infrastructure at the Seattle terminal.  Economic reality is what it is.
> 
> M2c anyway.



Thanks Poindexter!

I also noticed the "smoke plume" dissipates rather quickly. First thought I had was honestly, that may be Poindexters house lol


----------



## Highbeam

jetsam said:


> The link is about doctors in Alaska asking for the government to push the thinking-impaired into getting EPA stoves (which are better and more convenient in every way except that you can't burn your garbage in them, which is a second win for breathable air).
> 
> You have to squint pretty hard to get "GUMMINT COME GET MAH STOVE" out of that.



I can burn garbage just fine in my epa stove. I don't but there's no reason I couldn't.



Poindexter said:


> Y'all, here is a screengrab of a NYT shot captioned "smoke billowing from a home outside Fairbanks, AK..."
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> View attachment 191249
> 
> 
> My opinion is the steam plume is attached to the stack.  Hard to be sure, on magnification the image pixelates too soon to be sure.  But it looks attached, so the ambient temp when this pic was taken was probably less than 0 dF.
> 
> I see a perfectly normal steam plume and woodsmoke opacity under 20% if the temp is negative.
> 
> Above 0dF if that is a detached plume I think the actual smoke that clears the steam plume is at or near 20 % opactiy, so a legal burn either way.
> 
> That ain't billowing smoke by any reasonable observation.  The reason the NYT published a pic of a steam plume is probably they didn't have time to look at 1000 stacks to find the one bad burner...
> 
> @begreen?
> 
> If you want to see a billowing cloud of smoke google up images related to "Wood River Elementary School Fairbanks Alaska Air Quality."



All steam since it is white and dissipates. Whether or not the visible white steam is attached or detached is completely irrelevant. Turns out that steam becomes visible as soon as temps are low enough. This can easily happen in the flue and when ambient temps are well above freezing.

I am noticing that the very efficient stoves make very low flue temps and lots of steam. Smoke police need to be smarter if they hope to honestly identify smoke vs. Steam.

Think about fossil fuel chimneys or even automotive tail pipes. Lots of cool steam when efficiency is up.


----------



## FTG-05

Funny the article didn't mention the fact that for every 1 GWe of power we get from coal power plants, we throw away - as waste - 13 GWe of Thorium.  Wonder why that is?


----------



## StihlKicking

volunbeer said:


> I wanted to do a wood boiler, but Washington State bans them.   I am on 21 acres with very few neighbors and I am above all of them and the prevailing wind does not hit their house from mine.   I was highly upset that WA state bans boilers.   First and foremost, I think that any wood burning device has the potential to adversely affect my neighbors so it is something to be cognizant of.   I am on the hill in a valley and at times in the winter the air sinks and air does not move much.   I take this into account when I want to burn a slash pile because I want to be a good neighbor.    I do not agree with blanket bans of wood burning devices.   Like everything in life, it is highly dependent on numerous factors such as location, quality of wood and stove, etc etc.
> 
> Issues like these are better left to local communities.   I can burn wood all day long where I am at and it will have minimal impact on anyone else.  I have also seen the wood boiler in action in a trailer park burning green wood - that is not cool.    Bottom line, allow local communities to regulate air quality from wood burning.   In a state like Washington, that has a hundred thousand plus acres burn every summer it is hard to swallow a "one Earth air policy"  that factors into the government decision.   On the other hand, I don't have any issue with EPA stoves or cars that do not belch exhaust on everyone behind them.    It is a balance and like everything with government - someone will not be happy.



Are all OWB's banned in Washington state, even the EPA approved ones?


----------



## begreen

For the time being. With the new phase 3 guidelines they should be allowed, but that needs to be agreed upon by the legislature.


----------



## Poindexter

Highbeam said:


> All steam since it is white and dissipates. Whether or not the visible white steam is attached or detached is completely irrelevant. Turns out that steam becomes visible as soon as temps are low enough. This can easily happen in the flue and when ambient temps are well above freezing.
> 
> I am noticing that the very efficient stoves make very low flue temps and lots of steam. Smoke police need to be smarter if they hope to honestly identify smoke vs. Steam.
> 
> Think about fossil fuel chimneys or even automotive tail pipes. Lots of cool steam when efficiency is up.



I have taken several photos of my own stack.  I do not feel good about making reads from photos, and I believe it is specifically forbidden for (local ordinance required) level 9 EPA VEE's.

In the grabbed photo above there is that uppermost puff of white that might be steam or might be smoke.  Without being there live to watch it behave I am unwilling to call it either/or.  If I was standing there next to the photographer the right thing to do would be to read between the stack and plume if the steam plume is detached - very difficult given the lighting, or watch that upper most puff cloud to see how much grey is left behind as the white settles out if the plume is attached.

Either way, this particular home - not mine- is not one of the 20 or 30 or 100 worst burners in my air shed, within the limits of photography I think that is burning legally within the local ordinance.

That particular home owner is saving a LOT of money on his property taxes by not sheathing over the vapor barrier. If he does sheathe it the insulation envelope will not improve measurably, but his tax assessment and annual tax bill increase quite a bit.  What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home.  Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.


----------



## volunbeer

StihlKicking said:


> Are all OWB's banned in Washington state, even the EPA approved ones?




Yep.  Crazy thing is that the Garn when I researched it appears to be below the guidelines on particulate matter, but pretty much a blanket ban.   I actually thought about filing a suit using their own data, but I was told that I would be wasting my time.   $10,000 fine if you get caught running one.   Washington is dominated by the folks on the coast and a pretty rabid environmental lobby so they decided what was best for those of us who live in far less populated areas.    Ironic thing is that the same environmentalist are the ones who stop healthy forest practices out here so we suffer massive wildfires almost every year that put far more crap in the air in hours than all the woodstoves do in a year.   Go figure.


----------



## volunbeer

Poindexter said:


> That particular home owner is saving a LOT of money on his property taxes by not sheathing over the vapor barrier. If he does sheathe it the insulation envelope will not improve measurably, but his tax assessment and annual tax bill increase quite a bit.  What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home.  Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.



This is the kind of insanity that only government can provide.   This is the game that many local governments are playing for revenue and it just hurts the real property values of homes around them.


----------



## jetsam

Could you write to the


Poindexter said:


> .  What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home.  Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.



That is freaking nuts, but I'd go pull the siding off my house right now if it'd lower my property taxes... I could buy a house in a lot of the US for what these bloodsucking parasites charge for property taxes every year on LI.


----------



## rwhite

volunbeer said:


> This is the kind of insanity that only government can provide.   This is the game that many local governments are playing for revenue and it just hurts the real property values of homes around them.


I agree it's insane but it seems like it's the homeowner playing the game not the government.


----------



## volunbeer

rwhite said:


> I agree it's insane but it seems like it's the homeowner playing the game not the government.



The homeowner is playing the game the local government created.   I am not a fan of progressive taxation on property.   I look at it like this - first off - I pay sales tax and a pretty high one at that.   After that, we all want to support schools, roads, and necessary government services, but that was the original point of the sales tax.   My house and property are nice.  I get it.   I pay through the nose for it - literally.   For what I pay every month in property taxes I could purchase a brand new diesel 1-ton truck and pay the insurance.   I want to pay my fair share and I knew when I bought it.   However, having them tell me they will raise my taxes for any and every improvement I make on my own property is insane.   Paying 2000 bucks a year for a pasture and forest in my acreage is crazy.   It is a big game.   If I add a closet to the guest room in the basement they will raise my taxes.   If I mud and tape the sheetrock in the basement storage room they will count it as finished living space.   It is asinine and it erodes the genuine idea of private property ownership.   How can I ever own something if I have to pay the County more in taxes every month than what it costs to rent a nice apartment?


----------



## rwhite

volunbeer said:


> The homeowner is playing the game the local government created.   I am not a fan of progressive taxation on property.   I look at it like this - first off - I pay sales tax and a pretty high one at that.   After that, we all want to support schools, roads, and necessary government services, but that was the original point of the sales tax.   My house and property are nice.  I get it.   I pay through the nose for it - literally.   For what I pay every month in property taxes I could purchase a brand new diesel 1-ton truck and pay the insurance.   I want to pay my fair share and I knew when I bought it.   However, having them tell me they will raise my taxes for any and every improvement I make on my own property is insane.   Paying 2000 bucks a year for a pasture and forest in my acreage is crazy.   It is a big game.   If I add a closet to the guest room in the basement they will raise my taxes.   If I mud and tape the sheetrock in the basement storage room they will count it as finished living space.   It is asinine and it erodes the genuine idea of private property ownership.   How can I ever own something if I have to pay the County more in taxes every month than what it costs to rent a nice apartment?


If Washington taxes everything else like they do a pack of cigarettes then I feel your pain! Everywhere I have lived the taxes seemed to balance out. Seemed like if property taxes were low the sales and vehicle taxes were through the roof. One way or another they get their money. 

Sorry getting off topic.


----------



## Poindexter

There is a local cap on how much property tax the borough can collect.  They collect right up to the cap every year.  If all the occupied construction sites put up their sheathing tomorrow my taxes wouldnt go down very much really.


----------



## volunbeer

rwhite said:


> If Washington taxes everything else like they do a pack of cigarettes then I feel your pain! Everywhere I have lived the taxes seemed to balance out. Seemed like if property taxes were low the sales and vehicle taxes were through the roof. One way or another they get their money.
> 
> Sorry getting off topic.



No worries.   I gripe about it when it comes up, but otherwise I just suck it up and move on.   We have terrific public schools here that are very well funded so there is that bonus.   Otherwise, it is crazy.   I can buy local materials, hire local workers, and pay my permits if I wanted to add to my deck.   That generates economic activity and it is good for everyone.   However, the county will come along and raise my taxes whatever they feel is appropriate and I will pay for that deck the rest of my life.   It makes you feel (correctly) that you do not really own your home or property.   You "own it on paper" and you have to pay them to live there.   When the citizens lose control of taxes that are levied upon them the real owner of the property becomes government.   That is why we had a revolution.........


----------



## Highbeam

StihlKicking said:


> Are all OWB's banned in Washington state, even the EPA approved ones?



Wood furnaces too. The current Washington regs require a specific grams per hour max from solid fuel burners. None of the old furnaces could do it and modern furnaces don't test for gph but instead some other emission rate to comply with the new epa furnace testing protocol. So yeah, we can burn stoves still.


----------



## begreen

Poindexter said:


> Y'all, here is a screengrab of a NYT shot captioned "smoke billowing from a home outside Fairbanks, AK..."
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> View attachment 191249
> 
> 
> My opinion is the steam plume is attached to the stack.  Hard to be sure, on magnification the image pixelates too soon to be sure.  But it looks attached, so the ambient temp when this pic was taken was probably less than 0 dF.
> 
> I see a perfectly normal steam plume and woodsmoke opacity under 20% if the temp is negative.
> 
> Above 0dF if that is a detached plume I think the actual smoke that clears the steam plume is at or near 20 % opactiy, so a legal burn either way.
> 
> That ain't billowing smoke by any reasonable observation.  The reason the NYT published a pic of a steam plume is probably they didn't have time to look at 1000 stacks to find the one bad burner...
> 
> @begreen?
> 
> If you want to see a billowing cloud of smoke google up images related to "Wood River Elementary School Fairbanks Alaska Air Quality."


That was my thought when I read the article - why show a steam plume? I can head out with my camera and within 5 miles take several shots that would make that look like a clean air poster child.

What you point out is true here too. It only takes 20-30 yahoos in an area to trash the air for miles, especially during a temperature inversion, which are common in cold weather locally. And when one does it, that becomes justification for another.


----------



## rwhite

One other (uncontrollable? ) thing that adds to poor air quality is snow removal/clean up. This was a big issue when I lived in Missoula.  All the salt, gravel etc that is put down goes airborne when it dries and gets swept and driven on, this adds to the particulate levels. We would have no burn days quite often because of this. They werent about to quit using gravel and wood burning was easier to control. But the stoves became the poster child for bad air when in reality they still couldnt meet the standards because of dust.


----------



## Lake Girl

Thanks Poindexter for the explanation on the local situation.  While Canada has encouraged home owners to switch to EPA approved stoves, they have zero enforcement capacity ... no officials to check, quantify, warn or ticket.  In my area, it is more like Fairbanks in that negative days create that "smoke" plume that it more steam ... I know it's cold out when I can see the exhaust off the pellet stove.

Would the photographer even realize that was a steam plume rather than smoke ... how familiar are they with the difference?  How familiar is the average citizen with the difference?


----------



## rwhite

I doubt the average citizen would know or would have a bias toward the wood stove. What's coming out of the chimney is not much more that what comes out of my vent from a propane furnace. I would bet if you showed folks the steam coming off a furnace they wouldn't care "It's just steam". If you showed them the same thing off a chimney, then it's billowing smoke. Must be it's  a wood stove. As unbiased as an article may be pictures tell a story. If people are told that the picture represents smoke billowing out then that's the reference that will stick in their minds to make judgement from.


----------



## jetsam

Even if the guy in the photo is running the cleanest cat stove on the planet, he could have been reloading the stove when the photographer walked past.

Even if it is steam, that doesn't really point to dishonesty in the article to me. Would you expect a reporter and photographer to know the difference between a smoke plume and a steam plume, or even to know that clean burning stoves produce steam?

Whether smoke or steam or cotton candy is coming out of the pipe in the photo doesn't change the information in the article- some in the medical profession want the government to enforce clean air laws because their patients are suffering.

(I think they should let 'em suffer, because those same guys are probably going home from the doctor's office to post "GIT YER GUNS OBAMA COMIN TO TAYK MAH STOVE" on the internet... So I guess it's a good thing that I am not a doctor in Alaska. . ).

Edit: "I take that let 'em suffer" back, because it's the guy who lives on top of the hill with a smoke dragon who is choking out the guy who lives in the valley with a cat stove.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

The bright side is if they did clamp down on the old smoke dragons and beefed up the requirements for new stove s we may get some really good hi efficiency stoves out of the deal. I think the current lineup has a lot of room for improvement. Not all bad.


----------



## Highbeam

Seasoned Oak said:


> The bright side is if they did clamp down on the old smoke dragons and beefed up the requirements for new stove s we may get some really good hi efficiency stoves out of the deal. I think the current lineup has a lot of room for improvement. Not all bad.



The government still allows new masonry fireplaces to be built. You can't, buy, sell, install, or give away a pre-epa stove but you can pollute our air like mad with a brick fireplace. 

I hope the laws encourage more epa stoves too. Visible emissions are no longer an effective means of determining a clean burner. It's much easier and more conclusive to identify the epa label.


----------



## jatoxico

The unpleasant truth is burning wood does produce a lot of those harmful 2.5 um particles. For kicks (yeah my idea of kicks is strange) I dug up some numbers on different heat sources and their output of 2.5 particles. It's not that straight forward since most stove numbers are reported in some weight per time (e.g g/hr) while other sources like oil and NG are given in weight per energy released like mg/MJ. I checked the numbers on EPA stoves w/ some assumptions, namely a 30 lb load of wood and a 6 hr burn cycle which gives 3.96 g/hr. This meets EPA stage 2 I believe so I don't think they're way off. So...

NG 0.014 mg/MJ
Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
Pellet 25 mg/MJ
EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ

Real quick it's apparent that a conventional wood stove under test conditions puts out as much 2.5 as almost 1000 oil fired boilers per MJ of energy. Even our EPA stoves put out as much particles as >250 oil fired furnaces. 

Unlike wood burning, NG and oil fired furnaces probably put out pretty near their stated emissions no matter who the operator is,. Not so with wood as we know.

This is the reason that wood burning can only be part of the solution to any areas heating needs and why one knucklehead burning badly likely can exceed the stated numbers and consequently can do a lot to damage air quality in areas prone to air quality problems.

These were the numbers I was able to come up with. Anyone who can fact check/debunk these please do. I'm all about accurate info here but I think any way you slice it air quality is affected by wood burning and the EPA is not off base to monitor and make recommendations. Thankfully I don't live in an area that is subject to significant inversions or has a high density of other burners.


----------



## Highbeam

jatoxico said:


> The unpleasant truth is burning wood does produce a lot of those harmful 2.5 um particles. For kicks (yeah my idea of kicks is strange) I dug up some numbers on different heat sources and their output of 2.5 particles. It's not that straight forward since most stove numbers are reported in some weight per time (e.g g/hr) while other sources like oil and NG are given in weight per energy released like mg/MJ. I checked the numbers on EPA stoves w/ some assumptions, namely a 30 lb load of wood and a 6 hr burn cycle which gives 3.96 g/hr. This meets EPA stage 2 I believe so I don't think they're way off. So...
> 
> NG 0.014 mg/MJ
> Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
> Pellet 25 mg/MJ
> EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
> Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
> Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ
> 
> Real quick it's apparent that a conventional wood stove under test conditions puts out as much 2.5 as almost 1000 oil fired boilers per MJ of energy. Even our EPA stoves put out as much particles as >250 oil fired furnaces.
> 
> Unlike wood burning, NG and oil fired furnaces probably put out pretty near their stated emissions no matter who the operator is,. Not so with wood as we know.
> 
> This is the reason that wood burning can only be part of the solution to any areas heating needs and why one knucklehead burning badly likely can exceed the stated numbers and consequently can do a lot to damage air quality in areas prone to air quality problems.
> 
> These were the numbers I was able to come up with. Anyone who can fact check/debunk these please do. I'm all about accurate info here but I think any way you slice it air quality is affected by wood burning and the EPA is not off base to monitor and make recommendations. Thankfully I don't live in an area that is subject to significant inversions or has a high density of other burners.



Is the gph rating of a stove specifically grams of 2.5 particles? Of course, there are plenty of sub 1 gph stoves on the market but 4 gph isn't out of line. 

Setting a stove next to a furnace isn't telling the whole story though. Since wood burners are extremely rare one must look at context. So of the total pollutants in the air, how much is from transportation, dust, pollen, woodsmoke, etc. This would attempt to capture the actual value of harassing wood burners.


----------



## jatoxico

Highbeam said:


> Is the gph rating of a stove specifically grams of 2.5 particles? Of course, there are plenty of sub 1 gph stoves on the market but 4 gph isn't out of line.
> 
> Setting a stove next to a furnace isn't telling the whole story though. Since wood burners are extremely rare one must look at context. So of the total pollutants in the air, how much is from transportation, dust, pollen, woodsmoke, etc. This would attempt to capture the actual value of harassing wood burners.



Yes only data for 2.5 um particles. The picture gets much more complicated when you start trying to calculate the impact of transportation or using chainsaws. Too complicated for my simple mind but from the point of use standpoint you can see the potential problem. One bad burner putting out as much or more particulate as 1000 homes.

It would be nice if "they" would go after the worst offenders but no gov't entity is likely to want to try to take that on. Who's gonna stake the place out and gather the real data needed to be successful once the homeowner lawyers up and claims harassment? Unfortunately only real option is to just to treat everyone the same. I think the EPA has been fairly reasonable. Trying to push EPA stoves while monitoring overall air quality, continuing to collect data and making recommendations.

Of the things you mentioned (dust/pollen/transportation etc) the one with the realistic alternative is the wood burner. Seems they typically make exceptions for those burners who have no other source of heat.


----------



## jetsam

jatoxico said:


> NG 0.014 mg/MJ
> Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
> Pellet 25 mg/MJ
> EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
> Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
> Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ



It's probably worse than that, because  in addition to burning practices and fuel sources varying, oil and ng burners have one speed, and woodstoves and pellet stoves have variable burn rates, and I would be willing to bet that emissions per megajoule vary with burn rate.


----------



## jatoxico

jetsam said:


> It's probably worse than that, because  in addition to burning practices and fuel sources varying, oil and ng burners have one speed, and woodstoves and pellet stoves have variable burn rates, and I would be willing to bet that emissions per megajoule vary with burn rate.



Yes. The data reported was collected under some test condition. Was not looking to get too deep in the weeds but I've read some info on test conditions used and for sure I could see some real world practices doing much worse. To your point I read that easily 50% if not more of emissions occur during the kindling stage when the stove is not to temp. 

If that's the case then for an EPA stove and from an emissions standpoint, it would be better to get the stove to operating temp and keep it there. Again I could see it getting complicated when you start talking cat vs. non-cat as so forth so just generalizations. Perhaps next generation stoves will have to employ some type of pre-heater that uses electric made from coal fired plants, that gets mined and shipped by truck from...oh forget it!


----------



## Highbeam

jatoxico said:


> Yes only data for 2.5 um particles. The picture gets much more complicated when you start trying to calculate the impact of transportation or using chainsaws. Too complicated for my simple mind but from the point of use standpoint you can see the potential problem. One bad burner putting out as much or more particulate as 1000 homes.
> 
> It would be nice if "they" would go after the worst offenders but no gov't entity is likely to want to try to take that on. Who's gonna stake the place out and gather the real data needed to be successful once the homeowner lawyers up and claims harassment? Unfortunately only real option is to just to treat everyone the same. I think the EPA has been fairly reasonable. Trying to push EPA stoves while monitoring overall air quality, continuing to collect data and making recommendations.
> 
> Of the things you mentioned (dust/pollen/transportation etc) the one with the realistic alternative is the wood burner. Seems they typically make exceptions for those burners who have no other source of heat.



The "no other form of heat exemption" is no longer an option. You now must apply annually, be granted this exemption annually before burning, and money is no excuse. They made an extensive effort to squash that loophole. 

The epa has been fine. The problem is with the power hungry, politically biased, agenda driven local clean air agencies that do the actual smoke patrols and burn bans. They take it too far.


----------



## jetsam

jatoxico said:


> Yes. The data reported was collected under some test condition. Was not looking to get too deep in the weeds but I've read some info on test conditions used and for sure I could see some real world practices doing much worse. To your point I read that easily 50% if not more of emissions occur during the kindling stage when the stove is not to temp.
> 
> If that's the case then for an EPA stove and from an emissions standpoint, it would be better to get the stove to operating temp and keep it there. Again I could see it getting complicated when you start talking cat vs. non-cat as so forth so just generalizations. Perhaps next generation stoves will have to employ some type of pre-heater that uses electric made from coal fired plants, that gets mined and shipped by truck from...oh forget it!



Don't forget that oil and NG come from extraction operations, get shipped to giant refineries, which, though I don't know much about them, always seem to feature large smokestacks, and then shipped SE more.....

The one constant in any issue that people argue about is that whatever they're arguing about is more complex than either side will admit.

Both sides usually have someone who wants another gold-plated Learjet for their collection, so they both turn whatever the issue is into an Us Vs Them emotional argument, and the actual facts of the matter are gone forever.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

What about waste oil burning ? I'm a tech/ dealer and I see some nasty black smoke billowing all the time. And think about the sheet in that stuff.


----------



## jetsam

Lloyd the redneck said:


> What about waste oil burning ? I'm a tech/ dealer and I see some nasty black smoke billowing all the time. And think about the sheet in that stuff.



It's a common misperception that tiny airborne metallic particles and oil goo might be bad for you- fuelled by propaganda by those other guys that we hate!

Speaking as a totally sympathetic representative of the United Waste Oil Burning Equipment Manufacturers LLC, I can assure you that studies show that doctors agree that nothing is better for your lungs than a nice strong protective coating of tiny steel particles. At least, there is a lot of doubt around the issue, and the science isn't clear.

I'd like to close by pointing out that those guys we hate are out to get you. Stay strong, and protect YOUR childrens' lungs with a new waste oil burner today.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Haha. I'm going to be exiled now. It has its place because the disposal idiots like to do bad things and free heat and on site disposal can't be beat! The ash I have to clean out regularly has eaten the enamel off my fiberglass tub/shower. But it's safe. Right


----------



## begreen

It seems like man is the only animal that messes in his own bed.


----------



## Sprinter

begreen said:


> It seems like man is the only animal that messes in his own bed.


How many "likes" are we allowed for one post?


----------



## Sprinter

jetsam said:


> nothing is better for your lungs than a nice strong protective coating of tiny steel particles.


And the smaller, the better, so they can get even deeper into the alveoli, thus protecting us from all that nasty O2 getting into the the blood.


----------



## begreen

Many folks are too young to remember how crappy the air was in some areas before the Clean Air Act. 
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america


----------



## jetsam

begreen said:


> Many folks are too young to remember how crappy the air was in some areas before the Clean Air Act.
> http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america



You could also ask the Chinese how the industrial revolution works out when you don't have an EPA.


----------



## jetsam

Lloyd the redneck said:


> Haha. I'm going to be exiled now.



I wouldn't worry about that- the only people I've ever seen run out of here were advertisers.

Open debate and rational discussion generally sends trolls slinking off to look for easier targets.


----------



## begreen

jetsam said:


> You could also ask the Chinese how the industrial revolution works out when you don't have an EPA.


Or India, or Mongolia. Ulan Bator pollution can be worse than Beijing and frequently it is.
http://www.dw.com/en/air-pollution-smog-cities/a-18264278


----------



## Sprinter

begreen said:


> Many folks are too young to remember how crappy the air was in some areas before the Clean Air Act.
> http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america


I remember.  And I remember all the moaning and groaning and anger and general bitsing when someone tried to do something about it.  I can't even imagine what a place like LA would be like now without those efforts.  I've been there recently and you can actually breathe and see more than a block or two now, and that's with more population and cars on the road.


----------



## Sprinter

Oh, and remember when they took R12 away from cars' A/C?  So many people were afraid that they would never be able to cool their cars again.  My newish SUV could freeze me out if I let it...  And it's more reliable to boot.  And inflation-adjusted, the car is probably cheaper and so much nicer in spite of the low emissions.  Oh, and it gets 22 mpg.  My 1970's cars struggled to get 12.

Okay, I'll admit I wish I still had my 69 Camaro  Or the 65 Corvette Roadster.  Or the...


----------



## Poindexter

One other thing i should mention in case one of yall writes to the nyt.

My 2400 sqft suburban home, 4+ energy stars, consumes ~275 MBTU annually for heat and domestic hot water.  

In cold weather i keep the downstairs 100 sqft at +60dF with oil.  Upstairs thermostat is set at 62, i keep it a bit warmer than that with the wood stove.

When i get #2 fuel oil for the boiler delivered i calculate what a cord of spruce (18 MBTU) is worth to me btu for btu.  I looked at the price of a gym membership v whiskey and motrin, let go of it   simpler to just look at btu v btu and be aware of the consequences.

Today btu for btu against #2oil a cord of spruce is 'worth' $338 and costs $250 delivered.

A couple years ago #2 oil was north of 4 bucks a gallon, spruce was 'worth' almost $500 per cord and i was sitting on 12 cords of birch that cost me under $200 per cord including chainsaw fuel but not including accupuncture treatments.

Year in and year out Fairbanks has the second highest cost of living in the usa, second only to honolulu over and over and over.  If you love the outdoor wilderness and small government, this is the place to be.

My furnace guy wanted me to sink about $1500 into my furnace last year for a better burner.  I asked if it would save me any fuel and he said no.  Im still running the old one.

Ive no doubt oil and NG furnaces offer dramatically less emissions per btu delivered, and i am in favor of clean air.  Otoh i only have so much money to spend, and i buy a LOT of btus every year.

Fairbanks exists for two reasons.  We are the north end of the railroad for both oil pipeline maintenance and supplying gold miners. 

 Several trillion dollars of known gold deposits up here, all you got to do is look at the price of gold and the price of diesel
to decide if you can make a buck running your mine.  Everything else is support for those two economic engines, or strategic defense spending.


----------



## ddahlgren

volunbeer said:


> Yep.  Crazy thing is that the Garn when I researched it appears to be below the guidelines on particulate matter, but pretty much a blanket ban.   I actually thought about filing a suit using their own data, but I was told that I would be wasting my time.   $10,000 fine if you get caught running one.   Washington is dominated by the folks on the coast and a pretty rabid environmental lobby so they decided what was best for those of us who live in far less populated areas.    Ironic thing is that the same environmentalist are the ones who stop healthy forest practices out here so we suffer massive wildfires almost every year that put far more crap in the air in hours than all the woodstoves do in a year.   Go figure.



You can either manage a forest and clear excess fuel on the forest floor or wait for the fire to do it for you. There is nothing much more silly than a room of art history majors making decisions on managing a forest or deciding what is needed for clean combustion.


----------



## jatoxico

Highbeam said:


> The epa has been fine. The problem is with the power hungry, politically biased, agenda driven local clean air agencies that do the actual smoke patrols and burn bans. They take it too far.



Yeah I get it. It's easy to be philosophical about things when it's a theoretical discussion. When you're the one getting regulated it takes on a whole new color. Especially in those instances when the regulator can't see the forest for the trees as it were.


----------



## rwhite

It would be an interesting cost, btu,  emmisions discussion if everything was compared on a level playing field. What are the implications if we go from a tree in the forest to smoke out the chimney, and what is the environmental cost of getting a gallon of oil or NG out of the ground and to your door to burn it? Nothing is free. There's a lot of end users that claim that, but never figure the cost to get it to their door.


----------



## Jags

When the full and true life cycle of ANY product, be it energy or some other consumable, is taken into account it can often dramatically change the view of that product.  The hard part for some things (including fossil fuels) is following it from birth to death. Taking simple measurements at the final stage (death) is only telling part of the story.

Eating that heathy piece of fruit from Brazil?  Yeah, think about that one for a moment, from harvest, to transport, to packaging to shipping across the ocean, from the port to sitting on a shelf in a well lit grocery store, to being carried out in a non recyclable plastic bag to be driven home in that Ford F-150. To being eaten, with the peel or pit tossed into the garbage can to be hauled to a waste site where it rots and produces methane.  Life cycle - think about it sometime....it can be an eye opener.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

How much particulate matter and air pollution does a forest fire produce?  With global warming we will get more of those. Better to burn that wood inan EPA stove.


----------



## rawlins02

I was in Delhi India this time last year. By some measures the air is worse there than in Beijing. Shocking how toxic that air was. After 6 days I was choking with a massive case of acute bronchitis. Those photos in the Mother Jones article speak volumes. So glad the Clean Air Act has improved the quality of life for so many in this country. 

I've been more than ready, for the past year or two, to replace the old Vigilant I've been running for supplemental heat. But there are complications that I'll describe in a new post.


----------



## ddahlgren

All it takes is 1 volcano to undo the epa regs for 500 years.


----------



## begreen

ddahlgren said:


> All it takes is 1 volcano to undo the epa regs for 500 years.


Volcanoes have been erupting around the planet since it was born. That is part of the natural carbon cycle. 
"The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. "
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm


----------



## Highbeam

begreen said:


> Volcanoes have been erupting around the planet since it was born. That is part of the natural carbon cycle.
> "The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. "
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm



Are we talking CO2 or particulate? Whichever is convenient?


----------



## begreen

Yes, the thread has started to wander off topic. For volcanic influence, the particulate effect is a matter of a few years as opposed to the seasonal emissions of woodstoves. Wood burning effects also are regional usually. The SO2 effects of a volcano however are a whole nuther topic.


----------



## nola mike

begreen said:


> Yes, the thread has started to wander off topic. For volcanic influence, the particulate effect is a matter of a few years as opposed to the seasonal emissions of woodstoves. Wood burning effects also are regional usually. The SO2 effects of a volcano however are a whole nuther topic.


Great to combat global warming!


----------



## CenterTree

gregbesia said:


> I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.


True, but, You can lead a horse to water, but,,,,yadayadayada.


----------



## CenterTree

I didn't see anywhere in the article that mentions a difference between EPA stoves and the ols dragons.  The article just talked about wood stoves as a whole. Right?  
Yeah Olson mention about the guy he saw while in the cab as "having an old stove right there", but other than that little tidbit, nothing more on EPA stove as being better (or a solution for Alaskans).


----------



## Donk4kyv

rwhite said:


> Certainly EPA stoves are not a panacea.



Mine is a non-catalytic EPA stove that's supposed to be super-low in particulate emission.  But the secondary burn that consumes the particulates kicks in only when the fire burns hot.  Most of the time I don't need to run it that hot; it would waste the fuel that I break my back cutting, splitting and stacking, and I would probably have to crack a window to keep it comfortable inside, so I run the air between about 30-50% depending on what I'm burning, producing a comfortable temperature inside without guzzling wood.  Fortunately, I live on some acreage in the country with plenty of open space and no neighbours 50 ft away; the smell of smoke right outside my house is sometimes strong enough that I would not want to be the person living in a house next door to me less than a few hundred ft away. 

This doesn't affect me personally, since the only time I ever smell smoke inside the house is when I open the stove door to re-load neglecting to make sure I have a good draught going, or else I cut the air down too low too soon after a re-load and the thing back-puffs. But I don't think the air in a congested village where everyone on the street had a house and wood-burning system just like mine would be any better than I hear Beijing is on a smoggy day, although I like the smell of wood smoke a lot better than I like the smell of diesel, kerosene or coal. 

As far as the carbon footprint, many people can't understand that wood is not an offender.  Every tree that ever grew eventually dies and gives off CO2.  Whether a tree decomposes over time by rotting, or rapidly from burning, the net carbon emission is the same, part of the natural renewal cycle.  OTOH, fossil fuels release carbon that had been encapsulated in the ground for aeons back into the air, increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, taking us back, artificially, to a time when the planet was warmer and the CO2 level in the atmosphere was naturally higher than it is now.


----------



## bholler

Donk4kyv said:


> Mine is a non-catalytic EPA stove that's supposed to be super-low in particulate emission. But the secondary burn that consumes the particulates kicks in only when the fire burns hot. Most of the time I don't need to run it that hot; it would waste the fuel that I break my back cutting, splitting and stacking, and I would probably have to crack a window to keep it comfortable inside, so I run the air between about 30-50% depending on what I'm burning, producing a comfortable temperature inside without guzzling wood. Fortunately, I live on some acreage in the country with plenty of open space and no neighbours 50 ft away; the smell of smoke right outside my house is sometimes strong enough that I would not want to be the person living in a house next door to me less than a few hundred ft away.



That is why I never recommend harmans.  They do work well once people figure them out but they are hard to make work correctly and they really do need to be run hard.



Donk4kyv said:


> As far as the carbon footprint, many people can't understand that wood is not an offender. Every tree that ever grew eventually dies and gives off CO2. Whether a tree decomposes over time by rotting, or rapidly from burning, the net carbon emission is the same, part of the natural renewal cycle. OTOH, fossil fuels release carbon that had been encapsulated in the ground for aeons back into the air, increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, taking us back, artificially, to a time when the planet was warmer and the CO2 level in the atmosphere was naturally higher than it is now.



Wood burning is not carbon neutral.  It is much better than most but not neutral.  Yes if that wood was left to decompose with no organisms affecting it at all then you are right all of the carbon would be released into the environment.  But that is not how it works.


----------



## 73blazer

The EPA is off it's rocker alot of the time. Yeah, I don't want to turn into China where you can't breathe, some regulation is a good thing. But everything in moderation. Like Jags was saying, if you take into account everything, alot of regulations are ineffective at best, and detrimental at worst.Can anyone say, diesel engine emissions. FOrce OEM's to go from 0 to extreme restrictive in a few years time, at the cost of killing the diesel market, complicating diesel systems and destroying mileage. The latter of which makes the regulation, wholly ineffective. When your mileage goes from 20 to 14 for the same engine with emissions controls, how much spewing of emissions is required for those fuel trucks to haul fuel around to get it to you. More than your saving by mandating it in the first place.  
There's no good answers when it comes to wood stoves. Offsetting the cost of the stove partially is just the beginning. ALot of them require very expensive changes to install, be inspected, get approved by insurance companies depending on where you live. There's near 0 incentive for someone to swap their stove that has been serving them dutifully for decades. Some might take that as well, fine them, outlaw them, that's the absolute wrong way to go about it, unless you want a coup on your hands. How do you think Trump ended up in office. People are sick and tired of having fees, fines, regulations and everything else, shoved down their throats. Slow, slow change is the only way to regulate this stuff. Very slow...when it comes to wood stoves. 1/2 century is a good time limit to set in this case. Basically, you educate people about the new systems, and leave all the old systems to just burn themselves out, they will, it might take 50 years, but they will.


----------



## Highbeam

jatoxico said:


> The unpleasant truth is burning wood does produce a lot of those harmful 2.5 um particles. For kicks (yeah my idea of kicks is strange) I dug up some numbers on different heat sources and their output of 2.5 particles. It's not that straight forward since most stove numbers are reported in some weight per time (e.g g/hr) while other sources like oil and NG are given in weight per energy released like mg/MJ. I checked the numbers on EPA stoves w/ some assumptions, namely a 30 lb load of wood and a 6 hr burn cycle which gives 3.96 g/hr. This meets EPA stage 2 I believe so I don't think they're way off. So...
> 
> NG 0.014 mg/MJ
> Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
> Pellet 25 mg/MJ
> EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
> Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
> Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ
> 
> Real quick it's apparent that a conventional wood stove under test conditions puts out as much 2.5 as almost 1000 oil fired boilers per MJ of energy. Even our EPA stoves put out as much particles as >250 oil fired furnaces.
> 
> Unlike wood burning, NG and oil fired furnaces probably put out pretty near their stated emissions no matter who the operator is,. Not so with wood as we know.
> 
> This is the reason that wood burning can only be part of the solution to any areas heating needs and why one knucklehead burning badly likely can exceed the stated numbers and consequently can do a lot to damage air quality in areas prone to air quality problems.
> 
> These were the numbers I was able to come up with. Anyone who can fact check/debunk these please do. I'm all about accurate info here but I think any way you slice it air quality is affected by wood burning and the EPA is not off base to monitor and make recommendations. Thankfully I don't live in an area that is subject to significant inversions or has a high density of other burners.



So I was doing some reading in the 2016 EPA approved woodstove list and they have the pellet stoves in there too. Pellet stoves make the same particulate emissions as woodstoves, at least my two stoves, and have the same or worse efficiencies so why do you think that they only emit 25 mg/MJ vs. 1680 for a stove?


----------



## bholler

73blazer said:


> Slow, slow change is the only way to regulate this stuff. Very slow...when it comes to wood stoves. 1/2 century is a good time limit to set in this case. Basically, you educate the new, and leave all the old systems to just burn themselves out, they will, it might take 50 years, but they will.


And that is exactly how it is being done in almost every case but 50 years is pretty optimistic for the life of a stove.


----------



## jatoxico

Highbeam said:


> So I was doing some reading in the 2016 EPA approved woodstove list and they have the pellet stoves in there too. Pellet stoves make the same particulate emissions as woodstoves, at least my two stoves, and have the same or worse efficiencies so why do you think that they only emit 25 mg/MJ vs. 1680 for a stove?



Not really sure what you're saying but, _big but_, the numbers I found were values the authors selected and were from several years ago. That's why I tried to translate their stated number for an EPA stove back to g/hr to see if it made any sense at all. What any particular stove is capable of would vary. (and the 1680 was for an old conventional style woodstove). The EPA test results are just that, results from a specific test condition and not necessarily what the unit does in the real world, certainly would not be constant through the burn cycle.

I don't know how efficiency is being measured for a pellet or woodstove. I do know with oil burners the 86% or whatever they quote does not mean 86% of the available energy ends up in the house or water. It's a measure of the completeness of the burn I believe.

With a controlled system pellet stoves should be capable of providing an optimum fuel/air ratio (right at startup) so for a given amount of energy released they ought to be able to emit fewer particles than a system that has minimal control of air by comparison.


----------



## Highbeam

jatoxico said:


> Not really sure what you're saying but, _big but_, the numbers I found were values the authors selected and were from several years ago. That's why I tried to translate their stated number for an EPA stove back to g/hr to see if it made any sense at all. What any particular stove is capable of would vary. (and the 1680 was for an old conventional style woodstove). The EPA test results are just that, results from a specific test condition and not necessarily what the unit does in the real world, certainly would not be constant through the burn cycle. So mixing the EPA test method data with data that may have been gathered in a more realistic setting may be impossible.
> 
> I don't know how efficiency is being measured for a pellet or woodstove. I do know with oil burners the 86% or whatever they quote does not mean 86% of the available energy ends up in the house or water. It's a measure of the completeness of the burn I believe.
> 
> With a controlled system pellet stoves should be capable of providing an optimum fuel/air ratio (right at startup) so for a given amount of energy released they ought to be able to emit fewer particles than a system that has minimal control of air by comparison.



What stuck with me about the post you wrote earlier was that pellet stoves were super low emissions burners (25) compared to the broad woodstove category at 1680. It's just not so. The best pellet stoves are just as dirty and just as efficient as the best woodstoves. I know that it probably wasn't the intent of your post to compare pellets to wood in that way but it makes we question the rest of your numbers. Turns out that the ability to optimize air/fuel ratios, and control combustion with forced air, do not make the pellet stove any cleaner according to EPA testing.


----------



## bholler

Highbeam said:


> . Turns out that the ability to optimize air/fuel ratios, and control combustion with forced air, do not make the pellet stove any cleaner according to EPA testing.


Yes you are absolutely correct when it comes to the testing but the difference is in the real world pellet stoves operate much closer to those test results than wood stoves do.  There are just many fewer variables and much less room for human error with pellet stoves.


----------



## jatoxico

Highbeam said:


> What stuck with me about the post you wrote earlier was that pellet stoves were super low emissions burners (25) compared to the broad woodstove category at 1680. It's just not so. The best pellet stoves are just as dirty and just as efficient as the best woodstoves. I know that it probably wasn't the intent of your post to compare pellets to wood in that way but it makes we question the rest of your numbers. Turns out that the ability to optimize air/fuel ratios, and control combustion with forced air, do not make the pellet stove any cleaner according to EPA testing.



One thing I'm not understanding is the comparison of a pellet stove to an old conventional woodstove. I kind of understand if you were saying an EPA stove stove and pellet are similar in terms of particulate emission.

But even then, if you're taking current EPA data for emission of particulates for a pellet stove and EPA woodburner in g/hr and then comparing it to the data I put in the earlier post which is in mg/MJ I'm not sure if you can do that. An EPA stove under test conditions (e.g. to temp with standardized chimney etc) may put out the same 2.5PM in g/hr as a pellet stove for an hour or two but in the real world the stove has a cycle so if you capture particulate data over the cycle I can see the pellet stove winning out.

As I said earlier it was estimated that as much 50% or more of EPA stove emissions occurred during the kindling stage. So an EPA certified stove has a certain capability under test conditions but that's not to say it's always achieving that where as a pellet stove ought to be pretty constant which may explain the difference.

Not sure if any of this helps to explain the data I found. To me though a pellet stove is more like a carburetor for wood so I don't find it hard to at all to believe that a pellet stove gets more energy out of a 100g of fuel than does an EPA stove, than does a old steel box, than does an open fireplace.


----------



## Donk4kyv

bholler said:


> Wood burning is not carbon neutral.  It is much better than most but not neutral.  Yes if that wood was left to decompose with no organisms affecting it at all then you are right all of the carbon would be released into the environment.  But that is not how it works.



But aren't the organisms affecting the dead wood carbon based as well, and release CO2 when they eventually die and decompose?  If decomposing wood isn't carbon neutral, where is the extra carbon coming from?  Or when burning wood, where does any emitted carbon come from that wasn't originally in the tree, extracted from CO2 in the air and maybe from nutrients in the soil that originally got their carbon from CO2 in the air?


----------



## rwhite

The conversation is starting to drift from harmful emmisions to CO. Yes rotting wood creates CO as does burning wood as does forest fires as does a lot of things. Rotting wood does not create a layer of smoke and particulates that get trapped under an inversion and people have to breathe. Forest fires create the same emmisions as a wood stove. But, by and large they occur when the air has a better chance of dissipating it. What is concerning the folks in AK and many communities is what is causing the poor air quality at the time it's a problem (winter). The lack of logging,  forest fires, or decaying trees is not the present problem they are trying to solve. How do they reduce the particulates trapped under an inversion?


----------



## georgepds

begreen said:


> Many folks are too young to remember how crap was in some areas before the Clean Air Act.
> http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america




Dont forget the rivers.. I fell into the Charles in the 70s and got the drip... without the pleasure of an intimate encouner


Ill take the epa rules any day to the false river clap


----------



## volunbeer

Despite the politics and the best intentions, man-made global warming is simply false.   The sun is the heater of our solar system and all the variables that go into it - orbit, solar activity, weather patterns, and countless other things we understand and don't understand create what we know as the climate cycle.   However, the sun is the engine of our climate - always has been and always will be.   In fact, the sun is so powerful at dictating the temperature of the Earth that our planet would not support life as we know it if our orbit around the sun was a little closer or a little farther away from the big red ball.

Our planet is incredibly adaptable and the concept of homeostasis (a balance) that we see throughout nature takes place on a macro scale as one system acts to counterbalance another system.   If this did not exist we would not be here because our Earth has survived some major events far beyond our imaginations.    How is climate measured by the earth?  Is it in centuries, millennia, or eons?  We don't really know.   However, from a geological standpoint - we are irrelevant to the Earth, our solar system, and the universe.   The crap (yes, it is crap) we see on the news about warmest year ever, warmest decade on record, etc etc is ridiculous.   We measure time in generations.  Those are statistically irrelevant to the age of the Earth (either by creation or primordial soup) and a speck of dust to the universe.  

If you look at the money we are spending to combat a non-existent issue (I can't call it a problem because a rise of the mean Earth temperature by a few degrees would be beneficial to mankind, animals, and plant life) it is sickening.  This has become a political pinata that fearmongers can hit with a stick to get candy and gain control over us.   Almost every answer they propose to the issue involves taxes, crony-capitalism or programs that benefit them and their friends, and a nanny state where human activity can be controlled.    I would be glad to debate the issue from a simple science standpoint and while none of us (certainly myself) knows exactly what will happen in our lifetimes the science of the sun indicates a period of slight cooling in the immediate future.  This is why even the diehards have changed the terminology to "climate change" instead of global warming.   It is not getting warmer and it has definitely been warmer in human history than it is presently. 

To help them accomplish their political goals, they have declared one of the most vital gases on our plant (CO2) as a pollutant.   Without it we would all die.  Simple.  It does not harm us and it benefits plants, which in turn, benefits us.   Furthermore, if you objectively study the unproven model of greenhouse gases and their effect on micro-climate (none of us will see a macro-climate during our lifetime) you will find that CO2 is not a cause - it is an effect.  It is a minimal effect to their own model so why did they target it?  Easy answer, it is the easiest to regulate and tax.    They also completely ignore the "natural" sources of CO2 that dwarf the activities of man. 

As someone who studied (and loves) science the whole charade frustrates me greatly.   In my lifespan (again irrelevant to "climate") I have seen hysteria about a coming ice age, heard about peak oil (energy), the population bomb, peak food, and most of all - global warming.   None of these have come true and you can go read the predictions yourself - they are all over the web.  If we trust the hypothesis what happened to their predictions?  They did not happen.  Period.   None of them have come true.   We find more oil all the time because carbon and hydrogen plus heat in the crust of the Earth creates oil and gas.   We find ways to more efficiently create energy and food and the standard of living of the global population statistically increases.  

With that said, we should take care of our air, water, and in general (like all things in life) leave a better place for our children and grandchildren.   There is a place for the EPA and a place for laws and regulations to influence human activity in so far as it impacts the environment.   However, I will endlessly debate that we could do far more good with the money we spend (seen and unseen) on this problem by making the world a better place (simple things like clean water and basic sanitation would greatly improve life in the third world) and in turn, that would likely increase the wealth and health of those people who in turn, like us, would eventually have more wealth to spend keeping the world clean.  That is a proven cycle in human history.   Wealth is the best thing for the environment.  Poverty is the worst. 

The EPA has gotten carried away and there needs to be a cost-benefit calculation to their actions that everyone can see and understand.  I think many of us would be shocked at what some "environmental protections" have costs us in real terms versus what the benefit has been to a region, the nation, and the planet.    On top of that, look at some of the "green" solutions they promote!  Ethanol gasoline inefficiently using food as fuel that harms motors, mercury filled lightbulbs that will make landfills (using their own numbers for acceptable mercury) superfund cleanup sites, attacking the timber industry fueling massive wildfires and causing regional economic depression/poverty, ineffective wind turbines that kill birds, bats, and bees, etc etc.   The list is long and shameful so one has to ask the simple question - who benefited from such decisions and programs?

In so far as "wood burning" is concerned it does not impact the macro-climate in any measurable way.   However, it can definitely impact your neighbors and communities (micro-climates) if everyone is choking on woodsmoke (due to inversions and stagnant air).   I would argue that such an issue should be addressed at the local level.  EPA has already taken the biggest corrective action by setting basic standards for wood burning devices, but they won't stop there if history shows us anything - they will continue to regulate and tighten controls until there are no more woodstoves.   I have even heard proposals in some environmental fanatic circles that they would like to put "measuring devices" on our stacks so they can "tax" us for our output (since they already heavily tax power).   That is where an agency without adequate oversight ends up.......... the nanny state.


----------



## bholler

Donk4kyv said:


> But aren't the organisms affecting the dead wood carbon based as well, and release CO2 when they eventually die and decompose? If decomposing wood isn't carbon neutral, where is the extra carbon coming from? Or when burning wood, where does any emitted carbon come from that wasn't originally in the tree, extracted from CO2 in the air and maybe from nutrients in the soil that originally got their carbon from CO2 in the air?


Yes but then does all of the carbon from those organisms get released into the atmosphere?  No the same as the tree some gets released into the ground some gets eaten by other organisms and yes some goes into the atmosphere.   Like i said before wood is much better as far as carbon goes than fossil fuels but it is still not neutral.


----------



## bholler

volunbear while I like the fact that you admit we need to protect our air and water.  There are so many inaccuracies in your post I don't know where to start.


----------



## rwhite

Once again, the folks in Fairbanks aren't trying to solve or combat climate change or global warming.  They just want cleaner air in the winter time. All the discussions of CO, CO2, what maybe carbon neutral,  clean coal, whether moon landing was staged, and grassy knolls do nothing to help or alleviate the problem of folks having to sit under an envelope of dirty air all winter.


----------



## Phoenix Hatchling

As an aside to the current path that the conversation has taken, and I am certainly both glad and surprised it has remained as civil as it's has, I would like to pose a quick observation/question. 

My father just now was outside hanging some laundry and called me outside because of an off smell. The smell I detected was what I had found when my stove was burning hot and cleanly. Definitely chemical in nature. Never gave it much thought as to what it was I was smelling. He referred to it in German as being called Karbol. Said it was a very potent disinfectant and had to be careful with it. Trying to find a translation, I could only come up with phenol or carbolic acid. Is this a by-product of burning cycle of an EPA stove as the gases and particulates re-burn? Is THAT in and of itself dangerous/toxic?


----------



## jatoxico

volunbeer said:


> If you look at the money we are spending to combat a non-existent issue



VB, to say it's a non-existent issue contradicts a lot of what you later said about how much about the science about global climate remains unknown. IMO we're better to continue to try to limit green house gas emissions because we cannot wait to see if the theory of climate change turns out to be largely correct. In the meantime we will get cleaner air, water etc. I'm sure there will be waste and ridiculous programs along the way and someone will put some money in their pocket, same old same.

To the point of the thread, forest fires and others sources of particulate are bigger offenders than wood stoves here in the US and in other developed countries (not so everywhere). But even though many areas _could_ have been affected they _are_ having a problem in Fairbanks. So they want to take steps to limit those sources within their control and a poorly run wood stove can actually contribute to poor AQ on a small scale in an area prone to problems. To think that wood burning doesn't pose a risk is putting your head in the sand, just look at any populated area where the predominate source of heating/cooking is wood.


----------



## volunbeer

Temperature, as used by those who support the idea of global warming, is controlled by the sun.    I want clean air and I want clean water.   There are plenty of places we can do better with our environment, but they are the ones who targeted CO2 emissions, not me.   CO2 does not make dirty air nor does it make dirty water, yet they have targeted it as a greenhouse gas and it is what we spend the most money on.   Furthermore, global warming is just that - a global concept where we are told our actions here impact everyone on the globe and future generations.   If our nation spends many billions of dollars to combat global warming here in the United States to "make the future better" for very minimal impact would we not be better off promoting basic projects (that would cost much less) in Africa or Asia to reduce CO2 or clean up the water in our oceans?   How about a simple exercise - take the old scrubbers from our domestic coal plants that are replaced by newer (and better) scrubbers as required by our EPA and install them in a coal plant elsewhere?   They would represent a drastic improvement in the emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere versus what we require here in the U.S. (and other Western nations).    

Again, if it is a global problem (their words - not mine), and CO2 is the culprit (their words - not mine), then let us help the third world with the basic steps to reduce it that we accomplished over a decade ago.   Why not spend the "carbon credits" (a tax) that government in the West has levied on us all where it would be most effective - in the third world?   Same for water.   The idea that so many in the third world suffer disease and so many plants and animals are killed from water pollution (again, it is one planet) that is avoidable at minimal expense by our standards is illogical as their pollution impacts us all - not just them.   Hypothetically, If we required a company to spend 25 million dollars for a reduction of CO2 output by 25 tons would we not be better off spending that same money to reduce carbon output at a coal plant in Asia by 250 tons or 2500 tons?    CO2 is their argument not mine.  

I am not snarky about it and I won't get nasty towards anyone.   We are all entitled to our opinion, but the opinion should be based in science and logic.   I am not advocating "doing nothing" to make air and water cleaner.   I think we have made great strides here in our own nation and in the West in general in doing so, and the EPA has certainly led the way.   I am only pointing out that we could have a far bigger impact around the world on the problem they call "the biggest crisis facing civilization".  Would we not have a far bigger impact on the problem as they define it by cleaning up the coal stacks in the third world or donating our old scrubbers to plants there that would represent a huge leap forward for them measured by 10, 25, or 50% reduction versus mandating that customers here in the U.S. pay extra on their utility bills for a 1% reduction?   Would that not make more sense and be more intellectually honest?   In reality, we in the U.S. are being heavily taxed to fix the problem, yet they spend most of the money on other things.   Why not help developing nations to make the huge strides we made decades ago in cleaner air and cleaner water if we are fighting a global problem (again, their own words)?   

I am not advocating doing nothing for the environment.   I am highly skeptical of "global warming" as it is presently defined and described, but I am not a skeptic about the need for clean air and clean water.   I do not believe CO2, as they describe it, is a pollutant.  "Ethyl-Methyl Bad Stuff" (to borrow the phrase in the hazmat business) are pollutants.   I think we should be transparent about what we are spending money on and what the result is.   I think we could look at the problem (clean air and clean water) differently and if we (taxpayers and utility users) want the bigger bang for the buck in making the Earth's environment better there are far better ways (and places) we could spend the money than fighting carbon emissions.


----------



## Highbeam

jatoxico said:


> So they want to take steps to limit those sources within their control and a poorly run wood stove can actually contribute to poor AQ on a small scale in an area prone to problems. To think that wood burning doesn't pose a risk is putting your head in the sand, just look at any populated area where the predominate source of heating/cooking is wood.



I agree. The EPA has broad rules about wood emissions from devices. They further have criteria for something called a "non-attainment area" that despite the emissions regulations for new stoves, the air in those areas is measured to still be too dirty. The EPA then brings down a hammer on local areas by fining them and removing their eligibility for all kinds of federal funds. So the local guys get a chance to clean up those areas and some pretty crazy things can happen. I live near one of these non-attainment areas (that recently reattained "Clean" status) and the local air control authorities have tried some pretty wild stuff. The biggest one was passing a law that no non-EPA stoves are allowed anymore, no grandfathering in, you just can't burn it. Other things are extremely arbitrary and stupid burn bans, wood stove changeout programs, and actual enforcement of current laws regarding smoke emissions. Masonry fireplaces are still allowed

States can also invent their own wood stove emissions rules that are stricter than the EPA. My state requires even more stringent particulate emissions ratings than the EPA and outright bans all wood boilers.

None of us want our neighbors to suffer because of our wood burning. Unfortunately, the local air guys get desperate and dumb when trying to meet EPA clean air regulations. We wood burners are not well represented or protected politically so we are quickly thumped.


----------



## jatoxico

Highbeam said:


> The EPA then brings down a hammer on local areas by fining them and removing their eligibility for all kinds of federal funds. So the local guys get a chance to clean up those areas and some pretty crazy things can happen. I live near one of these non-attainment areas (that recently reattained "Clean" status) and the local air control authorities have tried some pretty wild stuff. The biggest one was passing a law that no non-EPA stoves are allowed anymore, no grandfathering in, you just can't burn it. Other things are extremely arbitrary and stupid burn bans, wood stove changeout programs, and actual enforcement of current laws regarding smoke emissions.



It's true you can caught between a bureaucratic decision made from 20,000 ft and one vocal citizen at the local town meeting. Hopefully reason prevails but there's no guarantee. If that started happening here by me there would be no chance for a granular look at who was really causing a problem vs who was following good practices and running clean. They would just ban. From Poindexters post it sounds like in AK they are at least trying to ID the worst offenders first.


----------



## ddahlgren

Silly or maybe not so silly but do they have natural gas available or am I wrong in assuming where there is oil there is natural gas to be had as well?


----------



## Phoenix Hatchling

I don't know about up there, but here in CT natural gas isn't available. Propane yes, but pricey.


----------



## jatoxico

From the article;

_Residents are also trapped, he said, by economics. Natural gas, a much cleaner fuel source, is not widely available in this part of Alaska, and heating oil can be very expensive. Oil also produces particulate pollution, though less than wood. A study for the borough last year said residents here spent, on average, almost four times the national average in annual heating costs._


----------



## ddahlgren

Phoenix Hatchling said:


> I don't know about up there, but here in CT natural gas isn't available. Propane yes, but pricey.



The locals in SE CT are trying to block a NG pipeline that will be underground and won't even know it is there beyond a line on a map. They claim to be environmental opponents of the plan and skip over the part of how clean it burns and how much money it could save. I would love to have NG in my house for heating and cooking rather than oil and propane now. I have coal now rather than wood as it is just too much work and frustration dealing with wood sellers here and just plain surrendered. A good coal stove is no more dirty than wood in any way. They have had secondary air since around 1910 and you can see the blue flames come off the coal fire burning gas and particulates and just like a wood stove that is when you run them hard enough to get into their so called sweet spot. Idling just an orange glow in fire pot.


----------



## Phoenix Hatchling

ddahlgren said:


> The locals in SE CT are trying to block a NG pipeline that will be underground and won't even know it is there beyond a line on a map. They claim to be environmental opponents of the plan and skip over the part of how clean it burns and how much money it could save. I would love to have NG in my house for heating and cooking rather than oil and propane now. I have coal now rather than wood as it is just too much work and frustration dealing with wood sellers here and just plain surrendered. A good coal stove is no more dirty than wood in any way. They have had secondary air since around 1910 and you can see the blue flames come off the coal fire burning gas and particulates and just like a wood stove that is when you run them hard enough to get into their so called sweet spot. Idling just an orange glow in fire pot.



Wish I had the option of NG. Clean as can be as so efficient. Had it in White Plains all my life and to be hamstringed with oil now sucks. I do enjoy the wood and pellets though!


----------



## Poindexter

ddahlgren said:


> Silly or maybe not so silly but do they have natural gas available or am I wrong in assuming where there is oil there is natural gas to be had as well?



There is lots of NG at the oil wells on the north slope.  There is no ng pipeline.  It is cheaper in anchorage ak to buy ng from the phillipines by the tanker ship load rather than from the north slope one tractor trailer load at a time.


----------



## jpowell1979

DBoon said:


> Maybe someone who actually lives in Fairbanks, Alaska can chime in on this one...


We've been fighting the EPA in Fairbanks for 25 years.  The impacted area is in the bottom of a bowl surrounded by hills on 3 sides.  When it gets -40 below a very strong temperature inversion traps the air in the bottom of the valley.  

The EPA started with carbon monoxide from idling vehicles in 1991 creating a multi million dollar emission testing program.  EFI technology advances on vehicles fixed the CO problem so the local bureaucrats took on PM 2.5 to save their jobs.  Now all the former vehicle inspectors are wood stove cops.  

The funny thing is that the air is cleaner now then it ever was growing up.  There are a few neighborhoods that are worse but overall most areas don't have any issues at all.  Of course all the government air quality testers were located at the worst possible areas to make it look worse in order to obtain more and more funding.

Most residents are against the programs and we have voted down numerous regulations through citizens initiatives.
http://old.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/AQNearRealTime.aspx


----------



## Phoenix Hatchling

jpowell1979 said:


> We've been fighting the EPA in Fairbanks for 25 years.  The impacted area is in the bottom of a bowl surrounded by hills on 3 sides.  When it gets -40 below a very strong temperature inversion traps the air in the bottom of the valley.
> 
> The EPA started with carbon monoxide from idling vehicles in 1991 creating a multi million dollar emission testing program.  EFI technology advances on vehicles fixed the CO problem so the local bureaucrats took on PM 2.5 to save their jobs.  Now all the former vehicle inspectors are wood stove cops.
> 
> The funny thing is that the air is cleaner now then it ever was growing up.  There are a few neighborhoods that are worse but overall most areas don't have any issues at all.  Of course all the government air quality testers were located at the worst possible areas to make it look worse in order to obtain more and more funding.
> 
> Most residents are against the programs and we have voted down numerous regulations through citizens initiatives.
> http://old.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/AQNearRealTime.aspx



Hah! Sounds like a program for energy efficiency initiative we HAD to implement in the school district I work in. All walkin fridges and freezers were put on monitors which cycled and regulate the new fan motors, condensers and door defrosters dependent on ambient air temp, humidity, etc. Since its installation, we have had numerous failures, and complications which required service. In addition, in order to demonstrate its  efficacy, they used a two week period IN THE SUMMER, when school was not in session, to gather data to back up their assertion of energy savings.


----------



## begreen

jpowell1979 said:


> We've been fighting the EPA in Fairbanks for 25 years.  The impacted area is in the bottom of a bowl surrounded by hills on 3 sides.  When it gets -40 below a very strong temperature inversion traps the air in the bottom of the valley.
> The EPA started with carbon monoxide from idling vehicles in 1991 creating a multi million dollar emission testing program.  EFI technology advances on vehicles fixed the CO problem so the local bureaucrats took on PM 2.5 to save their jobs.  Now all the former vehicle inspectors are wood stove cops.
> 
> *The funny thing is that the air is cleaner now then it ever was growing up.  There are a few neighborhoods that are worse but overall most areas don't have any issues at all.*  Of course all the government air quality testers were located at the worst possible areas to make it look worse in order to obtain more and more funding.
> 
> Most residents are against the programs and we have voted down numerous regulations through citizens initiatives.
> http://old.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/AQNearRealTime.aspx


Progress! Sounds like a net positive gain.


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> We've been fighting the EPA in Fairbanks for 25 years.
> 
> 
> The funny thing is that the air is cleaner now then it ever was growing up.
> 
> Most residents are against the programs and we have voted down numerous regulations through citizens initiatives.
> http://old.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/AQNearRealTime.aspx


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> Temperature, as used by those who support the idea of global warming, is controlled by the sun.


yes the heat is created by the sun you are correct but the amount of heat allowed in and the amount of heat held in is dictated by the makeup of our atmosphere.


----------



## jpowell1979

The vehicle emission program was a complete waste of money.  It was $100 a year for the shop to plug into the OBD port and check any engine diagnosis codes.  They weren't even doing tailpipe measurements towards the end.

The wood stove regulations which immediately replaced the outgoing vehicle program bought out a bunch of outdoor boilers and provided rebates for new stoves but have not really had much impact.  The change is that 30 years ago everyone burned wood and coal and now most burn heating oil.  No one pays any attention to the unenforced  burn bans which include even the newest most efficient pellet stoves in the same group as a barrel stove.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## jpowell1979

Funny how wood smoke suddenly became a big problem when 30 government employees no longer had a job.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## bholler

jpowell1979 said:


> The change is that 30 years ago everyone burned wood and coal and now most burn heating oil. No one pays any attention to the unenforced burn bans which include even the newest most efficient pellet stoves in the same group as a barrel stove.


do you have any data to back up the claim that the clean air initiative did not cause the improvements?


----------



## jpowell1979

There are no bad air days when there is no temperature inversion.  It is insane to consider they are sending millions of dollars to attack wood burning based on exceeding a made up pollution number a couple times annually.




The only thing that changed is that the EPA lowered the bar on PM 2.5 twice.  Once in 2006 and again in 2012.  In 2005 it was not even an issue that was being looked at.  Notice the summertime levels from forest fires.


----------



## Poindexter

@Highbeam , now that your area is 'clean' did the air cops go back their old jobs as museum docents and espresso artists?


----------



## begreen

There are very few EPA air cops in this region. Most regulation is at the state and regional level. Locally it's the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
http://www.pscleanair.org/Pages/default.aspx


----------



## Highbeam

Poindexter said:


> @Highbeam , now that your area is 'clean' did the air cops go back their old jobs as museum docents and espresso artists?



No, they see it as a feather in their cap. The local clean air agency lumped the whole county together with this non-attainment area (Tacoma) with regards to burn bans. Our counties are huge and this local clean air agency has jurisdiction over several counties including Seattle's county and Everett's county. It's hard to say what caused the change in attainment status but it is a good thing and I hope this causes them to be more reasonable about how/when they ban burning.

I still think with cheap fossil fuel, young folks not wanting to put forth effort for wood heat, much cleaner burning automobiles, and gradual removal of pre-EPA woodstoves, that it was just a matter of time before average air quality improved.

Remember the school busses when we were kids? Every time they accelerated they would blast out an enormous cloud of soot. Same with all diesels. They don't do that anymore. You can't even park a modern car in the garage with the door closed to kill yourself anymore, they burn too cleanly.


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> There are no bad air days when there is no temperature inversion.  It is insane to consider they are sending millions of dollars to attack wood burning based on exceeding a made up pollution number a couple times annually.
> View attachment 191434
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that changed is that the EPA lowered the bar on PM 2.5 twice.  Once in 2006 and again in 2012.  In 2005 it was not even an issue that was being looked at.  Notice the summertime levels from forest fires.
> View attachment 191435


So it appears that each of the bars on the graph is approximately 180 days. Hard to tell but maybe 1/3 of the days from Oct to Apr are exceeding. Sitting in poor air quality for 60 days doesn't sound to fun. But, how do you fix those 60 days? Burn bans,  better stoves? I don't have the answer but it seems that the local folks are trying to find one. But as you stated "no one pays attention  to the enforced burn bans" . So there's a rule, which is not enforced, and folks are upset when a bigger hammer is suggested? If they won't police themselves someone will be along to do it for them.


----------



## jpowell1979

Each bar is one year.  The worst year had 11 measured days that exceeded the lower standards.  Keep in mind that these measurements were taken at the very worst spot as determined my mobile monitoring.  Most areas out of the 180 square miles impacted never had a problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Highbeam

jpowell1979 said:


> Each bar is one year.  The worst year had 11 measured days that exceeded the lower standards.  Keep in mind that these measurements were taken at the very worst spot as determined my mobile monitoring.  Most areas out of the 180 square miles impacted never had a problem.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk



And there is the biggest problem that I have. Cherry picking the data to label the whole county (or city, whatever) as "dirty". The line for which has been progressively and arbitrarily lowered to the point of just aggressive enough to avoid total revolt. If you have an agenda to ban all burning forever then you can purposely screw these things up.


----------



## jpowell1979

Yes, why should I stop burning pellets in my Harmon XXV because of an outdoor coal boiler is belching smoke 20 miles away?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> Each bar is one year.  The worst year had 11 measured days that exceeded the lower standards.  Keep in mind that these measurements were taken at the very worst spot as determined my mobile monitoring.  Most areas out of the 180 square miles impacted never had a problem.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


I was looking at the upper graph with the alternating grey/white bars. So I'm assuming the 2 graphs correlate and they consider winter as the period from 10/5 to 4/5. So for that 180 day period in 2009 they exceeded aprx. 32 days or about 17% of the time.


----------



## jpowell1979

rwhite said:


> I was looking at the upper graph with the alternating grey/white bars. So I'm assuming the 2 graphs correlate and they consider winter as the period from 10/5 to 4/5. So for that 180 day period in 2009 they exceeded aprx. 32 days or about 17% of the time.


Maybe the EPA will cut the limit in half again and we can say that every day is in violation.  Imagine the headlines and unlimited funding that would be available then.  Based on 2005 regulations levels there were only two wintertime exceedance events in the past decade.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> Maybe the EPA will cut the limit in half again and we can say that every day is in violation.  Imagine the headlines and unlimited funding that would be available then.  Based on 2005 regulations levels there were only two wintertime exceedance events in the past decade.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


So say that 1 stove won't violate emmisions,  maybe 10 stoves won't. What recourse would a person have that has to live next to that? I supposed they could complain but if your not exceeding emmisions what could be done? Everyone says this type of thing should be handled on the local level. So why wasn't it done. To claim that smoke trapped under an inversion has no effect is just wrong. Maybe if people wouldn't violate burn bans they wouldn't have any violations? And it's not the EPA running around sniffing tail pipes and ticketing wood burners. They a set a standard and it's up to the states/counties to comply. If they choose to go after wood burners rather than a coal plant, then that's a local issue.


----------



## Poindexter

jpowell1979 said:


> We've been fighting the EPA in Fairbanks for 25 years.  The impacted area is in the bottom of a bowl surrounded by hills on 3 sides.  When it gets -40 below a very strong temperature inversion traps the air in the bottom of the valley.



This bears repeating and I am chagrined I didn't mention it on page two.  In milder weather, no inversion layer, no AQ issues.  Last winter, 2015/16, we never made it down to -30dF and never had, that I recall, a stage III event.

I live on the very western edge of the rectangle of death.   Local to me inversion layers set up around -30dF and clear off around -29dF.  I am not going to argue with anyone else's impressions or numbers, I think we all agree we don't have an AQ problem at -10dF or -15dF...




jpowell1979 said:


> The EPA started with carbon monoxide from idling vehicles in 1991 creating a multi million dollar emission testing program.



I was here for the tail end of the vehicle emissions testing in 2008/09/10.  Just stupid.  I had to pay $100 for someone to look at my dashboard to confirm there was no check engine light, and pass an OBDII scan.  With the one allowed error I could have been running hollowed out catalyst chambers on my 2004 LS1, passed visual (if they had opened the hood) and passed the OBDII ping. 




jpowell1979 said:


> EFI technology advances on vehicles fixed the CO problem so the local bureaucrats took on PM 2.5 to save their jobs.  Now all the former vehicle inspectors are wood stove cops.
> 
> The funny thing is that the air is cleaner now then it ever was growing up.  There are a few neighborhoods that are worse but overall most areas don't have any issues at all.  Of course all the government air quality testers were located at the worst possible areas to make it look worse in order to obtain more and more funding.
> 
> Most residents are against the programs and we have voted down numerous regulations through citizens initiatives.
> http://old.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/AQNearRealTime.aspx



I have only been here since 2008.  I know once it is cold enough for an inversion to set up our little micro airshed stops carrying pollutants away.  If we all heat with oil or propane, no wood or coal, and all ride public buses only back and forth to work ( no personal vehicles) a long enough inversion event will still get us to unhealthy air.

One thing that bugs me is there is no incentive in the local ordinance for woodburners to upgrade.  I suggested to the assembly in open comment that pre-EPA stoves should be shut down during stage I, only EPA stoves rated 2.5g/hr or less should be allowed to operate during stage II and only EPA stoves rated 1.5 or 1.25 g/hr and less should be legal to operate during stage III events.  Instead, my 1.2g/hr stove is treated the same as the smoke dragon I inherited from my grandfather.  Stupid.

I honestly do not feel the EPA or the borough assembly is really interested in clean air.  If they really wanted me to have clean air year round they would have shut down those last 20-30 billowing smokestacks in 2014 and have 2 years of good data that would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that forest fires near town need to be managed better.


----------



## Poindexter

rwhite said:


> So say that 1 stove won't violate emmisions,  maybe 10 stoves won't. What recourse would a person have that has to live next to that? I supposed they could complain but if your not exceeding emmisions what could be done? Everyone says this type of thing should be handled on the local level. So why wasn't it done.



The Fairbanks ordinance is complaint driven.  My neighborhood, finally, is clean.  We had three OWBs within a quarter mile of me (I live about 200 meters from Wood River Elementary), that finally got shut down I guess three years ago.  Of the nine houses on my street you can easily figure out which seven have supplemental solid fuel burning appliances, and the pellet stacks are easy to pick out, good luck figuring out who is the coal burner on my street, the dude is a skilled operator.

If you are smoking out my neighborhood, I will ring your doorbell with a truckload of dry wood parked at your curb.  If you are a Richard, I will call the mayor and make a complaint.




rwhite said:


> To claim that smoke trapped under an inversion has no effect is just wrong. Maybe if people wouldn't violate burn bans they wouldn't have any violations? And it's not the EPA running around sniffing tail pipes and ticketing wood burners. They a set a standard and it's up to the states/counties to comply. If they choose to go after wood burners rather than a coal plant, then that's a local issue.



Two reasons burn bans are "often" ignored.  

1. We have had two relatively mild winters since the ordinance passed, so fewer days of Stage II and stage III burn bans. There has not been a stage III situation at my house that has lasted longer than the wood loaded in my BK since the ordinance passed.  During a stage III ban I can't legally put more wood into my stove, but I can burn the wood that is already in there.    

2. We don't have a concensus that burn bans will make any difference.  It is possible to talk people into small changes that will make a big difference in their lives, but trying to talk people into big changes that will make a small difference in their lives is a fool's errand.


----------



## volunbeer

jatoxico said:


> VB, to say it's a non-existent issue contradicts a lot of what you later said about how much about the science about global climate remains unknown. IMO we're better to continue to try to limit green house gas emissions because we cannot wait to see if the theory of climate change turns out to be largely correct. In the meantime we will get cleaner air, water etc. I'm sure there will be waste and ridiculous programs along the way and someone will put some money in their pocket, same old same.



Man-made global warming does not exist.  Despite what people getting grants, levying taxes, and "reporting the news" are telling us.    There is a natural climate cycle - some decades it warms and some decades it cools.   The true evidence (not models) of history shows this to be true long before we hit the industrial age.   In fact, the evidence of history shows that what I wrote about in my first post is absolutely true......... our climate is an elastic system of counterbalances.   The idea that CO2, generally accepted to be .05% of the atmosphere, is pollution is absurd in the extreme, but since hydrocarbon consumption creates CO2 as a reaction by-product it was the easiest to demonize to levy more taxes and control by government.    They have already taxed the crap out of the fuel - now they are going after the reaction product of the fuel with more taxes.  

I agree to an extent with the rest of your post.   I want cleaner air and water for my children so I am back to the second set of thoughts I posted - where do we get the bigger bang for the buck?  Do we dedicate billions in wealth to very minimal (even questionable) gains here or can we spend that elsewhere in the world to make the huge gains the West made in the 70's and 80's?   There are coal factories in Asia that are still belching all kinds of bad stuff into the air - things that we have not done since the last 70's - early 80's!   That is my main point because I mostly see taxes, carbon credits (passed on to us by manufacturers), and lots of government regulation and red tape and nobody wants to talk about what I just said.......... if it is a problem for the planet and we are all in it together why does my idea not make sense?   I believe our air and water is much cleaner today than when I was a child.   I see the evidence through my own life experiences as well as the data.   I also know firsthand how dirty and filthy it is elsewhere in the world and that eventually makes its way here.  

The United States is a wealthy nation.   Europe, Canada, Australia, and other Western nations possess great wealth.   We are so wealthy that we can afford to spend great sums of money on taking care of the environment.   I am okay with that, but I believe we can do it better and more effectively if we use logic, common sense, and truthfully identify the problems.   However, that is not the way the world works according to the same people who told us for many months that another Clinton would occupy the White House.   The claims of pending disaster by hypocrites have only been used to enrich themselves and gain power.  Why else would the high priests of the movement fly Lear jets to their annual gatherings?   Gore made over 100 million on his "environmental advocacy."   A group of the elite in Chicago were all set up to create a "carbon trading bank" where credits could be bought and sold - there is a nice money maker!   Our politicians give huge sums of money to "green donors" like Solyndra (which was an epic disaster of crony capitalism), and the beat goes on.  

The models are crap.   That is a proven fact......  just look for yourself at the old models and predictions made in the 90's for the early 2000's.  It's a farce and it makes a mockery out of something I love very much - science.   It is not science for the sake of learning - it has become some kind of religion and it is crammed down our throats continuously.   I have always had an interest in climate/nature - it has been somewhat of a hobby.  I love the outdoors and the beauty of nature.   I sampled water for an advocacy group in college and grad school in a polluted river in one of the 8 biospheres in the world (GSM park) in the home state of Gore.  I saw the pollution with my own eyes from a paper plant, yet Gore never mentioned the destruction in his home state of one of the finest natural areas in the world?  Why?  Why would he not scream to the top of his lungs about this?   Because they were one of his largest campaign donors.........  same as the other politicians in the area - follow the money.   They donated to his father before him.   I know all of this first-hand, but you can read about it in Newsweek from 1997 - they finally wrote this years after I was aware of the issue.   

http://www.newsweek.com/gores-pollution-problem-171130

I realized as a young man that it was more about the money than research and real solutions.   Now they are playing the same game thousands of time bigger with anthropogenic global warming.   I have done carbon core sampling (interesting, but not all that reliable).   I have read with great interest the viewpoints of both sides and I try to be as objective, yet I find most of the overwhelming evidence disproves their theories.   I was a subscriber to the idea in the beginning - "because we all want clean air and water", yet all the statements of fact regarding the future that I heard and read did not come true.   Over time, I became skeptical because the models and their science are wrong.  They have been wrong since Gore was a skinny man who flew commercial.  They keep beating the same worn out drums and we keep giving them money.   They may not realize it (I have friends among them), but they have become carnival monkeys playing the same song over and over and the money continues to flow.   I went back to what I wanted (and still want) in the first place...... clean air and clean water.   

They don't want that............ they want to control you and tax you.   Again, as I said above and not one person has commented or challenged it - if it were about clean air and clean water on our planet we would be spending the money to help the developing world reap the huge gains we made decades ago in environmental quality, but that would not enrich and empower our politicians, their friends, and U.S. academia.   The U.N. is trying to milk the movement and control the spending, but that would not be any more effective than what we are doing now.    However, it is indisputable to me that cleaning up a coal stack in Laos would improve air quality far more than imposing a tighter restriction on the already clean stack in "your town here"  to remove a trace amount that is far less of "compound Y" than occurs naturally.   That is the point we are at.   Research it for yourself.  

I am pretty confident in my handle on the science and politics, but it is hard to have a friendly and honest discussion about it because people are so stuck in thepolitics.   I don't want dirty air.  I don't want dirty water.   I want the truth  CO2 is not a pollutant, yet they have convinced many people that it is.  It is a naturally occurring gas that is vital to life on our planet.  It was here before we were and it will be here after we are gone.   It is released and absorbed by nature in macro-systems and micro-systems.  The earth responds (and thrives) in the same elastic fashion it always has and it does not matter if I drive a Prius or a Landcruiser.   

Measurable temperatures fluctuate because of the big ball of fire in our solar system - not because of a trace gas of .05% in our atmosphere.   Everything else people have brought up is insignificant next to the sun.   The earth responds and life continues.   I would urge everyone to do their own research.    To the topic of the thread - I sympathize with folks who suck up wood smoke in a town during an inversion, but I don't live in a town and my chimney is not impacting any neighbors I have, yet there are many of the same people who tell us what the models predict 100 years from now who will come after my woodstove if we let them.   Yet, they completely ignore the wildfires that have largely been made much worse (than all the woodstoves in America) from their "I know better than you" policies on forests management and opposition to the timber industry.   The same people who want wind turbines poking out of the ground that kill hundreds (if not thousands) of the very birds they banned the most effective pesticide in history for - leading to possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths from malaria in the developing world.    

Just things folks might want to consider and decide for themselves.


----------



## volunbeer

Interesting information about Fairbanks.   The problem with government solutions is they only have a hammer to fix a problem that would only respond to a scalpel.  Inevitably, instead of addressing the folks causing the problem they give everyone the hammer..........


----------



## ddahlgren

Poindexter said:


> This bears repeating and I am chagrined I didn't mention it on page two.  In milder weather, no inversion layer, no AQ issues.  Last winter, 2015/16, we never made it down to -30dF and never had, that I recall, a stage III event.
> 
> I live on the very western edge of the rectangle of death.   Local to me inversion layers set up around -30dF and clear off around -29dF.  I am not going to argue with anyone else's impressions or numbers, I think we all agree we don't have an AQ problem at -10dF or -15dF...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was here for the tail end of the vehicle emissions testing in 2008/09/10.  Just stupid.  I had to pay $100 for someone to look at my dashboard to confirm there was no check engine light, and pass an OBDII scan.  With the one allowed error I could have been running hollowed out catalyst chambers on my 2004 LS1, passed visual (if they had opened the hood) and passed the OBDII ping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have only been here since 2008.  I know once it is cold enough for an inversion to set up our little micro airshed stops carrying pollutants away.  If we all heat with oil or propane, no wood or coal, and all ride public buses only back and forth to work ( no personal vehicles) a long enough inversion event will still get us to unhealthy air.
> 
> One thing that bugs me is there is no incentive in the local ordinance for woodburners to upgrade.  I suggested to the assembly in open comment that pre-EPA stoves should be shut down during stage I, only EPA stoves rated 2.5g/hr or less should be allowed to operate during stage II and only EPA stoves rated 1.5 or 1.25 g/hr and less should be legal to operate during stage III events.  Instead, my 1.2g/hr stove is treated the same as the smoke dragon I inherited from my grandfather.  Stupid.
> 
> I honestly do not feel the EPA or the borough assembly is really interested in clean air.  If they really wanted me to have clean air year round they would have shut down those last 20-30 billowing smokestacks in 2014 and have 2 years of good data that would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that forest fires near town need to be managed better.



How do you manage a forest fire?


----------



## jpowell1979

You put it out when it starts instead of watching it burn.  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## begreen

jpowell1979 said:


> You put it out when it starts instead of watching it burn.


Much easier said than done, especially in wilderness areas. Wildfires spread very quickly under the right conditions and when lightning caused it may not be spotted for hours.

They can proactively manage the forest before the fire, but when there are large die-offs like we are seeing from pine beetles, this becomes a sisyphean task with little funding after emergency fire fighting eats up the budget.


----------



## jpowell1979

In Alaska the fire service makes most of their money watching fires burn with no attempt or intentions of putting them out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## begreen

Yes, I was speaking for WA though AK has even more wilderness. Fortunately this year we dodged the bullet but last year was very bad.
Seems like the AK forest service has to answer to multiple demands and is low on funds. The squeaky wheel generally is the one that gets the attention. Right now that looks to be the Kenai peninsula. 
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2016/04...es-little-room-for-prevention-other-programs/


----------



## semipro

begreen said:


> sisyphean


Wow.  I get the reference but didn't know that was a word. 
I agree with the sentiment BTW.  We had some strange weather in our area this year -- very wet for a while then very dry.  It got me thinking a lot about adding some fire resistance to our cedar and asphalt shingle covered house.


----------



## semipro

I don't buy the idea that  better burning practices alone will take care of the problem.  Most pre-EPA stoves running at their best still emit far more than a properly running modern stove. 
Also, probably the most common post on this site relates to poor performance in modern stoves due to "wet" wood.  Folks get educated on fuel quality and end up burning efficiently and cleanly.   Had those people bought non-EPA stoves they'd just toss in wet wood and crank open the air control and never know the difference.  
Just as with cars, mandated emission controls for new products work to the benefit of all. 
Don't forget also the amount of emissions generated by cutting and hauling all the extra fuel needed to feed an inefficient stove.


----------



## drz1050

ddahlgren said:


> How do you manage a forest fire?



Active management does wonders. If your forest isn't chock full of dead standing trees and dead underbrush, that greatly limits the fuel available for the fires. 

Fires are also not always bad things for forests. Another good way to avoid the huge fires is to let the small ones burn, don't put them out. Trying to kill every fire when it first pops up is a recipe for disaster down the road.


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> In Alaska the fire service makes most of their money watching fires burn with no attempt or intentions of putting them out.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


There is no special fire fund.  Any money expended has to be taken out of somewhere else in the budget. And fire is a natural phenomenon that most forests developed under. So if theres no threat to human life its sometimes best to let it burn rather than spend millions trying to put it out. Frankly they got to good at putting everything out and the condition of some forests reflect that. And theres absolutely no correlation between letting a fire burn and poor winter time air quality. And a previous poster mentioned man made global warming.  I too disagree with that concept. But to say we aren't contributing and possibly expediting the process is putting your head in the sand. As do the millions spent studying it...wouldnt it be great if we could all agree to clean up the air and water without having to prove with imperical evidence that it needs to be done? But there are folks out there who believe that any restriction is wrong if a govt organization suggests it. But as you mentioned in your previous post, it's only 11 or so days a year that exceed. So both sides are saying  its only 11 days what's the big deal. Just one wants to burn and the other doesn't.


----------



## jpowell1979

The same government that is issuing burn bans in the winter for our health when it takes machines to even detect the invisible pollution makes the decision to not suppress forest fires in the summer that result in air that looks like this for months at a time.


----------



## jetsam

I would think that the more you put out forest fires, the harder it gets to put out forest fires.

Maybe they should have some kind of volunteer effort where they recruit ordinary citizens to go into the woods to look for flammables and haul them back to their houses, if they find any...  (I am already volunteering in my local area...  And it seems like every time I go in the woods I find some flammables that need to be hauled back to the house!)


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> The same government that is issuing burn bans in the winter for our health when it takes machines to even detect the invisible pollution makes the decision to not suppress forest fires in the summer that result in air that looks like this for months at a time.
> View attachment 191515





jetsam said:


> I would think that the more you put out forest fires, the harder it gets to put out forest fires.
> 
> Maybe they should have some kind of volunteer effort where they recruit ordinary citizens to go into the woods to look for flammables and haul them back to their houses, if they find any...  (I am already volunteering in my local area...  And it seems like every time I go in the woods I find some flammables that need to be hauled back to the house!)


Yes, that same government. Fires are going to burn,  its natural. But I'm sure if you can figure out a way to put them out, maintain a healthy forest, clean the air, and save a few million they'd be all ears.  And yes pretty much anyone can go in the woods and haul out flammables.  All you got to do is get a wood permit and go get it. Putting fires out results in a lot of young under growth that's not good for timber or firewood.  Then it burns and takes the good trees with it. If conditions are right to get good mortality on young trees and under growth they are going to let it burn.


----------



## Simmo6108

Over in the UK there is a concerted effort to demonise wood burning, whether burning wet or dry, good or bad. In the UK most areas are designated smokeless zones, mainly due to the killer smogs of the 1950's so there are no OWB types in most areas as you can only buy a modern stove which is DEFRA (our version of the EPA for this) approved. On top of this I reckon most UK burners are occasional burners rather than dependent (I know at least one but thats it) on wood, as natural gas is quite prevalent (thanks to the north sea and Margaret Thatcher)

However reading the Times yesterday I picked up on a brief article by Paul Simons. In it he quotes such things as "even though a minority of UK households use wood fires (7.5% of the population) the pollution from these is estimated to be more than double that from all the UK diesel cars, buses and trucks".

He also states several "studies" and "reports" which show that; "Even a single wood burner emits more PM2.5 particles than 1000 petrol cars every year".

I don't even know where to start with how far out I think these claims are, but they sit in a respected national newspaper. When you combine this with the recent articles on the BBC about Woodburners causing cancer and other articles in other newspapers giving similar claims it does kind of give a bit of truth to the phrase attributed to Goebbels; "if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth". There is also a move over here to insist that if something is labelled a study, then it is genuine, regardless of who sits behind it or how many time is uses the word "estimate".

I have said before, I use approximately 6 gallons of diesel per week going to/from work and visiting several sites as required. My wife uses about 3 gallons of petrol per week doing the various tasks and shifts she does. That equates to about 280 gallons burnt per year for me alone, but that is not the focus of the issue, it is my occasional burning of 18 month CSS pine that is the cause of the air quality issues.

In summary, it does not even matter if you have followed all the regulations and spent the money to do so, you are still a problem if you burn wood. It is not difficult to think that if energy prices go up, 7.5% of the potential income base (and rising) will be able to avoid filling the pockets of the "big 6".

But then i think that might be a bit too close to "tinfoil hat" territory.


----------



## jatoxico

jpowell1979 said:


> The only thing that changed is that the EPA lowered the bar on PM 2.5 twice. Once in 2006 and again in 2012. In 2005 it was not even an issue that was being looked at. Notice the summertime levels from forest fires.



You're correct they've lowered the PM2.5 standard. This following scheduled reviews and based on newer studies (not conducted by the EPA) showing an association between respiratory and cardiac disease at the new levels. At the same time they revoked the standard for annual PM10 (coarse particulate) _due to a lack evidence_ associating disease and exposure to PM10.

Not going to question you guys that are living there who may know better if the data collection is questionable or any nonsense going on with local politics but the blue graph you provided (good find) clearly shows a predictable increase in PM2.5 occurring during the heating season. And except for 2009, the effect of what I assume is from forest fires, the increase in summer PM2.5 is pretty transient.



jpowell1979 said:


> There are no bad air days when there is no temperature inversion.



Lastly and I'm sure you know this, it's not simply a matter of how many days exceed the daily recommended standard it's also the total annual burden. So having PM2.5 levels at or just below the standard for several weeks on end (which is happening at the data collection site) is harmful.


----------



## rwhite

lakeroadster said:


> The EPA is in a no win situation.  And when its workers pulls stupid stunts like the Gold King Mine incident in Colorado last year, their already difficult job becomes extremely worse.
> 
> Most folks don't want government intervention... until they need help with an issue that affects them directly.  Case in point:
> 
> We were snowshoe hiking in a low lying area the other day up near Leadville Colorado.  Peaceful, quiet, beautiful.  Along comes a guided tour of about 20 snowmobiles... smoking, stinking snowmobiles.  The air quality went from perfect to horrible.  So I wondered why all the emission controls on cars and trucks, but none on OHV's?


Your correct that they messed up when try to tap a tail pond.  They wouldn't even have been there if the miners had cleaned up their mess. And if the counties wouldn't have fought the superfund designation they would have had the funding to do it right. Instead they were left putting a bandaid on a severed limb. Funny the counties signed on to the superfund designation afterwards. But everyone wants to point the finger at EPA.


----------



## NateB

Poindexter said:


> That particular home owner is saving a LOT of money on his property taxes by not sheathing over the vapor barrier. If he does sheathe it the insulation envelope will not improve measurably, but his tax assessment and annual tax bill increase quite a bit. What we are looking at under local law is an occupied construction site, not a finished home. Construction sites can be occupied more or less indefinitely.



Thanks for explaining that.  I always wondered why they never finish the outside of the house up there.  The insides are nice, and finished.  I thought it was because it was to cold outside, so they would do the work inside.


----------



## jpowell1979

Outdoor air pollution is a minimal health risk when everyone is indoors 99% of the time when it is -20 or colder.  It's not like anyone is outside for extended times breathing the air when it gets very cold and we have bad air days.  

All the long term PM studies are from large cities where industrial pollution was the primary pollution source year round.  If living your whole life next to an ore smelting plant may reduce your life expectancy by 6 months I will take my chances with a few bad air days annually.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## jpowell1979

Great article on the issue.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/30/epa-alaskans-sub-zero-temps-stop-burning-wood-keep-warm/


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> Great article on the issue.
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/30/epa-alaskans-sub-zero-temps-stop-burning-wood-keep-warm/


The problem with the article and the previous one for that matter is everything is the fault of the EPA. The EPA and any other department in the executive branch only has the authority and power granted by Congress. They don't have the authority to choose which laws are enforced. The work at the behest of Congress who are our representatives to implement the rules which elected officials have passed. Maybe the tables are turning and different laws may be changed or amended but the EPA won't be the ones to do it.


----------



## jpowell1979

Arguing that the same standards should apply to Los Angeles and rural Alaska is non starter. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> Arguing that the same standards should apply to Los Angeles and rural Alaska is non starter.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.  But EPA doesn't get to pick and choose. Congress passed the Clean Air Act and they are the only ones who can amend it. There are times government officials choose not to enforce a rule but it is usually pretty short lived until they are litigated and made to enforce it.


----------



## jpowell1979

Lol, of course the executive branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce.  Pretty sure that we have laws prohibiting illegal aliens from entering the country.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> Lol, of course the executive branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce.  Pretty sure that we have laws prohibiting illegal aliens from entering the country.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


We certainly do. But folks will litigate and force compliance with the Clean Air Act much quicker than border compliance.


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> Lol, of course the executive branch can pick and choose what laws to enforce.  Pretty sure that we have laws prohibiting illegal aliens from entering the country.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


Your also mixing apples and oranges to the letter of the law. Pretty sure you couldn't find any language in an immigration law requiring seek out and deport. If they are caught they are deported they just may not be actively sought. 
Completely different with Clean Air Act where Congress has stated thou shall and here are the penalties. There's not much room for discretion there.


----------



## jpowell1979

There are thousands of waivers and exemptions that have been granted by the EPA related to the Clean Air Act.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## rwhite

jpowell1979 said:


> There are thousands of waivers and exemptions that have been granted by the EPA related to the Clean Air Act.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


You bet. Now you just have to get your elected officials to petition for one. But until they do I'm betting the Act will be enforced to some degree.


----------



## rwhite

Not sure how long term exemptions work. I know we could get daily exemptions when I worked at the plywood mill. If the boilers went down for any reason we would violate air quality for several hours when we fired them back up. I know the fine was hefty enough for exceeding the exemption that we would dump 2x4s by the bunks into the boiler to get it up and running quicker.


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> Measurable temperatures fluctuate because of the big ball of fire in our solar system - not because of a trace gas of .05% in our atmosphere. Everything else people have brought up is insignificant next to the sun.


As I have said yes the heat is created by the sun but the makeup of our atmosphere is what dictates how much of that heat hits the earth and then how much of that heat is held in.  If you don't understand that you do not have any grasp of the science at all.  Yes co2 is naturally occurring and yes it is necessary for life and it is absorbed by plants.  But that does not mean that in high levels it cant cause problems.  Most major climate change events have coincided with a dramatic change in co2 levels this is confirmed by ice and soil samples.  So yes you are right these swings can be totally natural but now we are releasing large quantities of co2 into the air and at the same time reducing the quantity of co2 absorbing plants on earth to filter that out.


----------



## volunbeer

bholler said:


> As I have said yes the heat is created by the sun but the makeup of our atmosphere is what dictates how much of that heat hits the earth and then how much of that heat is held in.  If you don't understand that you do not have any grasp of the science at all.  Yes co2 is naturally occurring and yes it is necessary for life and it is absorbed by plants.  But that does not mean that in high levels it cant cause problems.  Most major climate change events have coincided with a dramatic change in co2 levels this is confirmed by ice and soil samples.  So yes you are right these swings can be totally natural but now we are releasing large quantities of co2 into the air and at the same time reducing the quantity of co2 absorbing plants on earth to filter that out.



Solar radiation - not our atmosphere - has the most influence on temperatures.   To boot, temperatures are not increasing despite what we hear over and over.   It has been much warmer before and it has been much cooler before.   Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 actually has many benefits to life on Earth, that does not mean I am advocating "polluting to cause it", but it is worth pointing out.   Crops and vegetation do better with more CO2.   

The idea that we are reducing the amount of CO2 absorbing plants on Earth is not true, but it is irrelevant compared to the carbon cycles of the oceans.   CO2 is released and absorbed by the oceans at a rate that dwarfs the activities of man.   In fact, difficult to tell if correct or not correct, it is generally accepted that the oceans absorb half of atmospheric CO2 per NOAA.   They conveniently omit that the oceans also release far more CO2 than man.   This is the real feedback loop I talked about earlier - the oceans regulate the levels of CO2, not man.   You have to go to exponential numbers to realize how large the amount of CO2 in the oceans is compared to what we produce.  

We release less CO2 now than we used to before the EPA and other nations EPA's cracked down on industrial emissions as well as vehicle emissions in the West.  We are cleaner today and air quality (at least in the West) is far better than it was only 20 years ago. 

To be clear - I am not against the EPA.  They have done many good things.   However, they have been hijacked by folks who are after something else.   Can we do better?  Certainly.   But that was not my main point if you read what I wrote.   We are spending larger sums of money on much smaller gains in the West when the real place to combat pollution and global warming (if you believe what they tell you over and over) is in the third world.  I am using their own arguments!  

They want to cut CO2 emissions so they mandate that "your local utiility" raise rates and spend tens of millions to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 tons....... when they could cut CO2 emissions at the coal plant in Laos by 2000 or more tons at half the expense installing the same equipment we mandated 30 years ago!   It is basic logic.   If their arguments are correct we should spend the money in the 3rd world because their air impacts us.  Their CO2 "warms us" according to the basic premise.   

The same crowd wanted us to use Ethanol for gasoline when it actually takes more energy to produce than it yields.  It subsequently creates more CO2 (farming corn - rotting or burning stalks) and other pollutants (fertilizers in watershed is going to be the next big pollution problem in my opinion) than the hydrocarbons it replaces.  On top of that, it is food and that creates stress in the developing world. 

In reality, we spend more taxpayer money "studying the problem" in our Universities and even governmental agencies, than we do fighting it.  Think about that.....   If the "science is settled" as they repeatedly tell us then why do we spend more tax dollars studying it than fixing it?  I have friends from school who work on the grants.   

I understand science just fine and I will not insult you or pull out an internet ruler to see who has the longer sheepskins from overpriced institutions, but you are not seeing the engineering problem they have created for themselves   If CO2 is only .05% (generally accepted to be .04% but I will round up) of the atmosphere how does it become more important than the sun?  In fact, if you have bought the argument that the window (atmosphere) is more important than the energy source (sun) you would then have to admit that water vapor is a far, far, far, far more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2.  That is another fact, but it is really hard to "tax" and control water vapor.   

Either logic fails or there is something else going on.......   I believe it is the latter.    If it were not something else - why are we not spending our anti-pollution money where it would do the most good?


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> Solar radiation - not our atmosphere - has the most influence on temperatures.


Absolutely correct without the sun we would have no heat no live ect.  But the same goes for our atmosphere.   The sun is a relative constant what does change to change temperatures is our position with regard to the sun that makes the seasons.  And changes in our atmosphere which makes global climate change.  Or are you saying that during an ice age the sun randomly stops putting out as much heat?  I dont think so.  And yes the oceans process way more carbon than plants but that does not mean that reducing plant life (which we have done regardless of your claim)  are irrelevant it still reduces the capacity to process co2.  And the increased demand on the oceans is leading to a very slow increase in the ph of the oceans which in turn reduces the ability for the ocean to process co2.  



volunbeer said:


> I understand science just fine and I will not insult you or pull out an internet ruler to see who has the longer sheepskins from overpriced institutions, but you are not seeing the engineering problem they have created for themselves If CO2 is only .05% (generally accepted to be .04% but I will round up) of the atmosphere how does it become more important than the sun? In fact, if you have bought the argument that the window (atmosphere) is more important than the energy source (sun) you would then have to admit that water vapor is a far, far, far, far more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2. That is another fact, but it is really hard to "tax" and control water vapor.


When did I ever say that the atmosphere was more important that the sun?  I simply said that it is a major factor in the amount of heat that ends up staying on earth.  I really don't see how you cant see that the sun and our atmosphere in combination provide and store the heat our planet needs.   But changes in our atmosphere (even small ones) can affect the amount of heat stored enough to have a major effect.  

If our atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of our planet why isn't it warm in outer space?  Why isn't the moon warm?  Why is Venus warmer than mercury?   Why is Jupiter's temp similar to ours?


----------



## vinny11950

This thread!


----------



## rwhite

vinny11950 said:


> This thread!
> 
> View attachment 191624


But it is entertaining!


----------



## jatoxico

This thread is wandering but it's cordial. I don't understand arguments based on conspiracy though. The EPA sets AQ standards that are associated with increased risk. A great deal of the data comes from studies conducted in under developed areas of the globe not just industrial/urban regions. AQ is calculated the same in AK and LA and if the PM2.5 is high, the risk is the same no matter where you breath the air. And if anything the folks that stand to benefit by dismissing the current theory of climate science like XOM, the energy companies and the auto industry are lobbying to roll back CO2 and other emission standards and working hard to counter climate change theory. I'm all for a healthy skepticism and not all the details of these risks are known but it seems to me the health of the environment and our own quality of life is improved by continuing to move towards cleaner and cleaner sources of energy.


----------



## rwhite

The one thing I disagree with in our endeavors for clean air and water is penalty vs reward. I'd surmise that if the mark was set and incentives offered for reaching it we would spend far less than enforcing penalties. Just going on the theory that a horse does better when you dangle a carrot in front of their nose rather that shove it in the other end. Either way it's getting the carrot.


----------



## volunbeer

Again gents - I respectfully ask the exact same question I have politely posed over and over in regards to the idea that climate change is caused by man's CO2 output.   

If this is true as they tell us, why then are we not diverting resources to partnering with developing nations to make much larger and more effective cuts in CO2 emissions?  If the science is settled (their words, not mine) why do we not divert some of the large taxpayer funding to action instead of "studying the problem?"

bholler - read about the Maunder minimum.   The sun, nor solar radiation, are constant, nor is our orbit around the sun as you correctly pointed out.   Even NASA (a global warming proponent) says the sun is heading into a period of minimal activity, which will result in cooler short-term temps.   

The Earth is getting greener - look who the links are from:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tion-increased-significantly-past-decade.html

http://theconversation.com/despite-decades-of-deforestation-the-earth-is-getting-greener-38226

http://www.popsci.com/new-study-shows-earth-getting-greener

And again, if the greenhouse gas model is responsible for holding heat in the Earth's atmosphere causing it to be warmer (it has actually cooled in the last decade) then how will we address water vapor?    If they tell us that water vapor in the atmosphere is a response to warming why then is CO2 not the same (an effect and not a cause?)   Why do those who seek to control us target CO2 instead of the other trace gases?   Why did they target the one trace gas that is a by-product of hydrocarbon combustion even though another trace gas (methane CH4) is a more effective greenhouse gas?

Again - I want cleaner air and cleaner water, but I also want the truth.   Their own argument of pending catastrophe has not come true going back to the beginning of the subject.  Their own estimates and predictions have not come true.  They continue to fudge the numbers and we continue to pay for it all.    I want to see the West spend the money to clean the air in the third world because it would be far more effective since their own argument dictates what happens in India impacts us in North America.   

I have an open mind on the topic because I don't think the science is settled - I read a fair amount on the topic from both sides.   We can't even accurately predict the weather in a micro-climate 30 days out because there are so many variables, yet they tell us we can predict a system 10000 times larger with far more variables we don't understand.   I also have a good memory of the predictions that began in the late 80's picking up speed through the 90's until it became a government driven project in the new millennium.   They were wrong across the board, but they are now able to levy visible and invisible taxes on us all in the name of this problem.   Left unchecked and undisputed, they will most certainly seek to tax wood stoves as a source of CO2.   That is the trend.


----------



## jatoxico

volunbeer said:


> Again gents - I respectfully *ask the exact same question* I have politely posed over and over in regards to the idea that climate change is caused by man's CO2 output.
> 
> *If this is true as they tell us, why then are we not diverting resources to partnering with developing nations to make much larger and more effective cuts in CO2 emissions?* If the science is settled (their words, not mine) why do we not divert some of the large taxpayer funding to action instead of "studying the problem?"



Maybe if you gave some specific example I might understand you better but I am certain politics is an obstacle as it always seems to be. What climate scientists suggest and what the politicians act on are likely vastly different. In our case the reason we should regulate ourselves is because the US is the 2nd largest emitter of CO2. We might still be number one except for the changes we've made. We _are_ trying to partner that's what the major global agreements are about. But if the entire world save China, the US and Russia went to zero emissions the out put would still be cut by less than half.

I also don't agree we are wasting time and money on studying the problem. To me it makes sense to study, then make recommendations, then implement then study some more to see if the recommendations are working so we can do the most cost effective job. Our understanding of anything rarely occurs in a straight line.


----------



## begreen




----------



## volunbeer

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4410

This is a little dated.   I believe we now have far more scrubbers than the requirement listed, but it is a good explanation of where the majority of pollution comes from (especially in the 3rd world) - coal power plants.   Coal can provide relatively clean energy with the proper safeguards that we have installed.   We have now reached a point where the vast majority of our coal power is much cleaner with 3rd generation scrubbers and filters.   Europe is in the same position.   Despite this, they continue to target coal energy production with ever higher standards when the majority of coal power plants in the 3rd world do not even have the basic scrubbing technology.  

Furthermore - increased access to electricity would result in less biomass being burned for cooking and eventually leads to more irrigated agriculture making that area far more "green".   It leads to cleaner water, healthier people, and less pollution in general.   Economic prosperity is the best tonic for the environment at every level.   More wealth = more environmental health.   Wealth in a modern society begins with access to energy.   

My point is that we are not spending our dollars appropriately.  It is a simple cost-benefit analysis.   Hypothetically, if ConEdison spends 100 million dollars (from rate payers) to reach a targeted goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% in two coal plants (let's assume a number of 50 tons) yet the same amount of money could be used to reduce CO2 emissions by 500 tons in 4 plants in the developing world where is the money better spent?   If CO2 is the culprit for what they claim is global warming why are they not helping to reduce global emissions in the most effective manner?    Hopefully that helps clear up my point.   They claim it is an emergency yet they do not take the billions we are spending on the problem and spend them for the best effect.   Why?

It's another argument, but I am a big fan of nuclear power generation - it is the best bang for the buck in electricity production - far cleaner if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gas, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.   I am hopeful that thorium can replace plutonium and uranium as the nuclear fuel of choice (can't be weaponized - generally cleaner and thorium reactors can dispose of present nuclear wastes safely).   With that said, most of the same proponents of global warming adamantly oppose nuclear energy although there have been some major defections in the movement recently as more people admit this.


----------



## rwhite

volunbeer said:


> http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4410
> 
> This is a little dated.   I believe we now have far more scrubbers than the requirement listed, but it is a good explanation of where the majority of pollution comes from (especially in the 3rd world) - coal power plants.   Coal can provide relatively clean energy with the proper safeguards that we have installed.   We have now reached a point where the vast majority of our coal power is much cleaner with 3rd generation scrubbers and filters.   Europe is in the same position.   Despite this, they continue to target coal energy production with ever higher standards when the majority of coal power plants in the 3rd world do not even have the basic scrubbing technology.
> 
> Furthermore - increased access to electricity would result in less biomass being burned for cooking and eventually leads to more irrigated agriculture making that area far more "green".   It leads to cleaner water, healthier people, and less pollution in general.   Economic prosperity is the best tonic for the environment at every level.   More wealth = more environmental health.   Wealth in a modern society begins with access to energy.
> 
> My point is that we are not spending our dollars appropriately.  It is a simple cost-benefit analysis.   Hypothetically, if ConEdison spends 100 million dollars (from rate payers) to reach a targeted goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% in two coal plants (let's assume a number of 50 tons) yet the same amount of money could be used to reduce CO2 emissions by 500 tons in 4 plants in the developing world where is the money better spent?   If CO2 is the culprit for what they claim is global warming why are they not helping to reduce global emissions in the most effective manner?    Hopefully that helps clear up my point.   They claim it is an emergency yet they do not take the billions we are spending on the problem and spend them for the best effect.   Why?
> 
> It's another argument, but I am a big fan of nuclear power generation - it is the best bang for the buck in electricity production - far cleaner if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gas, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.   I am hopeful that thorium can replace plutonium and uranium as the nuclear fuel of choice (can't be weaponized - generally cleaner and thorium reactors can dispose of present nuclear wastes safely).   With that said, most of the same proponents of global warming adamantly oppose nuclear energy although there have been some major defections in the movement recently as more people admit this.


It's the same reason that we clean up our own yard when we know there are far dirtier places that time would be better spent and make the city look better. We haven't fully grasped the "one world" concept yet. We want our micro climate better.


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

So what I have come up with is, live at the top of the hill. And don't make particulates


----------



## volunbeer

rwhite said:


> It's the same reason that we clean up our own yard when we know there are far dirtier places that time would be better spent and make the city look better. We haven't fully grasped the "one world" concept yet. We want our micro climate better.



Ah, but here is the rub.   If you buy the assertions about man-made global warming being the result of CO2 produced by humans then there is no difference in CO2 emissions in Laos vs CO2 emissions in Montana.   Period.   They claim that atmospheric CO2, produced by man (cause they can't do anything about natural CO2), is the primary driver of global warming.   The idea that the West, with the larger economies and higher consumption of fossil fuels, can continue to shave a percentage point here or a percentage point there yet ignore the established and proven things that could be done to cut CO2 output in the third world by a 1/2 or a 1/3rd defeats their own argument.   

We are paying billions for what looks more and more like a fake crisis used to levy taxes and regulations upon the West while the largest pollution sources are found in the developing world.  The dirtiest water and most hazardous materials are found in the developing world.  

They can't have it both ways.   If a cow fart in India has as much impact on the atmosphere as a cow fart in Fargo, ND, then it stands to reason that every nation on Earth should view each coal plant stack equally and it would therefore be the responsibility of all of us to clean it up.   We should take the steps there to get their air to the standards we reached ten years ago (much cleaner).   That is not the way it works though.....   this scheme has cost us a massive amount of money and retarded our economic growth and it has not gotten any warmer despite their predictions spanning over 20 years.   The UN seeks to gain control of major economies in the name of "climate change."   Eventually, left unchallenged and unchecked, they will come for your stove just like they demonized your SUV.


----------



## volunbeer

Lloyd the redneck said:


> So what I have come up with is, live at the top of the hill. And don't make particulates



It's always best to live on the shielded side at the top of the hill - less wind and no particulates!


----------



## rwhite

volunbeer said:


> Ah, but here is the rub.   If you buy the assertions about man-made global warming being the result of CO2 produced by humans then there is no difference in CO2 emissions in Laos vs CO2 emissions in Montana.   Period.   They claim that atmospheric CO2, produced by man (cause they can't do anything about natural CO2), is the primary driver of global warming.   The idea that the West, with the larger economies and higher consumption of fossil fuels, can continue to shave a percentage point here or a percentage point there yet ignore the established and proven things that could be done to cut CO2 output in the third world by a 1/2 or a 1/3rd defeats their own argument.
> 
> We are paying billions for what looks more and more like a fake crisis used to levy taxes and regulations upon the West while the largest pollution sources are found in the developing world.  The dirtiest water and most hazardous materials are found in the developing world.
> 
> They can't have it both ways.   If a cow fart in India has as much impact on the atmosphere as a cow fart in Fargo, ND, then it stands to reason that every nation on Earth should view each coal plant stack equally and it would therefore be the responsibility of all of us to clean it up.   We should take the steps there to get their air to the standards we reached ten years ago (much cleaner).   That is not the way it works though.....   this scheme has cost us a massive amount of money and retarded our economic growth and it has not gotten any warmer despite their predictions spanning over 20 years.   The UN seeks to gain control of major economies in the name of "climate change."   Eventually, left unchallenged and unchecked, they will come for your stove just like they demonized your SUV.


Global warming aside. That coal plant in Laos isn't making it hard for the folks in Fairbanks to breathe.  So what are we going to clean 1st?


----------



## volunbeer

They are two different problems.   Fairbanks is a localized particulate problem caused by inversions and wood burning for heat and exhaust.    I responded to the "global warming" in the thread - I did not introduce it.   

The answer to the problem in Fairbanks is cheap electricity so people don't need to burn wood (even though they likely enjoy it as we do).   Outside of that, I don't know what more they could do other than target those who are burning wood improperly, but I don't know how much difference it would make.   

I just decided one day while watching children's shows with my kid (full of global warming propaganda) that I would respond when I hear people parrot what the media tells them.   If the media was so smart, we would have a President in a pantsuit right now.    All of us, myself included, suffer from behaving like lemmings..... we are conditioned to go with the flow.   The older I get, the more I want to think for myself and challenge what I believe or what I am told.   It is not to be contrary although it is likely perceived as such, it is to be a free thinker who recognizes that he does not have all the answers nor do they.   I don't like "group think" - especially when so much of our GDP is spent on it.    My friends (yes, they are friends) make a living off "studying the problem" when NOTHING those promoting it has proven true.


----------



## rwhite

So even if we work off the premise that it's all a hoax. Have all the strides we've made in cleaner air been for naught?  Even IF it was in the name of global warming,  climate change or whatever the crisis de jour is, we have cleaner air now, then when this entire "hoax" was presented to the world. Maybe it took the creation of a crisis to get us there but there aren't many companies (or people) going to do it unless forced or regulated.


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> (full of global warming propaganda) that I would respond when I hear people parrot what the media tells them.


So if the makeup of a planets atmosphere has no bearing on the temps of a planet how do you explain the fact that planets don't progressively get cooler as they get farther from the sun?    And yes you are right in the past decade or so we have been "greening our planet slowly but look at the difference over a longer term than that and that short term trend does not make up for what was done before.  Yes it is good we are making it better without a doubt but we still have a long way to go.  

Now you say we need to work to change all countries emission but then you criticize the un for trying to get a global initiative.  So which is it?


----------



## volunbeer

bholler said:


> So if the makeup of a planets atmosphere has no bearing on the temps of a planet how do you explain the fact that planets don't progressively get cooler as they get farther from the sun?    And yes you are right in the past decade or so we have been "greening our planet slowly but look at the difference over a longer term than that and that short term trend does not make up for what was done before.  Yes it is good we are making it better without a doubt but we still have a long way to go.
> 
> Now you say we need to work to change all countries emission but then you criticize the un for trying to get a global initiative.  So which is it?



The UN does very little for the emissions of developing countries.   They get everyone to sign something and then only the Western nations try to meet the goals.    The reality is developing nations cannot afford it when basic scrubbers that remove SO2, Hg, and CO2 are easily afforded by the West.    We have been greening the planet far longer than a decade.   Pretty much since forestry, irrigation, and modern agriculture began the Earth has been greener.    

What exactly is the "short-term trend" making up for?   The Industrial age?

Emissions today far exceed any we had during the industrial age or the beginning of the automobile.  Even WWII, with all of it's noxious gas, is dwarfed by the fuel consumption in China today.   Yet, it cooled and we barely understood the concept of clean air then.   

If the Earth moved farther from the sun it would cool.   In fact, the planets that we can measure temperature on in our own solar system have cooled recently in light of decreased solar radiation.  

https://www.quora.com/What-would-ha...m-the-sun-say-about-half-the-distance-to-Mars

Planets do cool the further away from the sun they become.  I am really not sure where you are going with that.   Mars is further from the sun than we are, they have much less atmosphere (composed mostly of CO2 by the way - almost exclusively CO2), and I believe it is approximately 60-100 degrees cooler than the Earth give or take a few degrees.   Anything that moves away from the sun will become cooler.   In fact, the best evidence that solar radiation increases or decreases our temperatures would be found on the other planets in our solar system and there is good evidence available from those planets supporting the hypothesis that the sun is the main driver of our temperature - not man.


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> Planets do cool the further away from the sun they become. I am really not sure where you are going with that. Mars is further from the sun than we are, they have much less atmosphere (composed mostly of CO2 by the way - almost exclusively CO2)


yes and then Jupiter is warmer than Mars.  And Venus is hotter than Mercury.  So yes in general planets cool as they get further from the sun but there are a few exceptions caused by heavy atmospheres.   And by the way Venus which is the hottest planet in our solar system has a heavy atmosphere made mainly of co2 and so2



volunbeer said:


> We have been greening the planet far longer than a decade. Pretty much since forestry, irrigation, and modern agriculture began the Earth has been greener.


So you think north America has more biomass of plant life nw than it did before Europeans came here?  Please enlighten us with those supposed facts.



volunbeer said:


> the sun is the main driver of our temperature - not man.


Yes that is absolutely true and no one has ever said otherwise.  We play a very small part in the combination of factors that determine the temperature of our planet.   But the fact is that our atmosphere plays a major role in the temp of our planet and we are screwing it up


----------



## jatoxico

volunbeer said:


> The idea that the West, with the larger economies and higher consumption of fossil fuels, can continue to shave a percentage point here or a percentage point there yet ignore the established and proven things that could be done to cut CO2 output in the third world by a 1/2 or a 1/3rd defeats their own argument.





volunbeer said:


> We are paying billions for what looks more and more like a fake crisis used to levy taxes and regulations upon the West while the largest pollution sources are found in the developing world. The dirtiest water and most hazardous materials are found in the developing world.



Well I'll say again, what climate scientists would have and what they can get are two different things. We don't have a global gov't (yet thankfully) and these agreements are just saturated in the politics of the developed world vs the undeveloped and who did what to who and who wants more money to comply and which despotic @$#%^ stole the money etc. Common sense is always down on the list. Same as it ever was. Not sure how you take that as evidence that its all a fake crisis.


----------



## bfitz3

gregbesia said:


> Maybe in some cases having an EPA stove does not solve everything. My next door neighbor has what I think is a big Regency wood stove with secondary combustion. ( I have seen it only once few years ago so no model #) He buys wood in log length, after waiting 1 year he then cuts , splits and calls it seasoned. He makes huge splits ,like 8x8x18 . Red oak that still weights a ton . He uses that so it lasts longer in his stove. His chimney smokes for hours, big time. Good thing not in my direction. He tells me that he has to clean his chimney every few weeks and removes buckets of creosote. He is a nice guy otherwise,but he is resisting to change his ways. When I try to talk to him about what I learned on this site: css, wait 2-3 years, burn , he looks at me like I'm crazy. When I told him that I love pine for shoulder season and to burn down the coals, he almost called the state to have me committed.           I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.


Give the guy 3 or 4 weeks of seasoned wood. Ask him to try it and, if nothing else, note how much cleaner the stack is. Maybe make a convert?


----------



## bfitz3

I really enjoyed this thread until the glare of tinfoil obscured the original topic.


----------



## Jags

A single moment of lost civility or insult will trigger the nuclear option on this thread.  Respect will carry the day...


----------



## tarzan

Jags said:


> A single moment of lost civility or insult will trigger the nuclear option on this thread.  Respect will carry the day...



Even though this thread has experienced quite an evolution from the original post I hope everyone plays nice and the thread continues.

As in most debates, it's likely that both camps are too firmly entrenched to be swayed but those of us following with open minds can learn from there arguements.


----------



## volunbeer

bholler - it is greener now than it used to be - historical, anthropological, and core sampling show it is so.  In fact, there are an estimated 3 trillion trees now (a lot of chainsawing to do!) - a pretty stunning number.   I am not sure what you are basing your opinion on - NASA and many other organizations have said this.   

I don't think we are "screwing up the atmosphere", but if we were, why are we not doing more to address the easiest places to make big gains on reducing CO2?  That would not be in the Western world - it would be in the 3rd world.   I don't buy their argument, but assuming for a second that I did - why would we not get the best bang for the buck in fixing the problem?

jatoxico - I don't buy that CO2 is a pollutant.  I base that on many years of watching the predictions and claims and finally admitting that everything they were saying was wrong.   It is simply wrong.   I remember the initial statements about global warming and what was said then has not proven true.  

I am not being disrespectful to anyone and I can politely agree to disagree, I simply wish people would examine the evidence instead of believing what so many claim to be absolutely true.   I am all for clean air and clean water, but our "war on CO2" is not doing nearly as much to help those issues as we think.   It has become a political issue and group think makes people react as if someone who politely disagrees said something racially offensive or downright rude when they question it.   That is silly - we are all adults.   The fact remains that Al Gore, generally the face of the movement, has no degree or formal education on the topic, yet he has made by most estimates over 100 million dollars selling the idea.   

I think the next decade or two will show that the science is not settled and the Earth is far more resilient and complex than we believe.   It will also show that CO2 is not a pollutant.


----------



## volunbeer

_"Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth." - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

------------


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...larmists-debunk-their-science/2/#3ec7dca850b2_


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> I am not being disrespectful to anyone and I can politely agree to disagree,


And I appreciate that I may disagree with you but no need to be rude or disrespectful. 



volunbeer said:


> I think the next decade or two will show that the science is not settled and the Earth is far more resilient and complex than we believe


I can totally agree with that.



volunbeer said:


> It will also show that CO2 is not a pollutant.


But not that entirely I will say that co2 is not necessarily a pollutant but it has been proven that when the co2 levels in the atmosphere climb to high it seriously affects our climate.  


Now can you please address the examples I have given about other planets and ther fact that they do not simply get cooler in order as they get further from the sun

Now yes it would be great if we could work with underdeveloped countries to reduce their pollution levels as well.  but does that mean we should also stop all work here?


----------



## volunbeer

The only planet that defies the rule of distance to the sun is Venus, which is warmer than Mercury despite being further from the sun.   Venus has the thickest atmosphere of any planet in our solar system.  It is 80 to 90 times thicker than our own atmosphere so it traps far more heat.   Other planets cool as they get further from the sun and they have little ability to retain heat due to minimal atmosphere.   

I don't think we should stop work here in the U.S.   I am simply pointing out the fact that the biggest proponents tell us if we don't cut CO2 emissions the planet will cook us.   If that is the case, why do they spend money upgrading a coal plant in "your town here" for a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions when they can have a much larger impact (50% or more) by installing basic scrubbers in a plant that has none?   The only people required to pay for emissions cuts are the West - isn't that strange in light of the quote from Edenhofer above?   

We can do better across the board, but for the most part we have seen huge improvements in air quality in the U.S.       Everything comes down to a balancing act and it should come with transparency and a simple cost-benefit analysis so all of us can see what our money is being used for.   There might be more interest in "why" then.


----------



## bholler

volunbeer said:


> The only planet that defies the rule of distance to the sun is Venus, which is warmer than Mercury despite being further from the sun. Venus has the thickest atmosphere of any planet in our solar system. It is 80 to 90 times thicker than our own atmosphere so it traps far more heat. Other planets cool as they get further from the sun and they have little ability to retain heat due to minimal atmosphere.


Then you also have Jupiter it is out of order to.  But just look at mercury it has very little atmosphere and yes the side facing the sun gets extremely hot but the other side is extremely cold like a 400 degree swing from one side to the other because it does not have enough atmosphere to hold any heat in.    Yes absolutely we should be doing more to combat emissions in other countries but that does not mean climate change is a hoax.


----------



## bfitz3

Fact... CO2 is a greenhouse gas (high school level experiment)
Fact... CO2 has dramatically increased in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, it IS increasing the earth's temperature. It's amazing what a layer of insulation does.  (How many times have statements about improving a house's efficiency been touted on this forum?)
Fact... The industrial revolution has resulted in the release many many gigatons of CO2 previously sequestered beneath the surface of the earth. Humans are a contributing factor to global warming as we have installed global insulation.
Fact... Not all of this CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Much is absorbed into the oceans.
Fact... Adding CO2 to water decreases its pH (or at least lowers its buffering capacity. Once it's gone, the pH will drop, possibly precipitously.)
Fact... The acidification of the oceans will/is changing their biology. This is quite dangerous as 2/3 of the planet's oxygen comes from the oceans. (The word dangerous is my opinion.)

While the models do not always agree and do not always come to fruition, they do converge to the same conclusion... That man has and continues to alter the planet's climate in ways that are unpredictable, and generally not good for our existence.

So... To me, it seems like we have some guy (let's call him "Al") who walked in on 100 people staring at a gun on the table. None were able to check the chamber. 99 of them are saying either it might be loaded or that it is loaded based on experiments/observations that have been done in the presence of each other. One guy says it isn't loaded and he knows so because he doesn't trust the motives of the other 99. I can't fathom why Al would pick up the gun and point it at his head.


----------



## volunbeer

Man is not the primary contributor of CO2 - nature produces far larger amounts.   Every tree rotting in the forest is producing it.   It is part of the Earth's life cycle.   While we certainly contribute, the steps taken in the West have been outweighed by economic development in the third world where the CO2 output is increasing every year.   We are spending more money for diminishing returns in the West - again, goes to my point - where is the best bang for the buck in reducing CO2 output assuming you are correct? 

What if CO2 is not a pollutant (I don't believe it is) and the Earth is capable of dealing with it (I believe it can)?   What if, despite all our efforts, we are not able to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to circumstances beyond our control?   Would we not be better off spending that money elsewhere for clean water, health, and reducing toxic pollution?   

Fact - we are not warming.   Period.   That is what they have used to sell the program - global warming.   They can call it climate change all they want, but they were wrong then - why does everyone believe they are right now?


----------



## bfitz3

If it was wrong, some aspiring scientist would do the research to refute the work of thousands of scientists in every country and of every political persuasion. The money and desire is there to fund said research. All that would be left is for said scientist to collect their Nobel prizes. 

There is not a global conspiracy. There is one political group in one world that has politicized the science for their own gain. Neither of us should believe the 'beliefs' of the other. We should believe the results of globally reproduced research across many many scientific fields.

The amount of natural CO2 creation is irrelevant. The earth was at equilibrium. The equilibrium point has changed as, again, many many gigatons of CO2 have been introduced to the system by man. That is fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, again, a cold hard fact. 

The data directly contradict your claim that the planet is not warming. And no, the warming is not the result of natural cycles. That has been thoroughly researched. If you have evidence to the contrary, be that person to collect a stack of Nobel prizes. 

As for bang for the buck, I'm not going to waste my time googling this, but it is certainly right in spirit to say that if China and the US were to reduce CO2 emissions by 10%, an attainable goal, it would likely equal a 100% reduction in emissions from Africa, an impossibility.

Can we just end this and pray that the thread returns to something more productive?


----------



## begreen

volunbeer said:


> Man is not the primary contributor of CO2 - nature produces far larger amounts. Every tree rotting in the forest is producing it. It is part of the Earth's life cycle. While we certainly contribute, the steps taken in the West have been outweighed by economic development in the third world where the CO2 output is increasing every year. We are spending more money for diminishing returns in the West - again, goes to my point - where is the best bang for the buck in reducing CO2 output assuming you are correct?
> 
> What if CO2 is not a pollutant (I don't believe it is) and the Earth is capable of dealing with it (I believe it can)? What if, despite all our efforts, we are not able to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to circumstances beyond our control? Would we not be better off spending that money elsewhere for clean water, health, and reducing toxic pollution?
> 
> Fact - we are not warming. Period. That is what they have used to sell the program - global warming. They can call it climate change all they want, but they were wrong then - why does everyone believe they are right now?


That is correct, but the systems have balanced themselves nicely. Human contributions have tipped the balance and have changed the equation. Oceans are getting supersaturated with CO2 which is lowering the pH. Concentrations in the upper atmosphere are quite high and increasing. Whether or not C02 is called a pollutant or not is semantics. Yes the earth can deal with it, it has in the past. But it may have to wipe out a lot of life to restore balance. So why chit in our own bed?

Also, human and human related activities add other gases besides CO2. Some like methane are even stronger greenhouse gases. Yes, the earth also releases methane, but the system has been pretty nicely balanced up until the industrial age. And yes, we are warming. The global average is steadily increasing. This won't be terrible until we reach the tipping point where momentum accelerates the problem and large ice masses melt, including the glaciers that feed the rivers that supply half of humanity with water.

As for the cooling hiatus in the early 2000s? It was a data error.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469


----------



## jpowell1979

CO2 is only pollution because politicians can tax it as a byproduct of industry.  PM2.5 is only pollution if you some one breathes it in high concentrations.  Both are greatly abundant in nature absent any human presence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## bholler

jpowell1979 said:


> CO2 is only pollution because politicians can tax it as a byproduct of industry.


Or because in high levels it is detrimental to the environment.



jpowell1979 said:


> PM2.5 is only pollution if you some one breathes it in high concentrations.


Would you want the air in your house to contain that much particulate matter every day?



jpowell1979 said:


> Both are greatly abundant in nature absent any human presence.


Yes but we are adding to it at much higher levels than we need to.


----------



## bfitz3

And so, I insult myself, most uncivily, so Jags will impose the nuclear option on this thread...

"My mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries!"

Please?!


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Don't particulates bond with water molecules and become water vapor aka clouds, that make rain? We need them!


----------



## bholler

Lloyd the redneck said:


> Don't particulates bond with water molecules and become water vapor aka clouds, that make rain? We need them!


yes again some particulates in the air is not a bad thing but allot are.  So would you be ok with particulate levels over the acceptable limits in your home every day?


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

Well my work environment is above the acceptable limits, so no , because I work in the sheet all day. But on that note about an hour after you dust the tables they are coated in dust again within an hour. So I don't spose were at acceptable limits anyways.


----------



## bholler

Lloyd the redneck said:


> Well my work environment is above the acceptable limits, so no , because I work in the sheet all day. But on that note about an hour after you dust the tables they are coated in dust again within an hour. So I don't spose were at acceptable limits anyways.


So do you think it is ok to make everyone breath that or do you think we should try to limit the amount we put in the air?


----------



## Lloyd the redneck

bholler said:


> So do you think it is ok to make everyone breath that or do you think we should try to limit the amount we put in the air?



Well I think you should.. Haha just kidding , no I'm all aboard the clean air ship. Just like to stir the pot.


----------



## Jags

Hamster references draws the line.

Seriously folks, I respect the civility and tolerance of differing opinions, but this thread has been in the weeds for several pages.  I don't think there is any new revelations that will come from continuing.  Gonna lay this one to rest.
Stay human.


----------

