The EPA and Stupidity....

[boxcar]

should be treated as synonyms in updated thesauruses. Trump really needs to reign in these brain-dead morons!

EPA To Alaskans In Sub-Zero Temps: Stop Burning Wood To Keep Warm

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

[Tom]

Maybe they could burn the EPA regulations....must be a bazillion pages of them.

[OntheRail]

Dumb Phucks in far away lands in climate controlled building... tooling back and forth in SUV's. Telling real folks "we from the Government... we only here to help... you out of everything thing we can". How many trees have been wasted on printing their rules and reg.'s. Bet the people of Fairbanks could heat for a decade by burning half of them.

Trump needs to bring in a wood chipper and thin down the EPA for sure...

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Putting a nice label on an organization does not make them qualified.

Who among us is not for protecting the environment?

But you cannot praise incompetence because it hides behind a noble name.

[woodtoo]

I don't trust those trees they look pretty shady. :lol:

[boxcar]

I don't trust those trees they look pretty shady. :lol:

Oh...that was bad.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

I don't trust those trees they look pretty shady. :lol:

Trust your humor, grasshopper. Omit the unnecessary emoticon.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I don't trust those trees they look pretty shady. :lol:

I understand. It was too good to leaf out.

[Tom]

Time to nip this thread in the bud.
Nip it.....in the BUD!

[boxcar]

Oh...how I wood that would happen!

[Rise Over Run]

I don't trust those trees they look pretty shady. :lol:

Not sure where you're going with this one... you stumped me. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Not sure where you're going with this one... you stumped me. :lol: :lol:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this thread has strayed off unto some pretty rocky ground.

[OntheRail]

Well they are one branch that needs to be trimmed back.

[wisconsin]

If we could just get to the root of the problem...

[chrisl]

Many years ago the EPA idiots came through Ketchikan Alaska.Most peoples driveway's, for the most part, are dirt. They went to your driveway and if any oil spots were in your driveway you received a notice to comply withing 4 hours or you will be fined 250 bucks. You needed to dig up any areas that had evidence of oil spots, put it in a bag. EPA dicks returned later in the day. You had to give them them the bag of contaminated dirt, they inspected your area. Then it was a 50 dollar fine to be in compliance and take away your dirt bag.

Most people were at work and recieved the $250 fine. My wife was home at the time. I definitely had some oil spots in my driveway. They talked to my wife like she was a criminal. Of course my wife told them to F$#& off many times, until they threatened to call the police. Later it was said, it was all a fishing trip for the EPA elite. They did the driveway scam to cover up the real reason they were there. Their was a few people that did get arrested. I guess the EPA dildos do not like having a gun pointed at them and told to get the F#$% off my property. They also told homeowners that they could condemn their homes if they did not comply.

[Tom]

Heaven forbid! Oil getting into the ground? :eek: :eek: :eek:


The EPS jerks are all BARK and no bite. :rolleyes:

[davew]

Maybe EPA could give them a clean burning fuel, or stay a few thousand miles away so the don't have to see it.

[chadk66]

The EPA needs to be dissolved. States can handle their own situations.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The EPA needs to be dissolved. States can handle their own situations.
From experience I can tell you when it comes to setting standards, industry/business almost unanimously favors a central national agency. If you think about it for 10 seconds or so, having 50 different sets of standards and rules is chaos for industry/business. You might remember the problem CA caused for auto manufacturers when they decided to develop their own automobile emissions standards. The best EPA could do prevent other states from developing separate standards - it could either be CA or the national standard. I can't think of a standard that industry/business doesn't want set on a national level. The other thing you probably don't realize is that 90% of environmental rules are managed by the states. I guarantee you when you have a problem you call the state first. Another thing is that having states "handle their own situations" means that in some places situations like Flint would be the rule because it would be all about industry/business. Unfortunately, even if you want to shit all over where you live, the water moves between states and the air moves everywhere. The idea that you can function as an island is of course ridiculous.

[chadk66]

From experience I can tell you when it comes to setting standards, industry/business almost unanimously favors a central national agency. If you think about it for 10 seconds or so, having 50 different sets of standards and rules is chaos for industry/business. You might remember the problem CA caused for auto manufacturers when they decided to develop their own automobile emissions standards. The best EPA could do prevent other states from developing separate standards - it could either be CA or the national standard. I can't think of a standard that industry/business doesn't want set on a national level. The other thing you probably don't realize is that 90% of environmental rules are managed by the states. I guarantee you when you have a problem you call the state first. Another thing is that having states "handle their own situations" means that in some places situations like Flint would be the rule because it would be all about industry/business. Unfortunately, even if you want to shit all over where you live, the water moves between states and the air moves everywhere. The idea that you can function as an island is of course ridiculous.I wasn't very clear on my statement. Abolish the EPA and leave the states to enforce the existing laws/rules. Congress can implement any new needed laws/rules. In many cases the states are already doing this anyway. We don't need a bloated government agency running amuck anymore.

[chrisl]

Bloated, a muck, corrupt. The henchmen of the pay to play globally.

[mostpost]

There's stupidity all right, but it's not the EPA. The area around Fairbanks has by far the highest rate of small particulate pollution in the country. The EPA is not ordering people to get rid of their wood burning stoves and freeze to death. They are asking them to upgrade or replace those stoves in order to reduce the dangerous levels of pollution.

There are assistance programs to help those who qualify. Spending a few dollars for this is a lot better than spending many dollars caring for the victims of such pollution.

[Clocker]

There's stupidity all right, but it's not the EPA. The area around Fairbanks has by far the highest rate of small particulate pollution in the country. The EPA is not ordering people to get rid of their wood burning stoves and freeze to death. They are asking them to upgrade or replace those stoves in order to reduce the dangerous levels of pollution.

The EPA is not asking, it is threatening Fairbanks and other local governments with fines and a cutoff of federal transportation funds.



There are assistance programs to help those who qualify. Spending a few dollars for this is a lot better than spending many dollars caring for the victims of such pollution.

A few dollars? EPA approved wood stoves can cost $3000 - $5000. If you buy one, you can qualify for a $300 tax credit.

BTW, How "many dollars caring for the victims of such pollution" are spent in Alaska?

Pretty much anyone in Alaska that heats with a wood burning stove does so because it is the only practical and economical option. We are not talking about vacation homes of the rich and famous here. We are talking about people living at the edge.

[davew]

There are assistance programs to help those who qualify. Spending a few dollars for this is a lot better than spending many dollars caring for the victims of such pollution.

Everybody has available free or subsidized healthcare, so costs are not an issue. Is this particle matter worse than smoking? Should the EPA fine smokers for polluting their lungs, and everything around them?

[Tom]

We are talking about people living at the edge.

How dare they try to live the way they want to!
How dare they defy the collective!

The left has a bug up its arse about Alaska....that is what this is about.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Well I'm not sure what the bug is that these liberals you always refer to have, but if you live in a state with no sales tax, no income tax, and an annual payout from the Alaska permanent fund ($1,022 in 2016), you certainly have less to complain about than most of us do.

[boxcar]

How dare they try to live the way they want to!
How dare they defy the collective!

The left has a bug up its arse about Alaska....that is what this is about.

You're absolutely right. I think Alaska is sacred, holy ground to all the priests who worship at the altar of Mudder Nature. I'm surprised BO hasn't written an EO by now declaring the entire state to be off limits to human beings because it's now and forevermore a wildlife sanctuary.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm not knowledgeable enough on this subject to form a solid opinion.

[chadk66]

I guess they could forgo burning wood and use fuel oil instead. plenty of that there:D

[chrisl]

Hey Mostie/Halfon: How many years, or minutes have you spent in Fairbanks or even Alaska. You seem to know so much, you must have lived off the grid their. You knowledgeable bushman. I am sure you can teach me a thing or two about living off the grid. The only thing most Alaskans complain about is being told what to do. And having dip shits tell us how we live, and need to live.

[Rise Over Run]

Hey Mostie/Halfon: How many years, or minutes have you spent in Fairbanks or even Alaska. You seem to know so much, you must have lived off the grid their. You knowledgeable bushman. I am sure you can teach me a thing or two about living off the grid. The only thing most Alaskans complain about is being told what to do. And having dip shits tell us how we live, and need to live.
HUGE :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Old bumper stick often seen in Alaska: "I don't care how they do it in America."

[davew]

I remember when they sprayed oil over gravel roads for dust, must have been before EPA hunting/fishing trips.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Hey Mostie/Halfon: How many years, or minutes have you spent in Fairbanks or even Alaska. You seem to know so much, you must have lived off the grid their. You knowledgeable bushman. I am sure you can teach me a thing or two about living off the grid. The only thing most Alaskans complain about is being told what to do. And having dip shits tell us how we live, and need to live.
I get some pretty dumb responses to my posts, but every once in a while I get a classically dumb response. I'd like to know which part of my post that you don't pay state sales tax, or income tax, and instead the state sends YOU a check every year was incorrect. Or given that, you have a lot less to complain about than most of us do, which you seemed to confirm by essentially saying you have a lot less to complain about. Or, riddle me this - what did any of that have to do with living off the grid or being a knowledgeable bushman.

If you were here all by yourself, you could pretty much do whatever you wanted. One the other hand, the fact that there are other people that you have to share the planet with - I mean sharing important things like air or water or highways - kind of makes you responsible for doing your part not to be a dip shit and muck it up for others.

I'll bet you're one of those people who gets off on letting your dog crap on someone else's yard and letting it steam there. Those are the kind of dip shits that bug me. If you were smart enough to do the right thing on your own you wouldn't need all that help.

[Clocker]

I'd like to know which part of my post that you don't pay state sales tax, or income tax, and instead the state sends YOU a check every year was incorrect.

I'd like to know what that has to do with trying to force poor people in Alaska with no source of heat other than wood to comply with mindless, expensive EPA standards. Sounded like deflection to me.

[zico20]

I get some pretty dumb responses to my posts, but every once in a while I get a classically dumb response. I'd like to know which part of my post that you don't pay state sales tax, or income tax, and instead the state sends YOU a check every year was incorrect. Or given that, you have a lot less to complain about than most of us do, which you seemed to confirm by essentially saying you have a lot less to complain about. Or, riddle me this - what did any of that have to do with living off the grid or being a knowledgeable bushman.

If you were here all by yourself, you could pretty much do whatever you wanted. One the other hand, the fact that there are other people that you have to share the planet with - I mean sharing important things like air or water or highways - kind of makes you responsible for doing your part not to be a dip shit and muck it up for others.

I'll bet you're one of those people who gets off on letting your dog crap on someone else's yard and letting it steam there. Those are the kind of dip shits that bug me. If you were smart enough to do the right thing on your own you wouldn't need all that help.

If you lived out in the country where I do, nobody gives a damn where the dog shits. You must live in a very upscale, classy neighborhood. :D

[ElKabong]

I'll bet you're one of those people who gets off on letting your dog crap on someone else's yard and letting it steam there. Those are the kind of dip shits that bug me..

Sounds like your neighbors line up to have their dogs shit all over your yard. Gee I can't imagine why that would be....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'd like to know what that has to do with trying to force poor people in Alaska with no source of heat other than wood to comply with mindless, expensive EPA standards. Sounded like deflection to me.
There are two sides to that problem. One is the question of just how many people with wood stoves are really too poor to afford an upgrade. I don't think we know the answer to that. Second, at what point does your right to be "independent" interfere with other's right to, say, clean air? Do you know how the allegedly mindless and expensive EPA standards are set? Do you know why they exist? Do you know who they protect?

Read Garrett Hardin's essay on the tragedy of the commons. One of the things it (and economists) have pointed out is that left unregulated, users will destroy the commons, whether that would be grazing fields, the air or the water. In fact, those of us old enough can say we lived through a time when many rivers were treated as sewers and when factories (like the steel mills in Pittsburgh) could turn day into night with their smokestacks. It also suggests that certain environmental elements can only be regulated through command and control (a point with which I don't always agree).

It also points out that in a successful society, there must be something called mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. That there are always points where it is in the best interest of society to regulate itself. For example, just about everybody agrees it should be a crime to rob banks. It is the job of the people to elect those who will carry out their wishes when it comes to what and how something should be regulated. That's called democracy.

As for the wood stoves, you wouldn't know this because the first thing you want to do is be reactionary, but wood stove programs have been successfully implemented for decades (believe it or not, there is more than one way to skin that cat), even in "poorer" mountain towns where such devices were very common. It has been done through real estate transfer programs (when the house is sold, the stove is upgraded). It has been done through no interest loans. It has been done with subsidies.

Like I said, the tax burdens in Alaska are a lot less than most of us have to deal with, and they get a four figure welfare check every year. I figure that should make it possible to figure out some options that will work for at least some of the stove owners, unless of course you are arguing they are all destitute.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you lived out in the country where I do, nobody gives a damn where the dog shits. You must live in a very upscale, classy neighborhood. :D
I'll concede that if a dog shits in the woods and there is no one around to see it, it's ok not to pick it up. But for those who live in cities and classy, upscale neighborhoods, it is one irritating thing to find a pile of someone's dog crap on your lawn in the morning.

[Tom]

They could charge you for the fertilizer.

[zico20]

I'll concede that if a dog shits in the woods and there is no one around to see it, it's ok not to pick it up. But for those who live in cities and classy, upscale neighborhoods, it is one irritating thing to find a pile of someone's dog crap on your lawn in the morning.

I live in a subdivision, but it is out in the boonies. Nobody gives a damn where dogs take a crap. Some people have more important things to worry about. ;)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I live in a subdivision, but it is out in the boonies. Nobody gives a damn where dogs take a crap. Some people have more important things to worry about. ;)
In suburbia, only those people without dog crap on the lawn can honestly say there are always more important things to worry about. Some days, the big deal is the pile of poop.

[Clocker]

As for the wood stoves, you wouldn't know this because the first thing you want to do is be reactionary

Once again you presume that any opposition to your opinions of the world is based on knowledge and experience inferior to your own, and on ulterior motives. So you get personal and deduce that I know nothing about the issue and just want to be contrarian.

I lived in Anchorage for some years, and knew people in Fairbanks, including one family that lived in a house with wood stove heating (and no indoor plumbing). Global warming is not a concern when the best housing you can afford is a rental house with wood heat. And real estate transfer programs and tax credits and other big brother plans don’t apply when your big concern is coming up with next month’s rent to keep a wood heated roof over your head.


Like I said, the tax burdens in Alaska are a lot less than most of us have to deal with, and they get a four figure welfare check every year.

It is not a welfare check. It is a dividend paid to all citizens by a state-owned corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, an investment company that manages the state’s natural resources and the income from those resources.

And the lack of tax burdens is off-set by the high prices of goods that have to be shipped by sea or air from the lower 48.

I figure that should make it possible to figure out some options that will work for at least some of the stove owners, unless of course you are arguing they are all destitute.

You figure wrong. I received some of those Permanent Fund checks in the past, and for me it was icing on the cake of life, fun money to buy toys or whatever. For many, it is the only thing that keeps the family from being destitute. People with disposable income don’t generally have to rely on a wood stove as their only source of heat.

P.S. As the article linked in the OP states, homes with wood stoves are a very small minority in Fairbanks, with high inversion areas amounting to a few blocks here or there.

At -30 degrees Fahrenheit, smoke doesn’t rise. It drops down to ground level and settles in low-lying areas. But this doesn’t happen city-wide, it happens on a single block or street.

My "uninformed" opinion is that the EPA is grossly overreacting. We are talking about very limited areas for limited times of the year. Times when children are not playing in the back yard and families are not picnicking in the park. They are indoors, huddled around the wood stove because they can't afford anything better, even with low taxes and a munificent Permanent Fund check.

[Tom]

God gave us trees to burn.
Anyone got a problem with that can go to Hell.
Tell Stan you don't like him polluting the environment. :lol:


Can the libs get any more pathetically stupid....don't burn wood or coal????
What' next, don't drink water, stop breathing air?

Heaven save us from the feeble-minded.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Once again you presume that any opposition to your opinions of the world is based on knowledge and experience inferior to your own, and on ulterior motives. So you get personal and deduce that I know nothing about the issue and just want to be contrarian.
No, I assume that if you had real knowledge you wouldn't say things that indicate you aren't knowledgeable.

I lived in Anchorage for some years, and knew people in Fairbanks, including one family that lived in a house with wood stove heating (and no indoor plumbing). Global warming is not a concern when the best housing you can afford is a rental house with wood heat. And real estate transfer programs and tax credits and other big brother plans don’t apply when your big concern is coming up with next month’s rent to keep a wood heated roof over your head.
The upgrade to a cleaner burning wood stove is not primarily about global warming. It is related to violations of the fine particulate standard, which if you are someone with asthma, COPD, or heart disease is a really big deal. And as I said, unless you believe everybody is like your acquaintance and is living on the edge, there are solutions. Takes someone willing to understand the problem and evaluate the solutions. I tried to point out that this program and implementation options have been going on for decades, and your destitute Alaskans are not unique. Everything with you is big brother. Since the beginning of time, if government steps in, it usually starts with a failure on the part of individuals to behave in a way that would avoid outside intervention.


It is not a welfare check. It is a dividend paid to all citizens by a state-owned corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, an investment company that manages the state’s natural resources and the income from those resources.
You didn't do a damn thing for your check other than live in Alaska. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

And the lack of tax burdens is off-set by the high prices of goods that have to be shipped by sea or air from the lower 48.
Seriously? That's your argument?

You figure wrong. I received some of those Permanent Fund checks in the past, and for me it was icing on the cake of life, fun money to buy toys or whatever. For many, it is the only thing that keeps the family from being destitute. People with disposable income don’t generally have to rely on a wood stove as their only source of heat.
I'm just waiting for your "informed" statistic on the destitute with wood stoves that need replacing. I'll bet the term mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon means nothing to you. At some point if you want to be a citizen, you have to do your part. The world is not just about you and what you want.

P.S. As the article linked in the OP states, homes with wood stoves are a very small minority in Fairbanks, with high inversion areas amounting to a few blocks here or there.
Oh, I'll bet you googled inversion. Or, considering your understanding, it is more likely you didn't. I'd love to hear your explanation of how the inversion only occurs here and there. I'll bet you didn't know that Fairbanks is likely to move to one of the top five dirtiest cities in the nation. But I'm sure it's your right to do anything you damn well please even if it trashes the same air we all breathe. When you try to figure out how you can come into compliance with national standards, you come up with strategies, usually the easiest or most cost effective first. And when you run out of them, you look at what's next on the list.

My "uninformed" opinion is that the EPA is grossly overreacting. We are talking about very limited areas for limited times of the year. Times when children are not playing in the back yard and families are not picnicking in the park. They are indoors, huddled around the wood stove because they can't afford anything better, even with low taxes and a munificent Permanent Fund check.
Well you're right about one thing. That is your uninformed opinion. The standards are national. Everybody has to meet them, including Alaska. They have to meet them every day of the year. That's the law, and it isn't one EPA came up with all by themselves. Congress did. I get the impression that no matter what EPA did, they would be grossly overreacting. You worry about the destitute. I'll worry about the people suffering health crises because of them.

Longtime Fairbanks-area resident Suzanne Fenner doesn't have to check the borough's air quality monitoring website to see whether or not pollution is high. She just looks out the front door. When she sees smoke rolling through, she knows she'll be coughing soon enough.

Fenner, who's lived in Fairbanks since 1986, was shocked to learn recently she'd developed asthma. After being sick off and on for months, her doctor told her the asthma was a direct result of air pollution.

"Sometimes I feel like our days of living in this community are numbered," she said. "We're going to be forced to move away from family and friends. This environment is beautiful, but it's toxic.

"And that's pathetic."

[Clocker]

The fact that you understood nothing of what I said is regrettable but understandable.



Nobody understood what you said. You tossed out a lot of distractions about no taxes and Permanent Fund checks and evil people who won't upgrade their wood stoves. And a heart-wrenching story about a woman with asthma. None of which is relevant to the issue that the EPA is pissing on poor people about heating with wood and dripping oil on the driveway.

And there is no evidence presented here that the pollution in Fairbanks is solely, or even primarily, caused by wood burning.

In fact, the EPA reached a deal last month with environmental groups to do more about pollution in Fairbanks. Reports on the agreement cited auto exhaust and power plants as the primary causes.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached a deal to address claims by environmental groups that it has not done enough to protect Fairbanks, Alaska, from airborne pollution that is endangering the health of the area's residents, with the parties asking a federal court on Wednesday to approve the deal.
...

Episodic fine-particulate matter pollution consists of airborne, inhalable particles from smoke and haze linked to automobiles and power plants said to cause respiratory issues and lung disease. The groups had said the Fairbanks North Star Borough is a large area in Alaska where that type of pollution is worse than anywhere else in the nation.

So after agreeing that autos and power plants are the major cause, the EPA goes for big immediate publicity by attacking poor people with wood stoves.

https://www.law360.com/articles/875888/epa-reaches-deal-in-fairbanks-air-pollution-suit

[chrisl]

My stupid life in Alaska. I have been for 20 plus years, working in the EPA field in this great state. I have designed and ran projects all around the state. I work in the concrete containment field. EPA has ran sacked many areas and small villages on there fuel containment. I have been to the most desolate areas that depend on imported fuel. We would go in and bring these villages fuel containment's into EPA guidelines.

These people live on very little. They need fuel for there boats to feed there families. In many parts of the state wood is very scarce. They beach log for anything they can, to heat there homes. I have met the most incredible people. For some idiots to say that this is some sort of stupid way of life and that he has worked so that he would never be here. So I am a lower rung of the IQ ladder. I have been married to my Eskimo wife for 32 years Great state, 4 kids

[Tom]

You didn't do a damn thing for your check other than live in Alaska. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck.

Wow. I though you were smarter than that.
My bad.

[chrisl]

I am so sorry Chadk66. According to Halvnot you have not worked hard enough and do not have the IQ level needed, to not shovel snow. We all know how ignorant people who have to deal with snow are. Welcome to my group, friend.

[PaceAdvantage]

Lots of recent posts just deleted...any posts or replies with needless name calling, or any posts that quote such name calling, have and will be deleted.

There is no other way to get my point across other than simply deleting the offending posts from here on out.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Nobody understood what you said. You tossed out a lot of distractions about no taxes and Permanent Fund checks and evil people who won't upgrade their wood stoves. And a heart-wrenching story about a woman with asthma. None of which is relevant to the issue that the EPA is pissing on poor people about heating with wood and dripping oil on the driveway.

And there is no evidence presented here that the pollution in Fairbanks is solely, or even primarily, caused by wood burning.

In fact, the EPA reached a deal last month with environmental groups to do more about pollution in Fairbanks. Reports on the agreement cited auto exhaust and power plants as the primary causes.
The exasperating part of trying to have a discussion here is the mischaracterization and the hyperbole. Evil people who won't upgrade their wood stoves? It's no wonder I question your ability to comprehend. I never called anyone evil. It wasn't even a passing thought. Then you've got the other guy lamenting the wood burning stoves across the entire state. As far as I can tell, this is about the nonattainment area in North Star and Fairbanks. I'll admit I have no idea how destitute all the people with wood stoves are in that area, so the idea of changing out wood stoves may be the biggest hardship in the history of Alaska. But, as I've said, and apparently you didn't understand, there are different ways to implement such a program that don't have to cause hardship, and as far as I can tell that is part of the discussion. I'm absolutely certain that if a wood stove is your primary heat source, EPA will not prevent that person from using it. And if you own a stove that meets standards, nobody is going to prevent you from burning it ever.

You seem to be under the impression that to implement a change-out program requires some demonstration that wood stoves are the primary source of pollution. Once an area is designated nonattainment, you look at your inventory of sources and look for reductions beyond the control strategies required by the CAA. Everything is on the table, and the amount an area is over the standard will drive which reduction strategies make the most sense. That's true in Alaska and every other state in the country.

Think of it like a budget. Your income is the standard you have to meet. If your expenditures exceed your income, you start cutting. You may decide to go without cable, or eat more pasta, or turn the thermostat down because you don't want to reduce your beer budget, but in the end the two numbers have to match. In other words, if you do strategies related to autos (modern gasoline engines emit very little fine particulate matter, but diesel engines are significant) and power plants and you still need additional reductions, you may look at wood stoves for the residual amount. In the case of Fairbanks/North Star, there are areas where wood stoves are the primary source of fine particular pollution, and EPA actually looked at dividing the non-attainment area into two zones, one of which would be the focus of wood burning.

I'm not sure there is a simpler way to explain it, so if it is still not understandable, I think that's on you.

So after agreeing that autos and power plants are the major cause, the EPA goes for big immediate publicity by attacking poor people with wood stoves.

My understanding is that Fairbanks actually adopted wood stove standards that were more stringent than the EPA standards. EPA was sued by community groups in Fairbanks. This wasn't a coup from Washington. There were people in Fairbanks who believed the area was not doing enough to come into compliance with the particulate standard and they sued EPA for not enforcing the standard. Just off the top of my head I'd say they were Alaskans upset by bad air quality in Alaska and they put EPA in the middle. EPA negotiated a settlement agreement (instead of letting the court impose one). Now it appears you characterized that as EPA going for publicity by attacking poor people with wood stoves. That is not the way it came down.

I get it. I've mentioned confirmation bias before. It simply means that you view information relative to your existing beliefs. In this case you and the other guy took a story that had a limited scope and turned it into the weight of the federal government slamming down on every poor person in Alaska - and there are apparently as many of them as there are bald eagles - with a stove. It isn't about denying heat to those who only have a stove and it never was.

Too many here get angry out of all proportion to the truth. Too many threads start with some incendiary half-truth and God-forbid anyone should try to express a different opinion.

[boxcar]

The exasperating part of trying to have a discussion here is the mischaracterization and the hyperbole. Evil people who won't upgrade their wood stoves? It's no wonder I question your ability to comprehend. I never called anyone evil. It wasn't even a passing thought. Then you've got the other guy lamenting the wood burning stoves across the entire state. As far as I can tell, this is about the nonattainment area in North Star and Fairbanks. I'll admit I have no idea how destitute all the people with wood stoves are in that area, so the idea of changing out wood stoves may be the biggest hardship in the history of Alaska. But, as I've said, and apparently you didn't understand, there are different ways to implement such a program that don't have to cause hardship, and as far as I can tell that is part of the discussion. I'm absolutely certain that if a wood stove is your primary heat source, EPA will not prevent that person from using it. And if you own a stove that meets standards, nobody is going to prevent you from burning it ever.

You seem to be under the impression that to implement a change-out program requires some demonstration that wood stoves are the primary source of pollution. Once an area is designated nonattainment, you look at your inventory of sources and look for reductions beyond the control strategies required by the CAA. Everything is on the table, and the amount an area is over the standard will drive which reduction strategies make the most sense. That's true in Alaska and every other state in the country.

Think of it like a budget. Your income is the standard you have to meet. If your expenditures exceed your income, you start cutting. You may decide to go without cable, or eat more pasta, or turn the thermostat down because you don't want to reduce your beer budget, but in the end the two numbers have to match. In other words, if you do strategies related to autos (modern gasoline engines emit very little fine particulate matter, but diesel engines are significant) and power plants and you still need additional reductions, you may look at wood stoves for the residual amount. In the case of Fairbanks/North Star, there are areas where wood stoves are the primary source of fine particular pollution, and EPA actually looked at dividing the non-attainment area into two zones, one of which would be the focus of wood burning.

I'm not sure there is a simpler way to explain it, so if it is still not understandable, I think that's on you.


My understanding is that Fairbanks actually adopted wood stove standards that were more stringent than the EPA standards. EPA was sued by community groups in Fairbanks. This wasn't a coup from Washington. There were people in Fairbanks who believed the area was not doing enough to come into compliance with the particulate standard and they sued EPA for not enforcing the standard. Just off the top of my head I'd say they were Alaskans upset by bad air quality in Alaska and they put EPA in the middle. EPA negotiated a settlement agreement (instead of letting the court impose one). Now it appears you characterized that as EPA going for publicity by attacking poor people with wood stoves. That is not the way it came down.

I get it. I've mentioned confirmation bias before. It simply means that you view information relative to your existing beliefs. In this case you and the other guy took a story that had a limited scope and turned it into the weight of the federal government slamming down on every poor person in Alaska - and there are apparently as many of them as there are bald eagles - with a stove. It isn't about denying heat to those who only have a stove and it never was.

Too many here get angry out of all proportion to the truth. Too many threads start with some incendiary half-truth and God-forbid anyone should try to express a different opinion.

Am I missing something here: Aren't wood stoves the primary source for heat for virtually all homes in Alaska, generally, but in Fairbanks particularly? HOH says that he's "absolutely certain that if a wood stove is your primary heat source, EPA will not prevent that person from using it", but this is exactly what the EPA wants people to do! And then Halv accuses others here of using hyperbole or mischaracterizing things! Of course, the EPA will allow people to heat their homes with wood burning stoves if they're willing to pay the stiff fines for simply trying to keep themselves alive! :bang: :bang:

[Clocker]

Am I missing something here: Aren't wood stoves the primary source for heat for virtually all homes in Alaska, generally, but in Fairbanks particularly?

Only those where natural gas is not available and propane is not available or prohibitively expensive. To the best of my knowledge, the great majority of homes in Fairbanks have natural gas. But the city, small in population but large in area, has fringes and pockets not served by municipal gas or water/sewer. Or they weren't at the time the homes were built, and owners cannot afford to connect now.

Such homes may not even be officially within city limits, but are in the metro area and have a Fairbanks mailing address. In Alaska, the distinction between the actual city and the burough (what we would call a county) is often fuzzy if not non-existent.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Woodburning in general is going to be less efficient and more expensive than natural gas. New natural gas furnaces are close to 95% efficient. A wood stove is probably going to be around 80% (meaning the device captures 80% of the heat potential of the fuel). It's also going to be more expensive to burn wood unless you have a really cheap source available in the vicinity. As you might imagine, the less the efficiency, the higher the emissions.

Also, unless you have an outside air source piping into the stove, you'd be using heated air as the combustion air.

That being said, it's likely you'd only use wood as your sole heating source if you didn't have other options available, and there are aren't a lot of places (or a lot of people in those places) where that might be the case. But certainly if you only had that one option, I can't imagine any agency telling you to change it out or turn it off.

[boxcar]

Only those where natural gas is not available and propane is not available or prohibitively expensive. To the best of my knowledge, the great majority of homes in Fairbanks have natural gas. But the city, small in population but large in area, has fringes and pockets not served by municipal gas or water/sewer. Or they weren't at the time the homes were built, and owners cannot afford to connect now.

Such homes may not even be officially within city limits, but are in the metro area and have a Fairbanks mailing address. In Alaska, the distinction between the actual city and the burough (what we would call a county) is often fuzzy if not non-existent.

Thanks for the clarification. If you're right, then it sounds like we're talking only about a small minority who either can't afford alternatives or those alternatives simply aren't available to them. And if this is the case, then the EPA is not only stupid but a stupid bully!

[Clocker]

And if this is the case, then the EPA is not only stupid but a stupid bully!

Not true. This is simply a case of confirmation bias. The EPA believes that civilization as we know it will end in a generation if we do not eliminate all forms of carbon fuel. If you believe that, then severe punishment for oil drippings on a driveway or for burning wood to stay alive is a noble pursuit.

On the other hand, spilling millions of gallons of mining waste into a Colorado river does not result in global warming, and therefore is a minor "Oops".

[chadk66]

burning wood for heat is by far the cheapest form of heat source in Alaska. Trees are plentiful all one has to do is cut it up and the wood is free. only expense you have is the cost of a chain saw (trivial), and the fuel to haul it. Which in most cases is only a few miles.

[boxcar]

Not true. This is simply a case of confirmation bias. The EPA believes that civilization as we know it will end in a generation if we do not eliminate all forms of carbon fuel. If you believe that, then severe punishment for oil drippings on a driveway or for burning wood to stay alive is a noble pursuit.

On the other hand, spilling millions of gallons of mining waste into a Colorado river does not result in global warming, and therefore is a minor "Oops".

I wonder how many people have died in Fairbanks and the surrounding area from carbon fuel pollution?

[davew]

Woodburning in general is going to be less efficient and more expensive than natural gas. New natural gas furnaces are close to 95% efficient. A wood stove is probably going to be around 80% (meaning the device captures 80% of the heat potential of the fuel). It's also going to be more expensive to burn wood unless you have a really cheap source available in the vicinity. As you might imagine, the less the efficiency, the higher the emissions.

Also, unless you have an outside air source piping into the stove, you'd be using heated air as the combustion air.

That being said, it's likely you'd only use wood as your sole heating source if you didn't have other options available, and there are aren't a lot of places (or a lot of people in those places) where that might be the case. But certainly if you only had that one option, I can't imagine any agency telling you to change it out or turn it off.

Being more efficient does not equal more cost effective. If it costs $10K to run a natural gas line to your home and $8K for heating system, how many years would it take to pay for itself compared to your present system that is already there and uses $1000 wood / yr (figuring $10/hr for your labor acquiring the wood)?

Well I guess the answer is 1 yr if you have someone else pay for it....

[Clocker]

I wonder how many people have died in Fairbanks and the surrounding area from carbon fuel pollution?

If they did, it is because people out shopping or whatever on a balmy winter evening of -40 degrees never turn their cars off. They leave their parked cars idling with the doors locked and do their business.

[boxcar]

If they did, it is because people out shopping or whatever on a balmy winter evening of -40 degrees never turn their cars off. They leave their parked cars idling with the doors locked and do their business.

Well then...the EPA should just stand watch 24/7 in the fair city of Fairbanks to issue hefty citations to these inconsiderate idlers. What a joke! Don't they know how many shoppers in Florida (especially south Florida) let their cars idle, with their a/c's running to boot, during the hot, steamy summer months?
This is not just a cold weather phenomenon. It's an extreme weather one!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Being more efficient does not equal more cost effective. If it costs $10K to run a natural gas line to your home and $8K for heating system, how many years would it take to pay for itself compared to your present system that is already there and uses $1000 wood / yr (figuring $10/hr for your labor acquiring the wood)?

Well I guess the answer is 1 yr if you have someone else pay for it....
Well don't forget the cost of the stove $3-4,000 for a good one if you want to heat a house with it.

I'm not sure where you live, but I just replaced a whole house furnace in a 2,000 square foot house in upstate NY for $3,200 - installed. Of course the gas line was already there. That makes the furnace cost comparable to the stove. The cost of the gas line is certainly going to depend on where you live and where the nearest gas main is. National Grid (upstate NY) doesn't even charge for runs up to 100 feet as long as you hook an appliance to their lines within 90 days. In fact, a lot of utilities are happy to get you hooked up and make their money on the monthly heating bill. It's possible a line in Alaska could cost $10,000 or more if you don't already live in an area with a gas line available. If the line is available, it could be a lot less.

I'm not going to argue about what it would cost to build a house from scratch including a heating source. That wasn't the point I was making. At today's prices, natural gas costs less per BTU than wood and burns more efficiently and with lower emissions. I also said, unless you had a really low cost source of wood, you'd be better of with gas, assuming you had a choice of fuel sources.

I'm not familiar enough with Fairbanks and North Star to know whether natural gas (or propane) is always an option or not.

[chadk66]

believe me when I tell you they aren't using 3k-5K wood stoves in alaska lol. I'm just gonna accept the fact you have no idea about how things go in Alaska ;)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

believe me when I tell you they aren't using 3k-5K wood stoves in alaska lol. I'm just gonna accept the fact you have no idea about how things go in Alaska ;)
We're talking about

-- a fairly urbanized area (for Alaska). There are about 100,000 people in greater Fairbanks.

-- only that part of Fairbanks that is designated non-attainment. The Phase 3 wood stove change out would only be applicable to the non-attainment area, not every cabin in the middle of nowhere. This is not about the entirety of Alaska.

-- If you're buying a whole house wood stove that meets EPA requirements, you can expect to pay that much. But, as I keep saying, we're not talking about the people in the middle of nowhere IN ALASKA burning beetle pine in cast iron cans. And I wasn't talking about supplemental heating units.

-- I know this is arcane stuff, but I have no issue with people in most of Alaska burning whatever they want in whatever they want. All I've done is try to correct people who believed the "stupid" EPA was trying to get rid of every stove in Alaska (they aren't - just upgrading stoves in the the non-attainment area around Fairbanks), that the EPA was acting on its own initiative (they're not - they were sued by community groups in Fairbanks and are under a court sanctioned settlement agreement), and that if you have access to natural gas, it's likely cheaper, cleaner, and safer than wood.

It definitely gets old being criticized for injecting facts into discussions where facts are only relevant if they confirm whatever conclusion the anti-government crew came to without the facts.

[chrisl]

Here we go again... :lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Here we go again... :lol:
When you can point out a fact that has been misrepresented, go ahead and see if you can point it out without calling someone a name.

[chrisl]

Hook,Line and sinker. That took very little trolling. Fishing is good today. :D

[Clocker]

Hook,Line and sinker. That took very little trolling. Fishing is good today. :D

Is it cheechako season already? :p

[chrisl]

It sure is...

[Clocker]

It sure is...

I don't think that one is a keeper. Appears a little undersized to me.