sdWTMer Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 in new homes! Oh good grief! I think that I will have to ditch my beloved state! Here's a link! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I have to agree with banning wood burning fireplaces and yes I am a conservative. Yet I believe that ones rights stop when they greatly interfere with others rights and in this case, the rights that are being interfered with by wood burning stoves are the right to breathe without problems. Smoke from wood burning fires precipitates asthma attacks and has been shown to increase the rate of heart attacks. I am fine with wood burning stoves if they has some effective way of filtering the particulate they produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqui in mo Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 and businesses so they could override customers preset controls when there is an "emergency". http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/america/calif.php They've dropped the plan for now. How long have you lived in CA that this latest regulation would "surprise" you? :) As the rest of us know from tags on things we buy, CA is omniscient, (ie This substance is know to the state of CA to.....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 How long have you lived in CA that this latest regulation would "surprise" you? :) As the rest of us know from tags on things we buy, CA is omniscient, (ie This substance is know to the state of CA to.....) Oh, I'm not all that surprised really. Just a little taken aback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 I have to agree with banning wood burning fireplaces and yes I am a conservative. Yet I believe that ones rights stop when they greatly interfere with others rights and in this case, the rights that are being interfered with by wood burning stoves are the right to breathe without problems. Smoke from wood burning fires precipitates asthma attacks and has been shown to increase the rate of heart attacks. I am fine with wood burning stoves if they has some effective way of filtering the particulate they produce. Not me, I'm tiring of getting my rights eroded for a small minority. We are prohibiting so much now that our lives are being sooooo restricted and we are like the frog in the pot and not realizing that some day we will no longer have any rights. Small, special interest groups are ruling the day - IMHO. Granted I realize by making that statement homeschoolers could be lumped into that ;) , but are we ruling the day? I guess that remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Maybe they should ban cars next. Not only would it help with air pollution, it would help alleviate traffic congestion as well. I'm serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue G in PA Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Too much gov't control can easily lead to an erosion in the freedom we know and love. Are we moving to a communist society? My dad said years ago that the USA was moving dangerously close to this and I would have nothing of it. Well...I'm the one with egg on my face now! LOL! I said to my dh a few days ago that I didn't know if CA was really a part of the US or not! I think they want to succeed and become their own little entity, KWIM? No offense to you Californians...it's not you! The more control we let the gov't take, the more our freedom is taken away. These "little" things set precendent. Wood burning stoves now, cars next (after all, don't they lead to more pollution?), our basic rights next. We see it all over the US, actually. Judges "interpreting" the Constitution to fit whatever case is in front of them and whatever agenda they have instead of following the basic laws laid out for us by our forefathers when this country was formed. It's dangerous I tell you, just plain dangerous and scary. Soon, the thing that sets the US apart from other countries, our freedom, won't even be recognizable anymore. Just my .02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Not me, I'm tiring of getting my rights eroded for a small minority. Except that burning wood is not a right. It's a priviledge. Breathing is a right, not wood burning. There are alternative to wood burning for heat, there are none for breathing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekanamom Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 They've been talking about banning wood stoves up in the SF Bay Area for a few years now. Even banning the use of existing wood stoves. My dad just about threw a fit, since he hasn't used any other source of heat in his in his house for nearly 30 years. The funniest thing was last year when it was a spare the air day. Over the radio, people were being told to not light fires in their fire places... particulate matter... etc, etc. Then we see a plume of smoke on the hills. We're thinking it's another out of control wild fire. Turns out it was a controlled burn (good thing) which would create a fire break in the event of another wild fire in the area. Let me say again that was a good thing to do! But it was just ironic that it came on the day we were all being warned about not lighting fires in fire places or wood stoves because of the particulate matter... and then another group comes along and (for everyone's safety) dumps a whole lot of particulate matter into the air. Yeah, I've also seen the idea for those state-controlled thermostats that would not let you use too much energy. On hot days if the state was about to have another energy crisis, they would just shut off the ACs. :rolleyes: The article I read (this is just from memory, so I could be wrong) was from the perspective that it would be really easy to tamper with them and keep your AC on anyway. You know... where I live it is usually sunny and often windy. I sure wish solar panels and windmills were affordable enough for us to install them. I'd just love to help generate some of the power we need instead of just consuming it. I would probably be happier about not lighting fires if my house was already warm... kwim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle T Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 We had a wood burning fireplace put in our addition just a year ago, so it must be a very new ruling. Personally, I can't stand the smoke and mess, and don't like burning wood anyway, but DH likes it. When I was a kid, there used to be frequent smog alerts, when the air was so bad, we were not allowed to go out and play at recess. Anyone else been in Cali long enough to remember that? It wasn't just once a year or so, it was quite a few days every single year. I haven't heard of a smog alert in years, and if we do still have them, they can't be happening very often. The reduction in smog days was due to the very tight restrictions on gasoline fumes and various factory pollutants. I agree that personal rights need protection, but you know, protecting air, water, and soil are crucial too, and lead to a better life on an individual level. Michelle T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 And the alternatives to wood heat are electric and gas - both of which cause a tremendous amount of pollution to be produced. Why target wood burning fireplaces? It doesn't make any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I am fine with wood burning stoves if they has some effective way of filtering the particulate they produce. Are there stoves with such? We're looking at wood stoves or an EPA approved fireplace insert for the cordwood home we're building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekanamom Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 When I was a kid, there used to be frequent smog alerts, when the air was so bad, we were not allowed to go out and play at recess. Anyone else been in Cali long enough to remember that? It wasn't just once a year or so, it was quite a few days every single year. Yes, I remember those. I thought the current "spare the air" days were pretty much the same thing. I do hear about warnings to stay inside and not do sports every now and then. I don't know how long they've been doing it, but I remember hearing about public transportation being discounted on those spare the air days last year. Incentive for people to skip driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NY Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I live in a village surrounding by farms. A lot of these farmers heat with wood-burning furnaces which create a lot of smoke. We heat with a fireplace insert (And let me say, I can afford the cost of wood. I can't afford oil which is why we switched to wood 3 years ago.). Our chimney is high and with the way the air flow is at our house, the smoke doesn't generally stick around. But I have driven through little knolls and valleys where the smoke from the furnaces & woodstoves just lingers and I can see why people would be upset. There have been times where I'd swear there was an out of control fire going somewhere. I couldn't imagine living in those places. The air quality is awful. As for the answer, I don't think it's government control. If your location is such where the smoke ruins the air, then heat with oil or gas. But for this to be a viable option for most folk, we would have to drill for oil here (in America), do it safely, and then refine it here to keep the cost down. And that will never happen as long as the environmental groups have the control they currently do. Just my 2 cents, Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly IN Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I have a wood burning fireplace. It is one of those catalyst type fireplace where there are no smoke because it is closed out. My opinion is the gov't needs to stay out of people's homes!! PERIOD! Just like the light bulb issues. What is next? Type of stove you can have in your home? Type of kitchen setup in your home? Little by little, our rights to have what we want in our home will be taken. It starts with the light bulb and now on to the fireplaces. What is next? sigh! HOlly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Texas and Colorado also have bans in place in some cities (I have no idea how many; I didn't want to research it that far). I think parts of Washington may have done it, as well, except for folks who don't have any other means of heating their homes. I'm opposed. No bans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 Except that burning wood is not a right. It's a priviledge. Breathing is a right, not wood burning. There are alternative to wood burning for heat, there are none for breathing. But with that you are also saying that I have to spend more of my money on electricity or gas rather than cut down my own wood and burn it? No matter what we do as a nation, what rights we are willing to give up, we will never be able to satisfy everyone. I don't believe that there is a fundamental right to breathe clean air. There is also the alternative for breathing, it's what plenty of people have it's called a portable oxygen tank. I would take one of those before I wanted to take your rights away for a wood burning fireplace, I would be the one that would have to adapt. It's my problem, not yours. Off my soapbox now. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 We haven't been allowed to use our fireplaces in the San Joaquin valley for a few years now. Actually, that isn't 100% true. We are allowed a few days to burn but we have to check air quality first. All other times use of a fireplace is not allowed UNLESS it is your only source of heat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancypants Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Except that burning wood is not a right. It's a priviledge. Breathing is a right, not wood burning. There are alternative to wood burning for heat, there are none for breathing. Oh brother. Burning wood to keep warm has been done ever since man learned how to make a fire! Not a right! :confused: That is the funniest thing I've seriously ever heard. No form of heating is environmentally smiled upon. They all require energy and most emit fumes of some sort. But unless we all live in the tropics we have to keep warm and I'd say that how one chooses to heat their home should be a personal choice. And the same goes for light bulbs for that matter!! Government intervention is becoming ridiculously pervasive and so many people barely even notice or care... or worse, they cheer it on as "improvement." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Can you use the ones that burn corn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 But then that would be ethanol, wouldn't it? We get enough from the cows ;) , plus the price of corn. Yikes! :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothicGyrl Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Quote:Originally Posted by CleoQc Except that burning wood is not a right. It's a priviledge. Breathing is a right, not wood burning. There are alternative to wood burning for heat, there are none for breathing. Nancypants: Oh brother. Burning wood to keep warm has been done ever since man learned how to make a fire! Not a right! That is the funniest thing I've seriously ever heard. I could say the same thing about this bit of tripe where she feels my asthmatic husband and daughter belong on oxygen tanks rather than being able to breathe clean fresh, and free air! Cleo's point is more valid than hers simply because your argument is a strawman--just because the caveman did it, does not make it a right. Burning wood in a fireplace in your home when there are other safer and more viable methods available to heat is not a right.. Breathing is more of a right than that. We HAVE to breathe to survive and breathe clean air to survive longer. Burning wood in your home to get heated is not important and I do resent being told someone would rather see me live off the healthcare system needlessly just so they can have their precious fireplace. [snip]I don't believe that there is a fundamental right to breathe clean air. There is also the alternative for breathing, it's what plenty of people have it's called a portable oxygen tank. I would take one of those before I wanted to take your rights away for a wood burning fireplace, I would be the one that would have to adapt. It's my problem, not yours. Please then, fork over the money for this needless and wasteful breathing machine. Or.. better still--get over not being able to use your fireplace. It's California, it surely does not get cold enough to require one or at least justify this argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Bay Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I could Please then, fork over the money for this needless and wasteful breathing machine. Or.. better still--get over not being able to use your fireplace. It's California, it surely does not get cold enough to require one or at least justify this argument. I'm with Cleo and Toni on this one. I only asked about the corn ones out of curiosity, and I wasn't thinking ethanol from corn--isn't there some stove that burns corn grain, or is it some kind of pellet? It's supposed to heat with very little fuel. Or, being rusty on this, does burning corn produce ethanol? (Just asking, even though I'm 99 percent sure that ethanol is derived from corn and then burned.) We're all ignorant, only on different things, and I'm ignorant on this type of stove I vaguely remember hearing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We have to prioritize rights. I won't tell you that you can't smoke in your own home since I don't need to come visit. But don't have your smoke whether it be from a wood burning stove, fireplace or bonfire invade my space. Asthma and heart attacks caused by particulate pollution kill people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Matters of health come before matters of preference. People have been dumping their waste in lakes and rivers for eons as well, out of convenience and personal preference, but we no longer do that because of the health hazard. Barb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Bear Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Maybe they should ban cars next. Not only would it help with air pollution, it would help alleviate traffic congestion as well. I'm serious. You know, while driving in CA I've wondered if the roads were to be less congested if the correlate drop in overall blood pressure, accidents and injuries (lessening the need for EMS) and thus in healthcare costs to the public would be enough to offset some space age public transportation? I mean there's what now, 25 million people in the greater LA area? Just that Riverside commute (the 91 and the 60?) alone is a nightmare out of a techno-future-scary movie. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PariSarah Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Air pollution caused by wood-burning fireplaces is background noise compared to industrial and automotive pollution. Something about gnats and camels comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly IN Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I could say the same thing about this bit of tripe where she feels my asthmatic husband and daughter belong on oxygen tanks rather than being able to breathe clean fresh, and free air! Cleo's point is more valid than hers simply because your argument is a strawman--just because the caveman did it, does not make it a right. Burning wood in a fireplace in your home when there are other safer and more viable methods available to heat is not a right.. . I understand however everybody in my family including me is asthmatic. We are doing fine with our fireplace. In fact, I am very allergic to wood but no problems with fireplace!! I do NOT want the gov't to tell me what I can or can't have in my house. There is a saying that goes something like this "thousand cuts are just as bad as a immediate dangerous wound " Anyboby know this quote? this is what the gov't is doing to all of us. If homeschooling and fireplace are on the banning alter then what is next people? type of kitchen you have? Would you care if the gov't said you can't have certain type of clothing? What about certain type of cars? What if you can't have a certain type of layout in your kitchen because it is not efficient. Or a gas stove/oven? Or even electric stove in your kitchen? Or certain type of furniture because of an ingredient in that somebody might be allergic to? Please! what is in our homes is our business not the gov't! I am able to heat my house with wood much cheaper than I could with fuel or electricity. My electric bill have more than tripled its cost and we are using way less of it than we ever have. They tripled our usage from $8.00 to $38.00 a month now and that is not including our wattage charge. So our bill went from $ 95 a month to 200 a month. Our fuel have doubled as well in cost as well but yet we used less than what we did before. If it hadn't been for our wood we were able to burn our fuel cost would have quadrupled. :eek: What I do in my home is MY right. I own my home. If you do not want to go into my home because you can't breath in my home then you have every right not to go into my home. I do tell my friends that I have a fireplace. They say oh cool. You know when they come in my home they are shocked they do not have an asthma attack . I warn anybody that come into my home that I have a fireplace. I never hear a complaint against it. My kids are asthamtic as well as I. We haven't had any problems. In fact, we have more problems when we go to church than what we do in our homes. I am not usually this voiceful (I know it is not a proper word here) about issues but this type of issues aggravates me. I do not expect others to loose their rights due to me having whatever health problems. I do not want others to loose their right to burn wood whether it is an open fireplace or catalyst fireplace just because I am asthmatic or allergic to wood. I have a catalyst fireplace which do not allow smoke to go into the home. Open fireplace I have more of a problem with but I do not want other people's rights to have them to be taken away! Whew! Off my soapbox on this one. ;) Holly I do want to add though: I am against cigarette smoking. However I do not agree with the ban! This is a hot issue in my community. There is a smoking ban everywhere. Smoking bothers me and my kids. However I do not agree with the ban ! Others that smoke have every right to do so. If a store allows smokers to go in there to smoke anytime, I simply will not shop there. If a restaurant allow smoking everywhere in there then I simply do not go in there. Now if the restaurant have a smoking section then I ask for a seat farthest from there even if I have to wait 30 minutes longer. My point in stating this is that smoking bothers me but I do not want others to lose their right to smoke in a community such as my town. It is a very hot issue right now. I was for it until my dh bought up the fact that it starts with that then goes on to somethign else in loosing our rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Matters of health come before matters of preference. People have been dumping their waste in lakes and rivers for eons as well, out of convenience and personal preference, but we no longer do that because of the health hazard. I so wish you were right, Barb, but the reality is that dumping waste into bodies of water is an everyday occurence all over the globe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly IN Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We have chickens so I buy my feed from the elevator in my neck of woods. Here are the prices: 2 years ago it was $8.00 for a 50 pound bag. It was nice! Now 2 years later it is now a whopping $13.34 a bag (50#). It first jumped in price last September to 10.00 a bag and now it is $13.34. All because of ethanol. 2 weeks ago it was $13.03 a bag and now $13.34 a bag. My elevator guy said that alot of farmers are saying they are going broke in feeding their animals. He said that alot of them said they may have to butcher their animals if the feed prices go up any higher. I can understand if the prices go up a few cents a year but less than 6 months it jumped to dollars more. Our electric and fuel jumped doubled even though we are using less of it than ever before. This is due to ethonal so corn will not be any cheaper than fuel. Holly I'm with Cleo and Toni on this one. I only asked about the corn ones out of curiosity, and I wasn't thinking ethanol from corn--isn't there some stove that burns corn grain, or is it some kind of pellet? It's supposed to heat with very little fuel. Or, being rusty on this, does burning corn produce ethanol? (Just asking, even though I'm 99 percent sure that ethanol is derived from corn and then burned.) We're all ignorant, only on different things, and I'm ignorant on this type of stove I vaguely remember hearing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Air pollution caused by wood-burning fireplaces is background noise compared to industrial and automotive pollution. Something about gnats and camels comes to mind. Bingo. Touche. Eggs-act-ly. Ditto. And by the way...I agree.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 For those who are interested, here is a link to an article on the actual provisions. I must say I find some of the comments in this thread rather amazing, to say the least! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Playing devil's advocate here (don't own a fireplace, nor do I have asthma). Are you saying that all the harmful particulates stay in your house rather than out into the shared air? She is not talking about coming into your home, but being walk out to the driveway to get her morning paper. She is talking about the public heath hazard of polluting everyone's air, not just your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Interesting all this dust up about the only heat source. Read this exception: "But the rules do provide exceptions for low-income households and people who use wood-burners as a sole heating source. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothicGyrl Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Playing devil's advocate here (don't own a fireplace, nor do I have asthma). Are you saying that all the harmful particulates stay in your house rather than out into the shared air? She is not talking about coming into your home, but being walk out to the driveway to get her morning paper. She is talking about the public heath hazard of polluting everyone's air, not just your own. Yes, exactly... There are a lot of strawman arguments being tossed around with this (what next? if they take this away they'll take that, etc...) The WHOLE point of this is to stop pollution and while I do so agree that industrial/car polution is bad (very), you are less likely to have any kind of success getting those cut down or out (especially in CA) as opposed to something like this. You do NOT have a right to a fireplace. However, as it pertains to this particular question--I have more of a right to have clean air than you do to have a fireplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I must say I find some of the comments in this thread rather amazing, to say the least! Such as...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 The WHOLE point of this is to stop pollution and while I do so agree that industrial/car polution is bad (very), you are less likely to have any kind of success getting those cut down or out (especially in CA) as opposed to something like this. You do NOT have a right to a fireplace. However, as it pertains to this particular question--I have more of a right to have clean air than you do to have a fireplace. I understand your point. What do you see as the value in banning one (lesser) source of pollution outright while tolerating other sources in excess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I'd say you have to start somewhere. Here's an excerpt from the original link: "The AQMD has jurisdiction over Orange County, most of Los Angeles County and the western portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It estimates that the 1.4 million fireplaces used in its district emit an average six tons a day of particulate soot -- four times the amount produced by all of the power plants in the region." Reducing particulate soot on days when the air quality is very poor is an improvement for anyone breathing that air, whether they realize it or not. Also, improving one small component of air quality doesn't mean people can't continue to push for improvement in a larger component of air quality (such as auto emissions, factory emissions, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Maybe they should ban cars next. Not only would it help with air pollution, it would help alleviate traffic congestion as well. I'm serious. LOL, well, we don't all live on islands. :) You must have never lived here if you think CA could even function for five minutes without the use of vehicles. I would love a truly functioning public transportation system as I experienced two very good ones in London and Paris. However our state is the size of multiple European countries put together. Even the public transportation within the biggest cities here are inept. No, we will not be banning vehicles any time soon here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GothicGyrl Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I understand your point. What do you see as the value in banning one (lesser) source of pollution outright while tolerating other sources in excess? I see your point as well. It is a slippery slope being played on. I don't know that CA is actually tolerating those things as a sign of approval, but rather tolerating those things because they realize they can't get rid of them as easily. Personally, I really do wish they'd get rid of Hummer's and SUV's and big honking trucks.. some of them are really unnecessary, wastes of gas and are huge pollution factors (and I fully expect I'll get a few "But I can't I've X kids and my Hummer gets better gas mileage, blah blah")... but we just can't get rid of them right now. It won't be as easy. So do the "next best thing"--regulat something that is easy to get rid of. Like Claire said--you gotta start somewhere. Now I fully admit they might be going at this backwards, but it is a step in the right direction, even if. Public Transport does stink, even here. Make that better and you might find more people willing to convert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly IN Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Bringing another hammer into this discussion.... Mt. St. Helens eruption back in the 70's produced more toxins into the air than what the whole industrial era did in 100 years (of having factories). One day of St. Helens eruption was worse than the 100 years of industrial era. That is all I really have to say. Holly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Actually I lived in California for 32 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 No form of heating is environmentally smiled upon. They all require energy and most emit fumes of some sort. But unless we all live in the tropics we have to keep warm and I'd say that how one chooses to heat their home should be a personal choice. And the same goes for light bulbs for that matter!! Government intervention is becoming ridiculously pervasive and so many people barely even notice or care... or worse, they cheer it on as "improvement." I find myself crossing between frustration and amusement that all of you assume the government is out to make us greenies, and are debating whether this is good or bad. I'm an earnest to goodness greenie in the thick of this right now, trying to design a green plan which will earn a building permit. For our main heating and cooling system, we're going with super-insulated walls, eighteen inches thick, and windows placed to catch most of the winter sun but also with overhangs so as to block the direct summer sun. We'll be using materials throughout the house which will store the direct winter sun's heat, releasing it at night to keep us warm after sunset. I chose this system because it's easiest to pass codes. Then I heard about the renewal of a solar tax credit bill, so I went and read it. You'd be amazed at how ridiculously obvious it is that they wrote these things to make it harder for anyone to get away from their utility companies. Seriously, we'd love to go with PV panels, but there's so much government B.S. written for the obviously sole purpose of making sure utility companies can still earn a buck, that it's too complicated to try to convert to grid interface solar, let alone off grid solar. From my perspective, if the government stopped being a helicopter parent to the utility companies, if the government stopped legislating that my new house needs extraneous products sold by their best friend corporations, then I could build green. They pass these fireplace laws loudly and brightly to make it look like they're doing something good for the environment, then they turn around and quietly, sneakily create legislation that makes it actually impossible for us to create truly green changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 We don't have control over Mt. St. Helens type of events (and I read that it was a major health hazard for many people), but we do have control over whether or not we use a wood burning fireplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Mt. St. Helens eruption back in the 70's produced more toxins into the air than what the whole industrial era did in 100 years (of having factories). One day of St. Helens eruption was worse than the 100 years of industrial era. Do you have a source for that statement? I tried to find information about that on the internet but couldn't. It would be fascinating if true, but I have a hunch that the types of toxins unleashed by a volcano are considerably different than those emitted by factories. Also, I would think that air currents would spread it in quite a different manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PariSarah Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 . . . but we do have control over whether or not we use a wood burning fireplace. These small, personal decisions are perceived as easier to control, easier to implement, easier to regulate. And to some extent, I suppose they are. But when what's easily regulated has comparatively less impact than what's harder to regulate, taking the easy route is a bad move. I don't care about how it's impinging on my freedoms--I'm in favor of an even greater reduction in my freedoms. What I care about is how it's impinging on a relatively benign freedom and ignoring the more pervasive solutions that are necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I find myself crossing between frustration and amusement that all of you assume the government is out to make us greenies That "all" doesn't apply to me. From my perspective, if the government stopped being a helicopter parent to the utility companies, if the government stopped legislating that my new house needs extraneous products sold by their best friend corporations, then I could build green. They pass these fireplace laws loudly and brightly to make it look like they're doing something good for the environment, then they turn around and quietly, sneakily create legislation that makes it actually impossible for us to create truly green changes. Yep, I agree. Which is why your assumption about my assumption was off base.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I have a hunch that the types of toxins unleashed by a volcano are considerably different than those emitted by factories. Also, I would think that air currents would spread it in quite a different manner. Yes; while the air quality was indeed poor after the eruption, a comparison between that event and industrial air pollution doesn't make sense to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I don't know that CA is actually tolerating those things as a sign of approval, but rather tolerating those things because they realize they can't get rid of them as easily. So do the "next best thing"--regulate something that is easy to get rid of. Like Claire said--you gotta start somewhere. Now I fully admit they might be going at this backwards, but it is a step in the right direction. I'm not rushing to embrace it as a step in the right direction. Imo, it's more of a diversion technique. "We're working to improve air quality! (Oh, um...no, we're not. We're going to bed with the very folks whose industries rely on environmental neglect...").:rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancypants Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 From my perspective, if the government stopped being a helicopter parent to the utility companies, if the government stopped legislating that my new house needs extraneous products sold by their best friend corporations, then I could build green. See how much we agree? I am not against earth friendly building. I'm against government helicopter parents!! I think solar energy is great and should be used more. Personally I've thought about it many times here... where it can be very sunny but very very bitterly cold at the same time. I have often wondered why we don't see more of them. I've often wondered why there aren't windmills all over the place here as the potential for wind harnessed energy here is incredible. My beef is that these things are too heavily legislated, one way or the other in order to maintain all sorts of control. I believe that families should be able to make these decisions about their homes for themselves. Not everyone can afford the crazy and ever fluctuating energy prices. They should be allowed to look at their budget and decide what will work best for them. Or they should be able to say, "Hmm... I love the warmth and comfort of a real wood fire. I love the smell of it. I love how it brings the family together in the same room..." and decide based on that alone even (you know... that pesky pursuit of happiness thing) that they want to heat their home with a wood burning fireplace or woodstove. And I mentioned light bulbs too in my post because the new energy efficient light bulbs are made with mercury and are apparently dangerous enough if broken that it is suggested to take your children and evacuate the home (or at least the immediate area where the accident occurred) and wait for an environmental assessment and clean up crew. For a lightbulb? C'mon! How environmentally friendly are those when dumped in a landfill? This is another situation where an individual should be allowed to make their own decisions. Do they want to save money and energy using the new light bulbs or would they rather feel guiltless about what to do when their incandescent burns out or breaks... not having to think about the long term environmental impact and health hazards related to the new bulbs? Individuals should weigh these options for themselves rather than having them legislated. Please do not believe that I am suggesting that people not "go green." I am merely suggesting that the government needs to butt out and let people make their own decisions. A wood burning fireplace emits a wonderful comforting smell -- the smell of burning wood, fumes which the earth and its atmosphere are particularly accustomed to due to naturally occurring wildfires that are known to be environmentally good for the earth in the long term. There are plenty of really awful things, chemicals and contaminants being dumped into our streams and oceans and air... why pick on something as naturally occurring as burning wood? It's beyond ridiculous imnsho. And they need to butt out of it completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.