Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The EPA Takes an Ax to Self-Sufficiency: Most Woodburning Stoves Will Soon Be Illega

  1. #1
    GuncoHolic Black Blade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    4,274
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default The EPA Takes an Ax to Self-Sufficiency: Most Woodburning Stoves Will Soon Be Illega

    The EPA Takes an Ax to Self-Sufficiency: Most Woodburning Stoves Will Soon Be Illegal

    The EPA Takes an Ax to Self-Sufficiency: Most Woodburning Stoves Will Soon Be Illega-stove.jpg

    theorganicprepper.ca / By Daisy Luther / September 28, 2013

    When you think of that little dream homestead in the woods, what does it include? Probably a well and septic system, a little stream bubbling nearby, a chicken coop, a sunroom for winter growing, and a cozy fire to curl up next to.

    When my daughter and I spent a year living in a cabin in the Northwoods of Canada, our woodstove was our lifeline. It was the only source of heat in a place that reached -42 degrees. It was the only way we could cook when our power went out during snow and ice storms (as it did frequently). It was the cozy center of our home, and we survived for an entire frigid winter for less than$800. After that experience I vowed never to live in a home without a woodstove.

    If the EPA has its way, however, heating your home self-sufficiently with wood could soon become illegal – or at the very least, insanely expensive.

    READ MORE
    When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America , you get a front row seat. - George Carlin


  2. #2
    Gunco Member Will Wayde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    116
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Sounds like an Agenda 21 thing. Force everybody into the urban hellholes.

  3. #3
    Gunco Member Plan B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    209
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    The supposed evironmentalists are nothing but shills for big business. Warren Buffet's berkshire hathaway owns pacific power for example. I believe in protecting the environment within reason not stupidity.

  4. #4
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,349
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default

    looks like the big "O" wants the YTs to FREEZE!

    all the brothers are hooked into some kind of gov assistance on their heating bills.

    i'm gonna burn wood till i can't get anymore wood or die. the big "O" can kiss it.

  5. #5
    Happy Camper hcpookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,700
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    The EPA’s new environmental regulations reduce the amount of airborne fine-particle matter from 15 micrograms to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. - See more at: http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/the-....tvuDU7eW.dpuf
    Boy I'm sure glad my wood burning stove burns at 12 and not the Evil 15. No problem-o!
    Gunco Member #10

    http://pookieweb.net


    The "original" Boltcutter Rivet Squeezers:
    http://pookieweb.net/AK/rivet/boltcutters/boltcutter.htm


    Project Pink - the Pink and Blue AK-74:
    http://pookieweb.net/pink/pink.htm

  6. #6
    Always sore, always tired Bradrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Missouri/ Ark border
    Posts
    6,114
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)

    Default

    I wonder if a 50 gallon barrel stove qualifies? Are they going to ban barrels?
    " Save a tree...........Eat A Beaver!"

  7. #7
    GuncoHolic Black Blade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    4,274
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People



    Snippit:

    The impacts of EPA’s ruling will affect many families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 survey statistics, 2.4 million American housing units (12 percent of all homes) burned wood as their primary heating fuel, compared with 7 percent that depended upon fuel oil.

    Local governments in some states have gone even further than EPA, not only banning the sale of noncompliant stoves, but even their use as fireplaces. As a result, owners face fines for infractions. Puget Sound, Washington is one such location. Montréal, Canada proposes to eliminate all fireplaces within its city limits.

    Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earth Justice.

    Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish.

    “Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.

    And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties.

    Continued: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...-rural-people/


    Black Blade: Another reason is that "self sufficient" people are no longer "consumers" who contribute to the economy and additional taxes. That will not do of course. They must be forced at the point of a gun to cough up money for goods and services they neither want or need, and they must "conform" to the new order by becoming dependent consumers and rrelying on government.
    When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America , you get a front row seat. - George Carlin


  8. #8
    GuncoHolic Black Blade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    4,274
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    Federal wood burning rule prompts rural backlash



    Snippit:

    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal proposal to clean up the smoke wafting from wood-burning stoves has sparked a backlash from some rural residents, lawmakers and manufacturers who fear it could close the damper on one of the oldest ways of warming homes on cold winter days.

    Proposed regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would significantly reduce the amount of particle pollution allowed from the smokestacks of new residential wood-powered heaters.

    Wood-burning stoves are a staple in rural homes in many states, a cheap heating source for low-income residents and others wanting to lessen their reliance on gas or electric furnaces. Outdoor models often cost several thousand dollars, but indoor stoves can cost as little as a few hundred dollars and sometimes double as fashionable centerpieces in homes.

    Some manufacturers contend the EPA's proposed standards are so stringent that the higher production costs would either force them out of business or raise prices so high that many consumers could no longer afford their products.

    "There's not a stove in the United States that can pass the test right now — this is the death knoll of any wood burning," Reg Kelly, the founder of Earth Outdoor Furnaces in Mountain Grove, told Missouri lawmakers during a recent hearing.

    More than three dozen Missouri lawmakers have co-sponsored a bill that would symbolically fight back against the EPA by declaring that "All Missourians have a right to heat their homes and businesses using wood-burning furnaces, stoves, fireplaces and heaters."

    "It's just another way for them to control my life and lifestyle and basically force me to pay more for just survival," Woods said.

    Some homeowners "want to keep their fireplaces to have a way to heat homes and cook food in the event an earthquake cuts gas lines and power," said Erin Mendenhall, a Salt Lake City council member and executive director of Breathe Utah, which is offering to replace wood stoves with gas units.

    Continued: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/scienc...sh-5260343.php


    Black Blade: I guess I should get one for my shop while I still can get them.
    When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America , you get a front row seat. - George Carlin


  9. #9
    Gunco Regular SouthTexasGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    943
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    You do know the Revolutionary War was fought over an 8% tax on freaking tea.

    They can keep on pushing if they like, but sooner or later all hell is gonna break loose.

  10. #10
    Gunco Regular driswalds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    592
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    would stills need to be certified before the shiners fire them up. Could cause many a good shiner to just say its not worth it and close up shop or risk the rath of the epa

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •