EPA Bans Most Wood Fire Stoves

[Matt Collins]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/11/10/0131230/epa-makes-most-wood-stoves-illegal


On Edit - I sent this to Thomas, and apparently he brought it up in a hearing today:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N88Grg2iV4

[oyarde]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/11/10/0131230/epa-makes-most-wood-stoves-illegal

In further news , I ban the EPA .

[2young2vote]

I feel safer already. Or maybe thats just the cold.

[DamianTV]

But Fracking is a-okay, even though it destroys the water supply and causes earthquakes. Somebody hasnt been paying their Big Brother Bribes.

[Scrapmo]

And to think humans have been burning wood since the the beginning of human history and had no idea what kind of danger we were in. Thanks EPA!

[DamianTV]

So now burning of the Marijuana and regular Fire Wood are both illegal. Soon to follow: Tobacco, Incense, and Chicken Pot Pies!

[donnay]

Burning wood in my wood stove is a 1000x's safer than the air after the tragedy of 9/11.

EPA = Environmental Propaganda Agency

[Libertomics]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution.

[jbauer]

This was out a year or two ago. I didn't think it got anywhere.

[presence]

I know two different people that are selling non-UL listed stoves that they spark together in their garage. The black market will always win.

[mrsat_98]

i'M BURNING A TIRE IN CELEBRATION.

[pcosmar]

When wood stoves are outlawed,

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3224/2620476281_59b4a7c3e8_z.jpg

Only outlaws will have wood stoves.

[donnay]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution.


Don't know if that is sarcasm but don't give them anymore ideas to steal from us.

[pcosmar]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution.

That is a really stupid idea.. There are too many taxes already.

[Libertomics]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution. I was talking about revenue for a small goverment not the modern monkey see monkey tax.


That is a really stupid idea.. There are too many taxes already. Why not tax air pollution instead of incomes and/or imports. Even small goverments need incomes, tax something you have less of it.


Don't know if that is sarcasm but don't give them anymore ideas to steal from us. No sarcasm.

[acptulsa]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution.

I thought that's what they did. There's a very, very fine line between taxes and fines. Especially these days.

Barbecues will be next. Smoked meat is far, far too healthy for us to suit the Agenda 21 people.

[pcosmar]

Why not tax air pollution instead of income and/or imports. Even small goverments need incomes, tax something you have less of it.
Taxing the air is already being pushed. What do you think the Global Warming Bullshit is about?

Wood fire is natural,, as in a part of nature on this planet.
Natural wood fires are common. Necessary even.

If a small government needs income,, put out tip jars. Hold a Bake sale.


tax something you have less of it.

Wrong. If you fund something, you get more of it.

[Libertomics]

Taxing the air is already being pushed. What do you think the Global Warming Bullshit is about?

Wood fire is natural,, as in a part of nature on this planet.
Natural wood fires are common. Necessary even.

If a small government needs income,, put out tip jars. Hold a Bake sale.



Wrong. If you fund something, you get more of it. Goverments need funding by either borrowing or taxing if not printing money, I prefer taxing.

[tod evans]

Goverments need funding

Which aspects of this particular government "need funding"?

[pcosmar]

Goverments need funding by either borrowing or taxing if not printing money, I prefer taxing.

Why? What do they need money for?
And why can necessary functions (administration, salaries, etc,) not be funded by voluntary contributions?

[Libertomics]

Which aspects of this particular government "need funding"? The parts of goverment that protect the citizens from aggresion and protect the liberty of the citizens (justice sytem, military, etc).

[pcosmar]

Aside from the attempted misdirection,,

This thread is about control.. The UN control,, not local control.
This is Agenda 21 Bullshit.

http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/

[acptulsa]

Goverments need funding by either borrowing or taxing if not printing money, I prefer taxing.

That's funny. I could have sworn that for the first nearly one hundred years this nation existed, when the federal government was sane and rational, and actually followed the Constitution and left things up to the states so the people could affect change without having to convince people clear across the country to help (is or is not all politics local?), the federal government could meet all its needs with tariffs.

I know you're not too ignorant of history to learn from it, so I guess you consider tariffs taxes. Well, there's some merit to that argument. Surely, however, tariffs are at least somewhat a better behavior modification tool than this attempt to keep us buying non-renewable energy from the oil companies or freezing to death...

Edit: What, these observations aren't worth commenting on, and these questions aren't worth answering? Learn to have a conversation or go to a propaganda site. Ignoring our sound points won't make them go away.

[Libertomics]

Why? What do they need money for?
And why can necessary functions (administration, salaries, etc,) not be funded by voluntary contributions? Because people do not give money to the goverment for free. Thats why it has to force you and me to pay for it at gunpoint.

[tod evans]

The parts of goverment that protect the citizens from aggresion and protect the liberty the citizens (justice sytem, military, etc).

Good God man!

Do you realize what you just typed?

[pcosmar]

Because people do not give money to the goverment for free. Thats why it has to force you and me to pay for it at gunpoint.
Actually,, once upon a time it did.

If people wanted a government building,,Say a town hall,, a Sheriffs office or a jail.. They built it.
If they wanted a better road or sidewalks they built them.

It was not until very much later that Roads were Federalized..
Roads were originally trails,,that were over time improved by the local people that used them.
Trade routes between localities that were improved by the local people that used them.

[pcosmar]

Good God man!

Do you realize what you just typed?

New poster is new.

[donnay]

Because people do not give money to the goverment for free. Thats why it has to force you and me to pay for it at gunpoint.


So that definition makes us free? Are you really serious? I think you are deliberately dumbed down or just messing with this board. Surely no one can think that taxing people into oblivion is freedom.

[MelissaWV]

Goverments need funding by either borrowing or taxing if not printing money, I prefer taxing.

You do realize that, contrary to your later post, you really can just give the Government money.

* * *

Regarding the OP, perhaps they should ban forest fires next. Banning something stops it, and forest fires burn wood!

* * *

As for "taxing pollution," how are you going to track sources of pollution, and how specific will you get? Many of us pollute multiple times a day, in a variety of ways, but of course we lack the lawyers and accountants and lobbyists who would inevitably help secure loopholes in any legislation regarding determination of liability.

[MelissaWV]

So that definition makes us free? Are you really serious? I think you are deliberately dumbed down or just messing with this board. Surely no one can think that taxing people into oblivion is freedom.

Going with that one. Even their own logic is contradictory, which is usually a big red flag. I can take someone disagreeing as long as they are consistent within their own belief system, or their logic is sound even if their premise is cringeworthy.

This is one of those good uses of neg rep in that now... yep. Red dot.

[LibertyEagle]

Next are wood-burning fireplaces.

[Libertomics]

So that definition makes us free? Are you really serious? I think you are deliberately dumbed down or just messing with this board. Surely no one can think that taxing people into oblivion is freedom. No, but the Goverment has always needed a small amount of taxes and I would rather have it tax pollution then income or trade.


Actually,, once upon a time it did.

If people wanted a government building,,Say a town hall,, a Sheriffs office or a jail.. They built it.
If they wanted a better road or sidewalks they built them.

It was not until very much later that Roads were Federalized..
Roads were originally trails,,that were over time improved by the local people that used them.
Trade routes between localities that were improved by the local people that used them. So they did their local goverment and community a favour, they did not give the federal and state goverments money now and then so they would not tax them.

[donnay]

No, but the Goverment has always needed a small amount of taxes and I would rather have it tax pollution then income or trade.

LOL! What I think is, you need a good dose of history 101 (sounds like you went to a public school--my condolences). You should start with studying what the founders warned about a centralized government and taxation.

When you're finished come back to the discussions--okay?

Because, by the looks of it, you probably think this planet is overpopulated and needs some culling too.

[pcosmar]

So they did their local goverment and community a favour,

Dude.. The local people are the Government. The people are the government, (or are supposed to be)

You have no right to take money from anyone at Gunpoint. ( I did that,, it was wrong)

[acptulsa]

No, but the Goverment has always needed a small amount of taxes and I would rather have it tax pollution then income or trade.

And would you rather those 'pollution taxes' be self-defeating and counter-productive? Because if humans don't burn renewable sources of energy, putting off carbon dioxide (which plants and trees don't consider a pollutant), they're liable to burn petrofuels, putting off carbon dioxide. Do you love the oil companies so much you'd encourage a switch to their non-renewables even if it did no good whatsoever? How about if it did harm? Because if you don't get to the deadwood and burn it, creating carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), it will simply rot, emitting methane (a greenhouse gas). Won't it?

Is that really worth curtailing some of our liberties oer? Really? Because I don't see how it's worth one thin dime.

[Libertomics]

LOL! What I think is, you need a good dose of history 101 (sounds like you went to a public school--my condolences). You should start with studying what the founders warned about a centralized government and taxation.

When you're finished come back to the discussions--okay?

Because, by the looks of it, you probably think this planet is overpopulated and needs some culling too. And many of them supported a central bank, taxes on alcohol. Militia acts were passed that forced people into arms.

[Libertomics]

And would you rather those 'pollution taxes' be self-defeating and counter-productive? Because if humans don't burn renewable sources of energy, putting off carbon dioxide (which plants and trees don't consider a pollutant), they're liable to burn petrofuels, putting off carbon dioxide. Do you love the oil companies so much you'd encourage a switch to their non-renewables even if it did no good whatsoever? How about if it did harm? Because if you don't get to the deadwood and burn it, creating carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), it will simply rot, emitting methane (a greenhouse gas). Won't it?

Is that really worth curtailing some of our liberties oer? Really? Because I don't see how it's worth one thin dime. The income tax and tariffs are also curtailing our liberties. Any tax or tariff is.

[pcosmar]

And many of them supported a central bank, taxes on alcohol. Militia acts were passed that forced people into arms.

:confused:
What?
:eek:

Please explain.

[Libertomics]

:confused:
What?
:eek:

Please explain. First bank of the United states, Whiskey taxes, Second bank of the United States, Militia acts, supressing the Whiskey rebellion by the Militia.

[donnay]

And many of them supported a central bank, taxes on alcohol. Militia acts were passed that forced people into arms.


Not the Anti-Federalists they were absolutely right.

[pcosmar]

First bank of the United states, Whiskey taxes, Second bank of the United States, Militia acts, supressing the Whiskey rebellion by the Militia.


The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway. The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton's Federalist Party, came to power in 1801.

So you are saying that the mistakes and abuses of power are the right way to do things?

This country was formed by Tax Resistors,, Rum Runners, Moonshiners and Smugglers,, and Armed resistance to central Government.

You are looking as some stupid acts by the Central Government as "right and proper"?

You are confused.

[Libertomics]

So you are saying that the mistakes and abuses of power are the right way to do things?

This country was formed by Tax Resistors,, Rum Runners, Moonshiners and Smugglers,, and Armed resistance to central Government.

You are looking as some stupid acts by the Central Government as "right and proper"?

You are confused. I was saying that the founding fathers formed the Central US Goverment, they were not the people fighting against it.

[pcosmar]

So you are saying that the mistakes and abuses of power are the right way to do things?

This country was formed by Tax Resistors,, Rum Runners, Moonshiners and Smugglers,, and Armed resistance to central Government.

You are looking as some stupid acts by the Central Government as "right and proper"?

You are confused.

Actually,, I wish the resistors had put up a fight and hung George Washington for his arrogance.
As it was, they fled.. 20 were arrested and later acquitted,, and the Tax was later repealed.

[belian78]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution.
Kick rocks, Al.

[acptulsa]

By the way, Pete, thank you for minimizing your support of the oil companies and their non-renewable energy sources, getting that wood burned in your subversive wood stove before it spews its methane, keeping fit by doing it so as not to become a burden on our limited health care resources, and generally using what liberties you have left in a very responsible manner. Too bad the progtards don't have enough sense to give you a medal, instead of trying to curtail those freedoms you use so well even further.


The income tax and tariffs are also curtailing our liberties. Any tax or tariff is.

And you consider tariffs on the same level as income taxes, taxes on the air we breathe, and fees and fines for doing what is best for our energy independence and the environment?

I have to disagree. As George Orwell said, some animals are more equal than others.

But all of that is simply you ducking the question. So, I'll slap you in the face with it point blank, and see if you have the courage to answer. Does a ban on wood stoves have any real benefit on the environment, or does it benefit only the energy lobby? Answer straight up--I dare you.

[Libertomics]

A ban on wooden stoves does not benefit the enviroment, it is not even pollution. I also think income taxes are worse then tariffs.

[pcosmar]

A ban on wooden stoves does not benefit the enviroment,

Agenda 21 is not about the "*environment".

It is about Control.

* (it is a sales pitch,, and "Sustainability" is a Buzz Word)

[acptulsa]

A ban on wooden stoves does not benefit the enviroment, it is not even pollution. I also think tariffs are worse then income taxes.

Well then. I guess we'll have to agree to both agree and disagree.

Thank you for your responsive answer.

[tod evans]

Agenda 21 is not about the "*environment".

It is about Control.

* (it is a sales pitch,, and "Sustainability" is a Buzz Word)

Top-heavy governments are not "sustainable", history has proved it time and again.

[Dr.3D]

How stupid!

When I was a kid, people were burning wood and coal in their furnaces and in the winter the snow would often be black on top from all of the particulate. Nobody was crying about the environment back then and now, I see no black snow so why do they think we can be fooled into compliance?

Next you will have to guard your wood stove with a shotgun just to make sure some idiot doesn't break in and put your fire out.

[Libertomics]

Agenda 21 is not about the "environment".

It is about Control. A majority of Climate scientist say global warming is manmade, but you are right. It is being used by statist for control.

[Dr.3D]

A majority of Climate scientist say global warming is manmade, but you are right. It is being used by statist for control.

Must be the majority of "climate scientists" are paid by the government.

[Libertomics]

Must be the majority of "climate scientists" are paid by the government. Must be because global warming is manmade.

[Dr.3D]

Must be because global warming is manmade.

Prove it!

[tod evans]

How stupid!

When I was a kid, people were burning wood and coal in their furnaces and in the winter the snow would often be black on top from all of the particulate. Nobody was crying about the environment back then and now, I see no black snow so why do they think we can be fooled into compliance?

Next you will have to guard your wood stove with a shotgun just to make sure some idiot doesn't break in and put your fire out.


Just think of all the "jobs" that will be created with an inflated EPA...:rolleyes:

[Libertomics]

Prove it!

Concussions are bad for your health according to most doctors, must be because concussions are bad for your health.

Prove it!

[acptulsa]

Must be because global warming is manmade.

Man has traditionally accomplished much, much more when government has kept its big nose out of the project. Examples: The boycott of South Africa. The boycott of Nestle's. The Great Northern Railroad. Time zones. Underwriters' Laboratories (which demonstrably works a hell of a lot better than, for example, the FDA). Joplin, MO in the week between when the tornado came to town and when FEMA came to town...

[pcosmar]

Must be because global warming is manmade.

The Sun is man made?

Are you fucking serious? or seriously fucking with the intelligent posters here? (Trolling)

[phill4paul]

Told the missus that I wouldn't be getting anymore firewood because the fire stove is bad for our health. She told me to pour a bowl of cereal because eggs are bad for our health and she wouldn't be frying any anymore. Lol. She's got a sharp wit, this one. :p

[Dr.3D]

The Sun is man made?

Are you fucking serious? or seriously fucking with the intelligent posters here? (Trolling)

Yeah, must be the Sun bumped it's head and has a concussion.

[Libertomics]

Man has traditionally accomplished much, much more when government has kept its big nose out of the project. Examples: The boycott of South Africa. The boycott of Nestle's. The Great Northern Railroad. Time zones. Underwriters' Laboratories (which demonstrably works a hell of a lot better than, for example, the FDA). Joplin, MO in the week between when the tornado came to town and when FEMA came to town... That is not an arguement agaist pollution taxes. Even small constitutional governments need income and why not tax something bad like pollution instead of something good like income to fund it.


Yeah, must be the Sun bumped it's head and has a concussion. I laughed, I would rep you if i did not have more neg reps then good reps.

[Carlybee]

Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution.


Hey...let's just send our entire paycheck to Washington!!! We can just get food stamps and live in tents! Wow...my future is all figured out. Thank you.

[seapilot]

EPA shows its usefulness once again. Wonder if they calculate how much pollution is caused by forest fires every year. Likely more timber is burned in one year of forest fires than a hundred years of wood burning stoves.

As for climate change, no scientist worth their salt will claim that anything but the primary driving force behind weather on the planet comes from the sun. Everything else is localized in nature, except maybe a volcanic eruptions which spew more ash and contaminants in the air than people could ever hope to.

[pcosmar]

I would rep you if i did not have more neg reps then good reps.

And why do you suppose that is?

Or is that your intention?

[acptulsa]

Hey...let's just send our entire paycheck to Washington!!! We can just get food stamps and live in tents! Wow...my future is all figured out. Thank you.

Nah. The tax rate will never hit 100%. That would make it too hard to modify your behavior with more taxes and fines.

They have to be able to force you to do business with the oil companies, the insurance companies, and their other big sources of brib--er, I mean campaign contributions.

[Libertomics]

Hey...let's just send our entire paycheck to Washington!!! We can just get food stamps and live in tents! Wow...my future is all figured out. Thank you.
Thinking about air pollution. Why not tax it, it would raise enough revenue for a small goverment and reduce pollution. Even small constitutional governments needs funding, why not tax pollution rather then income.

[tod evans]

There's more pollution generated by the EPA promoting its own agenda than all the wood-stoves in the US generate in a decade.

[acptulsa]

Even small constitutional governments needs funding, why not tax pollution rather then income.

Sounds good in theory, doesn't it? But in practice, the EPA spends far, far more time, and is far, far more good at, giving big corporations cover than fixing what ails Mother Earth.

Never heard, 'yes, the big mining company poisoned your well water and gave you cancer. But you're very unlikely to win your suit (and may not even convince the courts to hear it), because the company was in EPA compliance at the time'? No? You've been lucky--so far.

[Carlybee]

Even small constitutional governments needs funding, why not tax pollution rather then income.


What ends up happening is the polluters either get grandfathered in or a wrist slap in way of a fine. The fine is then passed along to the consumer by way of a price increase ie, another hidden tax levied on citizens. Add that to all the other hidden tax we pay and soon it is just another road to the evisceration of the middle class. That's why. The EPA is about as corporist as it gets. Beyond that why would I give a branch of the government any more taxing authority when I can go for a walk and find a snake? As for taxing individuals using a wood stove or a fireplace....do you seriously think we aren't taxed enough? How much taxation is enough for you? We will be paying for Obamacare and the 49% of people no longer working or on entitlements. How much hit does a person need to take before that 49% becomes higher and pretty soon everything collapses. Which may or may not be a good thing depending upon your own outlook and ability to survive. Common sense has left the building.

Oh and I gave you a +rep to counter the neg reps. Everyone has a right to an opinion and if you stick around long enough you may find yourself learning something you didn't know before.

[Czolgosz]

@Americans ha ha.

[Danke]

I'm surprised Zippy hasn't posted in this thread yet.

Anyway, I believe the EPA only certifies wood stoves. But local communities can ban certain wood stoves. Though this could be the slippery slope like with the USDA or FDA approvals.

[oyarde]

How stupid!

When I was a kid, people were burning wood and coal in their furnaces and in the winter the snow would often be black on top from all of the particulate. Nobody was crying about the environment back then and now, I see no black snow so why do they think we can be fooled into compliance?

Next you will have to guard your wood stove with a shotgun just to make sure some idiot doesn't break in and put your fire out.I guard my fire with a shotgun .

[RM918]

Yeah let's see them try to enforce it.

[Libertomics]

Sounds good in theory, doesn't it? But in practice, the EPA spends far, far more time, and is far, far more good at, giving big corporations cover than fixing what ails Mother Earth.

Never heard, 'yes, the big mining company poisoned your well water and gave you cancer. But you're very unlikely to win your suit (and may not even convince the courts to hear it), because the company was in EPA compliance at the time'? No? You've been lucky--so far. I want to abolish the EPA, it's useless.


What ends up happening is the polluters either get grandfathered in or a wrist slap in way of a fine. The fine is then passed along to the consumer by way of a price increase ie, another hidden tax levied on citizens. Add that to all the other hidden tax we pay and soon it is just another road to the evisceration of the middle class. That's why. The EPA is about as corporist as it gets. Beyond that why would I give a branch of the government any more taxing authority when I can go for a walk and find a snake? As for taxing individuals using a wood stove or a fireplace....do you seriously think we aren't taxed enough? How much taxation is enough for you? We will be paying for Obamacare and the 49% of people no longer working or on entitlements. How much hit does a person need to take before that 49% becomes higher and pretty soon everything collapses. Which may or may not be a good thing depending upon your own outlook and ability to survive. Common sense has left the building.

Oh and I gave you a +rep to counter the neg reps. Everyone has a right to an opinion and if you stick around long enough you may find yourself learning something you didn't know before. I fully agree that taxes are too high that they discouarge work, economist from most if not all schools of economic tought agree including keynesians http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html and tax cuts are needed ASAP. Pollution taxes like for example a carbon tax has a big effect on the way consumers act. A carbon tax would make consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars, car-pool, use clean renewable energy, eat locally produced food etc etc and raise enough revenue for a small goverment. It would have a two birds one stone effect. Sounds good in theory. It can only work in practice if congress thinks taxing more then absolutely necessary to run a government is legalized theft and cuts other taxes.

EDIT: I do not think taxing wooden stoves is a good idea, I prefer a carbon tax.

[Carlybee]

I want to abolish the EPA, it's useless.

I fully agree that taxes are too high that they discouarge work, economist from most if not all schools of economic tought agree including keynesians http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html and tax cuts are needed ASAP. Pollution taxes like for example a carbon tax has a big effect on the way consumers act. A carbon tax would make consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars, car-pool, use clean renewable energy, eat locally produced food etc etc and raise enough revenue for a small goverment. It would have a two birds one stone effect. Sounds good in theory. It can only work in practice if congress thinks taxing more then absolutely necessary to run a government is legalized theft and cuts other taxes.

EDIT: I do not think taxing wooden stoves is a good idea, I prefer a carbon tax.

I prefer no tax. If anything educating people to be more consciencious of the environment but no corrupt government to determine ...it's just another money grab. The government can't find it's butt with both hands and has proven it can't be trusted to steward anything anyway.

[Libertomics]

I prefer no tax. If anything educating people to be more consciencious of the environment but no corrupt government to determine ...it's just another money grab. The government can't find it's butt with both hands and has proven it can't be trusted to steward anything anyway. Then we must agree to disagree.

[Carlybee]

Then we must agree to disagree.

That's your prerogative. I personally have issues with the philosophy and practice of taxing anything and everything. We need to be moving the opposite direction so we can save what little money we have for our old age and/or to pass on to our children. Not to mention the fact that it's immoral to continue to tax people until they bleed for "the greater good"...whatever that means. You probably won't find too many people here who agree with you on this topic.

[Carlybee]

My Canadian husband's two cents on wood stoves
The text is his..not the video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBSNWKI-d-A&feature=youtu.be

The above link is for Blaze King wood stoves (with built in catalyst). This is much like the catalytic converter for your car. Except that instead of having it downstream of the engine in your exhaust pipe like a car, it sits inside the fire box for peak efficiency. There are 2 types of EPA certified wood stoves: Non-catalytic and Catalytic.

Non-catalyst stoves run clean by having lots of thermal protection in the walls of the wood stove. This keeps the fire burning hot. A fire that burns at 1000°F or hotter will burn the smoke inside the box. Resulting in a clean output up the chimney. This also means you have no wasted heat in the form of smoke going up the chimney. Because smoke is simply unburnt fuel. Now the trouble of a 1000° or hotter fire is that it burns the wood rather quickly. So you end up using more wood than you would with a catalytic model.

A catalytic stove on the other hand will have the catalyst become “active” at 500°F. This means that you can run the fire at 500-600°F and still ignite all the smoke just like you would in a non-catalyst model at 1000°F. The cooler fire results in longer burn times (as much as 40 hours continuous without adding more wood). During this time, there is no visible smoke coming out the chimney nor is there any “wood burning” smell outside your home. Because all the stuff you would see or smell is unburnt fuel in the form of smoke, of which the catalytic model (or hot running non-catalyst model) does not produce. That smoke is completely burnt up inside the box and produces useable heat instead. The chimney on a catalytic model runs cool enough that you can touch it with your hand.

The interesting part with a catalytic stove happens after it’s been running for a long time. Say 12 hours. Normally a fire would start to go out and start smoldering. Leaving you with a big chunk of ash. Smoke output would increase as the fire cools down. Not so with a catalytic stove though. As the fire cools down, it produces more smoke. But since the catalyst stays active until the fire is completely out, what happens is that the smoke from the smoldering fire hits the catalyst. The catalyst heats up and radiates the heat back down into the firebox. That then raises the heat, which ignites the smoke. The heat from the ignited smoke heats up the fire, and the fire continues running hotter and cleaner. It’s a continuous circular cycle. Not only do you get a longer run time and a cleaner run time. But you get extremely little ash left over because the fire burns the wood right down to nothing.

My Dad has a Blaze King with a catalyst in it. He uses 1/3 less wood than he did with his old wood stove. His Blaze King is listed as 82% efficient. This is a far cry from a cold drafty fireplace, which typically run about 5% efficient. With a fireplace, all the heat goes up the chimney, and they suck about 400 cfm of warm room air up the chimney. A wood stove by comparison sucks about 25 cfm of air up the chimney (very little back draft issues with a wood stove). And it’s not sucking much if any warm room air up the chimney. Since a fireplace has an open hearth to the room, they never get up to the 1000°F temps needed to ignite the smoke. So they burn gobs of firewood and smoke like crazy. You can smell them outside and see the smoke. They also leave a big chunk of ash that needs to be cleaned frequently.

Another benefit of a catalytic wood stove is that since they produce so little smoke, there is nearly no creosote produced. My Dad had his chimney cleaned after 8 years of use (wood heat is his only form of heat in his Canadian house). The chimney sweep took out about a tablespoon of creosote.

Fireplace efficiency: 5%
Wood stove efficiency (Blaze King catalyst model): 82% efficiency
Natural gas efficiency: 90%

To get natural gas, you need to frack the environment and you send a monthly bill to a corporate office someplace far away. To get wood heat, the money goes to a local person who cut down the wood and splits it for you. So the money is spent locally and it’s good exercise cutting, splitting, stacking, and loading the wood stove. Wood heat is renewable energy and carbon neutral. You cut down the wood, you hire somebody (typically college kids who spend the summer making big money) replanting trees. If all you did was cut down a few trees on your property, you cold easily replant a few trees to replace them. Carbon gets stored in wood until the wood dies naturally of old age (at which time the carbon gets expelled to the environment). Burning the wood instead also releases the carbon. Either way the carbon stored in the wood will be expelled. But with replanting, you get a new form of carbon storage.

One of the greatest benefits of wood heat is that it works when the power goes out. This can be very important in colder climates during the wintertime.

One of the most interesting parts of watching a catalytic wood stove in action is the way it burns the wood. Non-cat stoves have the typical dancing flames going on. But catalyst stoves tend to have less flame and more of a bright glowing wood action occurring. The wood glows almost like it’s nuclear. Even stranger is watching the offgassing of the wood hitting the catalyst in the top of the firebox and igniting. So you will have wood on the bottom glowing orange, no flames coming off it, but a horizontal line of fire at the top of the wood stove seemingly burning from nothing.

[Libertomics]

That's your prerogative. I personally have issues with the philosophy and practice of taxing anything and everything. We need to be moving the opposite direction so we can save what little money we have for our old age and/or to pass on to our children. Not to mention the fact that it's immoral to continue to tax people until they bleed for "the greater good"...whatever that means. You probably won't find too many people here who agree with you on this topic. I do not want to tax people to death, I hate taxes because I pay taxes myself. I just think that a small amount of taxes are needed for necessary goverment spending military, courts and so forth.

[Carlybee]

I do not want to tax people to death, I hate taxes because I pay taxes myself. I just think that a small amount of taxes are needed for necessary goverment spending military, courts and so forth.

But it's never a small amount of taxes. And any small amount of taxes ends up being a large amount of taxes. Just wait until you see what is coming down the pike when we have to pay for Obamacare and bailing out the health insurance companies, not to mention the population getting older and on entitlements, etc, etc. We have one in seven people on food stamps as it stands. How much more wealth re-distribution do you think the working class can take before they either become one of the statistics or before economic collapse. I would suggest you go do some reading over at Zerohedge or a similar economic site. You might begin to feel differently. If you are a young person, a lot of this is going to be on your shoulders as well in the coming years.

[Keith and stuff]

It's almost like it is a tax on future heat for people in the northern 1/3 of the nation. This is pretty annoying, especially for people moving to or inside the northern 1/3 of the nation, including where I live.

[parocks]

This was out a year or two ago. I didn't think it got anywhere.

I looked into it a bit the last time I heard about it. There are new stoves being made that meet whatever regulations are out there. So, something happened. They're making wood stoves in compliance with something. I don't know what that it.

[parocks]

Must be because global warming is manmade.

Wasn't Maine under a thick sheet of ice about 20,000 years ago? How did the people put the ice there, then take it away?

[GunnyFreedom]

stupid stupid stupid

[amy31416]

I want to abolish the EPA, it's useless.

I fully agree that taxes are too high that they discouarge work, economist from most if not all schools of economic tought agree including keynesians http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html and tax cuts are needed ASAP. Pollution taxes like for example a carbon tax has a big effect on the way consumers act. A carbon tax would make consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars, car-pool, use clean renewable energy, eat locally produced food etc etc and raise enough revenue for a small goverment. It would have a two birds one stone effect. Sounds good in theory. It can only work in practice if congress thinks taxing more then absolutely necessary to run a government is legalized theft and cuts other taxes.

EDIT: I do not think taxing wooden stoves is a good idea, I prefer a carbon tax.

What, exactly, is a carbon tax? How would this be enforced? How do you force people to eat local? Why don't you think that wood is a renewable source of energy? How would it force poor people to buy expensive cars when you'd essentially be fining them for driving shitty ones, thus driving them deeper into the poverty hole? How do these folks carpool when they live out in the sticks and their nearest neighbor might be miles away?

[satchelmcqueen]

you dont understand.
Because people do not give money to the goverment for free. Thats why it has to force you and me to pay for it at gunpoint.

[ClydeCoulter]

2078
2079

[Libertomics]

But it's never a small amount of taxes. And any small amount of taxes ends up being a large amount of taxes. Just wait until you see what is coming down the pike when we have to pay for Obamacare and bailing out the health insurance companies, not to mention the population getting older and on entitlements, etc, etc. We have one in seven people on food stamps as it stands. How much more wealth re-distribution do you think the working class can take before they either become one of the statistics or before economic collapse. I would suggest you go do some reading over at Zerohedge or a similar economic site. You might begin to feel differently. If you are a young person, a lot of this is going to be on your shoulders as well in the coming years. I want to get rid of the HHS, SSA, VA, DOL, DOT, ED, HUD, DOE, DHS, CIA, EPA, SBA, NSF, CNCS, DOD, the income tax, the corporate income tax, the payroll tax, estate tax, most if not all tariffs, subsidies, handouts and entitlements. And that is not all I would want congress to get rid off. Not a big fan of redistribution.

[Matt Collins]

bump

[amy31416]

Why would you bump this thread when it's not true that the EPA banned most (if any) wood stoves?

[Matt Collins]

Why would you bump this thread when it's not true that the EPA banned most (if any) wood stoves?
The point is that they banned most modern stoves from being sold... if you buy a new stove it has to conform to many new regulations that the old ones wouldn't pass.

[DamianTV]

...

I laughed, I would rep you if i did not have more neg reps then good reps.

Stop thinking like the Govt has our best interests at heart and how the Govt could abuse its power to make its cronys even richer. The excess of laws and regulations to which the people are all held accountable is strangling the very life blood of this country. And the Law and Justice most often have nothing to do with each other. They make laws as harsh as possible because Private Prisons are promised funding, and the more ordinary people they can turn into Prisoners, the more profits the Private Prisons make. They require licenses for things that should not require licenses. Either to get people used to the idea that something is a Permission and not a Right (like Guns), or to prohibit Free Market Competition (Taxi Cabs in NY license costs one million dollars, literally). But at every step of the way, they ABUSE the power to create Laws (not Justice, LAWS), to their own personal benefit.

That is ABUSE of the Law.

One of the most common ways that Police solve "Crimes" is to follow the money. Cui Bono. Who benefits. So when we hear people come along that come along and parrot what the MSM tells them, it is obvious. Follow the money. Do your own homework. Someone is going to profit immensely from outlawing wood burning stoves, as they do with most laws. They make things illegal for you but not for them. Follow the money. Find out why. Who are they connected to. Why do US Secretaries of the Treasury go work for Goldman Sachs at the end of their terms as Treasuries? Follow the money. Maybe you'd consider Secretary of the Treasury being on the payroll of Goldman Sachs to be a conflict of interest?

How about something less threatening? Like a Seat Belt Law? Problem with a violation of the Law is that in order to break the Law, there must be a Victim. If you don't wear your seat belt, who is the Victim? If you start trying to parrot the MSM and say the Insurance Companies are the victims lets try this. The only way they could claim to be a victim is to claim ownership of you. Most rights are based on Property Rights. You own yourself. When your Insurance Company claims to be the Victim, what they are really doing is claiming ownership of you.

How about Guns? There is a big push right now to make ALL GUNS (except for those in the hands of any Govt appointed Official) completely illegal. But first, they need to turn up the heat on us by constantly reporting on all this Gun Violence. You are supposed to conclude that we should become like Britain and outlaw ALL guns, except for those used by Cops. Your lack of ability to protect yourself makes you dependant on those that do have guns. Thus, controllable. And they know if you catch them excessively abusing their guns and you become fully aware of how deep the rabbit hole goes, you'll be powerless to resist those abuses.

The reason you are getting negative reps is because what we hear you saying is exactly what we hear the MSM say. Outlaw guns. Enforce Seat Belt Laws. Require a License to drive a Taxi in New York. Unfortunately, most people think this way. They want you to Obey. They want you to Consume. They want you to offer no resistance. They do not want you to act responsibly, by taking away your responsibilities. They do not want you to think for yourself and only conclude what you are told to conclude.

You need to change your way of thinking, and that isnt easy. You need to dig deeper and think about how the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions, and how that desire to do good is exploited to benefit a small group of dominant men. Dig deeper to understand the truth of the situation. Then you'll have different information that completely contradicts what the MSM wants you to parrot. You need to see the hidden truths for yourself by thinking for yourself. You need to see that stronger enforcement of Drug Laws is what drives the price, which is what creates the incentive to make drugs illegal. Find a drug dealer and ask him if he would benefit from the legalization of all drugs. Find out how they determine their prices for their currently illegal wares. Think about who the Victim is when a guy goes home and acts responsibly, and smokes a joint in a manner that does not endanger anyone. Think about how people behave when the only freedom they are given is the freedom from responsibility.

The MSM gives you limited information on any subject. Limited Information typicaly causes only one possible conclusion to be derived. In the 1960s, there was an Olympic Race. The Soviet Newspapers reported that the Soviet Runner came in 2nd place, while the American Runner came in 2nd to Last place. The spin was that the Soviet Runner came in ahead of the American Runner. The American Newspapers reported that the American Runner came in First Place, and that the Soviet Runner came in 2nd place. The spin for the Americans was that the American Runner came in ahead of the Soviet Runner, the exact opposite of the conclusion of reading the Soviet Newspaper. The fact that was ommitted here was that there were only Two Men in the Race. 2nd to Last place in a Two Man Race IS First Place. Facts are omitted to bias your perception of what happened. Which is exactly what the MSM does to us daily. They omit any News about man defending his home during a home invasion with a Gun while going all apeshit over a gangbanger shooting another gangbanger.

If you truly want to support the principles of Liberty, then you need ALL the facts, not just the ones that the MSM spits your way. Quit trusting other peoples judgements and do your own homework. Follow the Money. Think for yourself. Come up with conflicting information just to put theories to the test of how a Law can be Abused. When you have ALL the information, then, you can change your way of thinking to understand how the excesses of Law are Abused, but without having ALL of the information, you will continue to conclude that Seat Belt Laws are Good, and Guns and Drugs should be Outlawed.

You need to change your Information to change your way of thinking.

Most of us here on these forums have experienced the Abuses of the Law and Power first hand. That is our first bit of information. Something is wrong with our current situation, and it has cost us dearly. We have personal incentives to dig deeper. Thus, we dig deeper. We find the information that allows us to think in a way that we are expected NOT to think, which is why we are such a threat to the Status Quo. We try to think of non violent solutions to problems, yet we are labeled kooks, psychos, and Terrorists because we've identified their Solution as the Problem itself. We have become a threat to the profit margins of the Private Prisons. We understand the difference between a Right and a Permission by who stands to benefit. We think about the responsibilities of having the freedom to do any and all drugs at any time. Just because all drugs could be made to be legal does not mean that we are going to go out and do those drugs. We understand how the control of the flow of information is abused to bias peoples perceptions. And we understand what the MSM really is. A mouthpiece to make you dependant on them for your thinking.

When we see the MSM thinking parroted in people, we recognize it, because we recognize the support of abuse. That is why you're getting Negative Reps.

Change your Information and Change your Thinking.

[amy31416]

The point is that they banned most modern stoves from being sold... if you buy a new stove it has to conform to many new regulations that the old ones wouldn't pass.

On a Federal level, they certify wood stoves that meet their standards and there are tax breaks. No stoves are banned on the Federal level.

Did you not check your source, or did you want to post a sensationalist headline to get attention?

[amy31416]

The point is that they banned most modern stoves from being sold... if you buy a new stove it has to conform to many new regulations that the old ones wouldn't pass.

On a Federal level, they certify wood stoves that meet their standards and there are tax breaks. No stoves are banned on the Federal level.

Did you not check your source, or did you want to post a sensationalist headline to get attention?

[Matt Collins]

Did you not check your source, or did you want to post a sensationalist headline to get attention?Actually I just copied and pasted it from another site :)

[presence]

Did you not check your source, or did you want to post a sensationalist headline to get attention?

No hating on the sensationalist headlines!

I nail my balls to the street in protest! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?433318-I-nail-my-balls-to-the-street-in-protest%21)

[amy31416]

Actually I just copied and pasted it from another site :)

Why?

[Matt Collins]

Why?
Because I thought people over here would be interested in the subject matter. Turns out I was right.

[amy31416]

Because I thought people over here would be interested in the subject matter. Turns out I was right.

You were right to post bullshit?