EPA Bans Most Wood Fire Stoves

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
There's more pollution generated by the EPA promoting its own agenda than all the wood-stoves in the US generate in a decade.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
My Canadian husband's two cents on wood stoves
The text is his..not the video.




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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top