Latest EPA Wood Stove News

[Chris-PA]

should have known,,you be one of them......

Oh, do go on - one of whom? It will be humorous to see what label you think applies, because we all have be on some team or another, otherwise how can we find out what we are supposed to think?

From where I stand, your team and the one you profess to hate are indistinguishable, just two sides of the same very thin coin.

 

[Cerran]

There were state constitutions, and the new federal constitution was specifically designed to preempt them. Among other things it gave the federal government the power to tax and to enforce collection, because they had been unsuccessful in getting local officials to do so.

So we've established that you are anti-democracy, anti-liberty, anti-local & pro-federal, and pro tax. I think my work here is done.

I'm gonna go sharpen some chains.

Actually Chris, democracy and liberty are not compatible, a quick read through history proves this out. A republic and a democracy are vastly different and democracies are just as tyrannical as dictatorships (more so in many cases).

 

[ppkgmsy]

Let local governments decide if they want any limits at all... including abolishing present limits.
It is not the job of Federal Government to protect us from ourselves... in fact, federal government is strictly forbidden to do so.
That simple fact is the only one that should matter... or apply.
*

Whitespider, you've got my vote.

 

[Chris-PA]

Actually Chris, democracy and liberty are not compatible, a quick read through history proves this out. A republic and a democracy are vastly different and democracies are just as tyrannical as dictatorships (more so in many cases).

I looked up the guy who made the video, and I find I have no interest in anything he says. So I didn't watch it.

As for interpreting what I wrote as advocating for a pure democratic state, that was not my point - rather I was countering this tripe that there was some time in the past where everything was good and has since been corrupted by the evil "other team", and that the constitution was some holy document representing liberty and deifying the "founders", when to the people of the time it was a sellout of what they regarded as liberty and had fought for.

In reality everything is change - there was a colony, the economy collapsed due to typical imperial policy, people fought a war, the government didn't work, a different group seized power and created a new government, another rebellion began and a bill of rights was reluctantly added to quell it. And it's kept on changing ever since, and now we have what we have regardless of if we like it (I don't).

And all of that was to point out how absurd it is that every time we go to discuss proposed wood stove regulations we have to go all the way back to 1789 and work our way back again, which gets exceedingly tedious.

 

[philoshop]

I really don't care what the regulatory agencies in this country think about what's best. They don't live in my house. I'm going to keep my stove.

 

[Whitespider]

Tedious or not, the discussion of "regulations" will, out of necessity, include a discussion of the "regulators"... which in this case is a regulatory agency created by federal government, and paid for with tax dollars (yours and mine). By extension it is inevitable that questioning the authority of government to create such an agency, and therefore the validity of such will also enter the discussion. It ain't fair to say "we have to go all the way back to 1789 and work our way back again"... but is fair to refer to the supreme law of the land when discussing the actions of federal government.

The EPA was the result of a power struggle between a corrupt White House and inept congress. Nixon created it, and gave it the power of legislation through regulation, with no congressional oversight... the EPA answers directly to the White House. The spineless congress did little to block Nixon's move to grab power because of the public support (outcry) for "environmental protection" at the time... they were afraid of losing their job, if they did their job. Congress held the Straight Flush, but folded their hand to Nixon's Full House bluff.

It matters not when, why or how the constitution was written, ratified by all thirteen states, and placed as the supreme law of the land. What matters is we're discussing "regulations" on wood stoves... which means we're discussing the EPA... which means we're discussing the EPA authority to make such regulation... which means we're discussing the validity of the EPA in the first place. Chris-PA wishes the discussion to remain focused strictly on the regulations and their merits... which is only a wish that can never possibly come true... because many of us do not see any merit in such regulation... in fact, we see them as illegal under the supreme law of the land.

Chris-PA sees the constitutional side of the discussion as tedious because he's willing to accept them as a, "it-is-what-it-is" thing. But the "new" regulations have not gone into affect yet, some of us are not willing to roll over so easy... some of us see it as our duty as citizens of the U.S.A. to point out the constitutional side of the discussion whenever possible. The only way Chris-PA will have his wish is if he finds a group of people with like-mindedness... but what fun is that??
*

 

[Chris-PA]

Chris-PA sees the constitutional side of the discussion as tedious because he's willing to accept them as a, "it-is-what-it-is" thing. But the "new" regulations have not gone into affect yet, some of us are not willing to roll over so easy... some of us see it as our duty as citizens of the U.S.A. to point out the constitutional side of the discussion whenever possible. The only way Chris-PA will have his wish is if he finds a group of people with like-mindedness... but what fun is that??

Well, in fact you don't really know what I wish - but beyond that I'd never discourage you from fighting regulation you don't like. I've decided I don't like it either, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons. However, if you want to fight this regulation by first trying to prove the EPA is unconstitutional or somesuch, then I suspect you will have a long and disappointing road to travel. And of course pointing out what you see as the constitutional issues to me is also ineffective, as I am nobody and have no influence.

My personal opinion is that it is irrelevant, as I believe we are fairly close to the kind of major energy/economic/social/political crisis that will render such regulations meaningless and enforcement impossible.

 

[Whitespider]

Well, in fact you don't really know what I wish

Well, maybe not... but I base my statement from your posts in other threads, not just this one (shrug)

My personal opinion is that it is irrelevant, as I believe we are fairly close to the kind of major energy/economic/social/political crisis that will render such regulations meaningless and enforcement impossible.

Yes, we agree on that... we are, in fact, fairly close to some sort'a crisis that will render such regulation archaic.
But I don't believe our views of what that crisis will look like are the same.
*

 

[Whitespider]

Yes, taking the fight to the extreme end of ridding ourselves of the EPA makes for very long odds indeed. But as I said in a previous post, the new wood stove regulations are just one symptom, not the disease. Treating the symptom does not rid you of the disease, it only gives temporary relief. A regulatory agency such as the EPA, by design, does the bidding of whomever sits in the Oval Office, and it don't matter who that is, it flat ain't a good thing. The EPA, by design, is a way for the executive office to legislate through regulation, bypassing congress, and therefore bypassing the constitution... so if it's wood stoves today, what will it be tomorrow?? Can we afford to wait 'n' see??

Anyway, it's probably time to let this one die... but no doubt there will be another... and another... and another...
The meaningless threads will be the ones after the new regulations go into effect and people begin to feel the affects...

By-the-way, because the EPA is an extension of the executive office, a simple "stroke of the pen" is all that is required to abolish it... abolishment of the EPA ain't as big of a stretch as some believe.
*

 

[philoshop]

Well, in fact you don't really know what I wish - but beyond that I'd never discourage you from fighting regulation you don't like. I've decided I don't like it either, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons. However, if you want to fight this regulation by first trying to prove the EPA is unconstitutional or somesuch, then I suspect you will have a long and disappointing road to travel. And of course pointing out what you see as the constitutional issues to me is also ineffective, as I am nobody and have no influence.

My personal opinion is that it is irrelevant, as I believe we are fairly close to the kind of major energy/economic/social/political crisis that will render such regulations meaningless and enforcement impossible.

Feeling that you are," ...nobody and have no influence." is wrong. You have the ability to vote in this country. At least for now.
Whether it's going to be enough influence to actually change things is going to depend on how many express their views at the voting booth.

 

[johnha]

I'm of two minds, in that some places are simply not appropriate for wood burning, and some people are too irresponsible, and this creates real problems for others.

Unfortunately, its this type of thinking that created agencies like the EPA in the first place. Elected officials without the cojones to do what they were elected to do create a 'board' that is outside of the control of the voters. There are LOCAL public nuisance laws that could be used LOCALLY to control the kinds of people that don't burn responsibly without involving bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

 

[Whitespider]

Unfortunately, its this type of thinking that created agencies like the EPA in the first place. Elected officials without the cojones to do what they were elected to do create a 'board' that is outside of the control of the voters. There are LOCAL public nuisance laws that could be used LOCALLY to control the kinds of people that don't burn responsibly without involving bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
Although, it could be (somewhat) argued that congress did their job with the passage of various "acts", beginning with the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955. But Nixon used wording in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to create the EPA...
"...he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
The problem with that is the constitution does not give the President power to "regulate"... only to "execute" (for example, the Justice Dept.). At the time, the "job" of "faithfully executing" the various environmental "laws" was spread out amongst different departments (depending on the law) and Nixon proposed consolidating the "job" into one agency, with power to "regulate", and answerable only to the White House like cabinet departments. That is where congress failed to do their job... some members strongly objected because of the constitutionality problems, but in the end, the majority of congress allowed it because of the (perceived) way the political wind was blowing... Nixon played his hand beautifully.

Nixon saw the constitution as a huge (limiting) thorn in his side... he saw a way to bypass a portion of it... and the inept, spineless congress allowed it. The public, especially "environmentalists", were played, fooled (and, dare I say, screwed)... yet, to this very day they are incapable of seeing it. Even Teddy and FDR couldn't have dreamed of such a successful power play... but their liberal and/or progressive policies, as well as some others, had helped pave the way for it.
*

 

[Chris-PA]

Unfortunately, its this type of thinking that created agencies like the EPA in the first place. Elected officials without the cojones to do what they were elected to do create a 'board' that is outside of the control of the voters. There are LOCAL public nuisance laws that could be used LOCALLY to control the kinds of people that don't burn responsibly without involving bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

Your statement is absurd, in that you attempt to connect my simple statement of the problem, which advocates no solution or remedy at all, to a bureaucratic structure you do not like.

So what you are saying is that people who observe and comprehend the existence of a problem are to blame for the way that problem gets addressed, and the reason the existing government has a structure you don't like? I guess we'd all be better off with our head up our butts where no one ever notices any problems?

And you apparently missed my other comments that this issue should be handled locally, trashing the one-size-fits-all proposed solution, and comments on bureaucracies pursuing yesterday's problems.

The EPA is a typical bureaucratic structure that was created in response to real, serious problems and in accordance to popular opinion (which is not an endorsement of its constitutionality). It was actually quite effective in doing what it was created to do, but like all bureaucracies it eventually became ineffective and self serving. This is an accurate description of our entire government at this point, most of which exists outside of all law and accountability, but which is protected because it furthers the interests of one party or the other (or both). Compared to the massive and intrusive bureaucratic structures created in the last 15 years, the EPA is a minor player of little consequence, so when I see the lopsided focus on it I know I am dealing with partisans who have a particular agenda - the objection is not really to the format and structure, but to the particular focus on environmental issues, which is perceived to be "owned" by the other team. I am not fooled.

 

[Whitespider]

...the objection is not really to the format and structure, but to the particular focus on environmental issues, which is perceived to be "owned" by the other team. I am not fooled.

OK... but, what if, like me, your not a member of either team??
What if, like me, you see little if any difference between Republicans and Democrats, (so called) Conservatives (I call them Progressives) and Liberals??
What if, like me, you see shared and equal culpability on both sides?? It is only the tactics that differ... not the end game.
What if, like me, the focus is not on environmental issues (far from it), but on anything unconstitutional... of any sort (but it's the EPA that gets brought up on this board)??
What if you're me?? Exactly who do I perceive to be the other team?? Heck, as far as I can tell, I don't have a team... I ain't even one of the spectators watching the game, I refuse to pay the gate fee. If the teams have thrown out the referee so they can make up their own rules during play (or worse, play without rules)... I ain't supporting any of them.
What if you're me?? What if all you want is for the rules (in this case, the constitution) to be enforced??
As long as the spectators continue to pay the gate fee without demanding the rules be enforced... I ain't even gonna' join their ranks.
*

 

[lindnova]

OK... but, what if, like me, your not a member of either team??
What if, like me, you see little if any difference between Republicans and Democrats, (so called) Conservatives (I call them Progressives) and Liberals??
What if, like me, you see shared and equal culpability on both sides?? It is only the tactics that differ... not the end game.
What if, like me, the focus is not on environmental issues (far from it), but on anything unconstitutional... of any sort (but it's the EPA that gets brought up on this board)??
What if you're me?? Exactly who do I perceive to be the other team?? Heck, as far as I can tell, I don't have a team... I ain't even one of the spectators watching the game, I refuse to pay the gate fee. If the teams have thrown out the referee so they can make up their own rules during play (or worse, play without rules)... I ain't supporting any of them.
What if you're me?? What if all you want is for the rules (in this case, the constitution) to be enforced??
As long as the spectators continue to pay the gate fee without demanding the rules be enforced... I ain't even gonna' join their ranks.
*

Very well said. I think most people could agree with this, but are not informed or don't care to pay attention. People in this nation need to use some critical thinking skills and actually pay attention. A good debate is healthy. I think we have all learned something from this thread.

 

[zogger]

Very well said. I think most people could agree with this, but are not informed or don't care to pay attention. People in this nation need to use some critical thinking skills and actually pay attention. A good debate is healthy. I think we have all learned something from this thread.

That's way I look at it. We don't have legit parties, we have two major outright criminal gangs masquerading as honest parties. Crooks, liars, thieves and outright murderers. Crips and Bloods. One gang picks your pocket on one side, the other picks it on the other, and if you don't like your pocket picked, they have gang enforces with guns/badges/tanks whatever to force the issue. "heroes"...bah.

Environmental protection is a good idea, energy efficiency is a good idea, clean burning fuel and apliances are good ideas...what the whole shebang has evolved into is...weirdness, bullies, criminal corrupt insider action, cronyism, paid off professionaol crooks calling themselves politicians, bureaucrats/regulators who "work" until fatcheck pensions, then go "work" for the companies they were allegedly regulating...the payoff.

Then you have even more out to lunch weirdoes who are pushing the agenda 21 stuff, which is as blatantly totalitarian as it gets, especially in conjunction with some other dubious initiatives. They have learned to obfuscate the ties to this global deal, but, the data is there, and they got them people down to the local level, true believers, dangerous people. It's an outright war on the little peeps in rural areas, and their independence, make it so onerous and expensive they force millions to move into the controlled megacities, leave the countryside for some elite masters. They'll claim it is all about bambi and the environment, this is junk, it is about a feudal system like the olden days, with "royals" and "commoners", they just won't use those terms, but you can see this is how things work now, and which direction it is headed to make it more so.

 

[slowp]

What if you're like me...of a gender that used to be considered the property of males and could not vote until the 20th century.
What if you're like me...and see a constant threat to so much we have gained, by religious fanatics.
What if you're like me...oh, you're not so you will only think about the good ol' days and holler about the constitution, forget about the three forms of gubmint...
Executive, Courts, and Legislature who are there to keep a check on things and they are or aren't depending on your point of view, but it's the best we have.

I'm sorry, but I have to present another viewpoint.

Also, our fair state is more of a democracy. We can vote for citizen developed initiatives. Now don't worry about discrimination. Any initiative that threatened the civil rights of a group would be challenged in court. We have those too. It works pretty well. That's how we got pot legalized. We've also repealed some taxes that the legislature pushed through, and will vote on a gun initiative. The latter will probably end up in court if it passes. I have seen no effort to repeal the state requirements for wood stove emissions. That could be done. But it hasn't happened.

I don't vote for a particular party. I vote for whom I perceive to have the best interests of the country, and who I hope won't lead us back to "The Good Old Days."
The good old days had air quality disasters, discrimination, water quality problems (we still do), and still had corruption in gubmint. Oh, and a smaller population meant wood smoke might not have been so annoying because people lived farther apart.

 

[Chris-PA]

What if all you want is for the rules (in this case, the constitution) to be enforced??

I agree with most of what you wrote (except I care about the environment), but this. You are attempting to take an idealized and arbitrary point in the past and hold it fixed forever in a world of constant change and chaos. What was the law of the land in 1790 was not in 1788, is not now and will not be tomorrow. Every time discussion comes up about proposed legislation, you loudly insist that the world first conform to your fantasy before discussion can proceed, which leaves you irrelevant and disruptive.

There are no fixed rules, there never were and there never will be, and the pace of change is increasing rapidly.

 

[Whitespider]

Jesus slowp, nobody said anything about "The Good Old Days"... exactly when were those days anyway??
Nobody gives sour owl crap what your "fair state" does or doesn't do... this ain't about what "states" do... give it up already.
As far as the women's suffrage movement and the resulting 19th amendment; without the "rules" specifically spelled out in the constitution it would not have been possible... period‼ You'd still be a man's "property", and you still wouldn't be able to vote. It's also interesting to note that it was the Democrats that blocked it's passage for years (Democrats were the "progressives" of the time, Republicans were the "classical liberals"... i.e. "Old School"). You might also note that mid-western states began ratifying the amendment within days, but it took your "fair state" nearly a year to get around to it.
And the three branches of (federal) government?? Well, I ain't forgetting about them, I'm fully aware that all three have usurped power (sometimes from each other) that the constitution does not grant them to have... let alone allow them to take‼

There are no fixed rules, there never were and there never will be...

That's ridiculous‼ Just because the teams choose to ignore them, and no one has the nutzsack to hold them accountable... in no way means they don't exist.
I emphatically, and ardently reject your premise as preposterous.
*

 

[Oxford]

Put your money where your mouth is, then. From where, exactly, should all of this discussion be springing? At what fixed point in history is the clock stopped, as far as you're concerned? Quit telling us about how everything is wrong, and tell us when it was right. Then tell us how things would be different now if that point had continued on, pure as the driven snow and unchanged.