EPA wanting to rule on use of wood heaters

[Vibes]

I think I can support an individual's right to breathe harmful substances in the air, so if a person wants a wood stove/boiler that has emissions in excess of that permitted by local, city, state or federal regulations, the easy solution would be to pipe that stuff back into the person's house (or wall it off so it stays entirely within the property boundary), and then filter all the bad air coming out. That way the person could enjoy his/her private property rights to the fullest, and all others could enjoy their private property rights not to be polluted by a neighbor to the fullest. What I hear when sifting through the emotional comments is that people want their private property rights to the fullest, and this would accomplish that perfectly.

Don't forget that, unless preempted by federal law, your local town, city, county, state etc. can also regulate the emissions from your stove. This isn't just a federal question, in fact the EPA is lagging far behind local controls which are more restrictive, as many towns, cities, counties and states are regulating stove emissions already,and more are doing so as the smoke from inefficient stoves destroys the private property rights of citizens to be free of neighbors' smoking stoves. So, unless you live in an area where people don't care about their private property rights, we all can expect more regulation of stove emissions. If indeed you care about private property rights, and you want to protect your private property rights, then it would be wise to act to also protect your neighbor's private property rights to be free of your actions which destroy your neighbor's private property rights.

Regulation is not to limit private property rights, but it is to insure that we all can fully enjoy private property rights, and when some through their actions take away the private property rights of others, then the government should and must step in to protect private property rights.

I agree with everything you have to say here. If and when there are enough people who agree with you in an area, I.E in town, who want to get together and go to the town meeting and get some rules passed in your favor and you have a means of having those rules enforced, then it matters.

In my world where I go riding with the code enforcement officer, ( AKA big time dogcatcher) who was hired by my neighbor, and would have to have the regulations enforced by the magistrate who went to school with my brother, (the lawyer), the rules are just rules. Unless the FBI is really bored or under a lot of pressure to enforce something, I'm really not worried. I'll keep burning my coal,(at night) and my old woodburner without worry. That's just the way things work in the real world.


Everyone else should come out of their bunkers and continue shooting your highly regulated and expensive ammo into a hillside. Chillaxe Vibes from the BLUE STATE

 

[isaaccarlson]

It is unrealistic to expect folks who burn wood to spend a bunch of money just to get a new stove. It really is the same thing as trying to take away guns.
You don't tell an entire country that they can't burn wood unless they pay ransom. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Haywire Haywood]

I think there is a common sense middle ground between regulation that keeps the worst offenders in check and overboard regs that put a gov't camera in your hip pocket. Common sense regs keep your upwind neighbors from burning car tires in their OWB or running a straight pipe from their toilet to your property line.

 

[Vibes]

I think there is a common sense middle ground between regulation that keeps the worst offenders in check and overboard regs that put a gov't camera in your hip pocket. Common sense regs keep your upwind neighbors from burning car tires in their OWB or running a straight pipe from their toilet to your property line.

My brother had just such a neighbor. Some guy who the only time he would come up for air out of his bunker was to fill the old outside boiler with RR ties. Some company was more than happy to keep this guy supplied with all the fuel they could dump for free on his property. My brother is a pretty patient guy and tried reasoning with the guy. He called my brother a liberal and a pinko and said he would do whatever he wanted on his own property.

Wrong again!!! My brother works in very important field, and is highly regarded and has many friends in high places. Well you can fill in the rest of the story here, and my brother didn't lose the argument.

 

[isaaccarlson]

Good example Vibes. We, as Americans and free people, have the right to do whatever we wish, as long as we are not hurting someone else or hindering their rights. Burning trash upwind of the neighbors and smoking them out would be wrong, just as burning RR ties was in your story.

We removed an epa stove this last fall and installed an airtight cook stove. The reasons for the swap were thus:
The small stove was not making enough heat to keep us warm and we wanted to be able to cook and heat water with wood.
The cook stove might smoke some, but once up to temp, the only thing coming out of the chimney is steam.
The cook stove will save us over $1,000 a year on electricity and propane.
The cook stove easily keeps the house toasty warm even at -30°F.

We are working on secondary air for it. It will wait for warm weather so I can work on a cool stove. That should cut down any smoke that we are getting.
It is our right to burn wood, but we must be conscious of how it affects others around us. The same goes for driving on public roads, we have to be careful.

 

[walkerdogman85]

I'm on board with this guy!
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/105544-wood+burner+clears+air

 

[Whitespider]

I wouldn't lose any sleep over regulations. I work in a highly regulated industry and every one in it considers it just part of the game. That game usually only applies to people who have something to lose. IE industry.

That's not the sort of regulation we're talkin' 'bout here...
The wood stove regs directly limit you as an individual... the regs are on the design of the final end-user product, not on the industrial process used to build it. The regs are not on industry... the regs directly fall on the individual.

Common sense regs keep your upwind neighbors from burning car tires in their OWB or running a straight pipe from their toilet to your property line.

My brother had just such a neighbor.

Regulations on such behavior is not the domain of federal government... they are strictly forbidden to regulate such things by the constitution. Regulations of that sort is specifically given to the people (i.e., state and local governments). It is not, never has been, nor should it ever be the job of federal government to protect us from ourselves.

We, as Americans and free people, have the right to do whatever we wish, as long as we are not hurting someone else or hindering their rights. Burning trash upwind of the neighbors and smoking them out would be wrong...

Rude yes, but nothing in the federal constitution says "burning trash upwind of the neighbors and smoking them out" is "wrong"... none of your constitutional rights or liberties have been removed by such an act. Quite simply, you do not have a constitutional "right" to clean air... but you are at "liberty" to pursue it. If that pursuit means your local community enacts certain regulations to that effect... so be it. But in no way does federal government have the authority to impose a one-size-fits-all regulation on the entire body of people.

It's important to make the distinction between federal, state and local government authority when discussing "regulation"... the boundaries and limits on authority become increasingly more restrictive as you move up from the local level. Just because "it's a good thing" does not make it right... and that was by design specifically. When we allow federal government to usurp power from us (the people) we lose more than we could ever possibly gain... and getting it back is a lot more difficult that giving it away. "Regulation" has become the tool of choice to (basically) steal power and usurp authority... don't be fooled by the shell game.
*

 

[Haywire Haywood]

So you don't have a problem with regulation, just who writes it. If your local city council tells your neighbor to stop straight piping sewage to the property line you're fine with it, but if the epa does, you're not. Correct?

 

[Whitespider]

So you don't have a problem with regulation, just who writes it. If your local city council tells your neighbor to stop straight piping sewage to the property line you're fine with it, but if the epa does, you're not. Correct?

Don't try and make my post into something it was not...
It ain't about whether-or-not I have a problem with regulation...
It always amazes me how many people do not understand the constitutional concept... and it always amazes me how they confuse "freedoms", "rights" and "liberties". It's that lack of understanding and confusion that has put us on the sinking ship we sail today... so terribly sad.

I have a problem with government overreach at any friggin' level... but such regulation at the local level ain't overreach, it's entirely withing their power per the constitution. If my local township or county enacts an ordinance or regulation that effectively bans the use of (for example) my smoke-dragon wood furnace, I may not like it, but I'm still "at liberty" to move to a township more to my liking. I'm still "at liberty" to pursue my personal brand of happiness. But if the federal EPA enacts a regulation that effectively bans the use of my wood furnace there is nowhere for me to move... a "liberty" has been effectively removed. I am no longer "at liberty" to pursue my personal brand happiness.

The Bill of Rights ends with the Tenth Amendment... the Tenth Amendment is but a single sentence... and it's meaning is crystal friggin' clear...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, if the constitution does not specifically grant (enumerate) a power or authority to federal government... they are simply denied of it‼ (Or supposed to be denied of it.)
From there it falls to the state level, which also have constitutions. Some state constitutions give more power to state government than others... which leaves you "at liberty" to live in a state most to your liking. For example, if you don't like the restrictive gun laws of Illinois you are "at liberty" to move to Iowa.
Finally it falls to the local level (county, township, etc.) which is "the people". Larger cities tend to have more restrictive ordinances (out of necessity)... that's the trade-off you make if you choose (exercise a "liberty") to live there. But you are still "at liberty" to move somewhere less restrictive‼ You have the "freedom" to make your own choices... including the "freedom" to choose to break the law... and you are "at liberty" to act on your choices (which, if you break the law, may cost you "freedom" and "liberty"... but most "rights" still remain.)
Unconstitutional (unlawful) federal regulation does not leave you with that "liberty" (to pursue your personal brand of happiness)... it unconstitutionally (unlawfully) removes it... it-is-what-the-frick-it-is‼
*

 

[Haywire Haywood]

Ok, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from.

 

[brenndatomu]

I'm willing to make a small wager that jeblatty owns zero chain saws, does not worry about heat bills because mom does not charge him utilities for living in her basement and is merely a troll for some ecoterrorist group or Occupy Portland or some other group that does nothing to support themselves

Do a lil research on 'im...you might be surprised