UTAH Wood Burning Ban

shop deals on amazon
Rugged made
Advertise with us
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Serious discussion going on here. Many "opinions" being pushed as fact. Let me jump in with a few laymans' observations. No doubt my posting will side-track the OP"s post but it just can't be helped. I am compelled to do more than just sit here and read.
GW is, to date, nothing more than theory...and one that oft-times does not reflect the scientific approach which, if actually appied, would debunk a lot of the rhetoric "they" try to pass off as proven "consensus"...which means nada. Collective/purchased opinion is NOT proven fact that the climate is changing. But it always has and always will. It is continually evolving and humans have no way to really measure those changes in a definitive manner. It just is. Hot, cold, wet, drought...we haven't been able to keep records long enough to know anything. Adapt or die. Darwin lives!
We have more trees in this country than we did in the 19th century. Foresters are planting more than we are taking. Wood is renewable. And, as no one has mentioned yet, burning wood is carbon-neutral. There is no "footprint" applied to the earth because of burning wood. The carbon released from burning wood is only the carbon stored in that wood. No more. No less. After burning the atmosphere is as it was. Neutral. And that, my friends, the EPA hates with a passion but cannot deny.
Oil. Ah, I love this subject but am not truly schooled in it. But I do believe that the fact that we are still pulling it out of the ground means an awful lot of fossils are down there and have turned to oil!...man, that's a lot of fossils! We should have run out by now!... I believe oil is ABIOTIC in nature. Look that up. The earth produces oil just under the crust of the planet...always has, always will. We will never run out of oil. The planet is producing it as I type. I can't point to any studies but think that idea also applies to coal and NG. Why are so many old, capped oil wells now producing oil again? It keeps seeping up from below. The U.S. is sitting on more oil than all the ME countries put together. OPEC is in a tither!. This fact is finally coming to light. We, with fracking, are finally beginning to tap into our own resources. Much to the chagrin of the federal government. They keep trying to close off public lands to drilling. And, if they could, they would halt private property drilling in ND in a minute. Our responsibility is to extract what we can in the cleanest, most earth-friendly manner possible. Could it be better?...yes...will it get better...of course, but not thru government madate. They don't like not being in control here. XL pipeline? Not tonight...but there are problems with it.
I'm going too long. I sympathise with Utah's inversion problem that seems to have been around forever. Don't know if they'll find a good answer. Here in the midwest (Michigan), we have the great lakes, no inversion problems and we are about to break out of a prolonged cold spell...I see 40's in the forecast...we're gonna break winter's back again soon!...Would I like a wood stove with cleaner "emissions"?...sure...but it's hard to get cleaner when all is neutral...who knows what's coming. The EPA is like the IRS...they will pounce if and when we let them. We must fight them at every turn with real science, not "consensus", or opinion. The Al Gore's of the world must be shown to be the charlatans and carpet baggers they are.
The near (100yrs), future will have to develop safe and reliable nuclear power...the spent rods will, through private experiment, be able to be made safe....If you like steam, that is what nuclear will provide us. Solar? got a ways to go to be efficient and affordable. In the meantime I'm gonna use all the downed, dead trees I can find as firewood. I will make sure none of that carbon goes to waste...increase or decrease from what already exists in nature.
Now I'm going to throw a log or two on the fire...It's only 78º in here and I'm feeling a bit of a chill.
Please feel free to "correct" anything I've stated as you see fit (but Chris, please, don't post that we are running out of wood and then later post that firewood is abundant...as "green" as you are you really should try to be consistent)...Just an old guy trying to make sense of the world around me and real tired of pseudo-intelligent BS. ... This could end up being a real discussion!...Be warm all...Burn more wood!
 
Bingo said:
We have more trees in this country than we did in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Certainly true around here - because in the 19th century we had clear cut everything. The land was near bare in this region.
Bingo said:
And, as no one has mentioned yet, burning wood is carbon-neutral.
Click to expand...
Except for the many, many times I have stated exactly that.
Bingo said:
And that, my friends, the EPA hates with a passion but cannot deny.
Click to expand...
Why would the EPA hate that burning wood is carbon neutral?
Bingo said:
Our responsibility is to extract what we can in the cleanest, most earth-friendly manner possible.
Click to expand...
Who is this "our" you speak of? The responsibility of those who have been given the public energy resources is to maximize the profit they derive from this gift.
Bingo said:
The near (100yrs), future will have to develop safe and reliable nuclear power...the spent rods will, through private experiment, be able to be made safe....
Click to expand...
Yes, the energy source of the future that has never been profitable in all of it's history, in spite of the fact that we totally ignored the cost of dealing with the waste, and in fact never designed/developed any way to deal with it even through the peak of US prosperity. In fact we will not be able to afford the still-accumulating costs of dealing with the waste as our economy continues to decay. That in turn meas that in most cases we will not deal with it, and it will be left to rot (and be released) in place. Get a map of current nuclear power plants and draw a circle around each one - pick a radius of 15, 20, 30, 50mi, whatever - and see what is left in some of the most populated regions of the country. And of course those regions are the most populated because they had the best conditions for growing food.
Bingo said:
but Chris, please, don't post that we are running out of wood and then later post that firewood is abundant...as "green" as you are you really should try to be consistent
Click to expand...
You really should try to be coherent. Could you please point to where I have stated these inconsistencies? We are not presently running out of wood in most regions, but if everyone tried to heat with wood we certainly would run out in a hurry. Especially as the west turns to desert.

While you're at it maybe you could explain what Utah's emissions problem/regulation have to do with the EPA? And what particulate emissions and local pollution problems have to do with climate change? And why the peak of US oil production was in the early 1970's and we've never come close since, and why it doesn't matter that the stuff we're getting now costs so much more, and why the industry has collapsed now that the price has dropped (but is still way higher than then)?

What's ironic is that the EPA and many people who consider themselves environmentalists are stuck in the obsolete thinking of traditional pollution limits - they were blindsided by the even greater environmental danger of CO2 that they missed because it was not a directly toxic pollutant. They need to get out of that mindset but cannot due to bureaucratic inertia, and because of the fact that there is nothing that can be done about CO2 emissions without drastic reductions in energy use - and that is off the table. I switched from fossil fuel heat to wood heat in part because it is carbon neutral and sustainable for the small fraction of the population willing to invest their own time and labor.
 
Chris-PA said:
Certainly true around here - because in the 19th century we had clear cut everything. The land was near bare in this region.

Except for the many, many times I have stated exactly that.

Why would the EPA hate that burning wood is carbon neutral?

Who is this "our" you speak of? The responsibility of those who have been given the public energy resources is to maximize the profit they derive from this gift.

Yes, the energy source of the future that has never been profitable in all of it's history, in spite of the fact that we totally ignored the cost of dealing with the waste, and in fact never designed/developed any way to deal with it even though the peak of US prosperity. In fact we will not be able to afford the still-accumulating costs of dealing with the waste as our economy continues to decay. That in turn meas that in most cases we will not deal with it, and it will be left to rot (and be released) in place. Get a map of current nuclear power plants and draw a circle around each one - pick a radius of 15, 20, 30, 50mi, whatever - and see what is left in some of the most populated regions of the country. And of course those regions are the most populated because they had the best conditions for growing food.

You really should try to be coherent. Could you please point to where I have stated these inconsistencies? We are not presently running out of wood in most regions, but if everyone tried to heat with wood we certainly would run out in a hurry. Especially as the west turns to desert.

While you're at it maybe you could explain what Utah's emissions problem/regulation have to do with the EPA? And what particulate emissions and local pollution problems have to do with climate change? And why the peak of US oil production was in the early 1970's and we've never come close since, and why it doesn't matter that the stuff we're getting now costs so much more, and why the industry has collapsed now that the price has dropped (but is still way higher than then)?

What's ironic is that the EPA and many people who consider themselves environmentalists are stuck in the obsolete thinking of traditional pollution limits - they were blindsided by the even greater environmental danger of CO2 that they missed because it was not a directly toxic pollutant. They need to get out of that mindset but cannot due to bureaucratic inertia, and because of the fact that there is nothing that can be done about CO2 emissions without drastic reductions in energy use - and that is off the table. I switched from fossil fuel heat to wood heat in part because it is carbon neutral and sustainable for the small fraction of the population willing to invest their own time and labor.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. When I read Bingo's post this morning, I instantly had a vision of your response. Scary to "get to know" virtual people this well:). I would have responded but first of all, his post belongs in it's own thread and second of all, his thought process is too messed up for me to try and straighten out (IMO). Don't have that kind of time right now.
 
Idahonative said:
Hahaha. When I read Bingo's post this morning, I instantly had a vision of your response. Scary to "get to know" virtual people this well:). I would have responded but first of all, his post belongs in it's own thread and second of all, his thought process is too messed up for me to try and straighten out (IMO). Don't have that kind of time right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not sure why I got dragged into that, nor why I bothered to respond. :cheers:
 
We have more ice the polar ice caps easily prove that fact .it's far thicker than ever even though the " global climate experts " said it would be melted by now ! Hey For every bogus map that shows a global warming model there's 5 that prove the earth in general is cooling . Maybe we don't know much seeing how we have only accurately tracked global weather for 75 years ! As far as the burning ban goes this is exactly what you should expect when you vote dummicrat , keep putting these fools in power and you can expect same results ..when you pull the communist lever down at the voting booth your voting for higher taxes less wealth and a host of new laws and regulations coming your way ! What did you think was going to happen. Liberals never saw a tax or regulation they didn't like
 
flotek said:
We have more ice the polar ice caps easily prove that fact .it's far thicker than ever even though the " global climate experts " said it would be melted by now ! Hey For every bogus map that shows a global warming model there's 5 that prove the earth in general is cooling . Maybe we don't know much seeing how we have only accurately tracked global weather for 75 years ! As far as the burning ban goes this is exactly what you should expect when you vote dummicrat , keep putting these fools in power and you can expect same results ..when you pull the communist lever down at the voting booth your voting for higher taxes less wealth and a host of new laws and regulations coming your way ! What did you think was going to happen. Liberals never saw a tax or regulation they didn't like
Click to expand...
whew,,,,,,,,thatll upset all the leftists of AS!!!! the communist ones also...
 
Idahonative said:
Old Goat, are u disappointed in the Giovernors decision to back away from this legislation?
Click to expand...

humm, I'm wondering why you would think that I am disappointed in Governor Herbie (Herbie is what he is affectionately called by many of his subjects) . This is why I think that it has only been put on the back burner and that it is not dead in the grave:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=34063914&nid=

Someone will try and ram this through again and again. Maybe on a federal level.

Governor Herbert was the one that proposed the all-out wood burning ban a year ago. At the time he probably thought that it was politically in his best interest. It made him look like he was doing something about clean air without really doing anything effective about Northern Utah's air quality problem. The public outcry was more than he or the bureaucrats anticipated. If he had vetoed the bill he knew that there was more than enough support in the state house and senate to over-ride his veto, and that would have happened. It would have been a political black eye. He could have done nothing and let it become law without his signature. That would have been a lesser black eye, so he embraces the bill and signs it into law and comes out as supporting the will of his subjects, I mean people.

Herbert is nothing but a politician, a true RINO.

I wish he would have vetoed it so we could have over-ridden the veto and rammed it back in his face (figuratively speaking of course). In two years everyone will have forgotten about this and he will get re-elected, again.

The problem is that I have yet to met a politician that hasn't eventually let me down. Herbert really got on my bad side when he vetoed the so called "second amendment conceal carry" law here a year ago or so. The spineless legislators wouldn't call a special session to override that veto either. Herbert needs to be retired.
 

Similar threads

woodchuckcanuck
Government reaching to govern wood burning consumers
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
woodfarmer
W
A
Greetings from Park City, Utah, USA
Replies
0
Views
309
alpine.forestry
A
A
Hiring Operations Manager and Crewmembers in Park City, Utah
Replies
1
Views
914
jefflovstrom
jefflovstrom
johnnylabguy
Last fire of the year? Bittersweet
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
husky455rancher
husky455rancher
Hexa Fox
Blaze King Wood Stoves?
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Termite
Termite

Latest posts

Back
Top