The Smoke Dragon Slayer ?

China wanted to rule the economic world and was willing to do it at any cost. They won that battle but polluted their country (and our world). Their people are starting to see the effects of their decisions AND have some money in their pockets. They are trying to make the government change. It will be a long, slow march. Sorta sounds like the U.S. a hundred years ago. Poor immigrants & coal fueling our growth. We got to the top by the 50s. By the 60s we, the people, started to realize there could be a better way. We are still looking for that better way. Also sounds like India is next on the march to economic dominance. In each case the people will realize, once they have the money, that there is more to life than money. The people will tell their governments that they want a better life. Things will slowly change.

Yes, each individual stove is not going to make much difference. BUT if people believe there is a cleaner, safer way and each does his little bit, the corporations & governments will notice and follow along. They will want to say that theirs is the cleanest running car or plane and people will buy theirs. Yes, there will be set-backs but slowly, I hope, we will find a better way to use this planet. Or we will end up like that animated movie, WALL*E where the people end up wandering in space ships while they waited for robots to clean up earth.

I'm sorry but I don't think coal will ever be king again. In a few years, when electrics take over the automotive industry, I will probably be able to say the same about oil. Yes the electricity will have to be generated somewhere/somehow but I feel it is easier to create one centralized CLEAN power station than a whole bunch of small clean, vehicles.

We can still lead this world to a better future or leave it a mess for our children.

Only my opinion, please hold the barbs and share your opinion,

KaptJaq

 

I don't necessarily believe that climate change is man-made, or even something thats happening at a fastest enough pace for anyone to witness in a lifetime...however, I see no reason we as a people shouldn't be good stewards of the planet and her resources.

I just think the best way to basically convince society to be "green" is by pointing out how it will save them money - more efficient use of fuel can save everyone money and nobody is against saving money. The problem is these technologies take time to develop into a product that's affordable enough to offer cost savings. Nobody is interested in a "greener" car if it takes 25 years to see any pay back...same with solar panels, etc. These technologies will develop though...it just takes time.

Trying to guilt people into it by saying they're destroying the planet isn't going to work because nobody is willing to give up their cushy comfortable life to be more "green". How many politicians do we see spouting off about climate change then hop into their jet to fly around the world? Look - we're in an debate about the effectiveness of a more efficient wood stove and I'd be willing to bet you guys drive trucks and have 2400 sq ft houses.

Its just hard to take anyone seriously when they're lecturing others about being "greener" just because they drive a Prius (or have an EPA approved stove) yet continue to live all the comforts of life that fossil fuels provide.

 

I think that the problem here is that anytime anyone mentions efficiency and epa it generates two kinds of responses...

1. The umbrage response. See Lodged Pole.

2. The false equivalency response. It's OK to pollute because hey China does. Geez we are screwed as a species if this is the best we can do.

Neither response is going to generate anything beyond entrenched views that are immutable to any arguments.

I burn wood because it's saves me money, it's a renewable resource, I'm not giving dollars to another entrenched monopoly, and because I enjoy it. It's not going to prevent climate change...no matter how clean it burns. If something better comes along, you can bet I will be interested.

 

The difference now is simply the scale. How many people were on the planet burning coal and wood in 1917? Were they also driving big trucks everywhere, flying across the planet at 35000 feet thousands of times a day, shipping an entire economy of consumer goods overseas? How big was the first world? Did they have the same insatiable appetite for electricity?

Geez folks, every system has a limit. We're just bumping up against ours. This has happened to us in the past past with food production... If it weren't for the invention of the Haber Bosch process many of us would not be here today because we couldn't feed everyone with crop yields you got from the farming practices in 1917....

We are at one of these points again... Something has to break the cycle we have now with carbon emissions in the air. It's how it's always been, necessity is the mother of invention. Denial is the refuge of the fools.

 

This is all my points summed up here. I can debate in person much better than online. For whatever reason my talent for the written word sucks compared to my ability to talk.

 

We need more discussions, and fewer arguments. More debates, fewer decries.

 

Of course it won't stop...And no one is saying it has to. But we need to get smarter quickly with the carbon, and not pretend that it's not an issue.

 

Dave you seem like a good guy... I really don't want to engage you in a tit for tat web link war. You sent me a link from ten year old article from a futures investor. I can post thousands of links explaining why too much carbon is bad for the climate... But it won't matter to you and it will just swirl up into a locked thread.

So I will just say this... I think that the science for climate change is sound. It's a simple physics experiment... You add CO2, and more heat is retained. It takes the planet a while to remove the CO2, so if you add too much we get a little bit of a greenhouse effect. This becomes an adder on the planet heat budget and we get more warmer than usual days, more extreme weather, and fewer cold days each year. Yes, we still will have seasons but we will have an overall warmer climate. The longer term effects on the climate could be quite severe. In my own lifetime I have noticed that winter is becoming shorter and warmer and spring arrives earlier. I personally enjoy winter weather and winter sports so this alone is depressing.

 

Hey...this topic got things going. I admit I am biased and I am a die hard Fisher Fan! I believe I practice good burning habits.

As for what damages the environment the most...we will never agree on this I am sure.

I do know that I live in a well insulated 750 sq ft house, have spray foam insulation, LED lights and that I consume very little electricity or propane and burn about 1.5 full cords of wood a year, I drive a smaller car that gets very good gas mileage, I also have a Ford Ranger that I put about 4k miles a year on, I plant trees every year on my farm...so give me a medal for my small carbon foot print . I have a good friend with a 7k sq ft house that has three boiler systems, he drives a couple of big four wheel pick ups and doesn't care what his utility bills are because he wants comfort and can afford it. He has three masonry old style fire places and burns through about 3 full cord a year. A lot more material went into building his place than mine (I killed less trees).

Really now...am I better than my friend with the big house and big truck?..Not at all...I live the way I do because it makes sense for me and I am happy with that. There is too dam* much government regulation and politics as it is. How much less wood would I burn if I bought a new EPA stove? Not enough to justify the cost of a new stove at all (besides I hate those door gaskets on new stoves and my Fisher was designed not to need one...umm, so why do modern stoves really have door gaskets anyhow???)

In the end...if we all had EPA stoves there would be no improvement of any real value. Want to get rid of a smoke dragon?, then get rid of the gas guzzling vehicles and big homes and on and on.

Non EPA wood burners are the least of the problems in this world of pollution we live in. Just a bunch of political and legislative idiots that pass laws to say "hey, I did something for the environment"