EPA vs Non-EPA

Great article Dave.

 

X2!

 

I think the EPA regulations are more about improving the air quality in densely populated areas that have a lot of wood stoves, not about making a difference in the total greenhouse gas emissions from the country. Its not just CO2 but particulates that are really reduced by clean burning.

 

Welcome Barnaclebob!
Head on over to the intro thread to say hello to the rest of the club!

Introduce yourself here !

 

Every industry has its lobby, and automotive is probably as big as oil, and has way way more pull than a stove makers alliance. Besides, up till quite recently, if you wanted to go somewhere internal combustion was the only game in town, unless you were Amish

 

Hey, they pollute too.
I've seen the road apples.

 

Yeah, but you are arguing against something that an EPA stove is not designed to fix. And Volcanoes and all the other natural sources of CO2 are part of the background carbon cycle ... If you eliminated all the CO2 the planet would likely be too cold. A quick search turns up ...

"Such experiments are described for example in Pierrehumbert et al (2007) , or by Voigt and Marotzke (2009). From these papers, one can trigger a full snowball Earth with a sufficient reduction in atmospheric CO2."

The Volcanoes and all that other chit are all part of the normal earth carbon budget. We, more specifically, what carbon we release into the atmosphere are not.

But preventing global warming and CO2 rise isn't what the epa regulations set out to do. It was local air pollution particularly small Particle pollution .

Can they claim it reduces CO2 emissions? Probably since you - individually - consume less wood than you would if you didn't burn the smoke and get heat from it. Collectively, they clearly don't, as making wood more attractive as a heating fuel more folks adopt it and burn more total wood. Now, aside from a portion of the population in more temperate southern climates (who have electric heat) they would probably just have been burning something else. And a portion of the electricity certainly comes from burning stuff...

 

Yeah, and the damm things fart and burp methane which is worse than co2!

 

EPA better outlaw anything that farts and burps then too...

 

I'm still here ya know.

 

Don't give 'em any new ideas Dave...

 

They may have experienced mission creep, but global warming is not why the EPA was instituted.

From their website..

Now, I was 2 days from turning 2 then.

I have always lived with the impression that the EPA's primary purpose was to stop pollution.

I also remember a time when it was advised to eat no fish out of the great lakes due to the pollution from companies dumping raw waste into the lakes and streams.

There was also the Cuyahoga river fires, as in more than once.

Now, I realize that Oxygen and Hydrogen are flammable gasses, but I think that in the H2O combination they are supposed to form a stable bond, and therefore be non-cumbustive.

Somehow the "free market" was not inclined to fix those problems on it's own.

Perhaps it was a lack of profit.


This is also a very large reason for corporations to offshore a lot of manufacturing to China, no environmental protections to be bothered with.

That, combined with a large cheap workforce meant great profits for corporations.

People like to clamor that "China stole our manufacturing jobs", no, they were given those jobs so that the corporations could save money rather than cleaning up their act.

People also clamor about illegal immigration, I'm no fan of it, but exactly which U. S. citizens are willing to work the fields for such low pay?

I don't think I'd find 10 around here.

There are two sides of each coin, just depends on "what the market will bear" that determines which side is up at the end of the day.

I'll admit that particulate emmissions were looked at when I decided on the IS as our new stove, but it wasn't as much of a consideration as burn time, efficiency, price, and looks.

As another aside, I don't get environmentalist objections to pipelines.
Do they think that the oil, gas, whatever will be left alone if there's no pipeline???

It will be extracted and transported somehow, as long as the proft margin is met.

I really didn't want to help derail this train, but alas...


Oh, one more note, I hate it when fossil fuels are referred to as "dino fuels".
Dinosaurs have nothing to do with petroleum or coal.
Oil is from algae of inland oceans long ago, and coal is fossilized wood and plant products.

Guess that also means that diamonds aren't really fossilized T-Rex testicles.
No, I've never heard anyone say that... Yet.

 

How much is the gov't grant for that study?