EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

Just put another log in my OLD heater.

They keep pushing, and they'll end up being escorted out of this country. I hope it starts next Fall.

Things like this are why I dislike the EPA.

quote:

---

Just put another log in my OLD heater.

---

Another winter advisory today caused by climate change. At least when we're all shivering in the cold in our homes, we'll have the comfort of knowing everyone else is cold as well.

quote:

---

This makes me throw up in my mouth a bit.

---

Happens a good bit. Works great on an industry with a limited number of competitors. It goes like this:

1- threaten Company A with lawsuit that will render it uncompetitive against companies B and C.

2- Company A then supports restrictions because it will level the playing field. "Even some industry members back this regulation!"

3- Lobbyists start extracting dollars from Company A to get the regulation.

4- regulation enacted, "settle" the lawsuit, pay the activists.

quote:

---

Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earth Justice. Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish. “Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want. And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.

---

Wow. Just wow. Rotten to the core! For all practical purposes we've got 'bin Laden and the Mullahs' running the show. Arrogant, high-minded and ASSUMING absolute higher moral ground.

And when the terrorist bring down the electrical grid...and all these rural areas are left to fend for themselves while the population areas get first dibs - just like in Katrina - then who gets the blame.

If this keeps up, the day will come when I won't even tune in to watch the 'witchtrials' and public hangings. They will have earned it.

quote:

---

Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states. Claiming that EPA’s new regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earth Justice. Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish. “Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want. And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.

---

Seems to me that a whole lot of attorneys should be reported to their respective state bars for this shite.

How long before they decide an actual wood burning fireplace is bad?

when I lived in Oregon, the county would have burn bans based on the air quality. They could not ban people from using their stoves if that was their only source of heat.

They should start "Cash for Clunkers - The Wood Stove Edition".

the way I read it, its the sale and production of new stoves.

the regulations prohibiting use were local.

did I read that wrong?