Posted on 11/09/2014 3:56:01 PM PST by BenLurkin
just like the waste to energy bogus lies.....they get the local govt to ban outside burning due to haze and/or health reasons, just so more people have to use the trash service...
everything has its price...
There is a way around this: don’t use American stoves to heat, because they are very inefficient and polluting. Instead use “tile stoves”, sometimes called “oven stoves”.
They do not heat with air convection, but with infrared light that lasts for hours, not just when the fire is lit, and they burn much less fuel much more thoroughly at a higher temperature, so little or no smoke.
Check these out, if for no other reason than they are really neat looking, with lots of pretty pictures:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/12/tile-stoves.html
http://www.inspirationgreen.com/masonry-heaters.html
http://www.rvharvey.com/kachelofen.htm
People in the northern US should have adopted these years ago, if for no other reason than to avoid the hard labor and expense of chopping and hauling wood.
so the environazis are going from door to door where they spot evil smoke coming from the chimney to ascertain their source of other heat, their income level whether or not they paid their gas bill........good luck with that. Another meaningless law that protects nobody.
Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of info about Florida citrus farmers doing the same thing. But the only places I see on the NWS forecast synopses that may get below 40 are well outside any area that could be impacted by an air quality issue.
Burn flags. The Left says that’s protected First Amendment “speech.”
I don’t know exactly, it has fire bricks lining the inside and has secondary air in the top for gas burnoff. I got it even though I don’t need an EPA rated stove. I just thought that regulation creep could get me and it still could.
1.3 grams of particulates per hour on my stove. They can kiss my woodburning gluteus maximus.
I can remember when it snowed in Fullerton. Doesn’t happen very often!
CBSLALA.com) ^ | November 9, 2014 1:51 PM
Posted on 11/9/2014 6:56:01 PM by BenTurpin
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Trees throughout much of the Southland will not be allowed to burn their bark nor wood nor will thunderstorms be allowed to produce lightning, on Monday under an order issued Sunday afternoon by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Violators will be arrested and brought into court.
It snows where I live, above 3K ft.
“People should read the actual laws themselves, they really should. For example, this burning ban crap? I looked it up once - it’s restricted to corporations. Doesn’t have anything to do with family homes.”
No.
It’s homes.
And the method of enforcement is for aneighbor to inform on neighbor.
We are literally criminals for sitting around a fire after Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.
“The ban is not in effect for communities above 3,000 feet, nor the Cochella Valley and High Desert. In addition, it is not enforced for homes that rely on wood as the sole source of heat or do not have natural gas service. Low-income households are also exempt.”
Guess that just leaves the ban in effect for white crackers and white Hispanics.
wood burning bad.
flag burning good.
Who do you think lives in the mountains?
Lots of rednecks up there.
Lots.
Often we put a log on in the morning to take the chill off. It doesn’t have to be freezing. I burn the wood so the termites don’t turn it to methane. I am doing my best to lower air pollution. Screw the liberal fireplace nazis. BTW: we are not all commies. There are many rock solid conservatives who live here, true Americans.
It's supposed to get down to 55 tomorrow night.
Mmmm California burn bans are for everyone. No fires in fireplaces, pellet stoves, etc. I’m actually surprised this one says it doesn’t apply to low income homes. Our burn bans in Kern County never say that.
Nope.
As this article points out, a search for the law comes up blank:
And if you look up the self-declared applicability of the California Health & Safety Code (where air quality management statutes are found), Section 19. says: "Person" means any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or company.
Now in the law, there is a construction principle known as "ejusdem generis."
It means "of the same kind, class, or nature." Ejusdem generis saves the legislature from having to spell out in advance every contingency to which the statute could apply. For example, in a statute granting a department of conservation the authority to sell "gravel, sand, earth or other material," a court held that "other material" could only be interpreted to include materials of the same general type and did not include commercial timber (Sierra Club v. Kenney, 88 Ill. 2d 110, 57 Ill. Dec. 851, 429 N.E.2d 1214 [1981]).
So look again at H&SC Section 19 list: "person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or company." What seems to be different? "Person." Everything else is a form of corporation. And the difference between people and corporations is the difference between rights and privileges - whole different areas of law. So how can "person" be a part of this list? Because to make "person" corporate, it has to apply to a person with corporate responsibilities that come under the control of this Code. In other words, if you are an officer of a corporation, or someone in one of the listed corporation types who has the responsibility for making sure your corporation is in compliance, then you are the kind of "person" addressed by the Code.
But a family home is not a corporation, nor are its owners corporate persons as specified by this Code. So this enforcement simply doesn't apply to family homes.
That's why no one can find the actual Codes, and why the California Air Resources Board doesn't say what or where their statutes are. Instead, they cite their own regulations. But regulations can only implement a statute - the statute has to come first. And the statutes are corporate. So, the regulations are corporate, too. So they can only reference "homes" with the meaning that they are only applying themselves to "corporate homes" (whatever they might be).
Worse, the Courts allow the government to "presume" someone is an applicable corporation, and proceed against them unless those people show they are not under the juridisdiction of that law. And then those same Courts (and government legislators), don't supply any specific way to refute that presumption. And then they also rule that they don't have to tell you any of this is going on. And then if you show up in Court and fight it, they rule that because you showed up, you have voluntarily accepted their authority - even if you're just there to ask them to show the source of their authority.
Talk about a stacked deck, eh? So you see, without massive political outrage and public exposure against this dishonest process, it's very, very hard to fight back even when you know they have no law, because the Courts will tangle you up in legal jello. But on the other hand, I have found no interest whatsoever in the public - Right, Left, Middle, Up, Down, Blue, Red or Green - wanting to know the limits of any law, not just this one.
None.
So the good news is that there's no actual law behind this attack on wood smoke that is appliable to non-corporate people's family homes. The bad news is that nobody cares enough to stop the abuse of the legal system, and no one can change this problem alone.
Just read today that the World Health Organization claims that one out of every eight deaths on the planet are due to air pollution.
Sounds preposterous to me.
ping post 38
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.