EPA verses Alaska

[41chevy]

Little to much power??

 

EPA To Alaskans: We Will Fine You For Burning Wood To Stay Warm

 

Well, in the Alaskan interior, winters can be brutal. With temperatures dropping below zero, burning wood is the only viable way for Alaskans in these rather desolate areas to stay warm. Yet, government thinks this is a problem concerning small-particle pollution. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency is so concerned that they’re mulling fining people who burn wood to stay warm. John Daniel Davidson, a senior correspondent for The Federalist (and Alaskan born native)

If only the bureaucrats in Washington DC knew what the wolf-dog knew. But alas, now comes the federal government to tell the inhabitants of Alaska’s interior that, really, they should not be building fires to keep themselves warm during the winter. The New York Times reports the Environmental Protection Agency could soon declare the Alaskan cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, which have a combined population of about 100,000, in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year.

Like most people in Alaska, the residents of those frozen cities are burning wood to keep themselves warm this winter. Smoke from wood-burning stoves increases small-particle pollution, which settles in low-lying areas and can be breathed in. The EPA thinks this is a big problem. Eight years ago, the agency ruled that wide swaths of the most densely populated parts of the region were in “non-attainment” of federal air quality standards.

That prompted state and local authorities to look for ways to cut down on pollution from wood-burning stoves, including the possibility of fining residents who burn wood. After all, a declaration of noncompliance from the EPA would have enormous economic implications for the region, like the loss of federal transportation funding.

The problem is, there’s no replacement for wood-burning stoves in Alaska’s interior. Heating oil is too expensive for a lot of people, and natural gas isn’t available. So they’ve got to burn something.

This of course is a ridiculous situation. The EPA has no business telling Alaskans they shouldn’t burn wood to keep warm in the depths of winter. For one thing, concern over air pollution from wood smoke is misplaced. The high levels of particulate matter in places like Fairbanks in January are not the same thing as smog in Los Angeles. The areas affected by pollution from wood stoves are relatively small because they’re the result of something called inversion. At -30 degrees Fahrenheit, smoke doesn’t rise. It drops down to ground level and settles in low-lying areas. But this doesn’t happen city-wide, it happens on a single block or street.

 

[mowerman]

Amazing... Bob

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

[Hobert62]

Another time in this great wold when people are to smart for there own good.    Next they will be arresting people for using toilet paper to wipe there a$$.   

[hatcity]

1 hour ago, 41chevy said:

Little to much power??

 

EPA To Alaskans: We Will Fine You For Burning Wood To Stay Warm

 

Well, in the Alaskan interior, winters can be brutal. With temperatures dropping below zero, burning wood is the only viable way for Alaskans in these rather desolate areas to stay warm. Yet, government thinks this is a problem concerning small-particle pollution. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency is so concerned that they’re mulling fining people who burn wood to stay warm. John Daniel Davidson, a senior correspondent for The Federalist (and Alaskan born native)

If only the bureaucrats in Washington DC knew what the wolf-dog knew. But alas, now comes the federal government to tell the inhabitants of Alaska’s interior that, really, they should not be building fires to keep themselves warm during the winter. The New York Times reports the Environmental Protection Agency could soon declare the Alaskan cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, which have a combined population of about 100,000, in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year.

Like most people in Alaska, the residents of those frozen cities are burning wood to keep themselves warm this winter. Smoke from wood-burning stoves increases small-particle pollution, which settles in low-lying areas and can be breathed in. The EPA thinks this is a big problem. Eight years ago, the agency ruled that wide swaths of the most densely populated parts of the region were in “non-attainment” of federal air quality standards.

That prompted state and local authorities to look for ways to cut down on pollution from wood-burning stoves, including the possibility of fining residents who burn wood. After all, a declaration of noncompliance from the EPA would have enormous economic implications for the region, like the loss of federal transportation funding.

The problem is, there’s no replacement for wood-burning stoves in Alaska’s interior. Heating oil is too expensive for a lot of people, and natural gas isn’t available. So they’ve got to burn something.

This of course is a ridiculous situation. The EPA has no business telling Alaskans they shouldn’t burn wood to keep warm in the depths of winter. For one thing, concern over air pollution from wood smoke is misplaced. The high levels of particulate matter in places like Fairbanks in January are not the same thing as smog in Los Angeles. The areas affected by pollution from wood stoves are relatively small because they’re the result of something called inversion. At -30 degrees Fahrenheit, smoke doesn’t rise. It drops down to ground level and settles in low-lying areas. But this doesn’t happen city-wide, it happens on a single block or street.

 

STOP letting science and facts get in the way of our agenda

[gearhead204]

see what happens when a state votes republican! ........never thought the libertards would end up protecting me.......hope they don't check individual ballets and single me out      We can burn wood if it is our only source of heat during weather inversions, (provided its a certified wood stove) ...I looked at it and certified it as such, I only burn wood in it

As for the EPA goons I say we send them to Alaska to help the wolf population avoid starvation during the winter months.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

I know this doesn't fit your conservative meme, but the state is partly to blame. Federal law defines "non-attainment areas" and the EPA is just doing what Congress and the President told them to do, designating an area that fails to meet the standards. The actual enforcement is up to the state, and they can choose a variety of remedies- For example, they could require cleaner trucks or coal fired power plants instead.

[Keith Pommerening]

Don't think that is quite correct.  This is more regulation jammed down our thought by an out of control EPA, not necissarley under the direction of congress.  I hope the Trumpster will get them into the real world.  Cleaner trucks and coal fired power plants!  Under Obummers direction, coal fired anything is on borrowed time.  Our friends at the EPA are trying to destroy trucking with regulation that has made trucks less dependable and with mileage improving gimmicks of questionable value.  Anti-lock breaks, my experience, has shown they are a blank check for truck manufacturers and DOT to rake-in money from regulation,  And back to Slick Willie, he put our best coal into national park and sold the rest to overseas donors.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Keith, you appear to be operating in a fact free environment. Are you even aware of the 3 branches of government, which means that Trump alone cannot shut down the EPA, and that neighboring states and countries could sue Alaska for damaging pollution?

[6v71]

Don't see anywhere in his post where he's advocating shutting down the EPA.  Theme of this thread is simply reigning in a grossly out of control government agency.  All of this fuss is being caused by three environmental groups, one of them being the Sierra club, suing the EPA for not forcing Fairbanks to comply with the Clean Air Act.  Now the city is being pressured to act on it's residents and surrounding  boroughs.  As they say, crap rolls downhill.  Another case of liberals poking their noses into business that doesn't concern them.  I've spent allot of time in Fairbanks and the North Pole and I can guarantee nobody up there is whining about air quality.  People up there don't want anything to do with the lower 48 and the nonsense that goes on down here.

[RowdyRebel]

4 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

I know this doesn't fit your conservative meme, but the state is partly to blame. Federal law defines "non-attainment areas" and the EPA is just doing what Congress and the President told them to do, designating an area that fails to meet the standards. The actual enforcement is up to the state, and they can choose a variety of remedies- For example, they could require cleaner trucks or coal fired power plants instead.

You seem to forget that the ONLY powers the federal government has are the ones delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. As such, the regulatory power of the federal government is limited, and does NOT include intrastate affairs...only with foreign governments, among the several states, and with Indian Tribes. As this "pollution" only affects Alaskan citizens, it is beyond the power of the federal government to address. Instead, IF it is a problem, the state and local governments are the ones who should act. The feds simply have no jurisdiction in the matter.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Careful Rowdy, remember Illinois only gave in to the 80,000 pound gross weight limit when the federal government forced 'em too... That state's rights argument can bite you back!

[RowdyRebel]

No need to be "careful". The Constitution authorizes the federal government to post roads. Those are now US highways and the interstate system. The federal government also has the power under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. So when one state places size & weight limits below that which the feds have stated should be allowed on federal highways, which hinders interstate commerce by restricting the free flow of goods through the state to and from the surrounding states, then the federal government is within their power to withhold funding until the state complies with the size & weight recommendations on the federally funded roads.

 

Nice try, though...but not even CLOSE to the same thing.

[david wild]

Screw the EPA

[gearhead204]

10 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Keith, you appear to be operating in a fact free environment. Are you even aware of the 3 branches of government, which means that Trump alone cannot shut down the EPA, and that neighboring states and countries could sue Alaska for damaging pollution?

have you looked at the size of Alaska? it would take a half million acre forest fire to produce enough smoke to even get the Canadians attention! so I don't think that's an issue here.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

1 hour ago, RowdyRebel said:

No need to be "careful". The Constitution authorizes the federal government to post roads. Those are now US highways and the interstate system. The federal government also has the power under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. So when one state places size & weight limits below that which the feds have stated should be allowed on federal highways, which hinders interstate commerce by restricting the free flow of goods through the state to and from the surrounding states, then the federal government is within their power to withhold funding until the state complies with the size & weight recommendations on the federally funded roads.

 

Nice try, though...but not even CLOSE to the same thing.

10thers have a hard time with this concept, but just as the feds have legally regulated interstate commerce and truck dimensions, they can legally regulate emmissions.

[RowdyRebel]

 They lack jurisdiction because the impact of the emissions in question are limited to a single state. Only when state lines are breached can the feds claim jurisdiction. A power plant on Chicago's east side that spews pollutants into Indiana can be regulated by the feds. An interior town in Alaska, where residents burn wood to keep warm, where the smoke settles to the ground and doesn't even leave the town, well that isn't within the scope of the federal government's authority. Just because the state and local governments don't care to tell the locals they have to do without heat doesn't make it the federal government's job.  

 

One more thing to consider. In our Republic, the individual is sovereign. The only power government has is that which is granted to it by the people..."by consent of the governed". Democrats tend to forget that basic founding principle, whether they want to tell folks in Alaska that they cannot burn wood to keep warm in the winter or forcing Obamacare or any number of other bad and extremely unpopular policies on the citizens.  This is WHY the federal government is supposed to be limited with all powers NOT delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states and the people.

 

It is a state and local matter, and as such is beyond the legal authority of the federal government.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Rowdy, may as well stop while you're behind, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. It's well settled law that the feds can set pollution standards for the whole country, and those laws apply even in non contagious states. As for the "sovereign citizen" argument, good luck using that one as a defense!

[Keith Pommerening]

obviously TeamsterGrrrl loves to poke us in the eye with her finger just to get a rise out of someone.  I have to agree with her (?) on one point.  Her belief and willingness to let government take over and control us minions is widely accepted.   

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Yea, the founding fathers started this whole fed thing off with something called the "Constitution". You got a problem with that?

[1958 F.W.D.]

56 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Yea, the founding fathers started this whole fed thing off with something called the "Constitution". You got a problem with that?

No, but your political party does.......

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Demagogues of both parties often promise to pass local and state laws that will violate pre-emptive federal laws- For example abortion restrictions or attempts to ban oil trains. I don't support such demagogues, they're cheating the voters by promising things they can't deliver.

[RowdyRebel]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

 

...and yet you have a problem with governments attempting to do the very thing they were instituted among men in order to secure? LIFE. Without it there can be no liberty, nor can there be a pursuit of happiness. It is the most basic fundamental right we have...the right to LIVE. Yet, when someone in their pursuit of happiness creates a life, you would like the government to not only protect their ability to terminate that life, but also to make it as easy as possible (even subsidizing the procedure) to end that life? Government's role should be in PROTECTING life, not taking it, and in cases where disagreements occur about when life "begins", the government should ALWAYS err on the side of LIFE, because that is one of the most basic reasons for it to exist...to secure the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To do anything other than that is to go against the very basic fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded.

 

This goes for the Alaskans, too. Life. Try living through the winter without heat in central Alaska. Fuel oil is prohibitively expensive. Natural gas is not an option, nor is propane or any other source of fuel that needs to be piped or trucked in on a regular basis. Wood is abundant, cheap, and efficient, therefore it is widely used. Until they have an economically viable alternative, you cannot tell them they cannot heat THEIR home from the comfort of YOUR heated home. Even if an economically viable fuel alternative DID exist, their "pollution" does not in any way affect you, so you don't get any say in the matter.  Live and let live.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Rowdy, you took the bait, and I wasn't even fishin...

[Keith Pommerening]

I rest my case.

[Hobert62]

I'm not sure what all this means, but I'm still stocking up on toilet paper.