4 ms·

I, too, have a neighbor with a wood burner (used during the cold months only fortunately) that easily adds 75 to 100 to the outdoor AQI (using Purple Air). My i

by irq 6y ago

I, too, have a neighbor with a wood burner (used during the cold months only fortunately) that easily adds 75 to 100 to the outdoor AQI (using Purple Air). My indoor air quality is unaffected due to central air filtering. Given the health impact, these burners should be seized and replaced with almost anything else, with full financial assistance. (Why? It's cheaper to replace these burners than it is to suffer the long term public health costs caused by their existence).

gnicholas 6y ago
In California, it is illegal to burn (except for cooking or if you have no other way to heat your home) on Spare the Air days. Unfortunately, there are a surprising number of homes in the Bay Area that fall into the latter exception. I recently heard about this nonprofit that is helping people retrofit their homes and get rid of wood burning stoves. http://www.rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/ http://www.rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/
generalizations 6y ago
> these burners should be seized and replaced Wood is far cheaper than alternatives, often even free (e.g., a neighbor cuts down a tree, you get rid of it for them). Financial assistance is onerous to obtain. You're also assuming it's appropriate for some government beurocrat to make such a decision on the first place. "It's my woodstove, you can't have it."
- aaomidi 6y ago
  > You're also assuming it's appropriate for some government beurocrat to make such a decision on the first place. " China banned the country from getting pallets of plastic because once they factored in the public health costs, it wasn't profitable (and it was barely profitable before hand). The government bans people from driving while drunk because they have a potential to hurt others. We have precedence for the government limiting various freedoms for the safety of others. For example, in most of the US you can't smoke when there are others nearby or when indoors.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    There's a clear difference between prohibiting drunk driving, and telling me I can't continue to use my wood stove inside my own home.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      There's also a pretty strong similarity. We're all driving the same roads; we're all breathing the same air.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        Prohibiting drunk driving doesn’t involve depriving citizens of their property, especially property that was legal when they bought it.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        It literally does though. Drunk driving removes the usability of their cars that they could've spent tens of thousands of dollars on this.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        There is a clear and important distinction between restrictions on how property can be used, and the government literally seizing property. Trying to argue that those are one and the same is just silly. A better parallel would be fining based on emissions, which I would be fine with. But actually seizing private property? Hell no.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        > But actually seizing private property? Hell no. Yeah like your car being seized due to not paying the yearly registration fee?
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’m a huge fan of providing incentives for people to upgrade, but I would fight tooth and nail against seizing inefficient burners. Opening up the door for the government to randomly deprive citizens of their property is an awful door to open, and it will be abused eventually, no matter how just the cause feels today.
- noja 6y ago
  What do you think about noise pollution?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I'm ok with fining people for it. I'm not fine with wandering around and seizing personal property that could conceivably be used to produce noise pollution. Generally speaking, we should only allow the government to intervene in personal freedoms when there is a compelling interest, and we should expect that the interventions are tailored to be as minimal as possible. A compelling reason existing is no excuse to give the government unlimited powers, for fairly obvious reasons. For corporations, this obviously means complying with a robust regulatory framework; if I own a company that sells wood burning stoves, then I have to comply with EPA regulations around how many grams per hour of soot it may emit when properly maintained. In exchange for having to keep up with the changing regulations, the government should provide reasonable timelines and clarity around what is expected. As a private citizen, this means accepting some limitations on how we use our private property. As a citizen I can legally purchase a car, own a firearm, and consume alcohol, but if I decide to use all three at once I will probably lose my right to have all three, plus I'll get locked in jail. Occasionally changing regulatory requirements will mean that certain pieces of equipment can't be operated anymore; if you had a car that had to use leaded fuel (not a substitute), then it would effectively be illegal to operate it going forward. What is not fine is for the government to say "your car needs leaded fuel, so we are going to seize it from you". The government should not be in the business of seizing private property that may be used to violate the law, especially when it was purchased legally. We don't do pre-crime in this country, owning something that may be used to violate the law is not a crime punishable by loss of private property. We also have constitutional protections against ex post facto laws; you cannot punish a citizen for what they purchased back when it was legal. If it's necessary to put strict limits on pollution and fine users who exceed them, that is fine by me. I'd even be happy to pay a bit more in taxes to fund optional buybacks and incentives to help users buy newer and more efficient units. But proposing that the government go and seize private property that may be used to eventually break some new regulation is beyond the pale.

by irq 6y ago

gnicholas 6y ago

In California, it is illegal to burn (except for cooking or if you have no other way to heat your home) on Spare the Air days. Unfortunately, there are a surprising number of homes in the Bay Area that fall into the latter exception. I recently heard about this nonprofit that is helping people retrofit their homes and get rid of wood burning stoves. http://www.rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/ http://www.rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/

generalizations 6y ago

> these burners should be seized and replaced Wood is far cheaper than alternatives, often even free (e.g., a neighbor cuts down a tree, you get rid of it for them). Financial assistance is onerous to obtain. You're also assuming it's appropriate for some government beurocrat to make such a decision on the first place. "It's my woodstove, you can't have it."

aaomidi 6y ago
> You're also assuming it's appropriate for some government beurocrat to make such a decision on the first place. " China banned the country from getting pallets of plastic because once they factored in the public health costs, it wasn't profitable (and it was barely profitable before hand). The government bans people from driving while drunk because they have a potential to hurt others. We have precedence for the government limiting various freedoms for the safety of others. For example, in most of the US you can't smoke when there are others nearby or when indoors.
- generalizations 6y ago
  There's a clear difference between prohibiting drunk driving, and telling me I can't continue to use my wood stove inside my own home.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    There's also a pretty strong similarity. We're all driving the same roads; we're all breathing the same air.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Prohibiting drunk driving doesn’t involve depriving citizens of their property, especially property that was legal when they bought it.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        It literally does though. Drunk driving removes the usability of their cars that they could've spent tens of thousands of dollars on this.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        There is a clear and important distinction between restrictions on how property can be used, and the government literally seizing property. Trying to argue that those are one and the same is just silly. A better parallel would be fining based on emissions, which I would be fine with. But actually seizing private property? Hell no.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        > But actually seizing private property? Hell no. Yeah like your car being seized due to not paying the yearly registration fee?

ashtonkem 6y ago

I’m a huge fan of providing incentives for people to upgrade, but I would fight tooth and nail against seizing inefficient burners. Opening up the door for the government to randomly deprive citizens of their property is an awful door to open, and it will be abused eventually, no matter how just the cause feels today.

noja 6y ago
What do you think about noise pollution?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I'm ok with fining people for it. I'm not fine with wandering around and seizing personal property that could conceivably be used to produce noise pollution. Generally speaking, we should only allow the government to intervene in personal freedoms when there is a compelling interest, and we should expect that the interventions are tailored to be as minimal as possible. A compelling reason existing is no excuse to give the government unlimited powers, for fairly obvious reasons. For corporations, this obviously means complying with a robust regulatory framework; if I own a company that sells wood burning stoves, then I have to comply with EPA regulations around how many grams per hour of soot it may emit when properly maintained. In exchange for having to keep up with the changing regulations, the government should provide reasonable timelines and clarity around what is expected. As a private citizen, this means accepting some limitations on how we use our private property. As a citizen I can legally purchase a car, own a firearm, and consume alcohol, but if I decide to use all three at once I will probably lose my right to have all three, plus I'll get locked in jail. Occasionally changing regulatory requirements will mean that certain pieces of equipment can't be operated anymore; if you had a car that had to use leaded fuel (not a substitute), then it would effectively be illegal to operate it going forward. What is not fine is for the government to say "your car needs leaded fuel, so we are going to seize it from you". The government should not be in the business of seizing private property that may be used to violate the law, especially when it was purchased legally. We don't do pre-crime in this country, owning something that may be used to violate the law is not a crime punishable by loss of private property. We also have constitutional protections against ex post facto laws; you cannot punish a citizen for what they purchased back when it was legal. If it's necessary to put strict limits on pollution and fine users who exceed them, that is fine by me. I'd even be happy to pay a bit more in taxes to fund optional buybacks and incentives to help users buy newer and more efficient units. But proposing that the government go and seize private property that may be used to eventually break some new regulation is beyond the pale.