It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alaskans’ Cost of Staying Warm: A Thick Coat of Dirty Air (This is What Climate Regulations Do)

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The same pM2.5 standard is causing an even bigger problem for the trucking industry and imposes extra costs on food products because of delivery costs

This is an issue with national significance

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   
This idea is just not feasible here in Alaska. The place is just too wild. Too many people depend on their woodstoves for survival. Many people make a living from harvesting firewood too.

I grew up with woodsoves, for years it was my duty to go out and harvest enough firewood to get us through the winter. It became a regular part of every day life splitting wood and hauling it inside as needed.

Not that long ago I was living in a house we were still in the process of building and for an entire year we did all of our cooking on a woodstove.

There is no way we could have afforded to heat the house throughout the winter using any other kind of heater.

There is something special about having a woodstove too. The heat feels more natural. It is a rewarding process making the fire happen and it is very wholesome and peaceful for the home environment.

Fairbanks can get down to -60. Everyone should have a woodstove just in case they need it. Places can get snowed in, heaters can break down. Crazy stuff happens, Alaska is a place where survival skills, preparation, and self sufficiency are all a requirement in order to prosper and adapt to the environment.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
We have some of the cleanest air ever in this state and Fairbanks is no exception. Even the big city Anchorage seems to have realatively fresh air.

I question how big of a problem this really is. Especially when compared to the many other more densely populated and polluted cities of the world.

Eta: I may be wrong, I have not been to Fairbanks for a few years but I am just having a hard time believing these claims are truthful. Fairbanks is not much of a city, it is more like a very large spread out residential area. Like everywhere in Alaska it is a wide open and spacious clean place.

Those pictures earlier in the thread are not of any alarming pollution. Those pictures were most likely of either woodsmoke, maybe car exhaust, or possibly fog/ice fog. All of which will float around suspended like that on a typical Sub-Zero Alaskan winter morning.

People need to just come here so they can see that the air here is wonderful and laced with pleasant fragrances of the wilderness far more often than pollution of any sort.
edit on 3-1-2017 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2017 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: GoShredAK
We have some of the cleanest air ever in this state and Fairbanks is no exception. Even the big city Anchorage seems to have realatively fresh air.

I question how big of a problem this really is. Especially when compared to the many other more densely populated and polluted cities of the world.


It's fake concern.

These people cannot be fined if a wood burning stove is their primary heating source so it is not really and issue.

On top of it the EPA is not even enforcing this regulation #2



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I don't believe i have ever seen a picture of smog in Alaska ...can someone upload a few to give us an idea of how bad the problem is? Is it like the problem in china or just mild like California?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: desert


Apparently, if in seven years the voluntary efforts didn't work, then there must be other solutions.

That is a scary statement to me. Here's why:

I believe that, while society may be irrational, most individuals are rational. That especially applies to individuals living in hostile environments, because irrationality in such can lead to not living there (or anywhere) quickly. Alaska, for instance, is a hostile environment, especially outside of the few cities there. The temperature can literally cause death in minutes if a person is unprotected. Liquid water is difficult to maintain. Wildlife is uncontrolled for the most part, and even though few creatures can survive there, those that do can be fierce. An irrational person would likely not survive.

Thus, the individuals there should be capable of making rational decisions concerning their survival, as evidenced by their survival.

Here we have a situation where in the conditions are sub-optimal. The particulate count in the air is higher than has been deemed acceptable, primarily due to the local climatic conditions and the use of readily available fuels in sub-optimal equipment. Your excerpt states that voluntary attempts to correct this have failed. Therefore, according to your statement, mandatory (opposite of voluntary) steps are needed.

Mandatory means the residents have been deemed irrational in this situation and that their survival must be handled by others. That is exactly what must not be done. The assumption that mandatory compliance is needed is based on a voluntary effort that has failed... not all possible voluntary efforts. I have trouble believing that if I were in the same position, I would refuse if someone approached me and said, "Sir, we have been monitoring the air and it seems the older stoves are causing a lot of pollution. We would like to offer you an upgrade to a more efficient stove free of charge. It will provide more heat using the same fuel, and not pollute the air as much."

However, I might refuse if someone said, "Sir, you are polluting the air. We're asking you to spend $xxxx and put in a new stove." That's a sales pitch, not an offer of help!

Here, I use a very simple wood stove to heat my shop. It is pretty inefficient, hard to control, and yeah, on certain days the smell of smoke is kinda strong. But it's heat... free heat, since I use fallen or dying trees to fuel it. I can't use it in my house, because it can't burn all night and would be a major fire hazard. Plus, it is heavy; my shop can support the weight, but my house isn't that strongly built (trailer). So I use other heat at home and wood in my shop.

I would prefer a small heat pump. It would heat and cool, and I could more easily maintain a comfort level. The reason I don't use a heat pump is simple: money. I got that stove, complete, for about $300 and nothing to operate. A heat pump will cost me about $800 (was closer to $1500 when I bought the stove) and cost electricity to operate. I did not have $1200 plus maybe $50 a month after that. Thus, I could not make the better choice.

If I find myself in a position to replace it with a heat pump, I will do so. Ergo, if someone wants me to replace it, all they have to do is make it possible for me to do so; they do not have to force me to do anything. And I am certain that the people living in North Pole feel similar.

This is the greatest danger of the EPA. I am glad to see that, in this case at least, the EPA has taken an initial hands-off approach due to the overall conditions. But misquided, intolerant, and dare I say cruel, individuals like this Dr. Olson can use the courts to control the actions of the EPA, effectively placing themselves in the role of big government. That is wrong... purely wrong... on so many levels. It is legalized bullying, and possibly homicide. At the very least, it is theft by force of property rights, legitimized by a few powerful people for "the good of society." In that respect it is also an exile of the people adversely affected from society, for when the good of society removes their right to exist in that society, what else could one call it?

No. NO. NO! No one has such rights, and no one ever should.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Hmmmm I've read most of the thread and have a gist of the arguments for and against and I'm a bit torn... On one side I am for personal freedom BUT that is if it's not at the expense of other peoples! You could argue it isn't fair for others to live in smog just because you want to burn some wood!

Now the argument about the cold... My girlfriend is from Russia and has lived in siberia with -50... They just have piped hot water all winter! I dare say some remote places might still burn wood but in towns and cities they just have heat delivered. It makes the most sense in this scenario but of course I'm sure it's a huge endeavor to build.

If the smoke is causing problems for others it should be dealt with in my opinion... But why are people not making use of rocket mass heaters that put out very little in the way of smoke? It's also a much better way to heat the home and more efficient.

Meh, I don't live there so nothing really to do with me. XD



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

It is a God Given Right of Survival for Man to Burn Wood Fires to Stay Warm in Cold Harsh Enviorments . No Man has the Right to Deny Another Man the Ability to Stay Alive in such Conditions . It would be Considered an Act of War . The E.P.A. is Guilty of just that here .


While I don't actually believe there is a God Given right to anything in this reality, I believe a man or woman has the right to deny by any means necessary an attempt to deny them the ability to burn wood to stay warm. That right is bestowed by a firearm, sharp pointy object, long heavy object, or any other object capable of doing damage.

I don't know enough about the history or population in Alaska to declare what the true agenda is here, but surely it is not the one that is being presented.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Appreciate thoughtful reply

Now, I have a question. Who do you see as making this offer to a stove owner?....



I have trouble believing that if I were in the same position, I would refuse if someone approached me and said, "Sir, we have been monitoring the air and it seems the older stoves are causing a lot of pollution. We would like to offer you an upgrade to a more efficient stove free of charge. It will provide more heat using the same fuel, and not pollute the air as much."



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

"rocket mass heaters"....
Apparently they are an offshoot of an efficient woodburning stove. Definitely something to investigate. I can see where these have to be carefully built, installed, and used, but I think once one learns to use it, it could be a good thing.

Any Alaskans here familiar with these rocket mass heaters? Know anyone who uses one?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Rocket mass heaters should be encouraged by the authorities. Cheap to make, better heat efficiency and almost no exhaust. I don't know why our various governments aren't at least giving people this kind of info. Or maybe I do.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

Sry, just noticed you already said the above.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

In this case, the complainants are the group led by Dr. Olson. Therefore, I believe the burden is on her and her group to try every way reasonable to resolve the situation.

My thought is to use the money they have spent on lawyers to purchase and install more efficient heating. A good negotiator could get suppliers on board to reduce the total cost. I could even see EPA funding as a potential source of capital, since such a program would advance their purpose.

But all that takes time and commitment, from raising money, to research on heating options, to negotiations, to governmental grant applications. It's more difficult than calling a lawyer, telling him your concerns, and paying him to do all the work while you drive around in your SUV and play with your sled dogs. That is the real issue as I see it: the laziness of people who want the world changed, but don't want to do what it takes to change it. Regulations serve to make that laziness more efficient and easier.

Laziness should be hard, not easy.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Meee32

"rocket mass heaters"....
Apparently they are an offshoot of an efficient woodburning stove. Definitely something to investigate. I can see where these have to be carefully built, installed, and used, but I think once one learns to use it, it could be a good thing.

Any Alaskans here familiar with these rocket mass heaters? Know anyone who uses one?


Well it's a bit of a chicken and the egg thing, I'm not too sure on which came first, but I can tell you my girlfriend says they have been used in Russia for a long time (after I showed her a picture of one). To my surprise she was right and they sometimes build them into walls (not bad).

I'm sure there must be some easy way to draw hot water from this source of heat too! Of course it wouldn't be free, you would be drawing heat away from the mass but of course then you could pump it round a heating system if you so wished or into a domestic hot water cylinder. If you catch my drift.

Anyway back to the point, it is my suspicion, that actually, modern stoves have learnt gasification from rocket mass heaters but I have no proof for that. The fact Russians have been using them for a long time adds weight to that. Though no sure if the Russian setup utilizes gasification.

Anywho it's all very interesting stuff! Actually when you throw in thermoelectric generation into the mix you're talking self sufficiency with hot water, heating and electricity! All this tech is freely available today but not enough research is being done in my opinion.

I mean why don't they couple solar panels to tegs (thermo-electric generators), you could water cool them (bringing that heat into the house and also increasing the panels efficiency) and create some extra electricity.

I'm sure all this will be married together at some point though



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven


She worked as a mechanic on planes in the late 70s at Elmendorf AFB, so as an Air Force veteran, she might already have done that much time outside in the dead of winter without heat.

No, she didn't. I have proof. She's still alive.

Do you not understand the human body cannot survive long in those temperatures?

I am well aware of the ramifications of such pollution, and am completely in support of minimizing it. I am just not in support of killing people to do so. The posted statement by the EPA indicates they aren't, either. Only Dr. Olson is, and I really don't care if she invented shirt pockets... Success does not infer a right to harm others.

TheRedneck


So let me see if I have this right... when you said this:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Dr. Olson should be sentenced to spend a week in the dead of winter with absolutely no heat, along with any other members of the group.

You were literally calling for her death.

Classy.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

She's called for theirs.

Time about is fair play.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

She's called for theirs.

Time about is fair play.

Interesting.

Where did she say this?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

When she filed a lawsuit to force the EPA to stop them from burning wood in their stoves for heat.

I'm not playing your semantics game. Her desired end result was that these people had no heat, so she could feel good about how "environmental" she is. That's worse than a common murderer... at least they have some reason to kill, albeit usually an illegal reason. She just don't care.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
There are no games.

She's lived in Alaska for some 40 years.

Please point out where she's trying to take away their heat.
edit on 19Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:11:55 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Oh, but there are games!

Assuming the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs, what exactly will the result of Alaska's plan be? How are they going to clean up the air? There are only a few things they can do within the realm of possibility:
  • Change the atmospheric conditions that lead to particulate matter remaining close to the ground... clearly impossible.
  • Limit the amount of particulates that are produced. This can be accomplished by:
    • Stopping the burning of fuels that produce particulates.
    • Requiring anyone who uses such fuel to upgrade their heater (stove).

So the only possible solution is to require people to give up their present form of heat, which they obviously cannot do due to financial hardship. Obviously, because if they could upgrade to a more efficient stove, most of them at least would have. I doubt there's many people in North Pole who would refuse better heat in the winter.

The game is where you try to put me on the spot, demanding an example of Olson and her ilk stating openly they want people to go without heat. You and I both know that will not happen outside of comic books. Villains don't really state their intentions openly in monologue form, and heroes don't really wear capes and tights and fly through the air to capture the villians.

But there is really evil in this world. Apparently one villian is named Olson.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join