It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:25 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No, it's about people being able to warm themselves during winter, and not being fined for not being able to upgrade their stoves...

People are being fined?

Well, I guess that's better than freezing to death.

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: Phage

Well well... It seems Phage agrees that "paying fines to the globalists is good to stop climate change". Must be part of your new religion's beliefs huh Phage?
edit on 31-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:31 PM
a reply to: visitedbythem

"Spare the air " day! I see it all the time on the news.Sorry SF,this is Northern California,ain't no smog here.

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:32 PM
a reply to: Phage

No. At this point they want people who burn wood to do so more efficiently. Which equates to cleaner.

Right. They want to outlaw the stoves the poor have. If they don't have the means to buy the better stove, hey, that's their problem, right? If they freeze to death it's their own fault for not having money, right?

Lung damage is an accumulated and chronic condition. For those with breathing problems, "periodic" exposure can be debilitating.

Absolutely! We have to make sure people don't have dirty lungs while they're dying from exposure.

I have personally felt -20F once in my life. Once. I had to adjust the tandems on my truck before I entered New York. That procedure requires two trips out of the truck, each one taking 2-3 minutes. By the time I was done, I was shaking so bad I had to sit under the heater for several minutes to stop shivering enough to drive. Anyone who would even consider denying heat to people in that kind of climate are inhuman animals with no soul.

Anyone who would attempt to excuse such action because of health reasons is insane and should be in a mental institution.


posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:33 PM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Phage

Well well... It seems Phage agrees that "paying fines to the globalists is good to stop climate change". Must be part of your new religion's beliefs huh Phage?

You seem to be confusing local air pollution problems with climate change again. But I have no religion.

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:40 PM
a reply to: Phage

Hmm, you are talking about a state with less than 800,000 residents and about 90,000 of them lived in poverty in 2015. And on average for cost of living Alaska is more expensive on than the lower 48.

So now the EPA wants to take away on of the more cost effective means the poorer Alaskans have of heating.

And you want to know what the state capital is doing about it when their tax base consists of fewer than 1 million people?

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:49 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Hmm, you are talking about a state with less than 800,000 residents and about 90,000 of them lived in poverty in 2015.
Not quite 90,000. Close though. There is a lot of subsistence going on in Alaska (lots of fish and game). That reduces cash income (which the poverty number is based on). But still, that's about 11%. Below the national average.

About 100,000 of that 800,000 live in Fairbanks, the area we are talking about. A lot of people burning a lot of wood in a small region where the air gets rank.

And you want to know what the state capital is doing about it when their tax base consists of fewer than 1 million people?
Is that why everyone gets paid a tax rebate each year (up to $1,000)? Juneau gets a lot of oil money to spread around.

edit on 12/31/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 01:41 AM
a reply to: Phage

Wait a minute Guys - Before we even discuss new more effecient stoves, we should be discussing the EPA regulations.

I would like you to consider the following study:

It really questions what the cost/benefits are of lowering particulate pollution as low as it has been:

In partiucular:

There is a general belief that legislation can solve the problem of adverse effects associated with exposures to environmental pollutants. Can offending substances be banned or regulated to some low level such that they will cause no harm? The answer to this question appears to be “no” for several reasons. First, the substance may also be associated with sources that are essential to health, such as pesticides, vehicles, factories, electric power plants, farms, and construction sites. Essentially all human activities will modify the environment in ways that will adversely affect some people. When balancing the positive aspects of an environmental regulation with the negative aspects, it is easy to underestimate the negative consequences. Therefore, legislators are challenged with giving up on an attempt to legislate away all harm and instead seek to minimize harm by taking into account all of the significant consequences of their legislative actions. With respect to environmental contaminants, it must be realized that it is impossible, and perhaps unwise, to eliminate them altogether. It is probably not feasible to even reduce such contaminants to levels below which some people will not be harmed. Legislators must be more sophisticated in analyzing the complex issues associated with public health in relation to environmental contaminants.

In this case, it should be considered that the benefit of the stoves (affordability / heat) may outweigh any benefit of legistlating lower level of PM

What I see here is a group of people seeking to usurp government power in order to bully their neighbours into a behavior they see as desirable. A woman driving an SUV should not be seeking to bully her neighbours into compliance until she can figure out how to control the emissions from her SUV.

Once people figure out how to beat their neighbours with the government stick, their demands never end.

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 01:48 AM
a reply to: buckwhizzle
The air is clear here, but they do have regulations. My insert burns clean. I will burn as I like until they fine me, then I may re evaluate, depending on the fine.
Happy New Year from California

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 04:16 AM
where do people in Alaska get wood from, are there even trees there?

here`s a crazy idea, if the EPA is serious about making sure people are breathing clean air why don`t they outlaw cigarettes? I`m sure that the small number of people in Alaska who are breathing fumes from burning wood is nothing compared to the number of people all over the U.S. who are breathing toxic deadly fumes every time they puff on a cigarette.

I have a hunch that the EPA doesn`t give a rats ass about the air we breath they are just trying make money.they are already gouging smokers for every cent they can without putting the tobacco companies out of business so I guess they need to extort money from some other criminal enterprise in the name of clean air.

as long as cigarettes are legal I don`t want to hear a peep from the EPA or any other government stooge about protecting the publics health and clean air.When they are ready to give up the tobacco lobby money and outlaw cigarettes maybe then I`ll take them seriously but until then they just need to stop insulting my intelligence with all the talk about protecting the air we breath and protecting the public`s health.

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 05:13 AM
I believe here in Michigan, the law states that you can now only purchase the new efficient wood stoves, not be fined for using the old ones in place, like a Grandfather clause. It seems that should be how they handle this in Alaska.

Of course, I saw this coming from miles away, so years ago when I installed my wood stove I used a very short exhaust pipe at the back of my place, one that can't be seen from the front or the road unless I'm using it and it has smoke coming out from it.

If the government was serious about pollution from fires they would ban charcoal grills, cooking fires, char-grilling at restaurants, campfires and stop issuing burn permits as well. With all the campgrounds and rural homesteads around here though, that will probably never happen, esp issuing paid permits, but I'm probably wrong if they think they can make more money in fines and regulations.

Ultimately, in my opinion, it's all about bringing in more revenue by any means possible, not about the public health or air quality in general. This usually occurs on the backs of the people who can least afford to fight it, pay the fines or go with the new programs. The truly big air polluters will continue to pollute and pay the fines, bump up the lobbying efforts or fight the new laws that effect their bottom line. If push comes to shove, the big polluters will go out of business and the government will lose big time in such a case. Coal fueled energy power plants come to mind, something like 80% of the energy mix is produced that way.

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 07:35 AM
a reply to: Tardacus

Juuust a few. As in, most of the state is covered in forests.

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 08:15 AM
"Resort" to burning wood! Ha!

Wood should be the FIRST choice for heat in an environment where solar can't cut it. Any other option is burning fossil fuel.
Heating with fossil fuel is insanity. Creating laws forcing people to do so is insanity at its finest.
As a species, we've invented our own suicide machine, and strapped ourselves in.

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 11:10 AM

Dr. Jeanne Olson, a veterinarian

Evidently the good doctor isnt much of a veterinarian or she would realize the pure staggering amount of horsesh** she is putting out is a far greater health risk to the folks in Alaska

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 12:21 PM

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hum, as an Alaskan all I have to say about anybody from New York City telling me how to live (and most Alaskans will say the same)...

Go F# yourself.

We have wood fired stoves to keep warm. That is most of the pollutants right there. And yeah, 30 below (F) is effing cold. Sorry the world doesn't run on unicorn farts.

GFY lady

Well that sums it up, yeah and those city boys are a joke, and yes they can go $&@! himself fellow AK resident too. Kodiak Island Baby✌🏼

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 02:33 PM
a reply to: AK907ICECOLD

Lived in Squarebanka while going to school. No air movement when there is no breeze. Ice fog, wood smoke, car exhaust, second hand breath... just nasty.

No use trying to regulate this. May as well tax sunshine while your at it. Been that way since before I was born so nothing is gained by fining people.

Anchored here in anchortown.

posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 03:04 PM
North Road, Kenai peninsula here what up fellow AK locals, happy new year

posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 02:32 AM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

This is what I was fearing. The EPA under Obama's administration has implemented several "regulations to combat climate" which will affect the livelihood of many people and possibly their lives.

So, do I stress that a few people's comfort zone will poison the air for my grandchildren (and everyone else's, also), or are laws to be made?
Laws are for those with no ethics.
People with ethics do not want to poison their neighbor's air.
There are old inefficient stoves, and there are newer very efficient stoves, wood stoves, that are just not that expensive.
Anyone can trade with the local blacksmith to make them a great stove!
If you are one to insist on your freedom to poison the world, do we have laws for you! *__-

posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 03:28 AM
I read that these regulations do not apply to people who heat their homes with wood if that is their primary source of heat.

Also, the addition to the title is misleading and it sounds like regulations are forcing people to burn wood and make the air unbreathable.

is this a backwards Trumpian thing?

posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The answer to this seems simple to me.

If the EPA want these homes to use clean burning stoves, then they are going to have to provide them, out of the EPA budget.

Its not right to fine or penalise these people for burning wood to keep themselves warm, when alternatives cost more than the homeowner can afford, especially since American companies get to do whatever they like, and just pay a fee that they CAN afford, when they fail to meet regulations. Too much carbon? Throw money at the government. Thats the corporate way. Its all very well for corporate bodies to pay to play, but you cannot expect the same from people burning a little wood to keep their homes warm.

And another thing...

When the temperature is low down, arctic cold like they get in Alaska, regular heating systems do not cut the mustard. You cannot get a gas main hook up and a traditional plumbing system to work reliably in those temperature ranges, and I would argue that there is no way to prove beyond doubt that even if they could, it would be better for the environment to do so. Its nonsense.

If ANYONE on the face of the world ought to get a "Do what you have to do" pass to get through a winter, its the people of Alaska.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in