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

originally posted by: Phage

People are being fined?

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

If you would stick to reading the sources you would see the questions you are asking have been answered already.

Right on the first page, if you would have bothered to read the source (I did not make this up like you are trying to claim) states:...

By KIRK JOHNSONDEC. 25, 2016
...
And forces are now converging to heighten the tension in this seemingly unlikely pollution story. Civil fines by Fairbanks North Star Borough — which includes the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, with a total population of about 100,000 — could be assessed in coming days against residential polluters. The E.P.A. could declare the entire area to be in “serious” noncompliance of the Clean Air Act early next year, with potentially huge economic implications, including a cutoff of federal transportation funds.
...

www.nytimes.com...

The article explains that these fines could be assessed against residential polluters early in the year 2017. Who do you think would pay for these fines, Al Gore?...

Stop trying to derail the thread by trying to attack the messenger, and read the sources.

Here is another one from 2014.

EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Deals Blow to Rural Homes

By Cheryl K. Chumley | Tuesday, 18 Feb 2014 01:42 PM
...
The EPA tightened restrictions in January on the level of fine airborne particulate emissions that wood-burning stoves can emit, from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to a maximum of 12 micrograms.

The EPA restrictions would ban the production and sale of the kinds of wood-burning stoves that compose 80 percent of those currently in use in the United States, Forbes reported.
...

www.newsmax.com...

The EPA under Obama changed the maximum amount of fine particulate that wood burning stoves can emit from 15 micrograms to 12 micrograms. 80% of wood burning stoves would not comply with these standards and would force wood stove companies to recall wood stoves that do not meet the standards and were sold 6 months after the EPA ruling.

To put in perspective, as the Forbes article states, "EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter."

Here is the Forbes article.

EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

Larry Bell , Contributor
...
While EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 microgram limit. To put this amount in context, EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter.
...

www.forbes.com...

Then there is the fact, as the article explains, that there are "environmental groups and people like the veterinarian" who want to force the EPA to change areas like the North Pole, and the Bourough and designate them as "nonattainment areas".

For example: www.epa.gov...

What happens when an area is designated as "nonattainment"?

...
When EPA designates an area as nonattainment, they will establish a schedule for the State to submit a nonattainment plan. The state must submit a plan within 3 years of the nonattainment designation date.

A nonattainment plan must have the following:

enforceable emission limitations and control
schedules and timetables for compliance
plans to establish the operation of air monitoring equipment and collection of data
an enforcement program ensuring emission limits are met and controls are used
a program to permit stationary sources; funded by a fee program
prohibitions against sources emitting air pollution in amounts contributing to nonattainment status and interfering with maintenance of an air quality standard
program to prevent sources from significantly deteriorating air quality, known as a prevention of significant deterioration
program to protect visibility
methods to comply with rules on interstate and international pollution reduction

...

dec.alaska.gov...

And again as I mentioned, Alaska's air quality is also affected by China's air quality.

Air Pollution in China Is Spreading Across the Pacific to the U.S.

...
Significance

International trade affects global air pollution and transport by redistributing emissions related to production of goods and services and by potentially altering the total amount of global emissions. Here we analyze the trade influences by combining an economic-emission analysis on China’s bilateral trade and atmospheric chemical transport modeling. Our focused analysis on US air quality shows that Chinese air pollution related to production for exports contributes, at a maximum on a daily basis, 12–24% of sulfate pollution over the western United States. The US outsourcing of manufacturing to China might have reduced air quality in the western United States with an improvement in the east, due to the combined effects of changes in emissions and atmospheric transport.
...

www.pnas.org...

China, through it's increase in production, is outsourcing on a daily basis 12-24% of sulfate pollution over the western United States, including Alaska.

What these environmental groups, and citizens like the veterinarian in the op, are trying to do is to force these regulations which would among other things, implement:

... an enforcement program ensuring emission limits are met and controls are used
a program to permit stationary sources; funded by a fee program
prohibitions against sources emitting air pollution in amounts contributing to nonattainment status and interfering with maintenance of an air quality standard
...

dec.alaska.gov...

If the EPA does what environmental groups are trying to force through lawsuits, then the Borough and North Pole would be classified as nonattainment as of January 2014. Since the state must submit a plan within 3 years of the nonattainment designation date, then in would make early 2017 as the latest date in which the state must act and enforce the measures enumerated in the above link.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sounds to me like the people buying those stoves should have done their due diligence and gotten the non polluting model.

Let the buyer beware.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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.

If they can't afford to live in Alaska, then maybe they should have moved? I've never seen financial hardship accepted for long as a legitimate reason for not meeting state compliance. Parking tickets? Never mind the fact that for a poor person a ticket might be an entire months pay. Pay it in 3 days or else. Health care? You pay a fine if you don't buy it.

Life is pay to play. If you're unwilling or unable to buy a proper heat source, maybe live in a place where you don't need to do that? Alternatively, figure out a way to come up with the money, I hear prostitution and skipping meals are good sources of extra income.

a reply to: Aazadan

That isn't it... There are may people who cannot afford the $1,400 -$4,000+ U.S.D. amount for a new stove plus the price of installation. Many people, not only in Alaska, would not be able to buy new stoves, and if these regulations are enforced these people will be subjected to fines.

Then there is the fact that "China's polluted air quality" reaches the western U.S., and negatively impacts on a daily basis the particulate matter in the western U.S., including Alaska.

China's production is increasing, which would mean an increase in pm reaching the western U.S.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So what about China? They're building cheap power plants, but they're also investing heavily in non polluting sources. The same process we've had in the West, except they're doing it on a vastly accelerated timeline.

And if people can't afford $4000 for a heater, perhaps they shouldn't live in a climate that requires one? That's always the argument isn't it? If you can't afford flood insurance, don't live on a flood plain. If you can't afford a 2 bedroom apartment, don't have a kid.

If they can't afford a heater that's up to regulations, maybe they should pick somewhere else to live.

a reply to: TheRedneck

the burden is on her and her group to try every way reasonable to resolve the situation.

The burden is on the community to resolve the situation. It is one thing to burn inefficiently when you're in a cabin far from others, but if you live in a community then what you do directly affects others. Her group is trying to make it very clear that there is a problem.

From the OP

“Both sides are digging in their heels,” said the borough’s mayor, Karl Kassel, who has been calling residents to chat about their heating systems and to urge them to upgrade, with financial help from the borough, to more efficient wood stoves. “We have been settieng ourselves up for a crescendo.”

Chatting and urging apparently has not been enough. And apparently there IS money there. If someone needs help filling out the forms, help them; if, after swapping out a simple wood stove for an efficient one, someone still needs financial help, then, yes, go for donations, fund raisers, etc.

“People up here tend to be more independent,” Mr. Roberts added. “They came up here to get away from the regulatory environment that’s down in the lower 48, so they definitely see the E.P.A. as coming after wood stoves and trying to cut out that kind of independent lifestyle where you can live off the grid.”

The idea that "big govt is coming after your stove" is not a reason to force others in your community to put up with seasonal unhealthy air. It seems that the community has been more than tolerant but can no longer continue delay.

One last thing, not concerning this post's topic, I sense that some posters here might be confusing the North Pole with North Pole, AK, a suburb of Fairbanks. About 2000 people live in North Pole. AK.

a reply to: Aazadan

So what about China? They're building cheap power plants, but they're also investing heavily in non polluting sources. The same process we've had in the West, except they're doing it on a vastly accelerated timeline.

And let's not confuse air inversion trapping in smoke pollution on a Winter day with the general pollution coming into Alaska from fossil fuel industrial plants in China. Alaska is getting its share of Chinese mercury from coal in water (think seafood) and soil. Just because you might not see them in "clean" air and water doesn't mean that they're not there.

The US dropped the ball on being number one in alternate energy research and use since 1980. We could have done so much not just for us but the world. We've been playing catch up the last eight years, but China has been amazing. For us to do away with the Paris Agreement is our own nail in our own coffin of death by pollution.

a reply to: Meee32

I don't know anything about the thermo-electric generators , but, yes, wood stoves can be used to heat water. With correct and careful installation it is possible. We looked into it 35 years ago but ended up opting for traditional water heater (for our situation). What's stupid is that all this has been around for decades, caused by the great leap in fuel prices in the 1970s. By the late 1980s, people were getting away from energy concerns. Solar passive water heating used to be used more also.

not enough research is being done in my opinion.

For sure! The US turned into slackers when it could have led. It's tried to catch up the last eight years. No matter what the nation does, California will continue on its energy course.

Sounds like the Russians have used one solution (the stove) for years. Good on them!

I live in the uk and have a multufuel stove thst also heats my water and radiators.

I used to spend 100 quid a month on gas for the same purpose, now I burn scrap wood which would have been burnt on building sites etc anyway.

My stove cost 80 quid off ebay.
A mate helped with the installation.

If I'd have had to get a new gas burner it would have been 6k odd installed and there's no way I could afford that.

There's no where cheaper with a job to live and I imagine the Alaskans are in a similar fix.

a reply to: Aazadan

Life is pay to play.

Translation: if you can't afford to live like I want you to, please go die... preferably somewhere else.

No.

Just... no.

TheRedneck

a reply to: desert

The burden is on the community to resolve the situation.

Is Dr. Olson the community? Who left her in charge? Do the people trying to heat their homes not count as part of the community?

Is the EPA a part of the "community"? Does the Director of the EPA live in Fairbanks?

I always thought the "community" was the people who lived there? Can I get a definition of "community"? Who speaks for community if not all those in it? The loudest voice? The shrillest voice? Elected leaders? What elected office does Dr. Olson hold?

And if the community rules the community, including life-and-death decisions toward its members, why does the community need outside legal enforcement from the nation? Is the nation now the community? And if so, since the community has life-and-death authority over the members, could California decide that Alabamians should be executed?

Again, no. Just no.

This is not so much a strawman as it may seem. People could die from this action, without doing anything to deserve that fate that has not been done for decades. One poster already thinks that's OK apparently. I want an exact definition of this community that can decide my fate on a whim before I accept being a part of this community.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I always thought the "community" was the people who lived there?

That's the way I'm using it, too.

And, yes, at the moment Olson is the loudest voice in the community. And, sometimes you reach out beyond your community to get help. My local representative reached out to the state level to get help for some people in my community who had no water and the city could not afford to help them more than what was being done. It's kind of like in business, if you don't get help at one level for a complaint/concern, you go higher up.

Some people in the community don't see a problem, others do. It's their fight. I just thought it was interesting that old wood stoves were still being used up there; switching to an efficient wood stove would help. But, good Lord, this is not about anyone killing anyone by denying heat! It is OTOH about years-long health concerns caused by local seasonal air pollution caused by trying to produce heat in a community.

When I was growing up, I remember hearing about London's fog, deemed such a quaint part of London's life. Turned out their "fog" was really "smog" pollution caused by burning coal. China's problem, too, these days. And, now, the Fairbanks community has concerns about their own pollution, too.

And, no, Californians won't decide to execute Alabamians.... no mater how much of my federal income tax goes to help out another state.... grumble grumble.....

a reply to: desert

That's the way I'm using it, too.

And, yes, at the moment Olson is the loudest voice in the community. And, sometimes you reach out beyond your community to get help.

But in this case, the loudest voice in the community is overriding (at least attempting to) others in the community. That's not community, that's individualism and elitism... a very dangerous combination, indeed! Dr. Olson is passionate about an issue and sees no issue with harming others in the community to achieve her goal.

I can understand outside help for the community, but this outside help is for Dr. Olson. It's not intended to, nor will it, help others to continue staying warm in the winter. It is intended to address a legitimate pollution problem, but the method used, regulation when such is not feasible for others in the community, is the real issue.

And this most certainly is about killing people for non-compliance. These people have heat at this time. If their stoves are outlawed through regulation, they won't (unless they can afford go 'pay you play' as it was put above). The temperatures are deadly, literally. So while Dr. Olson may not be shoving them into a freezer and cackling maniacally, the result of her actions could be the same.

Again, how much money did they spend on lawyers? How many new heaters would that have bought?

She's too lazy and insensitive to care to find out.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Translation: if you can't afford to live like I want you to, please go die... preferably somewhere else.

No.

Just... no.

TheRedneck

I didn't say go die. I said, consider somewhere else to live. Either building improvements are subsidized, which means tax increases to pay for it. Or people who can't afford the regulations need to live elsewhere. Doing away with regulations that keep people safe just to maintain affordable housing seems ludicrous to me.

Some areas are more expensive than others to live in. If someone bought a house in that area, and now they can't afford a $4000 piece of equipment for that house, I would argue they couldn't afford the house in the first place. If they were renting, it's their landlords fault. In either event, they should live elsewhere.

If the state of Alaska wants to push through a clean air act with regards to older wood stoves, then the state of Alaska needs to implement some kind of subsidy program or rebate program or whatever (without raising taxes) in order to get people to be able to upgrade their wood stoves to the newer more efficient ones.

It's the only way to guarantee that everyone will be able to comply. Otherwise, the state of Alaska is doing nothing but blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

You want clean air ?

Then do something to ensure that everyone is actually able to comply with said clean air act... you can't force people to come up with money they don't have.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, instead the new regulations implemented by the Obama administration should be voided, that would make 80% of the wood burning stoves compliant with "the old regulations before Obama and his team decided to change the maximum pm levels from 15 to 12. Void the Obama regulations, amongst many others such as the hefty fines on truckers to comply with other regulations implemented under the Obama administration.

Not to mention that "you" seem to think that moving to another state is free...which is not... Instead of telling people where they should live, which is none of your business, keep the old regulations in place. After all we got a new President in office.

a reply to: Aazadan

So, if I move in next to you and decide you're doing something that I don't like, you should either fix it or move?

No. Just no.

TheRedneck

it is really late nevermind