1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Should fireplace fires be banned?

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Nov 23, 2007.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,759 Messages
    197 Likes Received
    Link

    Should fireplace fires be banned?
    Jeffrey Earl Warren

    Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "public hearings" are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth.

    Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.

    Still, in the interest of basic fairness, we'd at least like the decision-makers to employ the rudiments of the scientific method, rather than riding the winds of energy dependence and global warming hysteria, before coming to a final decision.

    The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And then, communicate the results.

    So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?

    Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies" indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay Area, does anyone actually believe that?

    Shouldn't we be given more quantitative information such has, "How many fireplaces are there in the nine counties? How many are used each night? How many hours is each fireplace used? How much "particulate matter" is expelled from each fire? How many parts per million are in the air? How much dissipates into the atmosphere?"

    Is this decision truly about air quality or global warming?

    Interestingly, one loses on the issues of global warming because the odd paradox is, the more there is cloud cover or "smoke" in the air, the cooler the Earth will be. It is well documented how the Earth's temperature cooled after the explosion of the volcano Krakatoa. From that standpoint, one ought to encourage fires which produce the maximum amount of smoke.

    Of course, that position is politically absurd.

    Those of us in rural communities feel bullied by this sort of nanny state legislation. We'd like to believe that a man's home is indeed his castle. Most of us live in small towns or the country for a reason. We don't like cities. We don't like traffic. We don't like noise. We don't like the dirty air.

    Our air is clean, and we take umbrage when someone says our fires are polluting their air.

    If the ban goes into effect, what is the cost to society? What is the benefit? We need to weigh these carefully.

    Then there is this question: Why do we burn?

    We stoke our hearths for two reasons.

    First, many rural people burn wood because they can't afford to heat their old houses with electricity. Many more feel that burning wood does less damage to the planet than increasing their carbon footprint by using so much electricity.

    Banning fires would hurt the elderly who live on fixed incomes and the poor in general. It would be an added tax on the rest of us and increase dependence on petroleum.

    Second, for many of us, a fire crackling in the fireplace is about a different kind of energy - psychic energy. After a day's work, is there anything nicer than coming home and having a class of Napa Valley Cabernet in front of a roaring fire?

    Rainy Sundays find us stretched out on the couch, newspapers scattered, 49ers on the TV, and a fire roaring in the fireplace.

    On wintry school nights, our children used to come down into the living room to do their homework in front of the fire as my wife and I read.

    During the energy crisis in California, our family closed the parlor doors and gathered in one tiny room around the fire. it was a scene out of a Jane Austin novel. Five of us read, played chess, did homework and paid bills, in a chilly room heated only by our tiny hearth.

    Never was our family closer. The fire was more than a source of heat. It was a mystical, magical magnet of love, warmth and togetherness.

    We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or energy savings, but about control.

    Were it not about control, the dialogue would be about baffles and filters to eliminate soot, not about outright bans.

    Home fires are not about "particulate matter." They are about warmth, love, quality of life - and for many an economic necessity. How cold are those who would take that from us, their neighbors?

    Jeffrey Earl Warren lives in St. Helena. His columns can be read at www.jeffwarren.com.
  2. notherbob

    notherbob Active Member

    2,853 Messages
    8 Likes Received
    Cars and trucks run 24 /7/365. Fireplaces make only a small contribution part of the year from far fewer sources. The big money in fossil fuels and autos naturally want to blame someone else.

    Influence peddling is alive and well as is fear mongering.
  3. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,177 Messages
    1,212 Likes Received
    no fires in a fireplace. wow, next thing you know we can't take a dump in the toilet cause of the damage we do.
  4. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,424 Messages
    3,667 Likes Received
    I agree...too far and too few for them to make a difference.

    This is not London in the dark years.
  5. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received

    Do you mean I stopped eating meat for nothing? It's not the cow's gas? :D
  6. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,424 Messages
    3,667 Likes Received
    Never trusted a vegetarian. Can't trust a person that turns into a salad shooter when they get the runs.:p: ;)
  7. jman

    jman Active Member

    1,765 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Whoooo...didn't need that visual at 6 am this morning...LOL
  8. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,437 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    This is what happens when you let libs run things. Nanny state to the max. So much for individual freedom.
  9. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    :laugh2:

    It hasn't been 'libs' running this country for the last 7 years...
    It's been politicians.
  10. CowboyJeff

    CowboyJeff New Member

    1,905 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Who cares what socialist California does......Texas will never go along with that.......thank goodness!!!!
  11. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,437 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    sadly, politicians are all we have now in washington and too many other places. Leaders with brains and courage and charactor are in very short supply.
  12. Seven

    Seven Messenger to the football Gods

    11,083 Messages
    439 Likes Received
    No worries fellas. In a few years global warming itself will eliminate the need for such devices. "Gather 'round the iceplace kids..........." :)
  13. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,177 Messages
    1,212 Likes Received
    well at least that will resolve the debate.
  14. jterrell

    jterrell Penguinite

    19,281 Messages
    1,173 Likes Received
    If San Fran wants to address public safety(i am not saying anything about sexual preferences if thats what you clods thought:~ hehe ok so it crossed my mind too) they need to flatten out some of those gawd-forsaken roads.
  15. big dog cowboy

    big dog cowboy THE BIG DOG Staff Member

    49,329 Messages
    3,630 Likes Received
    :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
  16. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,354 Messages
    813 Likes Received
    as a Californian, I can give a little more context here. First, fireplaces are crap. They don't heat at all and many have no system in place to clean the particulates in the smoke. Wood stoves on the other hand are used throughout CA in rural areas because they generate far more heat -- you could actually heat your home with a wood stove whereas a fireplace does not provide heat outside a 10 foot radius and requires far more fuel. Modern wood stoves recycle and combust the particulates. Most stove manufacturers make inserts that go directly into the fireplace.

    The argument that poor people need fireplaces is BS. You visit any rural home and you'll find a wood stove, not a fireplace. Rich people use fireplaces to show off. People who live in warmer climates use fireplaces. Nobody in their right mind would heat a house with a fireplace.
  17. Nors

    Nors Benched

    22,015 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Nobody is ever going to legislate that I can't burn wood in my fireplace. Sure seems like a more natural way to recycle resources (wood) and heat my house.
  18. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,354 Messages
    813 Likes Received
    But you can burn cleaner w/ some sort of catalytic system (or other non-catalytic) systems - that's what legislation should focus on for new construction.
  19. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,681 Messages
    408 Likes Received
    Well let them come in my house and write me a ticket. You better get a search warrant first to find out what I'm burning. I suppose next you're going to tell me not to fry bologna because of the smell.
  20. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    32,845 Messages
    609 Likes Received
    :bow:

Share This Page