You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
In cold Northeast, officials consider limiting furnace emissions
2009-08-10
Info from proprietary newsletter, so link goes to report that spawned this crap (7/17/09 report presently at top of page: "Introducing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in the Northeast -- Technical and Policy Considerations") (PDF file).

Eleven Eastern governors
(Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland)
are expected to approve a blueprint for slashing carbon dioxide emissions from cars -- and perhaps home furnaces -- before January, according to state officials, potentially sparking a widespread shift to residential heaters that burn wood pellets.

Officials in states from Maine to Maryland are preparing the outlines of a regional plan that would limit the amount of greenhouse gases a unit of fuel, like a gallon of gasoline, could emit. That's meant to prompt oil companies, refiners and motorists to use cleaner fuels made from trash and plants and renewable electricity.

Emission reduction targets are not yet established, but officials are basing preliminary calculations on a goal of cutting carbon 10 percent by 2020. That's identical to California's pioneering low-carbon fuel standard.
And look where they are now. And they're a mostly-warm-in-winter state.

"We are looking at whether we would be able to meet our goals without including home heating oil," said Rebecca Ohler, a supervisor with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and a participant in the plan's design. "I do think it would be difficult."

Another contributor, Ellen Pierce, an analyst with Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection, said heating oil is "a significant contributor to air emissions."

"It's something we should look at," she added.

The use of woody biomass and electricity as substitutes, combined with increased natural gas use for space heating, provides near-term low carbon fuel options for the Northeast, according to a 233-page analysis released last month by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.
They mention making people switch to wood pellet stoves. My grandparents heated their house with coal & wood. I don't EVER want to do anything to get heat again except adjust the thermostat. Anyway, doesn't burning wood give off the dreaded CO2?

You political clowns think people are up in arms about the health care debate debacle? Try telling them they have to replace their furnaces and pay probably triple the amount for heat they're paying now - and in the COLD states, too. Try it, and I think more than a few politicians and unelected "regulators" will get introduced to the concept of tar and feathers. Are you people all insane?
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut

#9  Back to your caves heathens!

And don't worry about the CO2 & smoke Barb, they'll just require anyone who wants to heat their home to drill a CO2 sequestration well & install compression & pumping equipment in the back yard. ;)
Posted by: AzCat   2009-08-10 22:04  

#8  Why doesn't affordability enter the mental picture of legislators?
Posted by: Unitle Borgia4836   2009-08-10 20:18  

#7  Someone (Judicial Watch, Heritage Foundation, etc.) should sue these governors for fraud. Discovery would be a rude awakening for many of these people. It's either that, or as someone mentioned, tar and feathers - or a rope.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2009-08-10 19:14  

#6  It will reduce health care costs.
Posted by: ed   2009-08-10 19:14  

#5  Looks like a lot of Yankees are going to meet Charles Darwin this winter courtesy of our own reality challenged class

The enviro-nutcases view that as a way to further reduce the US carbon footprint.
Posted by: DMFD   2009-08-10 18:56  

#4  I remember back in the late 1970's-early 1980's people were installing wood stoves around here to save money on heating costs.

When corn was $2/bushel, some folks were burning that in their furnaces since it was cheaper than wood pellets. Another consequence of market distorting governmental policies.
Posted by: ed   2009-08-10 17:12  

#3  Who can afford heat?

Wood won't work. All the US wood pellet production has been sold on long term contracts to the Germans who burn it place of coal, courtesy of their Enviro nutcases. It also costs several times the price of coal. Looks like a lot of Yankees are going to meet Charles Darwin this winter courtesy of our own reality challenged class.
Posted by: ed   2009-08-10 17:09  

#2  I remember back in the late 1970's-early 1980's people were installing wood stoves around here to save money on heating costs. (Don't remember why exactly - I guess the price of oil had gone up. Again.)

Smoke drifted across the city streets at night as I drove to work through residential areas. Yeah, like that's gonna fly today.

I also remember, as a firefighter at the time, the inordinate number of fires due to people not being used to heating a home with wood and doing something stupid....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-08-10 16:16  

#1  Pellets aren't too bad for heat, yet certainly not as convenient as a thermostat as Barbara says. Some municipalities ban the use of wood-burners of any type, though (correction of single problem by a 'blanket' reaction). Apparently the smoke may irritate some folks sinuses and some don't like the 'smell'.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2009-08-10 15:24  

00:00