Ellen Rosenblum: Good smoke/bad smoke

marijuana smoke_thb

by NW Spotlight

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is going after woodstoves. She is joining officials from six others states in filing a lawsuit against the EPA because they feel the EPA isn’t doing enough about air pollution from NEW woodstoves.

Attorney General Rosenbloom issued a press release that said “Smoke from residential woodstoves pose a real threat to air quality.”

So some smoke is bad. But not all smoke.

Remember, this is the Ellen Rosenblum who got elected with hundreds of thousands of dollars in marijuana money. The same Ellen Rosenblum who Willamette Week quipped had broken the “Grass Ceiling” for being “the first statewide official in Oregon whose election was fueled by drug money.” And not just any statewide official – she’s the attorney general. Someone who Willamette Week says is willing to “pander to the marijuana crowd.”

So smoke from marijuana – good. Smoke from a wood stove – bad.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:00 | Posted in Environment, Oregon Attorney General | 102 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • JacklordGOD

    I suppose resumption of logging and denigration of those who support forest fires as part of the eco system denigrated as evil polluters that might lend a shred of credibility to this argument.

    When I see the shelves of drug stores lined with “wood smoke” medications to the extent I do with allergy medications for allergies largely aggrivated by all the grass seed growing, then I might change my opinion.

    Until then this is a BS argument and simply another example of government doing its best to make peoples lives harder.

    Can’t these people wake up and do something a little more constructive?

    • Myke

      When your purpose in life is to create problems where there aren’t any, then constructive endeavors have no meaning.

    • DavidAppell

      Rupert Huse of Springfield, OR wrote:
      When I see the shelves of drug stores lined with “wood smoke” medications

      What medication would that be? Lung ailments like COPD and asthma usually require a doctor’s prescription….

      • JacklordGOD

        >What medication would that be? Lung ailments like COPD and asthma usually require a doctor’s prescription….

        Yep. That’s the exact point of the statement you complete and utter dolt.

        • DavidAppell

          The point is that you want serious medications on drug store shelves?

          That you can’t accept the results of scientific studies that show the harm from particulate matter?

          Is this another of your “Tools for Controlling People?”

  • Ballistic45

    “Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ’emergency’. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And ’emergency’ became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.” – Herbert Hoover

    “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” ― Frédéric Bastiat

    (Of course with the banning of wood stoves, comes greater Government power to monitor compliance and fine those not in compliance… )

    “We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” – Nikita Khrushchev

    • DavidAppell

      Particular matter harms human health. Where is your Fox News quote for that one?

      • Ballistic45

        Are you for real? How did your ass come to be if that were so… What cooked our human ancestors food and kept them warm in caves and later in shacks… Caves having proven to be used as human shelter having enormous amounts of smoke residue still on the ceilings and walls… If humans were so endangered by wood smoke particulates, we should not be here… We would have caves filled with human remains who coughed themselves to death.. Lets see we moved from using wood to coal to oil and then electricity generated by water flow, then Liberals wanted to blow the Dams so we went to Nuclear Generation of electricity but Liberals nixed that idea so we went back to Coal burning to generate electricity, now liberals want to nix that and move to wind and solar which at this time have unreliable capacity to meet our electrical needs…. You are so full of Ka Ka David…. What excites you David is the prospect of another Socialist take over of human needs…. And what is it about Fox News that turns you into a slobbering malcontent? You have a multitude of so called Liberal News services to keep you feeling superior in your beliefs…

        • DavidAppell

          If humans were so endangered by wood smoke particulates, we should not be here…

          Do you think population density might have something to do with it?

          Or are you seriously arguing that partriculate matter is not harmful to human health?

          • Ballistic45

            I’m saying that humans are far more resilient than liberals portray us to be.. Example, humans have the brains to wear breathing gear when the atmospheric environment is truly dangerous to their health.. Japanese do it and they have rigid air quality laws… WOOD smoke particulates are not the most dangerous..

            So let me look down the road of a liberals view on home heating..

            We outlaw wood, so we use stove oil?

            Na, even worst than wood..

            Na, we use coal?

            Na, that’s bad, even worse, so we burn gas?

            Na, that’s bad, still pollutes..

            Wow, I got it, we use electricity,

            Hmm, Hydro power generations is verboten,

            Coal fired Generation is verboten,

            Nuclear power generation is verboten..

            And all of them except MAYBE Nuclear are TRIGGERS for Asthma….

            WAIT a minute, we will use solar, wave and wind to generate our electricity to light, heat and fuel our homes and industries… So what if these sources could never meet our electrical needs especially when we have BANNED all other forms of energy use… Hmm what do we turn to when the wind does not blow, sun doesn’t shine, calm seas or the friggin power just goes out in the middle of winter? If you are freezing your butt off, you would grab the nearest wooden chair and illegally burn the damn thing to stay warm.. And seeing your fire, you can damn well bet those with Asthma would cover their nose and moth and join you to get warm………………………………………..

          • DavidAppell

            So you think wearing “breathing gear” is a reasonable solution to a pollution problem — do I have that right?

            And that because wood smoke particulates are not THE MOST DANGEROUS, they are therefore OK?

            Wow, what a dystopia that would be.

          • Ballistic45

            Typical Socialist BS.. Sell a problem, (real, or made up) as a Crisis, exploit that package in order to gain greater control over others.. Even knowing that the Socialist Answer does little to solve any thing if a real problem and solves nothing if it is a made up problem… What else can we expect from you.. Of course I think Breathing gear is a reasonable solution to a pollution problem and so does Japan, a heavily regulated nation in air quality.. What, only Socialist answers work? And I love the way you twist things, that I condone air pollution just because I disagree with Socialist Answers to it… LOL .. Good try…

          • DavidAppell

            Amazing — you have a daughter with asthma, and you STILL think this is a made up problem.

            The science is completely against you. Have you ever tried to read it? (And re you capable of doing so?)

          • Ballistic45

            You better read what you push as a crisis, only 5 million homes heat with wood in the United States, most of those are in the North East of this Nation, Oregon is far from having any problems from wood stoves… I would worry far more about Stove Oil use in heating homes… Which by the way puts out pollutants effecting far more people.. But hey, I know it is on some liberals list of things to regulate or eliminate…

          • DavidAppell

            “Wood burning devices estimated to account for 13 percent of U.S. soot pollution”
            – Oregon DOJ, 10/9/13

          • DavidAppell

            “Wood heating has also been identified as a leading source of air toxics risk in the Portland area due to benzene and PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) emissions.”
            — The Argus Observer 10/9/13

        • DavidAppell

          What excites you David is the prospect of another Socialist take over of human needs…

          What excites me is the possibility of people realizing they do not have a right to pollute in ways that harms other’s health. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          • Ballistic45

            No, you don’t want people to realize anything, if they did, you couldn’t sell made up or exaggerated problems to force only the Liberal answer to it which always puts “State” in charge to force and control….

          • DavidAppell

            Climate change isn’t “made up” — that’s pure denialism, anti-scientific, and just dumb. Neither is the science that shows that dirty air degrades human health.

          • Ballistic45

            That’s NOT THE QUESTION…. Prove it is man’s fault and not a cyclic phenomena.. I find it to be used as an excuse for power grabbing control over all human activities on earth by an elitist group who brissel at opposition to that power grabbing behavior… SEE yet another by the POTUS that was ignored by his Liberal Propaganda Machine YOU call network News last week.. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparing-united-states-impacts-climate-change

          • DavidAppell

            The proof it is man’s fault took place 20 years ago, on studies of the human fingerprint on climate. This is all well known, established science — if you don’t know that evidence, you simply aren’t interested in finding it.

            Here is a pictoral version for you:

            The best evidence is probably that the upper atmosphere is COOLING, which would not be happening if the sun were responsible for the warming, but is predicted by climate science to occur as the greenhouse effect is enhanced.

          • Icarus62

            Exactly right – warming of the troposphere and simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere was a predicted fingerprint of greenhouse gas-induced AGW several decades ago, and we have abundant evidence that this is being observed. Also the changing spectrum of OLR from satellite observations is another tell-tale sign of the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by us.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes; here are some of the studies which find changes in the Earth’s outgoing radiation, measured by satellites and at the ground:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).

            “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). https://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1

            “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) https://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

            “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006

          • Icarus62

            Thanks David, there are a couple there that I didn’t know about before. Should make interesting reading.

          • swemson

            TROLL ALERT !!!

            Warning: Icarus62 is a professional climate alarmist. Everything he says is a LIE!


          • Ballistic45

            WTF, green house gasses or not, the SUN is the source of ALL Heat on earth… The upper atmosphere cooling would seem to prove the opposite of your claim.. There is not enough heat produced on Earth even if every human being built a bonfire to keep it from another ice age…. And you don’t even address the effects of Sun Spot activity on our atmosphere… Sounds to me like Eco-Freak science to me…. And I’m suppose to take a Eco-Freak Socialist Blatherings as Gospel posted on your own website… You say, Proof of man’s fault in global warming took place 20 years ago… Then how did the Al Gore coming “man made Ice Age” sneak by Ya? Why is there still Scientist all over the world opposing the “Man’s Fault” portion of Global Warming… I think your full of Crap David… Now it would fit the criteria if you wanted to centrally control all human interaction with the environment, you would have to blame man in order to have reason to regulate man… HMmmmm, seems damn close to what reasons Agenda 21 professes, does it not? And if you can control ALL man’s interactions with the environment then you have ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF MANKIND…
            And don’t go into your tirade about Agenda 21 not in effect in the USA, BS, It is being implemented all over in city, county, state socialist leaning governments using the buzz word “Sustainability” to regulate humans interactions with their world… You are not a very good Liberal Magician David, you like the rest try to get attention focused on one hand while the real crap is being pulled off with the other, and that is exactly what is going on with Global Warming… Don’t piss on my back and tell me it is RAINING David !!


          • DavidAppell

            WTF, green house gasses or not, the SUN is the source of ALL Heat on earth

            Not exactly — the internal Earth generates 44 trillion Watts of heat — but true for purposes of climate.

            The thing is, the surface of the Earth is WARMER that it would be if only the Sun were responsible. In that case the surface would only be about -5 F degrees, and completely frozen.

            It’s the greenhouse effect that raises the temperature to a more pleasant 57 F (on average). That greenhouse effect is created by water vapor, CO2, and other greenhouse gases.

            By emitting so much CO2, we are adding to the greenhouse effect and making the surface warmer.

            Again, this is all established science that’s been known for decades or longer. You really ought to do some studying before you undertake outright denial.

          • DavidAppell

            Then how did the Al Gore coming “man made Ice Age” sneak by Ya?

            What did he say (specifically)? I don’t recall any such statement by Gore.

          • DavidAppell

            There is not enough heat produced on Earth even if every human being built a bonfire to keep it from another ice age….

            False — we’re already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to kill the next ice age.

          • DavidAppell

            The upper atmosphere cooling would seem to prove the opposite of your claim.

            False. If the Sun were doing the extra heating, the upper atmosphere would warm too. (Again, this is basic science established long ago.)

          • DavidAppell

            Why is there still Scientist all over the world opposing the “Man’s Fault” portion of Global Warming…

            Not very many. Some of them are paid handsomely to deny climate change. Some are simply mistaken. There just is very little doubt that man is responsible for the warming that’s taking place.

            Again, study the science before you deny it.

          • swemson

            @ DavidAppell

            BULL$HIT !

            Everything you’re saying is a damned LIE!

            That the vast majority of our scientists agree that global warming is man-made is one of the biggest of all of the many lies behind this scam.
            31,487 American scientists have signed The Global Warming Petition Project, including 9,029 with PhD’s

            See: petitionproject.org.

            Petition: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

            There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

            In fact the real scientists who believe the AGW lie are few and far between. They’re not practicing science, they’re practicing ‘GRANTSMANSHIP”… They’ve all sold their integrity for grant money from the major governments of the world most of whom are struggling to gain complete power over their citizens. Sever scientists who resigned from the IPCC when they discovered how corrupt it was, had to sue the IPCC to get their names removed from IPCC reports that they had nothing to do with.

            While the “consensus” lie is one of the biggest, most people completely ignore the REAL big lie behind this scam… and that’s the fact that:

            WARMING IS GOOD!

            Throughout human history, man has always thrived during the earth’s warm periods and suffered & starved during the cold ones. The reason is simple: Crops don’t grow well in colder climates.

            And CO2 is NOT a pollutant. These phony environmentalists were claiming that we’d all be doomed if the CO2 level in our atmosphere went higher than 400 ppm (parts per million).

            On our submarines, the NAVY tries to keep the CO2 level down below 8,000 ppm, however when pressed on the subject, their chief technology people admit that they’ve seen little if any negative effects on sailors who spent time in submarines with even higher levels of CO2.

            CO2 levels in crowded nightclubs frequently rise to 4,000 ppm or higher.

            Don’t believe any of this climate change bull$hit… When you hear someone pushing this crap, simply chuckle & say:

            It’s the sun stupid!


          • DavidAppell

            The Oregon Petition is junk, as Scientific American revealed. It was signed, you know, by a Spice Girl and B.J. Hunicutt.

          • DavidAppell

            It’s the sun stupid!

            It’s not — that was ruled out long ago. Its irradiance simply hasn’t changed that much over the 20th century to account for the large warming that’s happening.

          • DavidAppell

            CO2 levels in crowded nightclubs frequently rise to 4,000 ppm or higher.

            So what? A nightclub isn’t a planet.

          • DavidAppell

            I have no idea what “Agenda 21” calls for. It has been blown all out of proportion by paranoids like you, and has nothing to do with the scientific case for manmade global warming.

          • DavidAppell

            It is being implemented all over in city, county, state socialist leaning governments using the buzz word “Sustainability” to regulate humans interactions with their world…

            Are you then in favor of unsustainable development?

          • Ballistic45

            STOP the Liberal Magician Bullshit David… NO sane person on earth would sink the world they are living on… So stop the crap…. I do take issue when Conservation is being used as a tool to gain power over others, NOT FOR EARTH’S sake or for the benefit of Humans, but for CONTROL over others lives… You don’t know about Agenda 21… Well no wonder you still just don’t get it… Just because you CHOOSE to be ignorant and believe NO Group has evil intentions or goals of world domination doesn’t mean others are crap pot paranoiacs any more than than astronomers continual vigilance looking threatening astral bodies headed for us.. AGENDA 21 is a plan that looks good on the surface but when read gives Blinding opportunity for evil use even when covered over with warm fuzzy wording… Smarter people than you and I are warning about its implementation.. I will leave this discussion at that David, You choose to be ignorant just as a Drug user chooses to use, only the change of mind set allows for recovery… Bye….

          • DavidAppell

            No sane person is concerned about the implementation of Agenda 21, only paranoids and whack jobs. It was a nonbinding, voluntary resolution, with the UN has absolutely no jurisdiction in the US. It’s downright crazy to think otherwise the UN is pulling the strings of your community, state, or country.

            Sustainability is simply a value that many see make sense — don’t consume at the expense of future generations. It’s simply caring about someone other than yourself, and about more than what’s cheapest for you, regardless of its impact.

            Looking at what we’ve done to many of the ecosystems on the planet, whose health is necessary for humans (and other species) to flourish, it’s time that more consideration is given to sustainability. Thankfully that is happening, though not enough.

            I shudder to think of the dystopia people like you would create while trying to satisfy your never-ending greed.

          • DavidAppell

            And you don’t even address the effects of Sun Spot activity on our atmosphere…

            What effect is that?

        • DavidAppell

          By the way, adult asthma rates in Oregon are above the national average:

          • Ballistic45

            You are excusing your desire to control others using made up “crisis need” for intervention… First off I have 4 children now grown, only one of the 4 has Asthma.. It is still unknown why some have it and others don’t even with the same heredity and environmental exposer.. Triggers for Asthma attacks are many and not the same for all. My daughter cannot walk down the soap isle in a grocery store or be around heavy perfumes smells, what, you going to ban women from wearing perfumes and stores from selling soap.. She loves camping and wood fires, and you know how when setting around the camp fire the smoke always seems to find where you are setting, she loves the smell of pine smoke.. I know we will outlaw camping too.. That way, some asthmatic will not fear someone starting a camp fire in the next camping site to them…..

          • DavidAppell

            You have a child with asthma, and STILL you aren’t in favor of cleaner air? That’s harsh….

            By the way, “only” one in four is far above the average.

          • Ballistic45

            Every successful company have Cost vs Effective outcomes management.. You would deny that to the spending of taxpayers money on air quality.. You would throw money at it like socialist do no matter how effective it is just to gain control over others… Quit trying to sell the idea that anyone not in favor of your answer to air quality improvement methods is in favor of dirty air.. Typical Socialist cover to hide under….

          • DavidAppell

            Costs vs Benefits? Actually the Clean Air Act has saved $22 TRILLION in health care costs:


          • Ballistic45

            YES, there are aspects of regulation that make sense and were bipartisan, then their is a long history list of liberal partisan regulations that are NOT cost effective, grow government and does not address the perceived problem… They have proven to cost jobs, hurt industries and drive up the cost of living that hurt the very people the Democrats claim to be protecting, the poor…

          • DavidAppell

            long history list of liberal partisan regulations that are NOT cost effective

            Like what?

          • Ballistic45

            A major threat to farmers is Title V of the Clean Air Act. Title V, a CO2 emissions standard, would apply to “dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn. The EPA puts the first-year cost of each Title V permit at $46,500 and the pre-construction permitting program at $84,500. The EPA has temporarily raised the threshold for CO2 emissions but this waiver is on shaky legal grounds. How about the so-called “Dust” regulation. The EPA is considering a crackdown on farm dust. The EPA proposes to regulate dust as a pollutant. So dust from combines, dusty roads or animals kicking up dust would be regulated. Truly, a stupid EPA regulation that is unenforceable unless they hire and locate an enforcement agent on every farm in America.

            Another area that is stringently regulated is the handling of manure, particularly the paperwork involved. One farmer said that she spent 15 hours a week filling out forms to track each load of manure that her animals generated.

            The above are excepts from : https://www.snspost.com/stupid-epa-regulations/#sthash.IcWjUnE7.dpuf

            Sense Obama took over, and his defeats in Congress to shove more EPA laws down America’s throat without true Science to back it up, he has turned to making Agencies implement Regulations to circumvent Congress and any opposition.. For increased controls over our economy in the name of saving Mother Earth… Tell me how any of the above is cost effective answers?

          • DavidAppell

            Who is “SNSpost,” and why should I believe them?

          • DavidAppell

            First of all, it is Congress who passed the Clean Air Act (and subsequent revisions) — the EPA just enforces it.

            Your claim of a “first-year cost of each Title V permit at $46,500” is old. It comes from a Heritage Foundation article:

            of 3.5 years ago, and is the EPA’s estimated for their proposed regulations.

            Did those regulations come to pass?

            Here is the EPA’s entry into the Federal Register, also from 2010:

            The fee you quote was only for industrial sources, not small farmers. The EPA wrote:

            “For title V, at proposal, we estimated that on average, an industrial source would incur costs of approximately $46,400 to prepare the title V application and receive the permit, and on average, a commercial or residential source would incur costs of 10 percent that amount, or almost $5,000.”

            I don’t know if you’ve ever been anywhere near a CAFE, but they are pretty disgusting places, some of which have done some heavily polluting of groundwater.

            Do you like clean drinking water, by any chance?

          • DavidAppell

            One farmer said that she spent 15 hours a week filling out forms to track each load of manure that her animals generated.

            Which farmers? Suspiciously, your source doesn’t say. It’s a completely unsourced claim. People like you will believe anything as long as it’s on a blog somewhere, as long as it’s what you want to hear. That’s not objective.

          • Ballistic45

            Yes, the Clean Air Act has improved health….. Some parts of the act have been very effective and cost little to do… But some are not cost effective and I would like you to present the overall cost to this Nation in carrying out ALL the regulations… You site 22 Trillion in benefits, put that up against the cost to our economy to realize that benefit, then break down what regulations have the best cost effectiveness vs those that see little improvement in health but waist money in regulation and cost of living…. Tell it all if you want that 22 Trillion to really pop with me…. It would also be interesting to see if those most cost effective Clean Air Regulations were bipartisan or not compared to those who are not cost effective…

          • DavidAppell

            You site 22 Trillion in benefits, put that up against the cost to our economy

            So, tell me; what is the cost to the economy of the Clean Air Act?

          • DavidAppell

            Are you seriously arguing that the Clean Air Act was harmful because it did harm to the economy?? Are you really willing to walk around in filthy air if it’s somehow good for the economy but bad for people??

          • DavidAppell

            “The evaluation provided a detailed retrospective analysis of costs and benefits from the years 1970 to 1990 and showed that the overwhelming benefits obtained from compliance with the Act far outweighed the costs of implementation.”

          • Ballistic45

            Yep, they pulled off some good stuff, but what about NOW, sense Obama took over, what has the EPA been up to now? What are some of the regulations NOW that are flooding into our economy killing jobs, raising the cost of living, and when looked at does little to significantly improve air quality…

          • DavidAppell

            What are some of those regulations? Huh? You yourself don’t seem to know, but are just assuming there must be, because it’s your ideology to assume that, whether there are facts or not.

            So answer your own question, with specifics.

          • DavidAppell

            Next time, please read the information before criticizing it; the benefits were much, much larger than the costs:

            “The EPA concluded that the total monetized health benefits from the Act during the 20-year period ranged between $5.6 and $49.4 trillion. The central estimate for benefits was $22.2 trillion. During that period, the costs to comply with the act were estimated to be approximately $0.5 trillion. Thus the net direct benefits were between $5.1 and $48.9 trillion, with a central estimate of $21.7 trillion.”

          • DavidAppell

            Typical Socialist cover

            You have a myopic view of the world. You label anything you don’t like as “socialism,” without even knowing what it is.

            Are those who have the government pay the costs of the damage from their pollution “socialists?” If not, why not?

          • Ballistic45

            No, those who exploit problems, real, made up or exaggerated as an excuse to force only their answer and no other onto anyone using the powers of Government while knowing their answer is mainly to grow that Government power for later agendas… It is partisan, it is not a solution born out of truthful balanced science but partisan politics and pushed forward disregarding Liberty of valid opposition… That’s what I have a Problem with…

          • DavidAppell

            Manmade climate change is neither made up or exaggerated, not do some of its proposed solutions grow government (such as a carbon tax-and-dividend, R&D into cabon air capture, or making polluters pay for the damage done by their pollution).

            But as long as people like you deny the problem, it will be solved by others who don’t, and you might like their solutions or you might not. So take you head of out the sand and get busy proposing solutions that meet your ideological requirements. Or don’t.

          • swemson

            CO2 emissions have virtually nothing to do with climate change. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and it’s not carbon. Calling CO2 carbon would be like calling H20 hydrogen.


          • DavidAppell

            CO2 emissions have virtually nothing to do with climate change.

            Do you enjoy being ignorant, or are you ignorant of your ignorance?

          • DavidAppell

            CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and it’s not carbon.

            It is the carbon atoms that cycle around through the Earth’s systems — from earth to atmosphere to ocean. Hence it is tracking the carbon that’s important.

          • swemson

            A lot more governments are socialist than most people realize.

            The NAZIS, were the German National Socialist Party.

            The Soviet Union (USSR) was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

            Socialism has only failed EVERY time it has been tried. And if you can’t see that, then you’re part of the problem.


          • DavidAppell

            Socialism has only failed EVERY time it has been tried.

            False. See: Norway, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, etc.

          • Ballistic45

            What’s the average? I gotta see this, because my family has 1 person with asthma somehow makes us what? Bad, degenerate, uneducated… So if the average is One (1) asthmatic in 1,000, and the family having that (1) One asthmatic in their family of 6 is above the average, of course their family of 6 would be above the average of 1 per 1,000.. Evidently you passed the Liberal Indoctrination of skewing facts in public school, but you certainly fell asleep during Math class regarding Averages…

          • DavidAppell

            The averages are given in the link I gave earlier, for both adults and children. (For children is is less than 1 in 4 and much more than 1 in 1000.) I didn’t say it was anything bad, I said it was more than average, and that being so, it is surprising to see you don’t care more about clean air.

          • Myke

            Ballistic, You are so right. Passing unenforceable laws, like requiring a home owner to remove a wood stove before selling a house, does nothing to solve a natural problem, staying warm in the winter. I’ll just offer the ‘new’ home owner a good deal on a ‘used’ wood stove. Then when the air is cold, they can get some warmth. Catch me, if you can.

          • Ron Spicer

            Maybe it was the mary jane that Oregon toots on

          • redbean

            Asthma is exacerbated by all sorts of things, including particulates but also pollen and mold, which we have a great deal of in the NW. Therefore, connecting above-average asthma rates in Oregon with wood smoke in particular is difficult if not impossible. Wood smoke is but one of many triggers.

          • DavidAppell

            including particulates

            That’s just wnat I said.

            And given that asthma is more prevelant here, from whatever cause, means wood smoke exacerbates it even more.

            But clearly you could not care less. Ever seen someone having an asthma attack?

  • redbean

    The marijuana angle isn’t working for me. It’s a molehill compared to larger issues. Marijuana smoke affects the smoker and the air quality of the room but not the neighborhood. If air quality is truly a concern, we could point to forest fires that affect entire regions. That would lead us to look at the role of government in the mismanagement of public lands. The other interesting part of this story is the impotence of state governments to solve their own problems. If the citizens of six states are clamoring for a solution to wood smoke pollution, I’m not sure why we have to wait for direction/regulation from the EPA.

  • zanzara2041

    So…if we burn marijuana in the woodstoves — would they drop the suit?

    • redbean

      ROTFLMAO. Problem solved.

  • JohnL1953

    This posting is incorrect. The Oregon AG joined 6 other states for EPAs 17 year failure to issue New Source Performance Standards leaving an on going loophole for wood BOILERS. Wood stoves have been regulated since the last NSPS (early 1990s). Wood stoves w/catalytic converters sold since then must meet 4.1 grams per hour. Wood Boilers have been tested and found to release over 269 grams per hour. The AG is simply trying to protect YOUR health. Asthma is now costing he U.S. $56 billion per year. With nearly 1 in 10 people now w/asthma the EPAs 17 year loophole has cost everyone a lot. Children have died of asthma attacks and high fine particulate (PM 2.5) can be a deadly trigger . Let’s all get behind the States that are pushing EPA to hold wood boilers to the same standards as wood stoves.

  • Pingback: Web Site()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: watch free movies online()

  • Pingback: watch movies online()

  • Pingback: water ionizers()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Pingback: kangen water machine()

  • Pingback: Sat TV()

  • Pingback: get satellite tv()

  • Pingback: 3gp mobile porn()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: hurtigt lan penge nu()

  • Pingback: laan penge online()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: electrician basics()

  • Pingback: electricians tool kit contents()

  • Pingback: locksmith supplies uk()

  • Pingback: blog()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: m&s electrician dies()

  • Pingback: water ionizer plans()

  • Pingback: pay per day loans plan()

  • Pingback: loan payment plan()

  • Pingback: cheap car insurance()

  • Pingback: https://webkingz.camkingz.com/()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)