Re: San Francisco considers banning fireplaces

On Nov 25, 9:38 pm, Long Rod Silver wrote:
Man.. if you Cali brahs dont get your state under control, you'll
all be living in caves.

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?

Half the state's forests are on fire and they want to ban fireplaces?
Do they even know how weak that sounds?
.

Loading