If you heat by wood, this may be of interest

[Ralph Field]

http://www.naturalnews.com/052752_wood-burning_stoves_Agenda_21_Canadian_government.html#

[mr blizzard]

Getting the impression that if u use some source of heat or power that the govt isn't getting a payback from , they will go in a round a bout way to make u purchase something else to get a tax grab

 

Does this apply to forest fires that send smoke from Quebec to Ontario or fires that send smoke from the territories all the way to Colorado, and what about the logging mills or farmers that when clearing land occasionally have piles of stumps they burn off, are they going to be picked on as well or are they going to spend large amounts of money to make a safe route for a commercial vehicle to get in and remove the material only to tear up additional flora that does not need to be disturbed

 

What about all the wasted plane trips politicians take on otherwise empty jets to fly to to a "function" I do not believe the number of woodstoves in this incredibly vast land of ours is going to be the down fall of the ozone layer, a great deal of people in remote areas do not always have the luxury of having multiple sources of heat at their disposal,

 

I'm going outside to have a campfire and make some tea

Edited January 28, 2016 by mr blizzard

[wormdunker]

That is totally wrong! As stated in the article, many people rely on wood heat due to remote location, financial hard ship. Does that mean when I visit my favourite outpost camp I have to freeze in late September because a wood burning stove is the only source of heat. I know - I'll bring an electric blanket?? No hydro there either.

[cheaptackle]

I got the idea this was a municipal by law for Montreal in PQ. In hi-density URBAN zones it may be an appropriate approach, not one I'd agree with either but I can see the other side of the argument. If it wasn't controlled to some degree can you just imagine apartment windows getting knocked out to put out a chimney, or one townhouse smoking out adjacent ones? Extreme maybe, but certainly possible.

As for the "pollutant factor", when coupled with the already higher degree (concentrations) of pollutants being produced due to the denser population from all sources, it seems to be a situation of "let's go after the easiest one first before we take on the ones that REALLY impact the air quality" (and lines the coffers with income from outrageous taxes hidden or otherwise)!

In rural, suburban or remote (especially off grid) locations there should be a little (LOT) of temperance in approaching any restriction of this kind.

I wouldn't worry about it too much yet unless you're in a very high density downtown core heating with a woodstove. Maybe next year...

 

Michael

[glen]

Go to china and fix their pollution.

[DRIFTER_016]

I got the idea this was a municipal by law for Montreal in PQ. In hi-density URBAN zones it may be an appropriate approach, not one I'd agree with either but I can see the other side of the argument. If it wasn't controlled to some degree can you just imagine apartment windows getting knocked out to put out a chimney, or one townhouse smoking out adjacent ones? Extreme maybe, but certainly possible.

As for the "pollutant factor", when coupled with the already higher degree (concentrations) of pollutants being produced due to the denser population from all sources, it seems to be a situation of "let's go after the easiest one first before we take on the ones that REALLY impact the air quality" (and lines the coffers with income from outrageous taxes hidden or otherwise)!

In rural, suburban or remote (especially off grid) locations there should be a little (LOT) of temperance in approaching any restriction of this kind.

I wouldn't worry about it too much yet unless you're in a very high density downtown core heating with a woodstove. Maybe next year...

 

Michael

 

During the winter in Fairbanks Alaska the smoke from wood stoves can be overwhelming. They are working on ways to cut back the pollution there. Not sure how bad it is in Montreal but Fairbanks looks like China during the winter.

[cheaptackle]

 

During the winter in Fairbanks Alaska the smoke from wood stoves can be overwhelming. They are working on ways to cut back the pollution there. Not sure how bad it is in Montreal but Fairbanks looks like China during the winter.

Yup I'd imagine it is Dave. More of a remote location than Montreal though - and a long history of being more dependent on natural resources for survival than the average urban dweller. American too, though not sure that's a big impact. Like I said, I can see some of what the restriction is about, I don't agree with it being top on the list to go after but I can see why they are - it's just simply the easiest in spite of how incredibly silly they may end up looking- think long gun registry and all it's GOOD intentions being pursued, no matter what the cost was...

And I'm sure every one of the businesses that will be putting in the new style stoves has lined up to complain about it too...

I'm also sure government sanity will appear one day - ain't got a whole lotta hope I'll still be kickin' when it does though!

 

Michael

[Rod Caster]

Good call Mike, I thought the same thing... burning wood in a dense city is not a great idea. I'd assume that if you live in Montreal, you've already forfeited the self-sustaining lifestyle. First of all, hardly anyone (or no-one) in montreal likely has a woodlot large enough to actually be self-sustaining. Getting pre-split firewood delivered to your urban asphalt driveway is hardly self-sustaining haha.

 

Those outdoor wood furnaces can be brutal for neighbors too, the chimney's are low and they can burn some nasty fuel (soppy wood or dead bodies). During a temperature inversion, I would not want to live down-wind of an outdoor furnace as buddy throws in 4 foot stumps.

[pics]

My insert is used daily all winter to supplement my heating and this year it has pretty much rendered my furnace useless . Being a high efficiency unit really stretches my wood supply. If you have blue smoke coming out the chimney then you aren't fully burning the wood. To make it worthwhile for me to heat my house I need the maximum number of BTUs out of the wood. In an urban area it would be foolish to heat with an inefficient stove because there are just too many people that would complain... once up to temperature a high efficiency has almost zero smoke, you can't even tell anything is burning..

[SirCranksalot]

The last I heard of this story was that older existing stoves were being 'grandfathered in' and didn't need to comply with the latest standards. It sounds like that might have changed. I say might because I'm not totally convinced that the linked article has gotten the story right.

[spooner_jr]

Montreal kills me; its Ok to dump 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St.Lawrence, but do not, I repeat, do not light up a woodstove. I know which one I would rather smell.

[tmacinc]

I'm pretty confident that you cant say that wood is a cheap fuel source when you live in an urban environment. It has a very low density of energy and unless you can cut your own, it can be pretty expensive to buy, move, and store in the city.

 

Also, qc electrical rates are low enough that with a low cost heat pump system you can heat for cheaper than you can with natural gas in Ontario.

 

[JoePa]

Like so many other things there are two sides to this issue - I've been burning wood since the 70s - I live in the country and have my own wood so it is a nice way to heat my home during the winter - three years ago I got a new stove - one of those low air use and very clean burning - it actually burns the smoke so has very little smoke - if any - living in the country makes a big difference - I don't have any close neighbors

 

My son lives in a developed area and told me about some guy who put in one of those outdoor furnaces - the prevailing wind blew the smoke across some neighbors house and just about smoked the neighbor out - the neighbor went to court and was successful in stopping the guy from using the furnace

 

So it depends - I could see some restrictions on burning wood if you live in a city where there are close neighbors - moral of the story - don't live in a city

 

 

[Mister G]

The problem is the greedy government can't figure out how to TAX all the wood you burn.......

 

Register this Montreal.......

[Rod Caster]

The problem is the greedy government can't figure out how to TAX all the wood you burn.......

 

Register this Montreal.......

The problem is what everyone else above said. Wood heat is a great economical/sustainable option in the country and can be a nuisance/problem in the city.

 

The guys who sell firewood as a business still have to pay taxes.

[Mister G]

The problem is what everyone else above said. Wood heat is a great economical/sustainable option in the country and can be a nuisance/problem in the city.

 

The guys who sell firewood as a business still have to pay taxes.

Guys who cut and split firewood on the side don't claim this income and what about the thousands who own their own land/trees to harvest also don't pay taxes on this source of heat.

[SirCranksalot]

This is not about taxes. It's about not polluting your neighbors' air. We have no inherent 'right' to do that any more than we have a right to blow cig smoke in somebody's face!

[cheaptackle]

Guys who cut and split firewood on the side don't claim this income and what about the thousands who own their own land/trees to harvest also don't pay taxes on this source of heat.

He said the guys who do it as a BUSINESS have to pay taxes, meaning not all burned wood is tax free. The whole post is about burning in the downtown core of Montreal - so there's probably few if any private harvestable woodlots to be utilized there (tongue in cheek), suggesting that wood comes from commercial interests. Besides all that - the article was more towards the appliance side - meaning a certain type of wood burning stove was required in order to be allowed usage in Montreal, not about the wood fuel itself. Taxes on the up to 9 grand suggested in the article for the appliance retrofit sure would be a chunk more than a bush cord or two of wood a season.

 

Michael

[KLINKER]

Some days the weather is just so that the smoke does not rise, this happens a lot in Montreal, if I remember right from reading about this several years ago. It is a very real problem.

[John Bacon]

The problem is the greedy government can't figure out how to TAX all the wood you burn.......

 

Register this Montreal.......

 

Taxes on energy would be collected by the province or federal governments. It is a city government (who doesn't get any tax from energy anyway) that is trying to regulate the wood burning stoves.

 

Smoke from the wood, not taxes, is the reason for these regulations.

[Rod Caster]

Guys who cut and split firewood on the side don't claim this income and what about the thousands who own their own land/trees to harvest also don't pay taxes on this source of heat.

Guys like me not many of us in Montreal I imagine.

[Joeytier]

First of all, Natural News has National Inquirer-level credibility, and this is just another example of their conspiracy-theory Bull reporting. This is a by-law for a densely populated urban area, and most of the posts here already said better what I would have said.

[ch312]

The house we bought has a fireplace that failed inspection and ended up getting 10k taken off the selling price because of this. We were ready to get it rebuilt, but then started reading about this stuff and now we don't know if it makes any sense having it rebuilt to meet current regulations. What troubles me is the previous owners had it inspected two years ago and they were using it until the sale but the inspector this time works for a company which just happens to specialize in rebuilding fireplaces and chimneys and he failed it.

 

 

Should we just repair the minor defects and have it reinspected by another individual? I'm thinking this inspector fails fireplaces to generate revenue for his company. He says it needs a complete rebuild, but I disagree. Needs a new chimney liner, rain cap needs to be thicker, stone on the bottom needs to be extended 4", and some other minor stuff I can do myself. I just don't see how it's been fine for 50 years and now suddenly it's completely unsafe to use?

[cheaptackle]

I'd get another opinion from any wett certified inspector before doing anything (including lighting it up!)

 

Michael

[Sinker]

The house we bought has a fireplace that failed inspection and ended up getting 10k taken off the selling price because of this. We were ready to get it rebuilt, but then started reading about this stuff and now we don't know if it makes any sense having it rebuilt to meet current regulations. What troubles me is the previous owners had it inspected two years ago and they were using it until the sale but the inspector this time works for a company which just happens to specialize in rebuilding fireplaces and chimneys and he failed it.

 

 

Should we just repair the minor defects and have it reinspected by another individual? I'm thinking this inspector fails fireplaces to generate revenue for his company. He says it needs a complete rebuild, but I disagree. Needs a new chimney liner, rain cap needs to be thicker, stone on the bottom needs to be extended 4", and some other minor stuff I can do myself. I just don't see how it's been fine for 50 years and now suddenly it's completely unsafe to use?

Yes, get someone else to look at it. We moved in June and our woodstove failed the WETT certification from one company, and passed it with another. It was all really, really minor details that failed it from the first guy, and he didn't know what he was looking at either. I tried to tell him what was going on, but he knew everything there is to know about this stuff, so I just told him to take his quote and burn it.

 

We're up an running now, its great.

 

S.