Comment Log Display

Dear ARB:

Many of us visit California and also live in areas where we share
the wood smoke problem.  We are also seeking answers that can have
national and international application and protect the environment
in your State as well as ours.

The Board needs to view this very serious problem in the context of
how nearby residents' health and use of their own property is
affected by these rules, and the desirability of the environment
for us visitors.  You are dealing with pollution.  Any amount of it
that you allow is still pollution   Zero pollution is the only
result that really benefits the community as a whole.  

With regard to the proposal, here are some recommendations.

First, the revised strategy should be upgraded to include estimates
of the global warming from methane and carbon monoxide emissions. 
This will more accurately contextualize the problem.

Second, with regard to subsidy programs, non-wood burning devices
should be prioritized and promoted where possible.  This is a
compromise.  Wood burning should be eliminated entirely unless and
until technology catches up to offer pollution-free exhaust.  If
there is no "push" then the technology will not come; it is as
simple as that.  Neighbors and the general public should not be
subjugated and required to suffer the pollution of others, without
compensation, whenever an alternative is available.  The burden
should be entirely upon the polluter to prove that there is
absolutely no alternative available, such as bottle or piped gas or
solar, for example.  EPA certified wood stoves are not at all
clean; there is little difference between certified and
non-certified as actually used by the public.

Thank you.