Banning fireplaces in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Based the "science" of "Global Warming" or flat out class warfare?
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.
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.
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.
Oh, it's pretty damn clear that it is either about control or flat out stupidity driven by partisan politics. Take your pick.