Channel 13 Nightly News aired this story by reporter Lacie Grosvold Lacie@tvtv.com> March 24, 2011:
Channel 13 Nightly News March 24, 2011 [story 2:55 to 5:50]
Bill Tilton, resident of North Pole’s rectangle of death- “My right to breathe clean air trumps their right to burn anything they want. I’m outraged that I have to put up with this (air pollution from outdoor boilers), and I’m outraged that the kids around here have to breathe this. It isn’t right. It’s dangerous. It’s just wrong.”
Clean Air Fairbanks “encourages people who suffer from dirty air to speak out.”
Cathy Cahill, PhD, Associate Professor, UAF Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry- “The air in Fairbanks during the inversions is really pretty bad. The (fine) particulates are high. The particulates are mostly due to smoke from woodstoves. The measurements are saying that 50 to 70% of the particulates (PM 2.5) during the peaks happen to be from woodsmoke.”
Glenn Miller, Transportation Director, FNSB– “We’re not going in the right direction. Our air quality is not getting better. It is not even staying the same. Our air quality is getting worse. Right now we have technology that is being used to burn wood and to burn coal that really is very crude.”
Tim Sovde, representative of the Interior Wood Burners Association “The woodstove ordinance that the Assembly had passed did absolutely nothing to go after the individuals that are actually the troubled burners.”
Well . . . let’s think this through. Are the burners actually “troubled” or are they the actual troublemakers?
Don’t miss noting Mr. Sovde’s point: the Interior Wood Burners Association supports going after the worst emitters. This position has consistently been represented as a cornerstone of their solution.
[from the Interior Wood Burners Association website]
Here are some ideas on how we could more effectively deal with the PM 2.5 particulate problem. . . . Create a separate ordinance to deal with the handful of nuisance outdoor boilers, we don’t need a blanket ordinance that punishes those who are being responsible.”
There you have it: a straightforward case statement for enforcement on the most serious air pollution emitters to help resolve our worsening fine particulate air pollution problem. Even with this near unanimity (excepting the “troubled” emitters themselves, of course), not one cease and desist order to stop air pollution has been filed in our community, ever.