Ah yes, the post from the person who really wants to sound intellectual.
However, if I talk to someone and ask them for something and they consensually provide it, then the government has no right to influence that situation unless its willing to breach individual rights.
And when you two agree to dump your trash in my yard, the government shouldn't get involved, right? After all, you two made your own agreement.
No? Well, that's the situation here. The particulates from these stoves do not just remain around the person who buys the stove.
Banning wood burning stoves indifferent to zoning, population density, and frequency of use is actually pretty irrational.
You know what's more irrational? Thinking that a limit on particulates is "banning wood burning stoves". It is quite possible to make a wood burning stove that meets the new regulations. Most manufacturers did not bother until now, because they did not have to.
Banning them entirely is actually a really bad idea for a few reasons. One, many people will simply not follow the law and there is no means to actually enforce it. You're not going to inspect kitchens in rural house holds.
You now what else is irrational? Believing that regulations on _new_ wood stoves would have to be enforced by inspecting _existing_ wood stoves.
The second problem with this law is that it hurts people that aren't hurting anyone else.
Except that those particulates aren't just remaining near those stoves.
Industrial particulates were pretty much not a problem east of the Mississippi. Why? Jet stream blew them East. That's why states in the Eastern 1/3rd of the country made a big deal about regulating them in the 70's, whereas most of the states in the West did not care.
He's in the middle of giant forest and has to keep brush clear of his property on a regular basis. That brush must be burned.
Nope, there's other disposal methods. Burning is just the cheapest.
And good news! He can keep using his old wood stove. Or if he buys a new one, it will put out fewer particulates.