EPA proposing limits on mower emissions - AP

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Last updated April 17, 2007 9:47 a.m. PT

EPA proposing limits on mower emissions

By ERICA WERNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Polluting engine-powered mowers that are a staple
of suburban lawn care would become much cleaner under emission
limits being proposed Tuesday by government regulators.

The proposal follows a long-running dispute between California
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Missouri Republican Sen. Kit
Bond, who sought to block the change in order to protect a small-
engine maker in his home state, Briggs & Stratton.

Engines under 50 horsepower, which are mostly used to power
walk-behind and riding mowers, account for up to 10 percent of
summertime smog emissions from mobile sources in some parts of
the country.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been considering a
proposal that would cut smog-forming emissions from the engines
by roughly 40 percent. This would likely be achieved by installing
catalytic converters that reduce pollution from exhaust.

-snip-

Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Mowers_Smog.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. Sadly

the techonology for doing this probably already exists. Thanks to dumbasses like kit bond it hasn't been implemented yet.

[yellowcanine]

2. It would be a simple matter to trade everyone's gasoline mower for a cordless electric power

mower. Probably cost less than one day of the Iraq war.

[Buzz Clik]

3. That would be perfect if you live on a lot the size of a postage stamp.

I'm all in favor of the emission controls. Bring on the catalytic converter and add another $50 to the cost.

So it goes.

[yellowcanine]

6. Note I said "cordless", We have the technology to build electric mowers just as

large and just as powerful utilizing lithiom ion batteries, even large riding mowers. And think of the blessed quiet on a Saturday morning in the cul-de-sac.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Really? You think we have batteries that could run a mower for 90 minutes or so?

That would be great.

[phantom power]

9. I've run my cordless mower for 90 minutes.

Although at realistic power useage, it's ususally more like 60 minutes.

[jpak]

10. We had an electric riding mower back in the '70's

An "ElecTrak" mower. Mowed a big lawn with no problem. The batteries only lasted 4 years though...

http://www.kansaswindpower.net/GE%20ElecTrak%20Electric%20Garden%20Tractors.htm

[yellowcanine]

12. Sure do. They might cost a bit more than people are willing to pay, though.

At the moment, anyway. So that is why we should subsidize them, which we could do easily if we were not fighting this damn war.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. And you need that much grass because...

?

:shrug:

[Nihil]

17. ... he can use it in his bio-fuel car!

On a more serious note, how about a bio-fuel lawnmower that uses the
cuttings to power the mower that produces the cuttings that ...?

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

18. And you have the right to question my personal choices because...

?

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Because my planet is dying.

Not a personal attack on you, though - just suburbia in general. There's a billion people in the same position. :(

[Buzz Clik]

20. I think that we should examine all forms of emissions; however,

we should also prioritize.

My lawn has tremendous surface area for the incorporation of CO₂; it's not as if I'm commuting 20 miles to work on the stupid thing. Our major industries are still getting a huge pass, and cars are still the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions.

So, I'll buy the most efficient and non-polluting mower available, but I'm not ready to nuke my lawn.

[paparush]

5. Or a Reel Mower. Mmmmm five blades!

I ditched my gas powered mower last year for a Scotts Reel Mower and I LOVE IT.



Description: 20" cut5 blade; 4 spider ballbearing reel6" tracking wheels; 10" primary wheels1" - 3" quick snap height adjustersSoft foam grip handleOptional grass catcher Ace No. 75458

[IDemo]

7. Got one two years ago, and love it

Neuton Cordless Electric mower

my Epinions review

[MrModerate]

4. And this change would hurt Briggs & Stratton how?

They -- and everyone else in the biz -- would get to sell a more complicated product at a higher profit margin. Cordless mowers can't compete on cost and corded mowers are hugely inconvenient.

I think it's like the auto industry -- they don't want to pursue better fuel standards (even though It'll end up paying off) just because they're too short-sighted to make the effort.

[hatrack]

11. Yeah, let's not deal with coal-fired power plants & their 100s of millions of tons of emissions . .

No, no, let's deal with fucking lawnmowers.

Sounds like an entirely appropriate approach for the Bush EPA.

[yellowcanine]

13. Why can't we do both? And more?

[Nihil]

16. Whilst I understand your sentiment ...

... and prefer the "all options" approach, I am with Hatrack on this one.

The use of weasel words like "up to" and the avoidance of any significant
impact will minimise the effectiveness of this project whilst the targetting
of the domestic public will maximise the anti-environmentalist rebound.

If I've got this right, working on lawnmowers that produce "up to 10%"
of the pollution problem by "up to 40%" means that the best case
improvement will mean lawnmowers only produce "up to 6%" of the total
problem (i.e., total pollution reduces from 100% to 96%+).

In the process, the EPA would successfully piss off a large number of
the environmentally-ignorant general public and get everyone's back up
against future actions.

Now if the EPA were to achieve an "up to 40%" reduction of the 90%+
polluters excluding lawnmowers, that would translate to a total reduction
from 100% to 60%+ (or even less depending on how "up to" the original
hand-wave of "up to 10%" was).

Pollution down to 96% + pissed off general public + happy CEOs
vs.
Pollution down to 60% + pissed off CEOs

Yes, we can see why the EPA chose this for an effective strategy ... :eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

14. Hope this is going to cost Kit Bond some votes. He really needs to go.

If he valued and respected the job Missouri voters have awarded him, he'd stay sober.



If you want a second opinion, here's one from the Huffington Post:

I am from Missouri. It is widely known in this state that Senator Bond is a drunk. Enough said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/change-the-channel-end-t_b_43871.html

From Daily Kos, question "Who has the dumbest senators," from a Missouri reader:

Were Number one.... Without a doubt we win hands down. i don't have the time to go into it but take my word for it that Kit Bond (drunk cokehead ie Party at lake ozarks) and his less then bright No talent Jim Talent.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/8/193229/084

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's time to do whatever is necessary to clean what's left of the air. Hope Kit Bond and his donors, Briggs and Stratton all disappear in a cloud of lawnmower smoke.

[Daedelus76]

21. Cats eventually die

They wear out. Then you get more pollution.

Much better idea would be to encourage houses with smaller lawns or rocks instead of grass. Then spend money on researching direct injection for small gasoline engines, so that you can eliminate the need for catalytic converters.

Companies lik Piaggio/Aprilia already have small 5-7 hp 2-stroke engines they use for motor scooters. They have no catalytic converters, they use a computer to time the injection of fuel directly into the combustion chamber. The result is less pollution than many 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines that use catalytic converters, but there is still an economy of mechanical efficiency. They meet the Euro 2 vehicle emisions standards.