Raptor

This info, using London as an example (appropriate or not), is from other sources, not from my personal knowledge base. But, for me, it helps clarify the BS message about Global Warming that’s bought into so easily by so many, and that is being further endorsed by the current administration. I’m sure there are more learned folks on this forum than I, but this is a hearty “+1” to most of the above. (BTW, I use a Blaster to dry my cars, simply because it works best.)

“Air pollution is not a new problem getting worse, but an old problem getting ever better,” said Professor Bjørn Lomborg ('The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World'). His research shows that the level of smoke particles – the most dangerous pollutant – and sulphur dioxide has fallen by more than 95 per cent since their peak in the nineteenth century. The last time there was such little air pollution in the capital was 1585. His findings challenge the long-held assumption that London’s air quality has been deteriorating for years. “London air has not been as clean as it is today since the Middle Ages.”

London’s air pollution problems started at least a thousand years ago. In 1285 King Edward I set up the world’s first air pollution commission and banned the burning of coal. It didn’t last long. As the area around London became deforested and the wood was all burnt, households increasingly turned to the burning of cheap dirty coal, high in sulphur.

LA’s problems appear somewhat similar, but in a more compressed timeline. BTW, the LA area was responsible for 20% of the world’s oil production less than 100 years ago.

End of disjointed political “rant.”

Adrienne

...and you'll be paying a whole heck of a lot more if your area, state, or the entire country for that matter, has to clean up the dirty air produced by the two-strokes the incentive is paying to remove. Thus the reason for the incentive program. In the long run, it is much cheaper. Food for thought.

2Many Cars

As an ex-LA resident I can attest to the benefits from emissions regulations. Anyone who fishes in lakes in Northern Canada and the Northeast that suffer from depleted stock due to acid rain can also appreciate efforts to limit pollution. Let's face it we all pollute and by virtue of the fact we have to consume to live we will continue to pollute. However, that doesn't mean efforts to polute LESS aren't legitimate. Just because China pollutes more than we do doesn't mean our pollution is inconsequential. I choose to drive old cars and they pollute but I also take other measures to pollute less elsewhere. No one said you can't have fun but that doesn't mean you have to be completely irresponsible either.

I won't go off on the global warming issue except to make a couple of points - with all due respect the comments of a few scientists are meaningless, it's the mainstream majority that matter. Just because a handful of "experts" disagreed with Columbus upon his return that the world was not flat doesn't mean it really is flat. There will always be a few who argue the other side of something no matter the topic - ozone layer, evolution, using DDT, etc., take your pick. Also, if it happens to be unseasonably hot today (as opposed to cold) where you live does that mean there IS global warming? Come on, science isn't that simple and our views shouldn't be that parochial either. It's OK to disagree but let's not be close-minded either.

Again, no disrespect meant, it just seems that sometimes we all need to use a little more common sense and consideration rather than just throwing rocks at each other. I'm signing off now. Play nice everyone.

Adrienne

Raptor - That source is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin.

1. You cannot single out one historically high parameter and project it onto today's air quality problems.
2. Smoke was a problem because of the Industrial Revolution. Through regulation of coal and power plants soot and sulfur problems were mostly solved and/or minimized. However, there were a lot fewer people needing power back then and therefore overall consumption was far lower.
3. Smoke is not the issue with today's air quality. We now have a completely different set of parameters. Mercury, dioxins, NOx, etc.
4. As an example to make it clear how preposterous their argument is: we cured the black plague. Does that mean we should ignore any other type of plague or pandemic because we no longer have the black plague? No. It simply means we are no longer concerned with the black plague. Pretty simple.

I highly recommend reading scientifically defensible sources from peer-reviewed journals for your answers. Anything else is junk science.

Slow Guy

You might want to take note of Dr. Lumbord's qualifications:

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. His formal education is political science. He earned his Ph.D. in game theory. From 2002 - 2004 he was head of the Environmental Assessment Institute. In 2004, following the Copenhagen Consensus, he resigned the post to return to academia.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=Bjorn_Lomborg

vs: on the other side of the opinion
Dr. James E. Hansen http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

Education:

* B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
* M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
* Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

and his CV (linked to on the above web site) is far too long to post here.

grwoolf

FYI, the major manufacturers are starting to make significant emission improvements over the old 2-stroke lawn and garden equipment. I bought a Stihl trimmer last year and it is basically a 4 stroke that still uses an oil mix to lubricate the internals. It is a little heavier than a similar powered 2-stoke, but with drastically reduced emissions. It also sounds a little funny (thumpy) compared to a 2 stroke. I can't see professional landscapers switch to electric until cordless models get much, much better.

To tie this thread into a 993 discussion, my Stihl trimmer is my 2nd favorite German machine in the garage. It makes about 2HP (not confirmed on the dyno yet) and I've already gone down the slippery slope with attachments for edging and leaf blowing. I've got a father's day request in for the chain saw pruning attachment. If you have a big peice of property or tough/tall grass to trim, I would highly recommend trying out a high-powered commercial-quality trimmer. It really makes yard work enjoyable when you have the right tools. The emmissions improvement is another good reason to upgrade.

Slow Guy

I also have a newer Stihl, don't need the tree trimmer attachment but do have both the string and (blade) edger attachments. Beats the hell out of my old POS Homelite trimmer.

nile13

Adrienne, that clearly has not been proven scientifically, and that's my whole point.

The other side of my point is that pollution from production and delivering of electricity might very well be much worse than pollution from using a two-stroke (think of recent "cancer from power line proximity" craze). You are simply moving pollution from one place to another. Unfortunately, you are also introducing serious loss in efficiency, requiring more pollution to produce more energy plus offset transport losses.

Finally, I've lived fro 18 years about 65 miles from Chernobyl and left 90 days before it blew up. We heard continuous mind-boggling propaganda about how clean and safe nuclear energy was in generating electricity. I guess it was.

Please understand what I'm saying. I think that curbing pollution and being responsible is important (I feel very hypocritical saying this as I waste gas and tires racing on the weekends, btw). I also think that what has happened in Europe over the past 5-7 years and what is coming to the States now is a complete brainwash with 0 scientific backing. However, there are money to be made. Tons of money. Let's do a little exercise here. How much do we think the people running that distribution place for electric mower coupons put in their pockets?

Bergamasco

Mike S. - I love your response. ... Can't we just use a couple of decent waffle weave synthetic cloths? - Glenn

Adrienne

nile 13 - Let me clarify...I wasn't making a scientific statement; I was making a policy statement. The incentive is there because of the potential of EPA sanctions for non-attainment of the Clean Air Act. That is current law, not potential regulation. Current sanctions for non-attainment stand to cost large sums of money to non-attainment areas. You stated that as a taxpayer you paid for someone's incentive coupon. I am stating that the incentive coupon is far cheaper than the sanctions that are currently law that may come to the area in which the incentive was allowed.

For example, here in Austin we are very near non-attainment. We have an incentive program where mass transit is free on "Ozone Action Days" when our ground-level ozone is so high that we may not meet our Clean Air Act limitations. This incentive encourages people to ride the bus rather than drive, which is a cheap and easy way to lower our daily emissions. If we do not meet our permit limits, the Feds will consider Austin a non-attainment area and we will have to pay hefty fines, far in exceedance of a free bus pass for a day. If we continue to grow and spew hydrocarbons into the air, we will have Federal sanctions thrown on us.

nile13

Adrienne, I think all I'm after is science before policy, not the other way around. It's the old engineer in me.

So I understand and appreciate your point of following the law. I just wish (naively, I know) that laws would be made based on science rather than voodoo. And, no, I do not consider environmental research and environmental protection voodoo. What I say is that there is no clear understanding, no clear scientific evidence one way or the other. In the mean time we are forced to abide by laws that are based... on what?

PS. I like Austin. Have not been there since 2000, but back then it struck me as a very clean, clear and nice place. With a healthy doze of TX attitude. I want those $1 Margaritas again

goofballdeluxe

I love when people say there's no concrete proof on something as profound as global warming. Let's say for a second that's true. Then, at worst we have government regulations forced on us etc., that will cost us more for no good reason. Not good, but not catastrophic, either.

Now, let's say for a second that things like pollution and it's harmful effects and global warming are real and we aren't pro-active about it. Then, at worst we will harm the planet irrecoverably and make it uninhabitable. Totally catastrophic.

That alone makes a case for why global warming should be taken seriously. The downside if it is real and we do nothing is much worse than the downside if it is not real and we do.

Adrienne

Agreed on science before policy. This policy in particular has plenty of scientific basis. Smog has all sorts of deleterious effects, mainly on small children and the elderly. Check the website for more info:
http://www.aqmd.gov/matesiidf/matestoc.htm

Maybe you are thinking this is policy related to Global warming? It is not. This incentive is based on existing studies and existing non-attainment, on long-known deleterious effects of poor air quality.

And Austin's margaritas are way more than $1 now. Austin has changed A LOT since 2000. However it still has that great vibe. You'll have to come back to visit!!

nile13

We are discussing a very specific thing here. Can you prove to me that an electric mower causes less pollution than a gas mower? Can you clearly prove that? I can clearly prove that I not only paid for someone else's new mower, but also paid for administration of that great exchange (that probably cost twice as much as the mower itself).

Waiting, 1040 at hand

PS. Chuck, again, please do not take it personally, I'm not laying claims on your new mower Just putting forward another point of view. For all I know you'll be paying for my new windows, appliances and ductless A/C with stimulus incentives. No, wait, I did not get a stimulus check either. Damn.

Adrienne

Mike - actually, that can be proven...it's simply a matter of measuring emissions and comparing, which has been done countless times. Here's the difference: the scrubbers installed in the electric power plant that produces the electricity for the electric mower is far cleaner than any 2-stroke engine. There are no emission controls on a 2-stroke. But the electric power plant has all sorts of air quality-related equipment to reduce emissions.