April 26, 2006--Crab Gas
In the spirit of full discloser, I should state up front that I do not have a lawn. In fact, I live in an apartment in a building that also does not have a lawn. So it is easy for me to take a shot at those surrounded by green expanses and all the issues they face when attempting to keep them well groomed.
I used to have a small patch of grass that I cut with a hand mower. Among other things, it was good exercise. But I was certainly aware of neighbors who had gas powered ones—it was impossible to ignore them. And I did have friends and relatives who lived in the suburbs who had an acre or so of lawn who, along the way, moved on from hand-guided movers to something called “riding mowers.” I never got that. Much less how over time these vehicles, for that’s what they are, became accessorized, like cars, with cup holders, CD players, and the like.
That’s as much as I thought about grass and mowers until very recently. With gas costing up to $4.00 a gallon and heightened concern about air pollution and global warming, the NY Times, among others, has turned its attention to power mowers (see article linked below).
I’ve been learning that 2006 mower engines emit 93 times more hydrocarbon emissions than 2006 car engines. (“93 times” is not a typo.) If we are finally getting slightly serious about controlling auto exhaust, it would seem a simple thing to do something about mowers.
Well think again. Briggs & Stratton, the leading manufacturer or lawn mower engines, is resisting all attempts to require catalytic converters, claiming that they cost $20 to $25 dollars per machine, and what’s more they would make mowers prone to catching on fire.
Fine, that’s B & S’s position, but what about Congress—shouldn't they be concerned? After all, in California alone, power mowers each day add 22 tons of smog-forming chemicals to the air—the equivalent of 800,000 cars (again, no typos).
It so happens that in Congress there is a Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, chair of the committee that controls the EPA budget, and he has thus far not seemed interested in the issue. Could it be because Briggs & Stratton has two factories in Missouri that employ 1,750?? His position—we need to commission a series of studies to make sure “people don’t get their houses burned down.” I assume this danger is because some folks use their B & S’s to mow the Astroturf in their finished basements.
There have in fact been some studies that he authorized—one by the EPA and another by the National Research Council. Both concluded that mowers with converters are safe. So what did the good senator do—he commissioned more studies. And so on.
Maybe President Bush will make a speech saying we are addicted to our riding mowers. That should work because so far he’s doing a pretty good job getting us weaned off our gasoline addiction.
I used to have a small patch of grass that I cut with a hand mower. Among other things, it was good exercise. But I was certainly aware of neighbors who had gas powered ones—it was impossible to ignore them. And I did have friends and relatives who lived in the suburbs who had an acre or so of lawn who, along the way, moved on from hand-guided movers to something called “riding mowers.” I never got that. Much less how over time these vehicles, for that’s what they are, became accessorized, like cars, with cup holders, CD players, and the like.
That’s as much as I thought about grass and mowers until very recently. With gas costing up to $4.00 a gallon and heightened concern about air pollution and global warming, the NY Times, among others, has turned its attention to power mowers (see article linked below).
I’ve been learning that 2006 mower engines emit 93 times more hydrocarbon emissions than 2006 car engines. (“93 times” is not a typo.) If we are finally getting slightly serious about controlling auto exhaust, it would seem a simple thing to do something about mowers.
Well think again. Briggs & Stratton, the leading manufacturer or lawn mower engines, is resisting all attempts to require catalytic converters, claiming that they cost $20 to $25 dollars per machine, and what’s more they would make mowers prone to catching on fire.
Fine, that’s B & S’s position, but what about Congress—shouldn't they be concerned? After all, in California alone, power mowers each day add 22 tons of smog-forming chemicals to the air—the equivalent of 800,000 cars (again, no typos).
It so happens that in Congress there is a Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, chair of the committee that controls the EPA budget, and he has thus far not seemed interested in the issue. Could it be because Briggs & Stratton has two factories in Missouri that employ 1,750?? His position—we need to commission a series of studies to make sure “people don’t get their houses burned down.” I assume this danger is because some folks use their B & S’s to mow the Astroturf in their finished basements.
There have in fact been some studies that he authorized—one by the EPA and another by the National Research Council. Both concluded that mowers with converters are safe. So what did the good senator do—he commissioned more studies. And so on.
Maybe President Bush will make a speech saying we are addicted to our riding mowers. That should work because so far he’s doing a pretty good job getting us weaned off our gasoline addiction.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home