Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Pollution Continues


How bad for the environment are gas-powered leaf blowers?
Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post - Fall will soon be here and with it, clusters of trees with tri-color leaves. As leaves fall, some wonder whether electric leaf blowers, lawn mowers or rakes are best for the environment.

I’ll leave the question of leaf blower noise to neighborhood discussion groups, but I can help resolve the environmental question: Exactly how bad for the Earth are gas-powered leaf blowers?
Graphic
How a two-stroke engine works
Click Here to View Full Graphic Story
How a two-stroke engine works
Much of the argument has to do with the two-stroke engine found in many of them. The two-stroke engine — so named because it completes one cycle of internal combustion in two movements of the piston — is lightweight, cheap, compact and simple, which makes it a handy motor not just for leaf blowers but also for chain saws, lawn mowers and jet skis. (There are also four-stroke leaf blowers, which use the same type of engine that powers your car and offer more complete combustion and less air pollution, but they are typically larger and more expensive.)




























The two-stroke engine has developed a reputation as an environmental hazard. Because the engine lacks an independent lubrication system, fuel has to be mixed with oil. More important, about 30 percent of the fuel the engine uses fails to undergo complete combustion; as a result, the engine emits a number of air pollutants. Carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons escape from the engine in large quantities. Everyone knows the acute effects of carbon monoxide, but the other gases are equally worrisome. Both nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons contribute to smog formation. Hydrocarbons can be carcinogenic, and nitrous oxides can cause acid rain.
Cities where two-stroke engines are in particularly wide use suffer terribly from air pollution. Some of India’s urban centers, for example, are draped in heavy soot, a problem due in large part to auto-rickshaws powered by two-stroke engines. More than a decade ago, Delhi phased out tens of thousands of auto-rickshaws with two-stroke engines in favor of those with four-stroke engines that run on natural gas. This alleviated the pollution somewhat, but few cities have followed Delhi’s lead.
In leaf blowers, two-stroke engines have been shown to emit contaminants comparable to large automobiles. A 2011 test by the car experts at Edmunds showed that “a consumer-grade leaf blower emits more pollutants than a 6,200-pound 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor.” The company subjected a truck, a sedan, a four-stroke and a two-stroke leaf blower to automotive emissions tests and found that under normal usage conditions — alternating the blower between high power and idle, for example — the two-stroke engine emitted nearly 299 times the hydrocarbons of the pickup truck and 93 times the hydrocarbons of the sedan. The blower emitted many times as much carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides as well. The four-stroke engine performed significantly better than the two-stroke in most of the categories, but still far worse than the car engines.


Monday, November 7, 2011

CBS takes on Leaf Blowers

Battling loud leaf blowers

The battle over leaf blowers all across the country is being led by a couple in Orinda, California who are just fed up with the noise. John Blackstone reports.

Read more:
 



http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387318n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

Thursday, March 3, 2011

From Orinda...

Posts from the fight in Orinda:

One of the best suggestions you received (below) regarded engaging the American Lung Association, at least in theory.  I work closely with their Central California chapter so I have some insights that are worth passing along.  In general, I have found that enviro groups in this region (which is more impacted by air pollution than Orinda) have a blind spot when it comes to lawn care emissions in general and leafblowers in particular.  They would much rather go after large dairies, diesel trucks, power plants, all of which merit regulation of course, and they are being regulated.  And this is what their funders support as well, e.g. the Hewlett Foundation. 
 
I would go further and say that enviro groups as well as AQ regulators see lawn care/LB emissions as kind of a black hole.  Who has regulatory authority over which aspect of these operations and their emissions?  Regulatory coverage is both fractured and incomplete.  With limited resources, how does an organization tackle the problem?  So while in theory a group such as ALA could achieve cleaner air while building a grateful constituency of the silent LB-hating majority, in practice there is no legal foundation for such an effort.
 
This sector is where agriculture was 20 years ago in CA and the San Joaquin Valley--largely unregulated by federal, state, and local agencies for air quality.  Since that time, step by step, agriculture was  brought (screaming and kicking) into the fold.  A key step was the passage of a series of bills in 2003 known as SB 700, which ended agriculture's exemption from Clean Air Act purview.  My agency, as regulator of stationary and area sources (ag is the latter, where you have emissions rising from fields, feedlots, lagoons, etc.) took on the thankless task of adopting a host of regulations that incrementally established controls on field operations, feedlot/sewage lagoon design, pesticide application, etc.
 
A key element in the regulatory mix are what we call BMPs, best management practices.  For example, dairies are now required to cover their feed piles to limit VOC emissions that contribute to ozone.  As noted below, one of the policy forks in the road for groups such as QO is whether to ask for a BMP approach that limits how LBs are used vs. an outright or indirect ban on their use.  For example, the use of LBs to clear sidewalks, gutters, and parking lots along heavily traveled commercial roadways and business districts is particularly undesirable from a health risk perspective due to the chemical characteristics of respirable road dust--the science is sufficient to make a strong case.
 
Unfortunately, there has been little research on the health effects of LB engine emissions and bioaerosols.  To this end the Valley Air District is funding UCSF-Fresno's Center for Clinical and Translational Research to measure ultrafine particles (UFPs) from lawn care and several other sources.  Ultrafine particles (less than 100 nanometers or 0.1 microns, or 1/25th the diameter of a 2.5 micron fine particulate) represent the new frontier in aerosol regulation.  Their small size allows them to cross epithelial boundaries that would otherwise block uptake into the bloodstream and brain.  We know, for example that they lead to greater heart rate variability and promote further sensitization of the immune system for those who are genetically predisposed, e.g. asthmatics. 
 
Just to give you a sense of how they vary, we have found in our preliminary field work the following:
 
1.  Residential neighborhood with no sources:  5,000 to 8,000 particles per cubic centimeter
 
2.  Freeway with windows rolled down:           30,000 to 40,000 p/cm3
 
3.  Roadway behind (smelly) gross polluting vehicle, windows down:    300,000 to 400,000 p/cm3
 
4.  30 ft downwind from a LB (emissions can be smelled):  300,000 to 400,000 p/cm3
 
5.  100 ft downwind from LB operation:  30,000 to 40,000 p/cm3
 
We have found that anytime you smell something, a smoking vehicle, LB, diesel truck, etc., you are being exposed to very high levels of UFPs.  All this is very preliminary of course.  Currently UFP are not regulated, but are recognized by EPA as meriting further research.  The European Union has already moved to regulate UFPs.  From my view of the literature, one can make a case that the large body of epidemiological research showing higher rates of asthma among children and adults who live close to freeways, is pointing to UFPs as the culprit as much as PM 2.5.  (ozone levels are actually lower near freeways)  UFPs, drifting over time and space, morph into larger particles, into the PM 2.5 category and larger.  So those nearby heavy UFP sources are ingesting a much higher proportion of UFPs than those a half mile away, for example.
 
As a final note, I have just received the green light from my boss to organize later this year (or early 2012) a conference on the future of lawn care.  We will be covering a range of topics, including health impacts at the occupation and neighborhood levels, emerging technologies, economics, regulatory authority issues, etc.  Local struggles to improve community quality of life via LB bans will be part of the mix.  As I have noted above, at this juncture you have little choice but to pursue a better QOL at the level of the municipal jurisdiction. 
 
 
 
David
 
David Lighthall, Ph.D.
Health Science Advisor
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726
 
Phone:  559 230-6105
Fax:      559 230-6061
Mobile:  559 285-7113
 


From: Quiet Orinda [mailto:quietorinda@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 6:31 PM
To: susankendall@comcast.net
Cc: 4 Quiet; Amanda Ferguson; Annette Ellgaard; Barbara Stross; Barry; boneysteele; brownie; Burlington Willes; dale walwark; Darlene Patch; Diane; David Lighthall; Eco Magic David Schrom; ehudson; Eileen Arts; ejajeh; Henry; Herb Brown; Jack Miller; JD O'Connor; Jeanne Herbert; Jeffrey Segall; JoAnneh Nagler; joanrpinto@comcast.net; Johnwindle; Jon Lake; Jonathan Greenberg; Kate Burkart; Katharine Barrett; Lark Hilliard; Linda Hudak; Lisa Summers; Louis Hagler, MD; Lynn Brewer; Maya McBride; mayamcbride@gmail.com; medapets@aol.com; Mike Kron; milesdenniston@hotmail.com; Mr. Bill; mxanto@yahoo.com; Paul Barnhart; Ray Peters; revdmother@aol.com; Roger Wilson; Sarah M Lee, Maya's friend (asthmatic); Scott Zeller, MD; Shepherd Bliss; Steve Davies; stitchboyle@yahoo.com; W Wayer; Walden Browne; Walwark Dale; Waranoff; Yannick Phillips
Subject: Quiet Orinda's Comeback
Quiet Orinda: The Comeback, Part One

First, let me start off by apologizing for my extreme procrastination. I could cite my new job, dealing with my mother’s advancing dementia, doing my taxes, and a suite of other distractions, but the fact remains I promised you this two months ago, and here we are….

If there’s a silver lining to the protracted pause, it may lie in the additional perspective and feedback received since November 15 (when we presented to the City). Emails from members and outsiders continue to arrive; letters to the editor appear in print and online; residents still call our home to plead for relief.  Our cause is known to all who perform a simple Google search.

We’ve inflamed the passions of a stubbornly libertarian band of Lamorindans, too. Just visit the Lamorinda Patch website, where Chris Nicholson cheerleads a band of pro-blow types repeating the same old argument: “if the noise and dust bother you, just deal with it.”

All this publicity about Orinda is largely negative, which in the short-run is a good thing (in my opinion).

I’m not sure how you’ll react to the following, but there are consequences to publicizing our debris blower pollution problem in Orinda. Here’s a recent email exchange I had with someone from Illinois considering moving to Orinda:

Is there a leaf blower ban in Orinda? We are looking for a home in a quiet community that has at least a seasonal ban on leaf-blowers.
Any information would be appreciated.” (signature omitted)

Here is what I wrote back:
“Unfortunately, Orinda has no ban on leaf blowers- yet. The City Council denied our appeal for a total ban, and we are planning a second approach to the City for relief. As it is now, we have chronic leaf blower pollution six days a week, both gas and electric varieties. On Sunday, you can run lawn mowers (gas-powered) and electric leaf blowers too.
 The City is run by volunteers connected to the real estate market – agents, attorneys, and architects. They need to realize that our community’s reputation and desirability are linked to more than good schools and proximity to San Francisco.
If we knew how Orinda would be so negatively transformed by the innumerable mow-and-blow gardening crews that stream in six days a week, we would not have chosen the town. Mill Valley has a gas-blower ban, and we are considering retiring there, if Orinda won’t change.
 Thanks for writing us, and please let us know how your decision process is progressing, Peter”
And here is her last reply:
Dear Peter,

Many thanks - we live in Evanston IL, and have the same gas blower problem but do have seasonal restrictions in place.

I wish there was a national website that listed "quiet and clean" communities. Grateful for your efforts.

We will look at Mill Valley.


I was saving this email for future use (like sharing it with the Council), but you deserve to see it now. It’s a powerful testimony.



As the heading states, this is “Part One.”


Changing the noise ordinance to severely restrict debris blowers (if not ban them) remains the goal. We’ve no shortage of brilliant ideas; we do have (at present) a loosely-organized bunch of like-minded folks without the requisite organization, responsibilities, and strategy. So…



Job One: Approach the City Council, Again

Notify Orinda’s Council that their “decision” is unacceptable and demand a proper hearing. I think a letter on QO letterhead, signed by a few dozen of us, should be prepared and sent ASAP. I as much as stated this on January 2nd, 2011 when I spoke to the Council (again) with Maya and Barbara.

Job Two: Upgrade our technology.

The QO website was designed and coded by a gentleman who’s no longer in the area. It wasn’t really what we envisaged to begin with. It’s too muted, hides important reference materials, and uses a Forum module (freeware) that doesn’t invite participation. Moreover, we’ve been peppered with sign-up requests by Chinese and Slavic hackers (about five per day)!

By the way, we pay $15 monthly for web hosting.

Someone should be in charge of technology (Bill Ayer, I nominate you) and work to create a new Forum/Blog/Listserv/Facebook page where we can exchange ideas, debate, and communicate, and hold virtual meetings. I realize this is a considerable undertaking, but I’m no techie and we need someone like you (yes, of course you’re far more than just a techie!).


Job Three: Enlist members, and let them focus on what interests them most:

For example, I would like to focus on media and on outreach to the various environmental and health groups. I know I can interest the press in our cause; I’d like to try to connect us with the non-profit groups like Sierra Club, the NRDC, American Lung, CARB, etc.

We need someone to spearhead our campaign with the Orinda City Council. I’ve already pushed them pretty hard; it’s time for some of you to take over all the communications, interviewing, planning of speaking events, etc.

We need someone to conceive and implement strategies to pressure the City to respond. For example, regular visits to every City Council Meeting to speak during the Public Forum time; letter-writing; Farmers’ Market signature- gathering; real estate agent contacts (to persuade them that home values are tied to Orinda’s reputation and liveability).

A new website (part of tech. above ?) should be created. I’d like to be able to have it be much more vibrant. The home page might include a video montage of blower-crew activity; quotes from our council members; quotes from the EPA and others; and links to gallery pages where you can view short videos of neighborhoods under siege, our own 4-minute QO video, etc.

I’d also like to see a gallery page of documents, reports, and brochures, so users can download the file just by clicking on the image of the document.

We need several people to maintain the communication flow to our members- literally, a news staff. We have several superlative wordsmiths – Eileen, Jeffrey, and others come to mind- to help out. Just witness how long it’s taken me to get this out to you!


I’ll stop here. I hope you’ll agree that I’ve done my share of talking, writing, meeting, and planning; it’s time for me to step aside and to follow you as we launch our next phase. I’m as committed as ever, fired up and ready to go – so please, please take the initiative and let me know how you’re going to pitch in. And tell me what you need me to do!

Yours in a Quieter and Cleaner Orinda,

Peter




p.s. below is the summary of your suggestions, first emailed to you back in January 2011


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 




First Compilation of all the Suggestions from QO Members re: “Moving Forward”:

(Please review, comment, add, edit, suggest one more time!)

Most Recent Thoughts:

I think a highest priority is to build wider public sentiment for our position.  That would involve some pragmatic scaling back of our request from the total ban position.  There is wide public empathy regarding the noise.  Not so much regarding the pollution.  That's my observation.

The biggest knock is the assumed increase in cost.  Perhaps a poll on that subject in Sebastapol would help.  A lot of work too.

Also, avoid engagement with Chris on your forum or others.  Every response to his rambling rationalizations encourages him and drives the casual reader away.  I suspect”

“I think we ought to try to develop a specific proposal, such as a ban on gas powered blowers and a ban on a certain noise level measured at a certain distance. We should find the components common to the greatest number of enacted ordinances, and rally behind that as a compromise. “





New Name, Mission, Objective

though Quiet Orinda has a great ring to it, it only conveys the noise, not air, pollution message.

 How about Environment Orinda? A broader name might give you more credibility, however, on the blower issue because it would show that's NOT all you care about. You care about the entire environment -- water, air, land (and people and other animals). Besides, airborne emissions affect not just air quality, but also the waterways. Chemicals is chemicals).
GreenOrinda –“ GO”!
Ecorinda"?
"Clear Air Orinda"? 
"Green Orinda" ?
"Eco-smart Orinda"
"Eco-friendly Orinda"? 
"Sustainable Orinda?”
Bucolic Orinda

Zero Air Pollution is too broad -- it seems to cover ALL polluting aspects; and it is an unreasonable goal.  The "environment" suggestion was too broad, too.

Update from one member: “My two cents worth:  I’m not sure changing the name of Quiet Orinda to broaden the appeal is such a good idea.  Diluting the focus would, necessarily, dilute the message and the main message, I think, is that the noise is unacceptable. 

Certainly the particulates kicked up are bad and this is another reason the use of blowers needs to be curbed, but the organization would not exist were it not for the noise.  There are many environmental groups lobbying on air pollution issues; what sets us apart is our focus on the noise issue.
 
Would the New Yorker article have been written about yet another all-inclusive local environmental group?”


Membership Building and Fundraising

large map of Orinda with every property and every homeowner shown, and start filling it in with red, yellow, and green dots
. As mentioned above, we should seek out the yard maintenance service consumers and convince them to join us.  If necessary, we should compromise with *them*, not with the city council.
. Reach out to as many people as we can.  One thought is to put up the funds for a direct mail campaign to encourage new members to join.  I for one would be happy to join with others in funding this.

Develop a more interactive e-mail system for communicating between ourselves.  I'm in the IT business and I can donate a server and software for running a listserv

I have always felt that the key to our success was community organizing: identifying those individuals and groups who might be sympathetic to our cause and enlisting their support. Mapping our community's neighborhoods and doing grassroots organizing are crucial. IT JUST TAKES SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY, AND WHO AMONG US HAS ENOUGH?



Technology, digital media, video

What about creating a Facebook page, either specifically for Quiet Orinda (although any non-Orindan could join) or more broadly, for the movement?

Creating a Facebook group is free and simple, and it can grow organically (thus not requiring much time for administration). A blog (also free, at blogpost.com), could be useful for disseminating more info....

Develop a more interactive e-mail system for communicating between ourselves.  I'm in the IT business and I can donate a server and software for running a listserv


Alternatives, Gardener Relations/Promotion

: Forge alliances with yard maintenance companies. To help build our coalition of citizens, we need yard maintenance companies to offer blower-free options and publish openly the pricing for these options. This is very important.

Could you get an established gardening goup to do a non-blower "workshop"?  Maybe at the farmer's market; sign-up in advance, maybe a small donation (to be sure they show up) - even if it is refundable if they DO show up.
I like William's ideas. My friend led a campaign for a seasonal ban in Rye, NY (NYC suburb similar to Orinda) and she advises us to get as many landscapers on board as possible

Government, Legislation

. Glazer seemed willing to consider a seasonal ban
We need to attract influential members of the community who might have more clout with the city council

I like Maya's suggestion that we team up and approach individual council members in meetings. But what is our agenda? More importantly, what power do we wield? 

Do you know if anyone is going to "sign-up" to meet Glazier or any of the other council members? I think we should meeti with everyone asap, while it is fresh in their minds. Mainly to remind them:
1) they made the wrong decision
2) This issue will surface again while they are in office
Can someone schedule a meeting with the others?
Consult with legal experts about ways to pressure the City to redress the problem (i.e. a lawsuit to enforce the stated purpose of the Noise Ordinance, a lawsuit to protect our health)

Begin exploring the Nuisance Dust claim-filing procedure with the BAAQMD (they do have a formal mechanism whereby we can ask for an investigation)

Approach the City Manager for advice, rather than the Council, as to how to revisit the matter

Consider compromises to an outright ban


Education Outreach

I think we need an extensive education campaign, so that people understand what's harmful to our health about leaf blowers.
educate through local garden groups; through high school science/environment classes; through area moms/parents groups. Young families need to be targeted.
Emphasize the workers' health issues in a much more intense manner

Don’ts
Plow the fertile field: find those most ready to join with you. Some will resist to the end. You've better things to do than spar with them.

Opposition Research and Engagement

Your "opponents" are just like you, well-informed about some things and ill-informed about others. Like all of us, each of them may be very stubborn about clinging to certain misinformation. Instead of viewing this as stupidity or venality, recognize that they're doing their best, and muster every bit of compassion you can for them.
Get to know the opposition.  At the city council meeting, apart from the council members themselves, our primary opponents appeared to be do-it-your-selfers (blow-it-yourselfers?). These yard maintenance consumers present an opportunity for us This group probably outnumbers the blow-it-yourself group and we want those numbers.

Just a comment on the anti-ban folks at the meeting:  in addition to the mow-and-blow homeowners,  there were quite a number of  landscape company owners.  They are also a vocal  force to be reckoned with.
Meet with some pro-blower types to personalize the issue and reach accommodations of some sort.

Fallbacks and Compromises

I have compunctions about promoting a seasonal ban.  Aren't  most of the cities who have gotten these bans those with four distinct seasons?  Obviously, we don't have that climate here.  We have leaves and blossoms falling in all the seasons.   I think it would introduce a loophole from which we would have to extricate ourselves.

Consider compromises to an outright ban


Opinion Leaders locally, Luminaries and Elders:

Reach locals whose opinions matter (Identify them first…); Forge relationships with other experts who can advise us – including those community reps whose cities already have a ban in place (i.e. Diane from zapla.org, Steve Davies from Takoma Park, MD,  etc.)


Science/Medical/Environmental Connections


Health care providers and health care agencies are KEY to advancing our case. Doctors, pediatricians especially, and their professional organizations. The American Lung Association. These individuals and groups are respected; they would add credibility and lustre to our cause.


Civil Disobedience/Negative Imagery/Embarrassment

We do have the power to embarrass the council and the community through media attention. I am sure neither the Council nor the Orinda Association (publishers of The Orinda News, which has been strangely silent on Nov.'s meeting) wants the negative publicity that a vocal, continuing campaign will generate. Do we begin this push-back? Do we threaten a concerted media campaign?
Continue to cast the City, the Ordinance, and the few Orindans who defiantly and publicly proclaim their pollution rights in unflattering, embarrassing ways (witness the online ridicule!)
Reinforce the negative effects on home values from excessive pollution and negligent City management, and hold out the promise of "redemption" once the problem is dealt with

Publishing/Writing

Maybe articles, fliers, email, facebook...

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

From the West

 News from California:

Leaf Blower Issue Slated for Nov. 16  Presentation Before Orinda City Council

 http://lamorinda.patch.com/articles/leaf-blower-issue-slated-for-nov-16-presentation-before-orinda-city-council

Good Luck!

 

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Leaf Blower Excess



Leaves in N. Ga. not yet blown.
Photo by Jack

 

Imagine autumn in New England. On a quiet fall day, one sits and watches the red and gold leaves swirl down to a softly gurgling brook. Cool, clean breezes refresh the soul.

Now, shift to Atlanta. As the first leaves of autumn fall from the oaks, panic grips the residents of apartment and condo complexes. There will be leaves in the parking lot. Leaves will clutter the space between our parked cars on the street. Even before the leaves fall, three, four, five workers rev up their blowers to max speed: 200 mph. Their instructions? leave not one leaf on the grounds, the walks or the street. Get rid of them! Of course there's no need to worry about where you blow them. If there get to be too many, we'll scoop them up in a tarp. But meanwhile, we'll just blow them until they aren't visible any more, or cleverly concealed in the ground cover.

Consider the results: at 200mph, the hot winds from the blowers lift not only the leaves, but enormous quantities of dirt. The dust and dirt rise as high as the rooftops of three story buildings and coat everything as they begin a slow descent. The hot wind destroys whatever grass there is and, week by week, kills the shrubs. Landscapes that are blown weekly, especially in times of drought or hot weather are bare, whatever fertile soil there was-- gone with the wind. All one needs to do is walk around the neighborhood of a complex that is blown to see the damage. In contrast to the healthy shrubs, green lawns, and blooming ground cover of all the neighborhood properties, the blown landscapes are dead. The difference is startling.

Consider this as well: those workers who spend their days blowing dirt and dust, including the lead filled dust of the street, the anti-freeze, the organic and inorganic compounds of car drippings, animal feces, mold, and allergens are very likely to suffer respiratory illness.  Though we are all aware of the city's infamous air pollution, many of us do little to prevent it. We drive SUVs and we blow our lawns dry with gasoline fumes that add significantly to the pollution. The price we are paying for anal retentive tidiness may be an insidious filth that coats our houses inside and out, and settles in our lungs and sinuses.

This activity is not confined to autumn, of course. Blowing is now a year 'round process. Weekly, workers gather armed with the latest, most powerful, loudest, and most fume spewing blowers possible. When asked what they are blowing in the dog days of summer, they reply, "debris." Of course there are also leaves- the same leaves that various companies blow around yards and into streets week after week, never bothering to pick them up. What could be more lucrative than charging a condo complex thousands per month to have a handful of low wage workers walk the property blowing it with fumes and hot air? Perhaps the scam wouldn't be so nasty if the blowers didn't pollute the already dirty air and rob us of quiet summer mornings in our yards or on our back porches.
 
My hope is that looking at the ordinances of over 400 progressive communities around the country that limit the use and kinds of blowers, might eventually bring us back to the good old days of quiet contemplation of the beauty of autumn leaves, and the peacefulness of summer mornings free of gasoline fumes and the roar of leaf blower engines.


About
400 cities and towns (click)  have banned or controlled blowers nationwide.

Jack Miller







Sunday, May 2, 2010

Good suggestions from The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/its-time-for-a-moratorium-on-oil-itself/39789/

Lisa Margonelli
Lisa Margonelli - Lisa Margonelli is a writer on energy and environment. She spent four years and traveled 100,000 miles to write her book, "Oil On the Brain: Petroleum's Long Strange Trip to Your Tank."
Lisa Margonelli directs the New America Foundation's Energy Productivity Initiative, which works to promote energy efficiency as a way of ensuring energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and economic security for American families. She spent roughly four years and traveled 100,000 miles to report her book about the oil supply chain, Oil On the Brain: Petroleum's Long Strange Trip to Your Tank, which the American Library Association named one of the 25 Notable Books of 2007. She spent her childhood in Maine where, during the energy crisis of the 1970s, her family heated the house with wood hauled by a horse. Later, fortunately, they got a tractor. The experience instilled a strong appreciation for the convenience of fossil fuels.

It's Time for a Moratorium on Oil Itself

May 2 2010, 9:54 AM ET
The oil spill in the Gulf is horrific and it's very likely it'll get worse. While locals get to work scrubbing the oiled birds with Dawn dish detergent,  a fracas will begin in Washington. Generally speaking this is an opera called "The Punishment," and for the last two major oil spills of great political  consequence (Santa Barbara in 1969 and the Exxon Valdez in 1989) it involved  a moratorium on drilling somewhere in the US. The problem with this, as I lay out in an op-ed in today's New York Times, is that we basically shift drilling and  its risks to other countries. (The figure that the Niger Delta, roughly the size of England, has suffered the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez of spilled oil every year since 1969 ought to make us cry.)

This time we need to use the political will generated by this really awful event to implement a comprehensive plan to reduce American dependence on oil.

Off the top of my head, here are a few possible places to start (and feel free to add your own
below).

We could begin to reduce oil dependence immediately with some of the measures suggested in this 2005 International Energy Agency report called Saving Oil In A Hurry. (Download a PDF here.)

A very diverse group (of which I am a recent member) called the Coalition for Mobility Choice has a 10-point plan to reduce oil dependence through various policies. Deron Lovaas of NRDC gave detailed testimony before a Senate Committee in March. (Download PDF here.) The basic package of policy changes he recommends could save 2 to 3 million barrels a day by 2020, and much more if we accelerated fuel economy standards for cars.

We could save even more if we started to use natural gas trucking, which has impressive numbers for both fuel savings and pollution in this Center For  American Progress study.

What would we gain by implementing the Oil Consumption Reduction Act? (Got something catchier? Please post below.)

First, we'd stop the financial hemorrhage that oil dependence causes. Today we'll spend well more than $1.07 billion on oil. And prices are up over Tom Kloza's estimates of $2.81 to $2.885 today.

Secondly, we'll reduce the risk of spills, accidents, and blowouts that every gallon carries.

Thirdly, we'll reduce the greenhouse gases emitted by the burning oil.

Fourthly, we'll reduce the pollution, and the costs of dealing with the health effects of breathing oil pollution. See last week's report from the American Lung Association.

Fifthly, we might reduce the amount of time we spend in traffic. (Los Angeles commuters spend nearly two work weeks sitting in traffic every year. Bizarre.)

Sixthly, we'll reduce the amount of energy we spend defending oil shipping lanes and other oil related military projects.

Seventhly, we'll increase our competitiveness by increasing our ability to turn energy into GDP. We'll also start markets for energy efficient and clean technologies.

Eighthly, because times of national crisis are priceless opportunities to air a pet peeve: we could ban gasoline-powered leaf blowers, which consume 200 million gallons of gasoline a year. (Go to Table 2.10 in ORNL's Transportation Energy Data Book to geek out on energy consumption by lawn and garden equipment.)

Showing 5 comments





  • candide08 1 hour ago
    1 person liked this.
    Whether this turns out to be negligence or an accident almost does not matter.
    "Drill, baby, drill" is dead.



  • Just like "too big to fail" is now dead?

    Never underestimate the ability of the government to throw common sense under the bus to make way for corporate cronyism.



  • 1 person liked this.
    Your points are valid, Govt rarely uses common sense. Even this incident shows the lack of common sense in Govt.

    Norway and Brazil require that ALL offshore oil rigs have special valves designed to prevent just the type of disaster we are experiencing now. This would be the least, IMO, that should be done.

    The valves only cost $500,000. In comparison to the clean-up cost even BP MUST wish that they had them in place. In 2002 and 2003 when legislation was proposed to make installation of these valves a a legal requirement for offshore oil rigs here in the United States the proposal got defeated in Congress.

    No doubt the result of the oil lobby had a key role in this. Having oil industry allies like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney didn't hurt either. We now bear the consequences of not having these safeguards.




    Jack Miller  
    The ban on gas powered leaf blowers that really blow nothing but dirt and debris most of the year is long overdue. The noise and air pollution these gadgets cause is contributing to many health problems as well as wasting gasoline. Banning them will raise the ire of so called landscapers who rake in huge profits from the unskilled labor of walking around with a loud blower on.
    Join a group that works to oppose their use: http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=154069...
    or http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=588408...