Lawnmowers Pollute More than Cars?
Posted in Environment, Politics by George
I was shocked this morning when I got to work. The shock collars they make us wear here always zap me when I turn on my computer. But that’s beside the point. I was also very surprised to learn that the average lawnmower, of all things, creates a heck of a lot of pollution. How much is a lot? Read this:
A typical gas powered lawnmower produces as much pollution in seven hours of operation as a modern car does in 100,000 miles of driving.
Unbelievable. At first when I read this I didn’t believe it. Why would the tiny engines in lawnmowers be hurting the environment (and the person operating the lawnmower) far more than the gigantic engines within cars? The answer lies in a golf-ball sized contraption called a catalytic converter.
Catalytic converters pull pollutants out of the exhaust. In doing so, they reduce a ton of pollution and supposedly can even help improve fuel economy a little bit. So why isn’t there national regulation to install them in all new lawnmowers?
Because of the lawn equipment lobby, of course. An unfortunate fact of the regulation is that in the short run, the installation of catalytic converters will increase the cost of manufacturing lawnmowers by about $20 to $25 per machine. That’s a lot, but for now let’s see why the lawn equipment lobby says they’re angry.
Briggs and Stratton, the largest engine maker for lawn equipment, has claimed that safety is the reason catalytic converters, or other methods of pollution control, should not be forced upon their industry. They claim that a catalytic converter, for instance, would increase the temperature of lawn equipment to undesireable levels and do things like set houses and grass on fire.
This is a reasonable complaint, but is it true? It turns out, no, it’s not. According to the EPA:
For each new standard, we conclude that the anticipated emission standards may be implemented without any incremental increase in risk of fire or burn to consumers. The testing and analysis further indicates that compliance with the anticipated emissions standards could somewhat reduce the risk to consumers using products in these subcategories.
Don’t trust the EPA? According to a New York Times article:
But four small-engine makers say that their engineers have figured out how to meet the pollution standards safely, with or without the devices.
Currently, California has potential regulations that have been continually delayed by Senator Christopher Bond, who keeps inserting provisions into appropriations legislation for that purpose.
Basically, from what I’m reading, it looks like the lawn machine lobby is bogus. However, the government can step in and help. First off, if we’re going to reduce pollution as much as is claimed by the EPA, the government should be willing to subsidize some or all of the cost of the catalytic converters. Over time that cost will fall as engine makers find out how to do it more efficiently. Secondly, this regulation should be nationwide, for every new piece of lawn equipment on the market. That’s all for now.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
As you pointed out, it will cost 20-25 more per machine which on average in my experiences last about 4 years. But catalytic converters do something that has bugged me for a very long time…they rob power.
Maybe this isn’t important for you who just recently found out what catalytic converters do, but it would for the manufacturing industry. You see, the automotive industry is compliant with the regulation of having converters on their vehicles because most vehicles can withstand the power loss due to their standard power rating, but little lawnmower engines really can’t. For example, a 4.5 hp mower would probably be reduced to 2 hp which is no power whatsoever to cut through thick grass and brush.
Also, any motorized object with a power rating over 25 hp (19kW for you metric/SI weirdos) requires a catcon if it was built post Jan 1, 2004, and yes some mowers are rated above 25 hp, many. They’re awesome!
I read this and I quote
“Catalytic converters have proven to be reliable devices and have been successful in reducing noxious tailpipe emissions. However, they have two adverse environmental impacts in use (ignoring the pollution caused in their manufacture, which would not exist were they not mandated):
* The requirement for the engine to run at the stoichiometric point means fuel economy is not as good as that of a “lean burn” engine running at a mixture of 20:1 or weaker. This increases the rate at which fossil fuel resources are consumed, and the carbon dioxide emissions of the vehicle.
* Catalytic converters are estimated to account for 50% of total nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide, laughing gas) emissions to atmosphere. While N2O emissions in these concentrations are not harmful to human health, N2O is a potent greenhouse gas, accounting for around 7% of the overall greenhouse effect despite its small concentration in the atmosphere.
Therefore one conclusion is that catalysts have reduced toxic emissions and the incidence of smog at the expense of increased global warming.”
July 20th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
1. Could you please provide a link to the source of where you are getting your information?
2. The regulation is not limited to catalytic converters.
3. I don’t know the science behind catalytic converters, or what horsepower some mowers are rated at, but I do know a vast majority of lawnmowers are below 25 horsepower.
4. Aren’t you concerned at all that the cost of that “extra power” (I’d still like to see a source for how much power is actually lost) is the following:
July 20th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
By the way, that information comes from here.