Mow Down Pollution
Did you know that running a gas-powered lawn mower for an hour produces as much pollution as driving a car 500 km? I always kind of suspected that the stinky two-stroke engines used in lawn mowers and leaf blowers weren't exactly environmentally friendly, but even I was surprised to learn that they account for five percent of our urban smog. Throw in some pesticides, and you've got a paradox - what's supposed to be a backyard nature oasis is polluting and poisoning our environment.
That's why for the past seven years the Clean Air Foundation ran a "Mow Down Pollution" campaign, in an attempt to get people to switch to greener mowers that are easier on your lungs as well as ears. This year the program runs from April 17 to April 27, and if you're considering getting a new mower, the time is now. Because if you bring your old, noisy, polluting lawn mower or trimmer to your local Home Depot between these two dates, you will receive up to $100 off a more eco-friendly model (low emission, electric or push mower).
And if you hire others to trim your lawn, and want to help out the environment, you can an use services of environmentally-friendly company like ecocut.
Now if only somebody could run the same program for the blasted leaf blowers...
Photo: Push, Electric and Low Emissions Mowers by DBarefoot
Comments (11)
Wow that's a lot of pollution, I had no idea. I need a powerful engine since I don't have the typical backyard, but I'll definately be giving Home Depot a look, thank you.
Throw in some pesticides? Um, it's illegal in Toronto, isn't it?
I don't like a gas mower simply because it's too loud and smells up the garage. Electric does the job better.
The push and pull kind? Get a goat, it's less stressful.
> Throw in some pesticides? Um, it's illegal in Toronto,
> isn't it?
According to the city website:"The City of Toronto has banned the use of pesticides in most circumstances, but it has not banned pesticides entirely." But you are right, things are certainly better in Toronto pesticide-wise thanks to the by-law, though I have no information on how strictly it is enforced (there are obvious difficulties in trying to enforce a bylaw of this kind).
Electric mowers are a great alternative, wired or wireless. Those human-powered push mowers are surprisingly expensive, though.
Aren't "most lawnmowers" 4-stroke gas engines these days?
And electric mowers are not very green either. Somebody else has to burn the fossil fuel to generate the electricity you're using.
Push mowers, however, are well worth looking into. (If only they hadn't gotten so expensive in the past couple of years!)
> Aren't "most lawnmowers" 4-stroke gas engines these days?
The modern ones are, but a lot of people are still using older models. You can exchange an older two-stroke one for a four-stroke one as part of the program.
> And electric mowers are not very green either. Somebody
> else has to burn the fossil fuel to generate the
> electricity you're using.
Obviously electric ones still do require energy. However, it is far more efficient and less polluting to produce that energy via a power plant rather than by burning gasoline in a primitive engine.
Also, electric ones do not contribute as much to noise pollution, which is also a serious environmental problem that affects our health, though too often it is still viewed as a mere nuisance.
"However, it is far more efficient and less polluting to produce that energy via a power plant rather than by burning gasoline in a primitive engine."
Well, in general, thermodynamics says it's *less* efficient to burn fossil fuel, convert the output to electricity, transmit that electricity over a considerable distance, use that electricity to charge a chemical cell, then use the electric potential of that cell to power your lawnmower versus just burning fossil fuel to power your lawnmower.
But I take your point that electric lawnmowers are preferable, if only because by upgrading the power plant (say to nuclear or hydroelectric) one can immediately "upgrade" the efficiency of all the lawnmowers.
"Well, in general, thermodynamics says it's *less* efficient to burn fossil fuel, convert the output to electricity, transmit that electricity over a considerable distance, use that electricity to charge a chemical cell, then use the electric potential of that cell to power your lawnmower versus just burning fossil fuel to power your lawnmower."
This is not at all clear. The burning process in a power plant is very different from that in a lawn mower. Thus burning fossil fuel in a power plant and burning the same amount of fossil fuel in your lawn mower can result in drastically different outputs of *useful* energy. The difference can be great enough to more than compensate for extra losses of energy during the conversion to electricity, transmission of said electricity and so on. The efficiency of each method is not easy to estimate, since actual figures are hard to obtain, but David Suzuki believes power plants to be more efficient, and I tend to trust that guy when it comes to environmental issues, unless presented with evidence that contradicts his statements.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly05090301.asp
"But I take your point that electric lawnmowers are preferable, if only because by upgrading the power plant (say to nuclear or hydroelectric) one can immediately "upgrade" the efficiency of all the lawnmowers."
That too, of course. In fact, the majority of Ontario's electricity (over 70%) already comes from nuclear and hydroelectric plants, and not from burning fossil fuels.
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=english.electricity
. . . they account for five percent of our urban smog. Throw in some pesticides, and you've got a paradox - what's supposed to be a backyard nature oasis is polluting and poisoning our environment.It is not a paradox. It's just a contradiction, and you spotted it. Back yards aren't natural.
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS