It seems to me you could light the fuel for the blower on fire and still pullover less than either vehicle mentioned. Heck, you probably could burn the blower with the fuel and pollute less than burning 216 gallons in any manner.
If the Raptor is that much less polluting, shouldn’t we power blowers with 450 hp Raptor motors instead of 2 strokes?
I looked up a couple of studies. One had blowers using 47 3/4 gallons an hour. This is obviously wrong or misstated.
Ya think?
Total bs.
Or else the cars are so incredibly clean they aren’t harming anything.
It’s not just 2 stroke, it’s the fact cars have catalytic converters that burn up a lot of things that engines without them just blow our in their exhaust
For a leaf blower? Good gawd, man! It would either have a gas tank big enough that it took a three-man crew to wield it. Or they would be refilling it every 10 minutes while someone else shuttled between the job site and a gas station.
“I looked up a couple of studies. One had blowers using 47 3/4 gallons an hour.”
Apparently they had the same math teacher as our president.
Anna just pulled this out her gas blowing ass.
Atmospheric CO2 follows global temperatures, it does not cause them.
The oceans sequester more CO2 than any other CO2 sink.
The colder the oceans get, the more CO2 they can absorb.
When the oceans get warmer, they expel CO2
You can see the yearly fluctuation in the Mauna Loa graph as the Pacific Ocean warms and cools with the seasons.
I think it time to start throwing a few of these alarmists into wood chippers.
Racist. Think about it.
Fond of 2 strokes and cutting edge tech to make them better, that's another subject for another day.
However the big 3 could have offered an offset to retrofit all of CA w/ E-weed wackers etc instead of 2 strokes to help w/ pickup / SUV Sales. Sadly the Eco-Totalitarians of the CARB wouldn't go for such a thing is my guess....
MATH HAS NEVER BEEN THE STRONG POINT OF THE ENVIROS
The general populace has fallen way behind also in math-—so they don’t see the bad numbers, either
Around here these are known as Mexican bagpipes.
I have thought for years that gas leaf blowers probably cause more pollution than any of the things they claim are hurting the environment. Certainly worse than a friggin cow!
I am a member of the I.A.P.I (Ice Age Prevention Initiative). One of the most important contributions a member can make is choosing the correct leaf blower.
“I looked up a couple of studies. One had blowers using 47 3/4 gallons an hour”
I don’t b believe you
I absolutely detest gas powered blowers because of the noise. My battery powered leaf blower does the job fine with a fraction of the noise.
On a side note I found it interesting that a neighbor a few blocks away felt compelled to blow their leaves from their yard out into the street. LOL I blow my leaves into flower beds and natural areas and reduces the cost of pinestraw.
Dolt reporters. Portraying their dreams as some kind of fact.
Anna is real smart...”huge contributors of greenhouse gases...smog-based pollution...hydrocarbon emissions”
CO2 and unburned hydrocarbons are as different as rocks and raindrops.
The EPA itself says that the manmade gasses carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gases are the culprits. There has not been any linkage of unburned hydrocarbons to global climate change. Unburned hydrocarbons are a major contributor to urban smog.
The 300 hp Camry (do they even make such a thing?) processes most of its emissions into CO2 and water. The leaf blower does not. (The Camry operates at a leaner mixture with higher compression and doesn't burn much oil, while everything it does burn goes out through a cat converter. The leaf blower ... nada.)
So while the leaf blower generates only a tiny fraction of the CO2 the Camry does, it generates far more of the partially-burned junk that causes smog and respiratory problems, etc. Still usually not a big deal outside of an enclosed space.