(Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Specific)
4 messages
Updated 9/16/2020 2:27:26 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Specific)
5 messages
Updated 6/5/2012 12:39:50 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
BDGRIFF
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/4/2008 6:00:16 PM
|
WASHINGTON - Gasoline-powered lawnmowers that are a big cause of summertime air pollution will have to be dramatically cleaner under rules issued Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The long-awaited regulation requires a 35 percent reduction in emissions from new lawn and garden equipment beginning in 2011. Big emission reductions are also required for speedboats and other recreational watercraft, beginning in 2010.
"The emissions of these sources are huge, accounting for about a quarter of smog-forming emissions and carbon monoxide from the motor vehicle sector," Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in a statement. "When fully implemented, this rule will be the air pollution equivalent of removing one out of every five cars and trucks on the road."
EPA said approximately 190 million gallons of gasoline will be saved each year when the rules take effect, and more than 300 premature deaths prevented annually.
"These standards help fight smog in our neighborhoods and waterways as we continue to improve the environmental landscape," said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
Senator had delayed rules
The regulation had been delayed for years by opposition from Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who took up the cause of small-engine manufacturer Briggs & Stratton Corp., which builds many of its engines in Missouri. The final rule Thursday was issued more than a year after the draft rule came out in April 2007.
EPA estimated the cost of implementing the reductions at $236 million a year, which will likely make its way to consumers in the form of more expensive lawnmowers and other machines.
"Each year, Americans spend more than 3 billion hours using lawn and garden equipment and more than 500 million hours in recreational boating," the EPA said in a statement. "As a result, the total estimated public health benefits range between $1.6 and $4.4 billion by 2030. These benefits outweigh estimated costs by at least eight to one, while preventing over 300 premature deaths, 1,700 hospitalizations, and 23,000 lost workdays annually."
Industry groups said exact figures were difficult to calculate, but the California Air Resources Board has estimated that walk-behind mowers would cost 18 percent more under the new regulation, while the price of commercial turf care mowers would rise about 3 percent.
"It's been an undertaking," said Kris Kiser, vice president of public affairs at the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc. "Challenging, but again, fair and achievable and it's the right thing to do."
Environmentalists welcomed the regulation, which applies to lawn care engines under 25 horsepower and to a full range of gas-powered personal watercraft. The rule requires a 70 percent reduction in emissions from recreational watercraft.
"These new clean air standards will reduce dangerous smog pollution from high-emitting gasoline engines while helping to cut costs at the gas pump," said Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund's deputy general counsel.
|
| Name: |
Mack
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/4/2008 8:24:03 PM
|
This post should probably be considered "Trolling" but, boy is a good troll!!
Another example of "Big Brother" taking care of us. Helping us out.
Nailing Lawncare (small business) owners, Waverunner owners, portable generator owners, etc, etc.
Smart, extremely smart, and connected people in government enjoying feeding at the federal feed bar, and we vote them in time and time again. Go figure.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Uh-huh
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 7:11:54 AM
|
I don't believe this for a minute. Now think about it. 25% of air pollution? Do you run your lawnmower 25% as much as your car and boat not to mention considering the trucks that run all over the roads.
I hate to say it but Uncle Sam routinely lies to us about all kinds of things like employment and inflation. Why not air pollution.
|
| Name: |
John C
-
|
|
| Subject: |
agreed w rr
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 10:34:33 AM
|
look at the numbers.
If you count the number of carbon atomes, from a pure chemical standpoint, a gallon of gasoline can only produce so many cubic feet of CO2. Let's say that a typical push mower's gas tank is about 1/3 a gallon, and it takes you 3 fill ups to cut the yard, that's a fixed amount of possible CO2 that can go in the air, no matter how "inefficient" the motor is. If you cut your lawn every 10 days during 6 months of growth season, that's about 18 times, or 18 gallons of gas being burned.
Then divide the CO2 released by the size of your yard, and the grass' ability to convert CO2 to O2. What's left accounts for 25% of air pollution?
I agree with roswellric. Sounds like some hokey numbers from the people that are in business to regulate. I wonder what the total "carbon footprint" of the EPA is, when you consider all of their employees, buildings, air conditioners, vehicles, electricity, paper, etc. If given enough time and money I am sure that I could come up with a "statistic" to prove that the EPA itself is burning more carbon than they are saving.
|
| Name: |
Pier Pressure
-
|
|
| Subject: |
agreed w rr
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 11:11:31 AM
|
I assume they are referring to 2 stroke engines, and non-catalyst exhausts. Catalytic converters?
Does anyone have any technical background on this regulation? What exactly are they going to "enforce"?
|
| Name: |
Webmaster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Catalytic Converters
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 12:55:41 PM
|
I did some searches for related news articles and there are a ton of them over the last few days. All stating the questionable statistics.
I had to read twice to understand this was affecting engines UNDER 25 HP as I first thought it would affect engines over 25 HP. I have not found a minium HP stated anywhere. My weed-eater is a 1/4 HP...
When they passed the law a few years ago that caused PWCs to go from 2-stroke to 4-stroke there was a minimum horsepower that was not affected. Which meant that a small 5 HP engines could remain 2-stroke. That seemed reasonable.
Do boats not have catalytic converters now? Probably a stupid question, but I'm not an expert on the matter and would have thought 4-stroke engines had them like cars already do.
I did find an article that suggests that catalytic converters is how this regulation will be complied with. See below...
URL: New EPA Ruling Means Lawnmowers, Boats Likely To Get Catalytic Converters
|
| Name: |
Webmaster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA Information
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 2:22:16 PM
|
One last follow-up from me... I found the EPA page on this ruling (below).
Also found where some of the EPA's statistics came from state of California calculations (which can be extreme). Industries manufacturing these engines disagree with the statistics as they are difficult to calculate.
This is likely to encourage more foreign manufacturing to reduce costs, especially for items that can be shipped by container.
URL: EPA Finalizes Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
|
| Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 7:07:42 PM
|
What Exactly is "Trolling". And don't post a link. I want laymans terms.
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 7:38:32 PM
|
Cat, You need to keep sex out of this. LOL
Look at jlacz's post further down on the Forum about naming boats.
|
| Name: |
BoatsRFun
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 9:24:07 PM
|
Hey feb, I don't think jlacz made those posts under boat names.....It was jlacz's impersonator....who probobly has a few more aliases....I think he/she has a screw loose, if you know what I mean.
|
| Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 9:34:12 PM
|
Sex????? Yall have lost me.
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 10:26:34 PM
|
Cat, Just a joke. "laymans terms"
Not sure Boats. I do know jlazc personally, but I am not sure about jlacz other than he or she does post now and again. I did find their boat's name post rather funny - since I do not have a boat to name. LOL
|
| Name: |
BoatsRFun
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 10:42:28 PM
|
I was refering to the post made be jalcz, in the boat naming thread sorry for the miss understanding...I think jlacz is normal...but jalcz as issues...lol...just my opinion...
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EPA
|
|
Date:
|
9/5/2008 11:21:35 PM
|
Now, I am all confused. You are probably right. This could be a new DUI or BUI test. I would fail without having a single beverage.
|
You are correct.
|
| Name: |
ot
-
|
|
| Subject: |
trolling
|
|
Date:
|
9/8/2008 10:47:50 AM
|
I would like to know also, but this forum is so dumb sometimes!!! How'bout an answer instead of the stupid joking around. If you don't know what trolling is or do not care to answer Cat Boat's question why post at all!!!! ugh.
|
| Name: |
Webmaster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
trolling
|
|
Date:
|
9/8/2008 11:56:35 AM
|
I've narrowed the definition as defined elsewhere:
-------------------
Trolling is when someone posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in a forum with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
-------------------
Now my two cents (for what thats worth): I would not say this thread started as trolling because it is on-topic (boating on the lake). It may be seen to some people as a controversial topic where people have differing opinions but is is not irrelevant. By definition it would need to have both with intent to disrupt. How do you measure intent? Well, thats difficult to prove, but when it happens enough times by the same person most people can but their finger on it.
|
| Name: |
ot
-
|
|
| Subject: |
ty...eom
|
|
Date:
|
9/8/2008 1:38:18 PM
|
|
| Name: |
Feb
-
|
|
| Subject: |
trolling
|
|
Date:
|
9/8/2008 6:15:23 PM
|
ot, You are correct, and I am wrong.
Just as I am wrong about joking about a serious question, so are many of the post of late placed under "Lake Topics" meaning Lake Martic Specific category vs. "Off Topic".
I would agree that all of them are guality post (with the exception of "Go Sarah") but simply placed in the wrong category. I believe this is true in the case of six of the last 10 thread starter post on the Forum under "Lake Topics".
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Coast
»
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key
Login
|
Home
