NY Lawmaker Introduces Leafblower Ban

[NJCher]

Proposed New Bill Would Ban Noisy Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Statewide

Zak Failla 11/05/2021 8:30 a.m.


New York lawmakers are promoting a new green agenda as they look to potentially put a ban on noisy gas-powered leaf blowers across the state.

State Sen. Pete Harckham (who represents parts of Westchester/Putnam/Dutchess counties) promoted a new bill that would amend New York’s energy laws to require zero-emission landscaping devices no later than 2027.

The bill includes a potential ban on lawnmowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, leaf vacuums, and other landscaping equipment. Last month, California became the first state to ban gas-powered lawn equipment - New York could be the second if the controversial bill passes. It is expected to be voted on during the next legislative session, which begins in January.

“This legislation would help combat global emissions and decrease our footprint,” Harckham wrote in his legislative justification. “The elimination of gas-powered lawn care devices will enhance the health of a community by terminating harmful exposure to toxic emissions and noise pollution.

“The enactment of this legislation will not only enhance the lives of the workers but will also move us towards New York’s National Leading Climate Target of 85W reduction in (greenhouse gas) emissions by 2050.”

Link: https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/whiteplains/news/proposed-new-bill-would-ban-noisy-gas-powered-leaf-blowers-statewide/819416/

see this previous DU thread for background:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/106825652

[leftstreet]

1. The answer to a question no one was asking

industrial polluters on the other hand...

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Shermann]

2. Sounds good, let it rake across the country nt

[Blues Heron]

3. Thank god

Those things suck. Landscapers show up here and it sounds like a motorcycle gang right outside your window. It’s a plague that needs to be stopped.

[WarGamer]

4. Green Theater.

[NJCher]

5. No

If you think that, then you know little about the people who have been fighting for bans on this equipment over the past two decades.

I'm one of them, and I worked with the people in White Plains, as well as other suburban NY communities.

I also was one of two grassroots organizers to get the first ban in NJ.

If you think that was easy, think again. It took six years and I kept track of the time I donated. It came to $150,000 worth of time. That's just me--there were others who put in time, too, all at no pay and on behalf of the environment and for peace and quiet in our community.

After we won the ban, the industry took us through a referendum. In addition, there were numerous lawsuits the manufacturers put the town through.

I was personally attacked by a lawn maintenance worker--yes, physically attacked.

Your glib dismissal is offensive to me and the others who have worked for local bans. Now we are on the brink of a possible statewide ban and you shrug it off as "theater."

So do tell, what have you done for the environment lately? Or do you just glibly pass judgement on the work of others--with no firsthand knowledge whatsoever of what goes into actions like this?

[WarGamer]

6. Let me explain, my friend...

We're not as "at odds" as you believe

Banning gas powered 2-Cycle tools is certainly good for noise pollution and also local air pollution.

But let's be honest.

I've been following the Climate Change debate for decades. Here are a few facts

1) We're fucked.

2) No amount of "Feel Good" projects will "Combat Climate Change".

In fact, the phrase "Combat Climate Change" or "Fight Global Warming", whatever is offensive to anyone with an IQ over 100.

Look at the numbers. CO2 emissions have gone into a nearly vertical rise. We're on pace for 1000ppm by 2100 which means palm trees in the Arctic Circle.

No amount of lawnmower bans, solar panels and Teslas makes a damn bit of difference (except for local air quality)

China and India are now increasing their power grid by adding coal fired power plants weekly. Last year, the total emissions of just the NEW coal fired power plants was more than 3x the amount from the ROW coal fired power plants.

And China has said they will continue through 2030 and in 2029 they will say "Nope, make it 2040"



Climate Change mitigation is a fairy tale. It's time for SERIOUS preparation.

Look at this graph. Logically explain to me how mankind can LOWER CO2 levels.

Well and truly FUCKED we are...

Props to your efforts but I hope you don't think mitigation efforts are anything more than a puppet show.

[Ron Green]

7. I don't think it's fair to call it "feel good"

when you’ve seriously acknowledged the noise pollution. It’s a real issue.

[WarGamer]

8. I acknowledged it's GREAT for noise and local air pollution.

But look at the quotes in the original story... again they talk about Global Warming and Emissions reductions.

Fiction

Here's the quote: (its a lie)

“This legislation would help combat global emissions and decrease our footprint,”

It's like me saying "I'm helping to fight the California drought by buying a 20 oz. bottle of Fiji water at the store and dumping it in my back yard in California"

[Ron Green]

10. I agree with you that it's a lie. We are as screwed as you suggest.

But if such a phrase can take away some leaf blowers, then I’m all for it.

[WarGamer]

13. Damn noisy things. Good riddance.

But I just don't like being fed Climate Change fairy tales.

I don't understand why a President can't come out and SAY we're fucked and establish a commission for Climate Change Preparation.

We need a blueprint for how to survive. Power grid, New cities? Preparation for new agricultural zones... stuff like that. We need to rethink how and where we live.

Rethink cities. It's easier to care for 1 million people in a 10 sq mile area than in 1000 sq miles. Fully connected cities, without cars... stand alone nuclear power supply. Transit bases on the outskirts, supplies and goods sent into the city underground, automated. Stuff like that

I think we need to revisit the Constitution. We need some Climate Change amendments.

[gulliver]

9. Journey of a thousand miles

[WarGamer]

12. Sigh...

We don't have a thousand miles.

We can't stop this. To truly reverse CO2 in the atmosphere would require making 50% of the global population disappear tomorrow and the other half to cut their emissions by 50%

And I'm not sure that'd even work.

Like I said before, the Titanic has hit the CO2 level Iceberg and spoons and sponges won't save the ship.

[roamer65]

14. I would agree 100 pct that we are fucked.

Last estimate I saw for a sustainable population was around 2 billion.

A 75 pct reduction.

However, we may get that level of reduction in the coming climate wars.

Who knows?

[WarGamer]

15. Yup... smdh

We probably crossed the point of no return in the 18th Century. Once industrialization began... it was over.

We need a "moon shot" strategy. Who know, maybe there's some future tech that can combat CO2 levels in the atmosphere? IDK but we better start.

Unfortunately I think our leaders will simply tuck us imto bed and say "Say your prayers and all will be well"... and to reuse our Starbucks cups and recycle our milk jugs... all to save the planet!!

They're afraid to be honest with us and start to do what's required. We need a plan. A strategy for 500ppm Co2 and above in the coming decade.

[roamer65]

17. Just wait until 1000ppm.

A 20 percent decline in cognitive functioning comes along with it. The higher the level goes, the worse it gets.

[WarGamer]

18. I can't imagine.

30% of the land mass becomes unlivable.

What next? Who invades Canada?

[roamer65]

19. I've made the decision to stay in the Great Lakes region.

Fresh water plus a moderating climate.

That will get me through till I am ready to shove off this god forsaken planet.



But what you mention about Canada also makes me wonder about China and Russia’s Siberian territory.

[NJCher]

20. You are guilty of using a logical fallacy

Bad Reason Fallacy

Explanation of the fallacy: The problem is big, so deride any solutions/actions (such as calling it "theater) with the possible result that people think a solution is hopeless.

With bad reason fallacy, the reason might be true, but it does not lead to the conclusion being drawn (green theater).

Though it is true the problem is big, there is no reason to continue creating the problem. There is no reason to believe Harckham is putting the bill forth to fashion the illusion that the government is "doing something."

By continuing to pollute, one makes the problem worse. Should a technological solution emerge (and they do, such as the Orca plant in Iceland) the additional pollution could be the difference between failure and a degree of success. Orca is a regional solution, not necessarily appropriate for the U.S., but is an example of how a piecemeal solution can help.

The abrupt drop in emissions during the pandemic is another example of how the problem can be attacked. During the gasoline shortage in the 70s, the U.S. went to an odd/even day. License plates ending in an odd number one day, even number the next.

Even limiting driving like this would be a measure we could take to slow down emissions until more clean cars can replace fossil fuel cars.

Please do not use logical fallacies in a discussion of a subject that is so important. Maybe you just didn't know. Well, now you do.

Another rule of communication is that if you can't say anything to move the conversation forward, don't say anything at all.

Think about what you said: "green theater." Where did you think that was going to take the discussion? Anyplace constructive?

[Silent3]

11. Some of that can be replaced with rechargeable electric devices, or a rake

And rakes are certainly a lot quieter than leaf blowers. I HATE the sound of leaf blowers.

But I don't know that electric mowers or edgers are that much quieter.

As for the carbon footprint benefits, this is a just a drop-in-the-bucket measure.

[Tree Lady]

16. I hate leaf blowers really screw up

My allergies when I am walking the dog.