QCDC and Related Groups In The News
They’re taking deposits. Details here.
Larger context: the battery revolution is gaining speed. If a global auto company can move away from gasoline and run a multi-ton pickup truck with battery power. manufacturers of dozen-pound yard equipment can do the same.
Washington DC City Council member Mary Cheh was the legislative force behind the Council’s unanimous vote in 2018 to begin a three-year phase-out of hyper-polluting, antiquated gas-powered leaf blowers in the nation’s capital.
In her recent news letter to residents, Cheh reminded them to be prepared for the transition, effective January 1 of next year. Here’s what she said:
Another City Council member, Brianne Nadeau, mentioned the changeover in her newsletter as well. Here is what she said:
That is the headline on a piece today from Stephen Wiimot of the Wall Street Journal. It is a report on how businesses and financiers around the world recognize that innovations in battery power will be at the center of new industrial innovation, and rapid efforts toward sustainability.
The piece, which you can read here, begins with a statement of batteries’ new, epochal role:
“The battery business is poised to grow in the 21st century as oil did in the 20th: fast and geopolitical…
“With plans to increase electric-vehicle sales exponentially in the coming years, car makers need all the batteries they can get, and at the lowest possible price. Increasingly, they also want them sourced close to home, moved partly by politicians worried about manufacturing jobs and China’s dominance of the battery business.
The piece goes on to discuss a specific company in Norway, Freyr Batteries, that is poised to take advantage of these trends. For our purposes, of course, the larger point is the ever-accelerating improvement in demand, supply, efficiency, and sustainability of the batteries behind the shift in countless industries—from massive long-haul trucks, to familiar leaf blowers.
Worth reading the whole story, and seeing these related stories.
The world-famed Icebergs swimming pool in Bondi Beach, outside Sydney, Australia. (Leaf blowers not shown.) QCDC photo.
From Bondi Beach, in Australia, a Sydney Morning Herald report on the tensions over restricting use of gas-powered leaf-blowers.
It seems as if the Australian debate resembles the level of discussion in the U.S. several years ago, before two points became far more widely known.
One is the exceptional public-health and pollution damage done by gas-powered leaf blowers, starting with their effect on lawn crews themselves. The other is the rapid emergence of battery-powered alternatives.
The SMH story, by Andrew Taylor, is here. A quote from the end:
Bondi Beach landscape gardener Wojtek Skibowski said he was surprised by the campaign to ban gas-powered leaf blowers given other equipment such as lawn mowers and whipper snippers made a similar level of noise. “To be honest, in six years I’ve never heard anyone complain,” he said.
Mr Skibowski also uses electric leaf blowers but he said they were not as efficient. He said leaf blowers were used for more than just getting rid of fallen leaves.
“I also use it for blowing dust and rubbish that’s left over,” he said. “To do a clean up job, it’s almost impossible without a leaf blower.”
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), in the District of Columbia, recently sent a notice to landscaping companies operating in the District, about the upcoming ban on gas-powered leaf blowing equipment.
Here is a Quiet Clean DC announcement on the DCRA message:
For maximum clarity among landscaping crews and companies in the area, Quiet Clean DC also produced a Spanish version of the same DCRA announcement, and will be distributing it.
From the comedy writer Tom Navratil at the site Little Old Lady Comedy, an essay on neighborhood thoughts as the blowers start up. It begins:
With no warning, you launch your gas-powered lawn artillery. Before I can seek shelter, a barrage of leaf blower whine hits like a high-speed drill to the cranium. Disoriented, I stagger to the window to glare in mute, helpless fury. A swirling cloud of greenhouse gases and dried worm poop engulfs my home. With clenched fists jammed into my ears, I mutter my vow of retribution.
I grab my laptop and flee to the basement to crouch under the stairs with a set of noise-cancelling headphones, alone with my fury. As your assault continues above ground, I plot an escalating sequence of havoc and devastation:
—posting pointed comments to the neighborhood listserv;
—parking in your favorite spot in front of your house; …
Worth reading to the end! Thanks to Tom Navratil (who lives in a community where gas-powered leafblowers will be illegal, effective five-and-a-half months from now. )
A long, detailed story by Tik Root, in the Washington Post, details the reasons, the results, and the lessons of a shift to battery-powered lawn equipment — in Alabama. It quotes Matt Harrison, a public-works staffer in the in the town of Mountain Brook, near Birmingham:
“I was kind of skeptical at first,” Harrison said after cutting the grass. Until April, he had spent his 20-year career using gas-powered lawn maintenance equipment. He worried that the electric versions wouldn’t be powerful enough, or would die too quickly. “It proved me wrong.”
From the mower and blower to weed whips and chain saws, Harrison said nothing on his truck is gas anymore. “You ain’t got to wear ear protection,” he said of the battery-powered equipment. And “you don’t have to worry about coming home smelling like gas.”
The story is full of important details, and is very much worth reading in full. To give another example:
According to the Freedonia Group, a division of MarketResearch.com, the battery-powered lawn equipment sector is growing at a rate three times faster than gas. “It’s just exploding,” said Daniel Mabe, the founder of the American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA)….
Chris Regis, founder of the Florida-based lawn-care company Suntek, said he’s able to charge a premium for electric because his customers value the quiet, especially with more people at home during the pandemic.
Gas equipment is also dirty. According to CARB, operating a gas leaf blower for an hour can create as much smog-forming pollution as driving a Toyota Camry 1,100 miles. Department of Transportation data shows that in 2018 Americans consumed nearly 3 billion gallons of gasoline running lawn and garden equipment. That’s equivalent to the annual energy use of more than 3 million homes.
Congratulations to Tik Root, the Post, the city of Mountain Brook, and their counterparts across the country.
A tractor-trailer truck capable of hauling shipping containers down a freeway can weigh 10 tons or more.
A two-stroke gas-powered leafblower typically weighs far less than one-thousandth as much, 10 to 15 pounds.
Battery makers and truck companies are now preparing to shift even their ponderous freight-hauling vehicles from gasoline or diesel fuel to battery (or fuel cell) power. As this new article by Steven Nadel, for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, points out, progress on battery-powered trucks is coming more quickly than most analysts expected.
Here is a chart from his article, about truck-related standards from California, which since the 1960s effectively set the national standard for fuel-efficiency and emissions-control.
From ACEEE: “Electric Trucks: Steady Progress in the Past 18 Months”
The ACEEE post also cites a very detailed ACEEE research report, called “Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers,” by Nadel and Peter Huether. You can download it (after filling out a form) here.
Again, the common-sense test: if batteries are becoming powerful and inexpensive enough to haul a multi-ton container down an Interstate, surely they can handle even the most demanding leaf-blowing tasks.
In a story for the site Our World in Data, Hannah Ritchie cites a new paper by by Micah Ziegler of MIT and Jessika Trancik of MIT and the Santa Fe Institute, for the Royal Society of Chemistry, showing how dramatically the price of battery storage has come down—and continues to fall.
The most common type of battery—for huge electric-grid storage installations, for tiny mobile-phone batteries, for all-electric cars, and for most uses in between—is the lithium-ion battery. As the story and the RSC technical paper report, by 2018 the cost of these batteries was only 3% of what it had been in 1991. Here is a chart from Ritchie’s story:
From Our World in Data.
That chart ends three years ago, in 2018. The fascinating part of both the Our World in Data report and the Royal Chemical Society paper is their assessment that as volume and demand go up, prices will continue to fall. This chart is from the scientific paper, matching past observations and predictions with likely future trends.
From the Royal Society of Chemistry paper, 2021.
Three years ago, in testimony that led the Washington DC City Council to approve, unanimously, a phase-out of obsolete, highly polluting two-stroke gas-powered leaf blowers, witnesses discussed the “battery revolution.” They said that auto companies like Tesla (and now GM and Ford), portable phone makers like Apple and Samsung, operators of major electric utilities, and other companies were all driving a cycle of accelerating improvement in price, portability, and power of small batteries. It would be absurd to think that Ford can aspire to make a battery-powered F-150 pickup truck, but lawn companies cannot switch to battery power for their devices.
This change is coming, and thanks to these authors for showing that is it arriving even faster than many expected.
A teacher at a school in a prosperous part of Washington D.C., writing from his official school email account and saying that he was a mentor for the school’s future-entrepreneurs program, wrote with two concerns about the District’s impending phase-out of gas-powered leafblowers.
One, which he said was shared by his students, was that the provision would be “anti-immigrant” (since so many workers on D.C.-area lawn crews appear to be of that background). The other was that his students were considering acts of “civil disobedience,” by refusing to abide by the ban, when it goes into effect next year after a three-year phase-in period.
Below is a response to him, from James Fallows, author of the Atlantic article that the teacher was responding to.
Dear [XX}:
First, and overall, we are of course glad that you are encouraging your students to look into this issue.
We hope that you'll encourage them to look further. We -- and in this case I mean myself and other parts of the citizen coalition that encouraged ANCs across the District to support this transition, and for the City Council to pass it unanimously -- think that if your students look more deeply, they may have a different idea about the issues.
Probably the most important resource for them would be the full transcript of testimony to the DC City Council, which you can find here: http://www.quietcleandc.com/testimony . It led the Council to a unanimous vote of support. If you look at other parts of that site, you will see links and data about all the points raised here.
Here are the issues that I hope you, as a teacher, would encourage your students to consider. They start with the most important.
Health. The transition from two-stroke gas-powered engines is overwhelmingly a health issue, and the people whose health is most at risk are the lawn crews using this antiquated machinery. There are three important areas in which this kind of machinery exposes lawn crews to risks that modern machinery would spare them from:
1) Noise. As you'll see if you look through this note and related data at our site, hearing loss is a rapidly accelerating public-health risk, and the people most exposed to it are the (low-paid, often immigrant) crews working the machines. Please have your students reflect on this note, from one of the nation's leading audiologists:
But what about the ‘leaf blowers’ health. The closer to the sound source, the more decibels affecting the user the more the damage.
The leaf blower [crew member] gets about 100 decibels of constant noise. The home owner gets 70 of intermittent noise, a multiple less. What does this mean in damage? Without being too technical, the damage to the inner ear is dependent on decibels. For every 3 decibel increase in sound, the ear gets twice as much potential damage. So when you increase the decibels, say from 70 to 85, you stress the inner ear not just about 20% but by a factor of 31 times! When you go from 70 to 100 which is what the leaf-blower is getting, the ‘sound damage’ to the ear is 1000 times greater to the poor leaf blower’s ear.
Nobody advocates for him. ..
There is abundant evidence showing a different quality of noise from battery-powered motors, compared with two-stroke engines. Noise is a transient nuisance for neighbors. It is a severe health risk for lawn crews.
I hope that, on reflection, your students will not want to be saying, in effect: It's fine for these low-wage workers to lose their hearing, as long as we can have less expensive lawn service. Most of your students, I am betting, will have the benefit of health-insurance coverage. Not as many of the lawn workers will. The damage of long-term use of this primitive machinery falls overwhelmingly on those crews. Is this an "anti-immigrant" measure? On the contrary: Resisting circumstances that primarily damage immigrant workers was a principal reason for this bill.
2) PM 2.5 pollutants. Increasing evidence links fine-particulate PM 2.5 pollutants to a variety of chronic diseases, including recently vulnerability to Covid. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7345938/ ) The winds produced by leafblowers, and the exhaust from them, are extremely high in PM 2.5 particulate pollutants. The people most affected are, again, the lawn crews. Some crews wear N95 masks when blowing lawns. In my experience, fewer than 10% do. I am sure that, on reflection, your students would not want to be saying: OK, it’s fine to keep exposing the workers to this risk, even though there is a feasible alternative, because it will be cheaper.
““I am sure that, on reflection, your students would not want to be saying: OK, it’s fine to keep exposing the workers to this risk, even though there is a feasible alternative, because it will be cheaper.””
3) Carcinogenic emissions. Two-stroke gas engines, which inefficiently burn a mixture of gas and oil, are distinctive in the high benzene concentration in their fumes. (See this EPA technical paper: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.exe/P100GDP7.PNG?-r+75+-g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTIFF%5C00001983%5CP100GDP7.TIF ) Benzene is a known carcinogenic agent. Again, it is the usually low-wage work crews who are surrounded by these emissions for hours per day. Ten years from now, when they are feeling the effects, will they be covered by generous health insurance programs? My guess is no. But you can ask your students to look into the issue.
Here is the kind of question my own public-high school teacher raised with me, long ago when I was growing up in California: In those days, there was a movement to boycott California-grown grapes, because of carcinogenic pesticides and other chemicals used in the fields. My high school teacher asked me and my classmates to consider: Is it worth having the least-expensive, and shiniest, grapes, if that means that the field workers producing them put their health in jeopardy? There is a similar question for your students now: Is the long-term welfare of the lawn crews worth jeopardizing, just to get the least-expensive lawn-care contract? Decades later, I remember the high school teacher who suggested I consider things that way. By analogy, in years to come your students may remember the way you frame their thinking on this issue now.
Emissions. As the California Air Resources Board has reported, two-stroke engines are so much less efficient, and so much more polluting, than alternatives (heavier, expensive four-stroke engines like those used in cars; even diesel engines; and of course electric power) that they have been outlawed in most other uses. The National Park Service bans them in most lakes and rivers. Motorbike makers have phased them out. The city governments of many Asian and Latin American countries have banned them. They persist mainly in lawn equipment.
Years ago an auto-research firm calculated that, in terms of ozone-related and other emissions, using a gas-powered blower for 30 minutes was like driving a pickup truck for several thousand miles. The California Air Resources Board calculated several years ago that--because lawn equipment was so dirty, and cars were becoming so much cleaner--gas-powered lawn equipment would soon produce more ozone and other emissions than all the cars in California combined. You will find the documentation for this on our site. You can ask your students if this is the side of history they want to be on.
Obsolescence, versus progress. If your students are assuming that battery-powered equipment is by definition not up to the job, we urge them to take a closer look -- for instance, on what is now offered at Lowe's and Home Depot. Here are some other resources:
- From Montgomery County http://www.quietcleandc.com/qcdc-in-the-news/2021/4/30/from-coast-to-coast-the-change-is-coming
- From Arizona State University, which has made the change http://www.quietcleandc.com/qcdc-in-the-news/2021/4/21/big-news-from-arizona-state-university
- From a tech-advice site http://www.quietcleandc.com/qcdc-in-the-news/2021/2/19/what-is-the-best-battery-powered-blower …
You might also ask your students to consider the Ford Motor Company's recent demo of a battery-powered F-150 pickup truck. If Ford (and GM, and other makers) believe they can switch their entire automotive fleet from today's comparatively-very-efficient four-stroke engines to battery power, is it reasonable and future-oriented to think that leaf blowers must be the only long-term use of old, dangerous technology? (Again, your students are going to live with the decades-long effects of these decisions.)
“ “If Ford (and GM, and other makers) believe they can switch their entire automotive fleet to battery power, is it reasonable and future-oriented to think that leaf blowers must be the only long-term use of old, dangerous technology?””
You might also suggest that your students look into the many communities, organizations, and institutions that have announced a similar switch since the time of the DC decision.
Enforcement. In a several-year program of building support, several dozen ANCs across the District endorsed this measure. The Council's "Committee of the Whole" passed it unanimously, after hearing testimony. The full Council passed it unanimously on a "First Reading." And then again, unanimously, on a second reading. The US Congressional committee overseeing the District did not oppose it. And it provided for a three-year phase-in period. Everything about the law was designed for a long, foreseeable roll-out period.
Any citizen has the choice to obey any law -- or not, and accept the consequences. Your students make that choice with every part of the District's set of laws--tax laws, liquor laws, driving laws, everything. If they think that it's an important point of principle to keep exposing low-wage workers to dangerous equipment, for which there are practical alternatives -- then that is their choice. (I believe that the law specifies a $500 fine, starting next year.)
Thanks for asking, and my main hope is that you will have your students consider information like what I am suggesting. Including, very specifically, who pays the price for use of this antiquated and dirty machinery (the lawn crews), and what long-term trends your students would like to support.
““We hope your students will consider this information—including, very specifically, who pays the price for use of this antiquated and dirty machinery (the lawn crews), and what long-term trends your students would like to support.””
From a story by Avalon Zoppo in NJ.Com
In an article for NJ.Com, writer Avalon Zoppo describes how the pandemic/lockdown era has changed awareness of ambient noise and pollution in some New Jersey towns:
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic last spring, Montclair councilor-at-large Peter Yacobellis says one complaint in particular has flooded his email inbox: gripes about noisy leaf blowers.
With more people working from home, the inescapable buzzing sound has become the soundtrack of the pandemic in some neighborhoods. And a few towns in New Jersey are now limiting or further restricting what months the machines can be used….
“It’s been pretty fascinating to witness that it is the thing that gets more people to go to their computer and look up my email address and send me a note than anything else,” Yacobellis said. “You’re feeling it, you’re hearing it. It gets people over that hump, to say ‘I’m going to reach out to my local council person and tell them how I feel.’”
The local newspaper in La Jolla, California, has a report on efforts to ban gas-powered leaf blowers there, with a principle emphasis on equity.
The story, by Elisabeth Frausto, says in part:
Peter Andersen, past chairman of the Sierra Club San Diego chapter and current vice chairman of its conservation committee, helped institute a partial ban on leaf blowers at San Diego State University 12 years ago. He said the “equity part is central,” noting that his committee drafted a sample ordinance that includes programs such as buy-back or trade-in.
Andersen said he’d like to look into a “collaborative arrangement between our city and the state of California to get a subsidy” to defray the cost of such programs.
Myles Pomeroy, director of public policy for the League of Women Voters of San Diego, said funding for trade-in and training programs might come from a combination of state money and local foundation grants.
San Diegan Brian Gotta suggested companies that manufacture battery-powered leaf blowers, which would benefit from a ban on gas-powered blowers, might be asked to help defray the cost of a trade-in program.
La Jollan Carolyn Marsden, a member of Ban Leaf Blowers San Diego — which has collected more than 1,400 signatures on an online petition — asked Elliott if a ban on leaf blowers could start with those used on city property. Elliott replied, “I personally love the idea of the city leading by example.”
The story is worth reading in full, here.
