Stop suburban sprawl!!! (Can we? Should we? How?)

[Mr.Zambezi]

Just extend the rail line to serve those high rises. What’s wrong with that? What alternative are you proposing, Mr. Z? (And please don’t talk about multiple urban centers, because that just spreads people out more, the very problem we’re trying to solve.)

First of all, I need to know why spreading people out is a problem. Don’t tell me tha we are in danger if eliminating farmland and threatening our farm production. We are one of the biggest agricultural exporters in the world. Anyone who has flow a plane over the US can see that the vast majority of the country is rural. Wat is the percentage of paved ground to unpaved in geoargia? SO what is the problem? Afraid we will run out of land?

Second, How are you going to force people into highrises? I never ever will live in a condo again. Would the government force me into a 1,000 sf cube?

I assume that the highrise plan will be accompanied by a zero growth initiative. If you limit growth, you will still cause a huge increase in housing costs. Boulder did this. IT is more expensive to live there than San Francisco. So what will happen to the poor? (you want to talk about harmful to the minority community, raise rents and property values by 30%)

And public transportation, while it has its place, is immensley expensive and has the limitation of only follwing certain routes. The cost of building this system will further raise the cost of living through much higher taxes.

In addition, you will greatly increase population density. HTere is a reason that many people choose not to live in the city. I would like to be able to own a dog, tend a garden and have a place for my kids to play.

The gov;t forcing me to live in a box, stacked in the middle of 1,000 other people at great expense is not my idea of a utopia.

And as you guessed, my solution is to bring the business and essential services out to wheree the people already are. It is easier to move an office than to move the 400 people that work there. We have PLENTY of land.

[Odesio]

**

I sometimes wonder if suburbanites ever actually come into the city neighborhoods they so cavalierly dismiss. City living doesn’t have to mean blight. I live in a nice, intown neighborhood, where I have tree-lined streets, great neighbors, lots of greenspace nearby (parks and bike/walking trails), and I can walk to the grocery, the drug store, or any number of nice restaurants.

**

 Actually I see nothing wrong with living in the city. I wouldn't want to live in the city of Dallas, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or New York. Although I'd love to go there and spend some of my money on their various restaurants and businesses.

**
What is wrong with the idea of building new developments on this pattern? That used to be the standard mode of development, and is found in many of Atlanta’s older neighborhoods: Houses on small lots, with small commercial areas and parks nearby. It is only since the late 40’s/ early 50’s that we have gone in another, car-centered direction. We need to re-think our current paradigm.

**

There's not a darn thing wrong with building on that pattern. In fact a few of the zero lot homes being built in Plano are just like that. The houses have tiny yards and the neighborhood association has a little park and a swimming pool. In fact for my first home I'd prefer a zero lot home.

**
You know, I recognize the appeaal of the suburbs, I really do. I understand the property rights arguments as well. I also realize that many posters here live in the suburbs, and are maybe a little defensive about that choice. All I’m asking is that people step back, take a look at where we are, and where we are headed if we keep going in the same direction. We can enjoy green spaces without having big sprawling suburban lawns. All we have to do is preserve some parkland.

**

We can. Undoubtably some people would rather have a house with a lawn. And I've yet to hear of a mayor of a big city complain that people from the suburbs were draining their resources. The Mayor Kirk of Dallas has never complained that people from Plano are coming into his city and costing Dallas tax payers large amounts of money.

**
Mjollnir, what do you propose? Do you recognize that we have a problem? If so, should we just ignore it, and hope it works itself out?

**

What problem? The city governments don't feel as though the suburbs are putting a signifigant drain upon their resources. Farmlands? I haven't noticed our food production going down to the point where we can't feed ourselves. Traffic? Ok, you got me there. That sounds like a legitimate problem.

**
Smartass, thanks so much for dropping by to hand out your usual fistful of libertarian tracts. Just curious: do you ever have an original thought? If so, I’d love to hear it. What is your solution to the problem? I’ll wait for your reply while you sift through your various libertarian treatises… :rolleyes:
**

Must be tough when someone's integrated a particular philosophical outlook you don't like into their lives.

Marc

[Spoke]

We have PLENTY of land.

Famous last words.

Lebanon used to have plenty of cedars.
The “fertile crescent” used to actually be fertile.
Egypt, and north Africa in general, used to have plenty of good farmland.
Much of the Sahara used to be good grazing land.
Ireland used to be covered in trees.

My point is, we need to try to have some foresight, and to recognize a developing problem before it’s too late to do anything about it. To answer your question, Georgia has a whole lot less open land than it used to. The better part of north Georgia is rapidly becoming a vast suburb of Atlanta.

Anybody ever hear the Pretenders song “Ohio,” about the loss of Ohio countryside to suburbs and parking lots? Or the R.E.M. song, “Cuyahoga,” where Michael Stipe sings wistfully about a time when people actually used to swim in the Cuyahoga River?

Well the same damn thing is happening in Georgia right now! Atlanta’s river is the Chattahoochee. Ten years ago, the river was a virtual water park, with rafters floating down the river, and people swimming it, or fishing it daily. Some folks still do, but I wouldn’t do it today on a bet. The water quality deteriorates every year, as pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, muddy runoff from developments, and sewage pour into the river.

Meanwhile, the farms of north Georgia are being lost one by one to the developers’ bulldozers. You want to talk about lost of rainforests? Let’s talk about the loss of our own damn forests, because they are being torn asunder 'round these parts at an alarming rate.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s not a problem. Maybe we have plenty of land.

Just like Lebanon had plenty of cedars.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

“. . . , the farms of north Georgia are being lost one by one to the developers’ bulldozers. . . .”

I don’t think that farmers are being pushed out by rampaging evil dozers.

It’s probably more a matter of farmers selling their property because it’s no longer profitable.

God forbid that the new owners, who are putting their money at risk, might make a profit and at the same time provide a community for people willing to live there.

[Spoke]

MGibson-

The problem I have with libertarianism is that the philosophy is intolerant of government action and entirely too worshipful of “property rights”. Sorry, but property rights are not the end-all and be-all of human existence, and they should not trump environmental concerns. Furthermore, libertarianism offers no realistic solution to the problem. It’s fundamental approach is to just let everybody do whatever the hell they want to do, which is hardly helpful in dealing with environmental issues.

My specific problem with smartass is that he can’t be bothered to actually debate an issue, even on libertarian terms. He just links a couple of articles from Reason, like that’s the final word on any problem, and then runs off. Get in here and debate. Offer alternatives, not propaganda-heavy links. Give us some of your own thoughts on the matter.

Mjollnir-

Yeah, farmers are selling out and making a profit on their land. Gosh, I would sure hate to interfere with anyone’s sacred property rights. The problem is (as I pointed aout in an earlier post) what you do with your property affects me. We are not just a collective of rugged individuals, as the libertarians seem to believe. We are a community. The actions we take affect our neighbors, sometimes in subtle and not-immediately-apparent ways.

I’ll ask again. Do you not see any of this as a problem? If you do see a problem, what solution do you propose.

[Smartass]

spoke:-

You really should learn the difference between a tract and a reputable source. Also, you should learn not to be a hypocrite: I noticed that you didn’t accuse Kimstu of “handing out tracts” when she did nothing more than post a link to the Sierra Club (and no, Kimstu, I don’t object to you doing that at all, even if I do think they are a bunch of psychos). I guess you reserve these sorts of attacks for people whom you disagree with.

Also, if you can pry open that mind of yours for a centimeter or two, you might be advised to check out some of the links I posted. They are fairly thorough discussions of the issues with links to even more information. Yes, I know, this wouldn’t be as original as coming up with the solutions to all of society’s problems from the great creative resources within, needing no information from the outside world. On the other hand, you might find that your mind would become a little more supple exposed to something besides the vacuousness of your own thoughts.

And, just for the sake of argument, why is it so unacceptable for me to agree with the positions taken in these articles? I guess a powerful mind like yours never encounters worthy ideas that have come from other people.

My specific problem with smartass is that he can’t be bothered to actually debate an issue, even on libertarian terms. He just links a couple of articles from Reason, like that’s the final word on any problem, and then runs off. Get in here and debate. Offer alternatives, not propaganda-heavy links. Give us some of your own thoughts on the matter.

You need to go revisit the thread that you are accusing me of running off from. It is you who are failing to debate.

-VM

[Smartass]

spoke:-

Just so you’ll know, I am currently in northern Germany, which means my clock is 6-9 hours ahead of the U.S. It is 10:00pm here now. I am going to bed soon. So, if you happen to post something that you expect me to respond to, you won’t see a response until tomorrow. This does not mean that I have run off. While in Germany, I generally post while everyone else is in bed.

-VM

[Mr.Zambezi]

Lebanon used to have plenty of cedars.
The “fertile crescent” used to actually be fertile.
Egypt, and north Africa in general, used to have plenty of good farmland.
Much of the Sahara used to be good grazing land.
Ireland used to be covered in trees.

My God man, check your facts! Parts of the sahara used to be fertile land, yes but that changed because of changes in the climate. I shouldn’t have to say it but I will, the changes you mention came well befor the industrial revolution. THe trees being wiped out there, in greenland, and in England was the result of the trees being used for shelter and fuel.

And the trees of the US are not disapperaing because we have good replanting programs which (cough cough) ** has nothing in the world to do with sprawl[/i}Have you ever flown a plane? Have you ever been to teh mountains of north Georgia? I have. They are so rural that a barbecue joint can be considered the center of town. There is precious little of anything in Georgia outside of Atlanta.

{quote}Anybody ever hear the Pretenders song “Ohio,” about the loss of Ohio countryside to suburbs and parking lots? Or the R.E.M. song, “Cuyahoga,” where Michael Stipe sings wistfully about a time when people actually used to swim in the Cuyahoga River?
[/quote]

I don’t think we should base city planning on song lyrics. Otherwise we could end up with rap songs for a metropolis, and golden oldies for suburbs and nobody wants to live in a song.

Well the same damn thing is happening in Georgia right now! Atlanta’s river is the Chattahoochee. Ten years ago, the river was a virtual water park

I lived there 10 years ago and it was a foul polluted mess then too. Which again has nothing to with sprawl. THat has to do with poor environmental policies in Georgia.

Meanwhile, the farms of north Georgia are being lost one by one to the developers’ bulldozers. You want to talk about lost of rainforests? Let’s talk about the loss of our own damn forests, because they are being torn asunder 'round these parts at an alarming rate.

No one is putting a gun to the farmers’ heads. They are selling their own land. Perhaps they would be better off if your anti sprawl scheme were enacted and made their land worthless? How would you like to raise corn for a living? And the forests are NOT disappearing at at alarming rate and I would love to see some actual facts (not song lyrics) to the contrary.

If you want to argue that anti-sprawl laws are necesary for environmental reasons, please back up your facts.

[Spoke]

I still don’t hear any proposed solutions from you, smartass.

Let me clarify a subtlety which may have eluded you, I use the term “tracts” sarcastically. What you consider a “reputable source,” I consider “crackpot propaganda.”

Believe me, I am fully informed on the libertarian philosophy, and I am also fully aware of the reasons it can’t work. (Lord knows I have plenty of libertarian friends. I love 'em, but they’re nuts.)

I have debated libertarian philosophy until I am weary of it. In it’s pure form, libertarianism offers no workable solutions, preferring a “hands-off” approach. Certainly, none of the articles you link offer any solutions. Instead, the tenor of the articles is “Problem? What Problem?” Sort of the “three monkeys” approach to environmentalism.

Well, I can look out my window right now and see the problem. A big cloud of yellow-brown smog, courtesy of all the commuting SUVs.

Meanwhile, the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama have been locked in litigation for years over who gets access to our dwindling water resources. (As I type that sentence, I can almost hear the lawn sprinklers clicking to life on all those vast suburban lawns…)

News flash, libertarians: There is a problem. Ignore it at your own peril.

Couple of quick points for Mr. Z: I am very familiar with the history of the Sahara. It is not a simple question of changing climate. What led to “desertification” in much of that area was overgrazing by sheep. Sheep, unlike cattle and some other ruminants, nip plants very close to the ground. So close to the ground, in fact, that in dry conditions, overgrazing by sheep in a particular location can kill the plants being grazed. The plant dies, the roots die. The plant roots, no longer hold the soil in place, it dries up and blows away. Result: big ol’ desert.

My examples were from preindustrial times. I offered them to show that humans do have an effect on the environment, and that resources which may seem abundant are not limitless.

Lebanon was once renowned for its mighty cedar trees. They seemed, at one time, a limitless resource. Well, they aren’t there anymore.

Ireland was once known for its thick forests. They are gone.

Similarly, open spaces and countryside may seem a limitless resource in this country. They are not.

I used the songs about Ohio to illustrate a point as well. You think we can never use up all of our countryside. Just ask someone who has lived in Ohio more than 50 years how much things can change, and how rapidly countryside can vanish. I just hope that 50 years from now people aren’t singing similar songs about my state.

You say you lived in Atlanta 10 years ago, Mr. Z. Have you been back lately? Those mountains you refer to are filling up with resorts, golf courses, and “cabins” (I use quotes, because many of these so-called cabins are in fact part of lake or golf course developments). The completion of GA 400 to Dahlonega has opened up the spigot to development in the mountains. The only thing preventing their complete loss to developers is the existence of a sizeable tract of National Forest. (Don’t tell the libertarians, though. They’ll want to sell that to the developers, too.)

I guess it could just be my imagination that all these things are happening…

[divemaster]

You know, spoke, you are setting yourself up big time with your complaints about another poster supplying links to bolster his opinion. Won’t be long until you post a link or two. Someone with a bone to pick might nail you. (Not me…I’m just sayin’).

It is certainly your right to disagree with libertarian philosophy, but to dismiss it out of hand because it is not to your liking seems somewhat disingenuous.

Overall, I think you’ve presented your case well (except for dismissing smartass’s links as tracts not worthy of perusal). No, I don’t necessarily agree with much of your argument, but I can respect your concern and the questions/challenges you bring to this debate.

BTW, I am most emphatically not libertarian on many issues; however, on property rights I lean heavily to that side. I do not think environmental concerns should “trump” property rights. They do not have to be mutually exclusive.

No, I don’t have easy answers for these concerns. However, I do think they can be addressed in ways that you obviously disagree with: zoning, property taxes, utility fees, etc… These have been discussed above (and in the links you don’t like), so I won’t rehash them here.

Imagine how long smartass’s post would have been if he transferred all the information from those sites onto this board. I think he did us a favor by linking us! Of course, he did provide his commentary as well, not just a list of links. Link and comment–works for me.

[Mr.Zambezi]

I used the songs about Ohio to illustrate a point as well. You think we can never use up all of our countryside. Just ask someone who has lived in Ohio more than 50 years how much things can change, and how rapidly countryside can vanish. I just hope that 50 years from now people aren’t singing similar songs about my state.

spoke, this is what I am talking about. You are makign assertions based on what you see from your limited perspective. Just because atlanta in your area doesn’t mean that we have a national or even state crisis. Here are teh stats for Ohio:
Population :
1900: 4,157,545
1910: 4,767,121
1920: 5,759,394
1930: 6,646,697
1940: 6,907,612
1950: 7,946,627
1960: 9,706,396
1970: 10,657,423
1980: 10,797,622
1990: 10,847,115

U.S. Bureau of Census (1900-1990),
census reports and statistics.
Ohio population density (persons/square mile) 264.9 U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 census
1990 urban population in Ohio 74.1% U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 census
1990 rural population in Ohio 25.9% U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990 census
Ohio’s population has been stable since 1960. a full quarter of the people live in rural areas and the population density is similar to that of other mostly rural states such as Pennsylvania. The issue is that most people prefer to live in a metropolitan area. So they move to the city, thus increasing city size. Big deal. Ohio is one huge farm. Fly over it sometime.

If you are arguing that there is not enough space for us to have single family homes, then you should be arguing about the population explosion.

If you are arguing about pollution, then we should be discussing environmental controls and waste disposal.

If you are against sprawl because you forsee that one day all of the cities in the US will merge together into one big megalopolis, well then you are just plain insane.

The problems of long commutes can be solved by creating new business centers. The rivers can be cleaned by not dumping in them. Now show me some statistics about how we are running out of farmland and I will listen.

Until then, you are just fantasizing or basing your views solely on Earth in the Balance.

ps. You are dead wrong about the Sahara. Enviornmental computer model have shown that it is on a very, very long cycle of wetland and desert. Nova did a special on it. I wish I could find the cite.

[Spoke]

Oh yes, Mr. Z, and as to the loss of trees around Atlanta, my eyes are the proof. I see it hapening everywhere. Tract after tract (there’s that word again) of forested land is getting cut down and replaced by houses and huge lawns, or, worse, asphalt parking lots. Maybe my eyes aren’t proof enough for you, so here you go:

http://www.americanforests.org/ufc/uea/atlanta/heatisle.html

Oh yes, and I do fly over Atlanta, and north Georgia, with some frequency. I am struck by the changes, and by the ever-expanding reach of the suburbs.

I remember flying into L.A. for the first time, one night around 1990. I saw the lights of thousands of houses on the ground, and figured we must be getting close. Wrong. The suburbs went on forever, and we had a good bit more flying to do.

The phenomenon was striking to me at the time. No more. Now I notice the same thing when I fly into Atlanta.

I remember also being (unfavorably) impressed with L.A.'s smog in 1990 and thinking “There’s no way I could live in this.” Guess what? According to new studies, Atlanta’s smog is now worse than L.A.'s.

Problem? What problem?

[Finagle]

**

Example: Two of the worst air pollution offenders are outdoor grills and lawnmower motors. Do you think politicians are going to be foolhardy enough to impose heavy lawnmower/barbecue taxes?
**

Somehow, this doesn’t even remotely pass my BS filters.
Do you have a cite for this? It sounds more like one of those bits of faxlore that doesn’t hold up to examination.

I have a good-sized lawn and I think I use less than five gallons of gas per season mowing it. Even given that there’s no catalytic convertor, I’d be hard pressed to think that it’s polluting more than the hundreds of gallons of gas that I buy per year for the car, or the hundreds of gallons of heating oil that I burn.

Ditto for the barbecue. Even with moderate use, I’ve never used more than one propane tank per season. And propane is relatively clean.
For what it’s worth, I despise urban sprawl. Mostly because when it happens it is driven by greed. Which means that aesthetic design goes right out the window. Lots are sub-divided into the smallest sellable fraction and the maximum number of (usually cheap, ugly, uninspired) houses and/or strip malls are built. Western Massachusetts, an area I’m quite fond of, is undergoing this process right now, and it’s an ugly thing to watch.

[Mr.Zambezi]

spoke, we seem to have a misunderstanding. I am not arguing that Atlanta is not more populated. Nor am I arguing that it is getting larger. I am not even arguing that trees are being cut down. What I am saying is that cities grow. Atlanta is a city that many people and business want to join.

WHat I am saying is that this growth is not necesarily a bad thing. In the big picture, the trees being cut down in Atlanta are not going to cause global warming. I agree that we need to think more about how we design a city,.Nobody like tolook out their window and see smoke stacks.

It is the layout of the city and not its size that causes problems.

But the growth of certain major metropolitan areas is not cause for alarm. It is not detroying the environment nor is it going to consume all of the farmland.

Complaining about sprawl is an american passtime. My Gramps used to do it all the time “I remember when there was nothin’ in that field. Then they go and build a damn house. Dammit, I used to be the only house in this field.”

Putting a freeze on the population nor putting a freeze on building is the solution.

If you don’t like the sprawl, why don’t you do you part and move below the gnat line. There ain’t no cities down 'round them parts.

[Spoke]

Yeah, and I know why Ohio’s population has stabilized. 'Cause everyone is moving south. (Not to offend Ohioans, but they don’t call it the rust belt for nothing.)

I have been to Ohio many times, though I have never flown over it at low altitude. (I gather you are a pilot?) I have driven through Ohio on a couple of occasions. What struck me was the lack of countryside, at least as compared to the South. (Sorry, but a rural population of 25% does not make Ohio a rural state. And for a “rural” state, it sure does have an awful lot of electoral votes…) Yes, Ohio has farms and rural areas, still, but not as much as before (and they’ll have even less ten years from now, I’ll wager).

Any state east of the Mississippi looks green from above. Heck, lawns are green. That doesn’t mean you have a healthy environment, and it doen’t mean trees haven’t been lost.

You speak of sprawl and pollution as if they are separate issues. They are intertwined. Sprawl means commuters, which means air pollution. Lawns mean lawnmowers and trimmers, which mean more air pollution. Lawns also mean fertilizers and pesticides, which mean runoff into streams. Lawns also mean sprinkler systems, which are even now straining our water supply. (Restrictions went into effect yesterday.) Parking lots and gas stations mean oil and gas runoff.

This is not just a population problem. If folks could take mass transit, instead of commuting, less air pollution, and less gass and oil runoff would be the result. Similarly, if people could forego the huge lawns, less air pollution from mowers and less chemical runoff would result.

Divemaster, I have no problem with links used to bolster arguments. I do have a problem with links used as a subtitute for arguments. Go back and look at smartass’s original post. He didn’t offer any opinion of his own, just the links.

Geez, if only I had known I could have been a debate champion just by throwing magazines at my opponent. (“Read this!” I could have said, and then sat back down, smug in my victory…)

[Mr.Zambezi]

Sprawl and pollution are indeed separate issues. Mandate water use limits, make everyone xeriscape, create grey water systems for lawns (all of which I favor) and boom, no more water problem—but you still have sprawl.

Create new centers of commerce suce as office parks, near the outskirts of town. Then people can be in the burbs AND drive less than 5 miles to work. Boom–commuting problem gone. But you still have sprawl.

Sprawl is not the problem. It is how far people have to live from work to find affordable, and likeable housing. Move the jobs. Of course, you will still have tons of traffic, traffic jams, crime, smog etc. Know why? because the population is increasing. More people. THat is the real problem. And tell me, how arre you going to stop that?

Lightrail is too limited in the places it reaches, it is very expensive, it has a very limited capacity and nobody wants to use it. As for buses…yeah right. Like I want my work commute to take 2 hours, 4 switches and be spent next to a wino. No thanks. Nobody with a choice will use it. Not to mention that in some parts of the country it snows and rains a lot. people are not going to wait at the bus stop in the rain in a $1000 suit while their shoes get soaked.

YOu need to build any development with the car in mind. Like it or not, it is here to stay.

[Spoke]

Mr. Z, here are some links on the connection between overgrazing and desertification in the Sahel region of the Sahara:

http://www.panda.org/resources/factsheets/general/57desert.htm

http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/miguel.html

Here’s a link on lawnmower pollution:

http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/19990420_mowing.htm

And you think lawnmowers are bad polluters, get a load of this article on jet skis:

http://www.wral-tv.com/news/wral/1998/0726-jet-skis-adding/

[Mr.Zambezi]

spoke, I know about those theories on the Sahara. Teh show I saw was refuting those theories and made a compelling case. But I will shut up because I don’t have a cite.

I do not own a powered lawnmower. Mine is a rotary push one. But that doesnt’ matter because I plant native grasses and cut them twice a year with a scythe. I hate the lawn culture of America. I can’t stand to see drinking water poured into the ground for a plant that doesn’t produce food.

And I think Jet skis, snowmobiles and ATV’s are teh scourge of the earth. Good to see we agree on something

[Finagle]

**

Here’s a link on lawnmower pollution:

http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/19990420_mowing.htm

**

Sorry, not good enough. I tracked down the CNN article and there’s no attribution whatsoever to its claims.
“A single mower puts out more poison than 73 new cars.”

Well – maybe, but only because new cars are actually pretty damn clean. At least at idle. Doesn’t say anything about RPM’s. You can already get a feel for the source of the statistic by the use of the loaded term “poison” instead of hydrocarbons, CO, or some more accurate term.

“In a single day, Southern California’s lawn tools spew out more pollution than all the aircraft in the Los Angeles area.”

I’m guessing this came from some EPA report that summarized sources of pollution and someone thought this made a catchy comparison. But without knowing absolute volumes of pollution, it’s pretty meaningless.

Their claim is there are 2 million lawn mowers (blowers, etc) in Southern California. Already a pretty dubious statistic, but let’s go with it. Assume 1/7 of the mowers are in operation per day. Southern California is a desert. I doubt grass grows that fast. Let’s divide by 2 for those people who aren’t anal about cutting grass every week.

So that’s 150,000 mowers cutting away. Cutting away at what? On my rare visits to that area, I haven’t seen many multi-acre spreads. Mostly there are the size lawns you could efficiently cut with the scissors on a Swiss Army Knife. I’m guessing that far, far less than a gallon is used by each mower per week. Assume, pessimistically that it’s 1/2 gallon. That would be 75,000 gallons of gas inefficiently converted to hydrocarbons per day, which sounds kind of scary, but is probably small compared to all the other sources of pollution in Southern California. Remember, this is over an area that’s probably 40,000 square miles and the same people who mowed their lawns in a given day probably just commuted 40 miles in their SUVs in gridlocked traffic. Only in a natural smog trap like LA would you even notice it.
Anyway, I’m not debating that mowers produce some pollution, or even that they shouldn’t be made more efficient. But I’m kind of against blindly propagating statistics without at least asking where they came from.

[Spoke]

Here’s a link on barbecue grills:

http://www.capitolhillblue.org/May1997/epawontmay31.htm

Which sort of reinforces my view that no politician would be suicidal enough to tax or regulate grills.

From other sources, it appears that charcoal grills are the worst offenders. It also seems that the lighter fluid used to start charcoal is a real problem. I found several state and city web sites which suggest using a “charcoal chimney” instead of lighter fluid on smog-alert days.