• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Goodbye Small Gas Engines after 2024 - Cali Ban

NorCalAthlete said:
1. How will this affect small business owners in these lines of work? I know one guy who contracts out to several neighborhoods in the Los Gatos hills for landscaping. That's one use case where he could maybe switch and charge more to cover the costs of the equipment, but not everyone has fuck-you money to just start paying their gardener more - and who's to say they'll pay vs hiring the next cheapest guy who still uses gas? Contrast that with larger small businesses like what Oobus mentioned who maintain orchards and such far away from anyone else where the noise would be an issue, where there's plenty of open space, wind, etc (let alone far more chemical spraying pesticides and everything else) and the pollution isn't as much of an immediate concern, and, well...yeah.

2. Migrant workers who rely on the equipment

3. Undocumented workers who rely on the equipment



4. As others have pointed out, the commercial scale capabilities simply aren't there yet, so these feel-good bills need to have some exceptions or it'll just further strangle and stifle the lower and middle class and put another cut (death by 1000 cuts) into class / economic mobility.



5. Another important point here. This stuff isn't getting mined in a vacuum or with particularly ethical mining practices. Furthermore, it increases our already-heavily-dependent-on-China manufacturing.

I think it's a laudable goal to reduce emissions and noise, increase efficiency, etc.

But I think there are better ways to achieve it without ramming it down people's throats. Positive incentives vs negative consequences so to speak.
Click to expand...

So, for 1, 2, and 3) Not only are there government rebates available to people who switch, particularly focused to small landscaping businesses and the like, ongoing costs would be quite a bit lower, gas is expensive, and the 2 stroke engines in most garden tools, in addition to being major polluters, require a lot more routine maintenance. Also, given that an hours worth of use is equivalent to a modern car travelling over 1000 miles, the pollution absolutely is an immediate concern.

Not only will these tools be cheaper in the long run, but they will also be a lot better for the people using them. The person most exposed to both the noise pollution and the emissions of these tools are the users, the unburnt fuel and other chemicals that spew out of 2 strokes are toxic and carcinogenic. The nothing that spews out of battery powered tools isn't.

for 4), The commercial use that keeps coming up as a problem is larger chainsaws. Not only are electric chainsaws pretty rapidly approaching parity with gas ones, for the other tools, hedge trimmers, mowers, leaf blowers, etc. we basically have parity already. Plus, the bill already makes a built in carve out that it must be technically feasible to switch to electric with the specific tools for this to go into effect for those tools. So, if we don't get electric chainsaws that can match the performance of the larger gas ones, the law wont take effect for those larger chainsaws until we do.

5) It's true that the mining required for batteries is pretty nasty in terms of chemicals produced, but even accounting for emissions during production, they pollute less over the lifetime of the product. Battery tech is a rapidly changing field, there is a lot of promising research into batteries that are more energy dense, that can use chemicals that are more ethical and greener to mine and produce. We will probably start seeing the results from that research over the next decade or two. A lot of the factories for these new batteries are actually being located here in the US, so likely more of the products will be sourced in the US compared to the current gas products which often are mostly made in China.

Also, on the mention of incentive structures vs ramming this down people's throats, That's what the bill is already. There are incentives to going electric (literally, rebates and the like), there are consequences for not going electric. (The pain in the ass of having to travel out of state just to get a gas powered product.)Honestly, the bill could (and maybe, should) have been way more aggressive in pushing businesses toward electric by charging a hefty pollution tax on the pollution coming out of the gas powered tools, or flat out making using those tools illegal instead of just banning the sale of new ones.
 
^^ Oh man, I couldnt read anymore once I read 'government rebates'.

Can we move away from depending on the Government? Damn!

Berkley banning natural gas in new building. Read they want to ban bbq'ing. Gas cars soon to be banned.

Maybe if we all receive stock options in PG&E I'll be ok with this. The electrical grid cannot handle this and solar is great BUT power storage is significantly lacking and expensive.
 
Dubbington said:
^^ Oh man, I couldnt read anymore once I read 'government rebates'.

Can we move away from depending on the Government? Damn!

Berkley banning natural gas in new building. Read they want to ban bbq'ing. Gas cars soon to be banned.

Maybe if we all receive stock options in PG&E I'll be ok with this. The electrical grid cannot handle this and solar is great BUT power storage is significantly lacking and expensive.
Click to expand...

Where were you when people were riding horses!
 
mlm said:
The actual bill is here, and it is not a specific law, but rather guidelines for what CARB is being told to do
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346

These guidelines include affordability, feasibility, differentiating between commercial and consumer, etc.

But hey, we're supposed to be angry about something right!
Click to expand...


It has to be specific law since CARB can't arbitrarily rule-make, and it's right there in the bill:

43018.11. (a) (1) By July 1, 2022, the state board shall, consistent with federal law, adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, as defined by the state board. Those regulations shall apply to engines produced on or after January 1, 2024, or as soon as the state board determines is feasible, whichever is later.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have to take guidelines into account, but they are now mandated under a specific law to prohibit small off-road exhaust and evaporative emissions.
 
See my post above where I linked to the actual CARB rulemaking process, which was released just this week after the law was signed.
(Again, the law accelerated a process already underway.)
 
insyder said:
First thing I wondered...

What's the logistics for (soon to be) all electric chain saws and other equipment that will be needed for remote forestry fire mitigation? Realllllly long extension cords?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Try felling a big tree with a battery powered saw.
 
ScarySpikes said:
So, for 1, 2, and 3) Not only are there government rebates available to people who switch, particularly focused to small landscaping businesses and the like, ongoing costs would be quite a bit lower, gas is expensive, and the 2 stroke engines in most garden tools, in addition to being major polluters, require a lot more routine maintenance. Also, given that an hours worth of use is equivalent to a modern car travelling over 1000 miles, the pollution absolutely is an immediate concern.

Not only will these tools be cheaper in the long run, but they will also be a lot better for the people using them. The person most exposed to both the noise pollution and the emissions of these tools are the users, the unburnt fuel and other chemicals that spew out of 2 strokes are toxic and carcinogenic. The nothing that spews out of battery powered tools isn't.
Click to expand...

Got a source for that? A tiny 2 stroke pollutes more than a "modern car" traveling 1,000+ miles?

ScarySpikes said:
for 4), The commercial use that keeps coming up as a problem is larger chainsaws. Not only are electric chainsaws pretty rapidly approaching parity with gas ones, for the other tools, hedge trimmers, mowers, leaf blowers, etc. we basically have parity already. Plus, the bill already makes a built in carve out that it must be technically feasible to switch to electric with the specific tools for this to go into effect for those tools. So, if we don't get electric chainsaws that can match the performance of the larger gas ones, the law wont take effect for those larger chainsaws until we do.
Click to expand...

Didn't see the technically feasible part...I'm ok with that part.

ScarySpikes said:
5) It's true that the mining required for batteries is pretty nasty in terms of chemicals produced, but even accounting for emissions during production, they pollute less over the lifetime of the product. Battery tech is a rapidly changing field, there is a lot of promising research into batteries that are more energy dense, that can use chemicals that are more ethical and greener to mine and produce. We will probably start seeing the results from that research over the next decade or two. A lot of the factories for these new batteries are actually being located here in the US, so likely more of the products will be sourced in the US compared to the current gas products which often are mostly made in China.

Also, on the mention of incentive structures vs ramming this down people's throats, That's what the bill is already. There are incentives to going electric (literally, rebates and the like), there are consequences for not going electric. (The pain in the ass of having to travel out of state just to get a gas powered product.)Honestly, the bill could (and maybe, should) have been way more aggressive in pushing businesses toward electric by charging a hefty pollution tax on the pollution coming out of the gas powered tools, or flat out making using those tools illegal instead of just banning the sale of new ones.
Click to expand...

See, this is where a lot of people will draw issue though. It's heavy handed "rebate or get taxed to shit".

What others were getting at seems better imo - let the efficiencies of the technology outshine the old ICE products to the point where on their own, without rebates or heavier skewed taxes, the cost / performance is enough to make the switch from a business perspective.
 
NorCalAthlete said:
What others were getting at seems better imo - let the efficiencies of the technology outshine the old ICE products to the point where on their own, without rebates or heavier skewed taxes, the cost / performance is enough to make the switch from a business perspective.
Click to expand...

Except the old technology is literally poisoning the earth and people. The only thing one can say is "but cars and trucks and motorcycles and other things pollute more" as if that's acceptable.

Hey I know leaded gas is killing people and legit making babies retarded but man oh man my car goes faster and gets better mileage so, sorry too bad about the health issues.




Dubbington said:
Oh man, I couldnt read anymore once I read 'government rebates'.

Can we move away from depending on the Government? Damn! .
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. :thumbup :applause
Ban gas powered engines and fuck off with rebates. Oh no it's gonna cost you money to not pollute the world? Too fucking bad.

Just to clarify, you're not planning on using any child tax credits or anything like that, are you? I mean that'd be weak as puppy piss to talk shit about government help while you're asking the government to help you on your tax load.
 
SVJ said:
That’s the thing with California. The controlling majority has never been outside of a city or suburb
Click to expand...

This is the most accurate statement in this entire thread. The major population centers like to make rules to enforce on the rural areas with zero concern for them and how it will impact them. There's a lot more I'd like to say, but I'm afraid it'll get political.
 
NorCalAthlete said:
Got a source for that? A tiny 2 stroke pollutes more than a "modern car" traveling 1,000+ miles?
Click to expand...
It's in the article originally quoted in this thread.

California has more than 16.7 million of these small engines in the state, about 3 million more than the number of passenger cars on the road. California was the first government in the world to adopt emission standards for these small engines in 1990. But since then, emissions in cars have vastly improved compared with smaller engines.

Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers).
Click to expand...
Didn't see the technically feasible part...I'm ok with that part.



See, this is where a lot of people will draw issue though. It's heavy handed "rebate or get taxed to shit".

What others were getting at seems better imo - let the efficiencies of the technology outshine the old ICE products to the point where on their own, without rebates or heavier skewed taxes, the cost / performance is enough to make the switch from a business perspective.
Click to expand...

Fossil fuels are very heavily subsidized, on their own those subsidies skew a comparison unfairly in favor of fossil fuel based engines. Even more of a problem, the cost of dealing with the pollution is pressed onto the public, not the user. A heavy tax on the pollution wouldn't skew a comparison, it would make the comparison more fair.

Non-climate change costs from transportation energy use average 1.2¢ to >1.7¢ per vehicle-mile
for the current U.S. vehicle fleet, plus 0.15¢ to >0.65¢ climate change emissions at $10 per tonne
of CO2-equivelent; 0.45¢ to >2.0¢ at $30 per tonne of CO2-eq; and 1.5¢ to >6.0¢ at $100 per
tonne of CO2-eq. The table below summarizes these estimates. This suggests that external energy
costs range from about 1.4¢ to 7.7¢ per vehicle mile in 2007 dollars.
Click to expand...
(https://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0510.pdf)
To clarify on this, this study is only looking at air pollution costs. By 'non climate change costs' they are talking about the other effects of the pollution, public health, and the like.

If we were to put a fair tax on the pollutants from these tools, that would mean at the lower bound, about a $15 tax per hour of use for these tools. Just to make up for the cost of the public dealing with that pollution. If that were charged to the user instead of eaten up by the public, how long before everyone transitions to the option that does not pollute.
 
Last edited:
scootergmc said:
No doubt that would emit more pollution than a 737 flying from SFO to JFK.
Click to expand...

Or Capn Kirk goin up toward Uranus in a blue dildo just to come back a few minutes later and hug Bezos. There ain't enough palm for mah face.

But back on track, help me strategize: does this mean Stihls and Huskys will never go on sale here now? Or will there be a run on em because....Every once in a while, there is a sale on Stihls and I always put off getting one but truly feel the need now....
 
Last edited:
msethhunter said:
This is the most accurate statement in this entire thread. The major population centers like to make rules to enforce on the rural areas with zero concern for them and how it will impact them. There's a lot more I'd like to say, but I'm afraid it'll get political.
Click to expand...

That argument works both ways
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top