Wildlife advocates say the current transition to clean energy will not only protect people in New Mexico communities, but also will have a huge impact on animals.
Shannon Heyck-Williams - associate vice president for climate and energy with the National Wildlife Federation - noted that the transition to clean energy helps all species adapt to worsening heat, more intense storms, and changing ecosystems.
She said clean energy now accounts for a fifth of power in U.S. communities.
"Twenty-percent is actually pretty rapid growth from just a few years ago," said Heyck-Williams. "A lot of that is because the cost of clean energy - like solar panels. for example, or wind turbines - has dropped really low, and is competitive now with fossil fuels."
Federal investments in clean transportation also are meant to address climate change.
Last year, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, along with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act were combined with the goal of easing the clean-energy transition.
In many areas, development has created a significant stress for wildlife.
That, along with the use of fossil fuels, according to Heyck-Williams, has impacted their access to food and water, the ability to migrate - especially in the West - and disrupted historic reproductive patterns.
But, she added, people in New Mexico and other states have options to ensure federal dollars are coming their way.
"This is one of those moments where we're not only helping re-shape with legislation like this, our overall economy," said Heyck-Williams, "but communities can weigh in with their leaders to demand certain kinds of those investments and make sure that they come to town"
She said data show 75,000 jobs have been created since passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The legislation funneled money into federal grants and other incentives to businesses, homeowners, schools, hospitals, and more to install the latest clean technologies.
Disclosure: National Wildlife Federation contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Endangered Species & Wildlife, Energy Policy, Water. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
By Hannah Wallace for Reasons to be Cheerful.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Oregon News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration
Ten years ago, when Michael Hall retired as dean of students at the Pacific Northwest College of Art and began to spend more time at home, he noticed an ear-splitting noise - something he'd never been around during the day to hear. "The neighbor's contractor was rattling my windows and assaulting my ears!" he says. One day, he went out and met the contractor at the curb and said, "Can you dial back on the leaf blower? There's only 10 feet between our houses and it's really a nuisance." The contractor responded, "If you kept better care of that side of your house, I wouldn't have to do that."
That launched Hall on a mission that he's still leading to this day. "At first I started out as Don Quixote out there, tilting at windmills," says Hall, who describes himself as an old Berkeley hippie. Today he's not only a co-chair of Quiet Clean PDX, a grassroots organization that's pushing to ban the use of gas-powered leaf blowers city-wide, but part of a growing national movement. More than 100 US cities have banned gas-powered leaf blowers and over 45 different organizations across the country are part of the Quiet Clean Alliance, from Quiet Clean Philly to Quiet Clean Seattle.
Not only do gas-powered leaf blowers create extreme noise pollution - the most powerful can produce sounds of up to 100 decibels of low-frequency noise, around the same as a Boeing 737 taking off - they are also an environmental menace and a threat to human health. Most have what's called a "two-stroke engine," an outmoded design that burns a mix of gas and oil (for lubrication). It's been shown that because this type of equipment doesn't have catalytic converters, only two-thirds of the gas and oil mix is burned as fuel. The rest is emitted as toxic fumes of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), two of the main ingredients in ground-level ozone, which both trigger asthma attacks and contribute to premature death. In fact, according to the California Air Resources Board, a single operator using a gas leaf blower for one hour generates the same smog-forming emissions as one car driving 1,100 miles. These small devices also leak formaldehyde and benzene, both of which are known carcinogens. And the people who are most impacted by these toxic fumes? The lawn care workers who use them, many of whom are from lower socio-economic backgrounds. After that, children, the elderly and anyone who is ill are the most impacted - and unlike landscapers, they aren't wearing protective gear.
Finally, these relatively small devices also emit tons (literally) of carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming. According to the latest data from the EPA, fossil fuel-powered lawn equipment (including not just leaf blowers but trimmers, mowers, weedwackers, etc.) emits 30 million tons of carbon dioxide in the US each year - more than the amount of greenhouse gases that Los Angeles produced in 2021.
The high-decibel noise pollution of a gas-powered leaf blower is not just obnoxious and disruptive; it can actually cause tinnitus and hearing loss for the workers who use them (or anyone who is close to one for a full hour). In an article in The Atlantic about his antipathy to gas-powered leaf blowers, journalist (and former Jimmy Carter speechwriter) James Fallows explained why the low-frequency buzz of these devices is especially insidious. "Low-frequency noise has a great penetrating power: It goes through walls, cement barriers, and many kinds of hearing-protection devices," writes Fallows. The upshot is that even if crews are wearing ear protection, they'll likely suffer hearing loss after long-term repeated use.
When it comes to changing the status quo, California is in the lead, as usual, being the first state to require manufacturers to make zero-emission lawn equipment including leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other small off-road lawn equipment. (The law went into effect this month). Though the law doesn't ban existing gas-powered leaf blowers or lawn mowers, the California legislature has also allocated $30 million in incentives for individuals and landscaping businesses to make the switch to zero-emission lawn equipment.
Cities from Burlington, Vermont to Evantston, Illinois have banned the sale and use of gas-powered leaf blowers along with one county: Montgomery County, Maryland. At least 25 cities across California have enacted legislation to regulate or ban gas-powered leaf blowers including Oakland, Beverly Hills and Santa Barbara.
But the gold standard, according to Hall from Quiet Clean PDX, is Quiet Clean D.C. James Fallows and Chuck Elkins, former director of the Noise Control Program at the EPA, led the charge years ago and after a three-year phase-in, the ban finally went into effect in 2022. By all accounts, it has been successful. What sets Washington, D.C.'s ban apart is its broad prohibition of gas-powered blowers (it is both illegal to use them and illegal to sell them in District stores); a three-year ramp-up that allowed for education and compliance; and no-nonsense enforcement. According to Hall, "They've got it set up where a citizen affidavit can be filed to the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection and then the Department sends, at first, a warning. They didn't want it to be punitive, they wanted it to be an educational issue for the mow and blow guys," he says. After that first warning, fines of up to $500 are issued.
There are many arguments against the bans. Some landscapers argue that the electric blowers aren't as powerful. Others complain about the expense of buying all new equipment. Hall from Quiet Clean PDX understands that people have a deep relationship with their tools and may be reluctant to part with them. But he points out that there's also an economic benefit to converting. It costs about $2,000 to get a top-of-the-line electric leaf blower (including charger and batteries), but the return on investment is only a year or two at most. After that, you never have to buy gasoline or oil again.
The Santa Cruz Coalition for a Healthy & Safe Environment recently published a study on the economics of switching and found that even in the most expensive scenario, for a high-performance Stihl battery blower, the savings are significant. Though the up-front cost of this device is $2,261 (including tax), the coalition found, a positive return on investment is seen in just 10.5 months. By the end of the second year, using the electric blower would already have saved $2,904.
Nick Seagraves, who runs Seagraves Landscaping in West Linn, Oregon, has been a landscaper for 40 years. He only started using electric devices a few years ago, mostly because Lake Oswego's Department of Parks & Recreation (a client) required it. He has a crew of 14 and says that his guys like the electric blowers. "They actually prefer them," he admits. That said, he says that even the Husqvarna electric models he purchased don't put out quite as much energy as the gas blowers. But now that he has them, he says homeowner associations that have long been clients really appreciate them. "It gives us an edge," he says.
Many cities (including D.C. and Dallas) are offering rebates or trade-in programs for quieter and less polluting electric blowers, which helps lessen the initial cost of switching over. On January 1 of this year, a new law went into effect in Colorado giving residents a 30 percent discount on all electric lawn mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers, and snow blowers.
Back in Portland, Quiet Clean PDX is working to get Portland City Council to vote on the issue this year. Does Hall hope that Quiet Clean PDX will eventually take up the crusade against electric leaf blowers, too? Even though they don't emit benzene or VOCs, they still generate propulsive wind speeds of up to 200 miles per hour, stirring up ultrafine particles of demolition debris, fecal matter, pollens, pesticides, dirt and debris, and industrial pollutants.
Hall is philosophical. "Yes, it would be great to Make America Rake Again," he says. He is a proponent of Leave the Leaves, a campaign initiated by the Xerces Society, a nonprofit committed to protecting pollinators and other invertebrates. Pollinators, it turns out, find their homes in leaves that are a few inches thick. "We've had a tremendous uptick in birds since we started leaving the leaves," Hall says.
But Hall's main focus is eliminating gas-powered blowers. Though he started out most offended by the devices' noise pollution, he's now more panicked about the carbon dioxide they emit. "It's an existential issue right now," Hall says.
"I've become oddly more incremental in my thinking," he says. He points to a quote by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "If I cannot do great things, I can do small things in a great way."
"If my contribution can be getting off the polluting, death-creating bottom line with lawn equipment," Hall says, "that's what I'd like to do with the remainder of my life."
Hannah Wallace wrote this article for Reasons to be Cheerful.
get more stories like this via email
Big oil is dropping the ball when it comes to meeting the companies' public pledges to help avert catastrophic climate change, according to a new analysis of the eight biggest U.S. and European producers.
U.S.-based corporations Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil each ranked "grossly insufficient" on all the report's criteria.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager for the advocacy group Oil Change International and the report's co-author, said just 5% of the sector's capital investments are in clean energy. Over 90% is going into fossil fuels.
"None of them come anywhere close to aligning with what's needed to confront the climate crisis," Tong contended. "Instead of cutting production, they almost all aim to increase production this critical decade."
Several oil companies mentioned in the report said it misrepresented their climate plans. The oil and gas industry has argued finding new places to drill is necessary to meet demand during a transition to clean energy, especially in hard to electrify industries like concrete production and air travel.
Leading global scientists say fossil fuel pollution must peak before 2025, then fall by 43% by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2050 to prevent the worst impacts of a changing climate. Tong pointed out the science shows there is no pathway to meet the climate targets by expanding oil and gas production.
"If companies stopped approving new fields, what would be left in their existing producing fields would be enough to meet the world's energy demand," Tong argued.
Because oil and gas corporations are not likely to voluntarily transition their business model, Tong believes governments will need to intervene. The marketplace could also play a role. Tong pointed to new global data showing, for the first time, $2 are being invested in clean energy for every $1 invested in fossil fuels.
"The transition is underway," Tong emphasized. "Governments need to resist the pressure from the industry that has done the most to cause the climate crisis, and accelerate the change. It's happening, it's just not happening fast enough."
get more stories like this via email
Contact
