ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats Want Jail Time For Using A Gas Powered Leaf Blower, But They Would Be Exempt

RicoSuave102954

HR All-American
Jul 17, 2023
3,267
2,543
113
Montezuma, Iowa
In Washington State, a proposed bill, HB 1868, is stirring controversy with its radical approach to environmental protection. This legislation, spearheaded by State Representative Amy Walen, seeks to ban gas-powered leaf blowers, potentially leading to jail time or fines for violators.

It’s a contentious move that could significantly impact small businesses and minority communities, raising critical questions about balancing environmental action and economic consequences.

State Representative Amy Walen (D-Kirkland) pre-filed HB 1868, which seeks to ban gasoline and diesel-powered landscaping tools, citing their contribution to climate change and health issues like asthma.

The bill empowers the Department of Ecology to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new outdoor power equipment by January 1, 2026, or sooner if feasible. Washingtonians would need to switch to zero-emission alternatives.

Government work is partly exempt from this ban, especially in emergency situations. Violating the law could result in up to a year in jail or significant fines, a stricter penalty than for similar environmental infractions.

Although exempt from sales tax, transitioning to zero-emission alternatives could be prohibitively expensive for small businesses. The cost disparity is particularly notable for commercial-grade electric equipment.

The ban is seen as disproportionately impacting Latino and black business owners, who own a significant percentage of landscaping companies. The financial burden of transitioning to electric equipment could lead to reduced diversity in the industry.

The author criticizes the bill for what he perceives as ‘lazy environmentalism,’ arguing that it imposes undue burdens on businesses and residents without adequate support for the transition. The exemptions for government agencies are seen as hypocritical.

Is the ban motivated by a desire for power and control rather than genuine environmental concern, implying that the bill’s proponents must consistently apply the principles they advocate for?

 
 The ban is seen as disproportionately impacting Latino and black business owners, who own a significant percentage of landscaping companies. The financial burden of transitioning to electric equipment could lead to reduced diversity in the industry.
Something doesn't fit in this paragraph...
 
The thread title lacks context and accuracy, but it is a clickbait article, so it's unsurprising.

As written, the proposed law would need to expand the grant program ( the language is not definitive) but otherwise reasonable and, in the end, better for small business owners with the advancement of batteries in the lawn and garden space.
Equipment with less than 25 gross horsepower can easily be replaced with equal-strength electric equipment that requires less maintenance and has lower power costs. So, I can't entirely agree with the commentary that minority business owners would be at a disadvantage( if the grant program includes the businesses when/if ratified).
 
The thread title lacks context and accuracy, but it is a clickbait article, so it's unsurprising.

As written, the proposed law would need to expand the grant program ( the language is not definitive) but otherwise reasonable and, in the end, better for small business owners with the advancement of batteries in the lawn and garden space.
Equipment with less than 25 gross horsepower can easily be replaced with equal-strength electric equipment that requires less maintenance and has lower power costs. So, I can't entirely agree with the commentary that minority business owners would be at a disadvantage( if the grant program includes the businesses when/if ratified).
I bought one of the higher end electric edgers this summer. The battery doesn't properly hold a charge after only 5 months. The electric tech in this industry is still shit and unreliable compared to petroleum.
 
The thread title lacks context and accuracy, but it is a clickbait article, so it's unsurprising.

As written, the proposed law would need to expand the grant program ( the language is not definitive) but otherwise reasonable and, in the end, better for small business owners with the advancement of batteries in the lawn and garden space.
Equipment with less than 25 gross horsepower can easily be replaced with equal-strength electric equipment that requires less maintenance and has lower power costs. So, I can't entirely agree with the commentary that minority business owners would be at a disadvantage( if the grant program includes the businesses when/if ratified).
Switching to battery run garden tools in an effort to somehow save the planet is like throwing deck chairs off the Titanic in an effort to straighten the listing ship.
 
I bought one of the higher end electric edgers this summer. The battery doesn't properly hold a charge after only 5 months. The electric tech in this industry is still shit and unreliable compared to petroleum.

What brand?
 
Switching to battery run garden tools in an effort to somehow save the planet is like throwing deck chairs off the Titanic in an effort to straighten the listing ship.

People like to make an effort, even if it is a small or limited gesture they would be making an effort I guess. The voters in Washington can vote the reps out if they do not support the effort.

The figure in the bill about the amount of gas spilled fueling equipment was surprising/interesting.
 
People like to make an effort, even if it is a small or limited gesture they would be making an effort I guess. The voters in Washington can vote the reps out if they do not support the effort.

The figure in the bill about the amount of gas spilled fueling equipment was surprising/interesting.

Meanwhile this is the same state whose flagship university has now joined the Big Ten and will be flying jets repeatedly to New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania and other far away parts.

These people think they're so F'n smart.
 
Cracking Up Lol GIF by Rodney Dangerfield
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustSayOV
People like to make an effort, even if it is a small or limited gesture they would be making an effort I guess. The voters in Washington can vote the reps out if they do not support the effort.

The figure in the bill about the amount of gas spilled fueling equipment was surprising/interesting.
There is apparently a hefty fine or even jail time potential for anyone not doing these "small or limited gestures". Do you think that is acceptable punishment? Seems that forcing poor people to replace expensive lawn equipment during an inflation crisis is bad policy and not looking out for the every day man, But maybe that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RicoSuave102954
They can take my truck, they can take my wife, they can even take my dog. But to take my gas powered leaf blower they will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition
In Washington State, a proposed bill, HB 1868, is stirring controversy with its radical approach to environmental protection. This legislation, spearheaded by State Representative Amy Walen, seeks to ban gas-powered leaf blowers, potentially leading to jail time or fines for violators.

It’s a contentious move that could significantly impact small businesses and minority communities, raising critical questions about balancing environmental action and economic consequences.

State Representative Amy Walen (D-Kirkland) pre-filed HB 1868, which seeks to ban gasoline and diesel-powered landscaping tools, citing their contribution to climate change and health issues like asthma.

The bill empowers the Department of Ecology to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new outdoor power equipment by January 1, 2026, or sooner if feasible. Washingtonians would need to switch to zero-emission alternatives.

Government work is partly exempt from this ban, especially in emergency situations. Violating the law could result in up to a year in jail or significant fines, a stricter penalty than for similar environmental infractions.

Although exempt from sales tax, transitioning to zero-emission alternatives could be prohibitively expensive for small businesses. The cost disparity is particularly notable for commercial-grade electric equipment.

The ban is seen as disproportionately impacting Latino and black business owners, who own a significant percentage of landscaping companies. The financial burden of transitioning to electric equipment could lead to reduced diversity in the industry.

The author criticizes the bill for what he perceives as ‘lazy environmentalism,’ arguing that it imposes undue burdens on businesses and residents without adequate support for the transition. The exemptions for government agencies are seen as hypocritical.

Is the ban motivated by a desire for power and control rather than genuine environmental concern, implying that the bill’s proponents must consistently apply the principles they advocate for?

These are the same politicians that will give needles to addicts, let BLM destroy a city without consequence, but whatever you do, don't try blow leaves in their state with gas powered blower or there will be hell to pay.
 
Meanwhile this is the same state whose flagship university has now joined the Big Ten and will be flying jets repeatedly to New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania and other far away parts.

These people think they're so F'n smart.

They do not currently have the option to fly electric planes so I do not see how this is analogous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SocraticIshmael
Seems that forcing poor people to replace expensive lawn equipment during an inflation crisis is bad policy and not looking out for the every day man, But maybe that's just me.

There is a grant associated with the law that will help facilitate the switch; as stated in my first post, the language needs to be more definitive about who is eligible for the grant. If small businesses are not part of the program that language would need to be added.
How is giving someone a grant to switch to electric not helping out the every day man?
 
There is a grant associated with the law that will help facilitate the switch; as stated in my first post, the language needs to be more definitive about who is eligible for the grant. If small businesses are not part of the program that language would need to be added.
How is giving someone a grant to switch to electric not helping out the every day man?
For starters you're forcing them to pay for that unneeded equipment through forced taxation. The tax payer is the one footing the bill either way. If they don't want it and it's effect on the climate is dubious at best then why are you effectively forcing it upon them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminoleed
I have an electric mower...just bought a few years back when I needed a new mower just for the hell of it.

That damn thing was far more powerful than any typical gas push mower I have used before.

That said....for people that do landscaping and such...would big start up cost acquiring enough batteries to last for an entire day of work. 40v batteries are not cheap...hell 20v batteries are not cheap.
 
I have an electric mower...just bought a few years back when I needed a new mower just for the hell of it.

That damn thing was far more powerful than any typical gas push mower I have used before.

That said....for people that do landscaping and such...would big start up cost acquiring enough batteries to last for an entire day of work. 40v batteries are not cheap...hell 20v batteries are not cheap.

I have had the opposite experience. The electric bogs down in thick grass much easier than a gas mower does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RicoSuave102954
This is a messed up argument...

It's all based on climate change and race...with government exemption...lol.

What a world...

Fighting forest fires hauling batteries and charging stations around to power chainsaws sounds like an interesting challenge.
 
For starters you're forcing them to pay for that unneeded equipment through forced taxation. The tax payer is the one footing the bill either way. If they don't want it and it's effect on the climate is dubious at best then why are you effectively forcing it upon them?

We are all under forced taxation through our representation, so whether the overall effect on climate is dubious or not, those making the laws feel it is worth the effort; the people of Washington need to vote them out if that is counter to their beliefs.


By the way, you never answered, what brand of electric equipment did you purchase that is having battery failure issues at 5 months?
 
I would take the battery back and have the dealer replace it. C’mon scruffy!
I need to, I'd have to think it is under warranty it's just not a front of mind issue since the grass no longer requires maintenance for the year
 
We are all under forced taxation through our representation, so whether the overall effect on climate is dubious or not, those making the laws feel it is worth the effort; the people of Washington need to vote them out if that is counter to their beliefs.


By the way, you never answered, what brand of electric equipment did you purchase that is having battery failure issues at 5 months?
Pretty sure it is ego
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleinATL
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT