Leaf Blowers: An Invisible Source of Climate Chaos and Harm to Human and Environmental Health

Evaggelos Vallianatos

December 11, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Gardener with his leaf blower at work in Claremont, California. Photo: Evaggelos Vallianatos

Prologue

One of the reasons I moved to Claremont, California, in 2008 was Claremont’s banning of the gasoline-powered leaf blowers. I detested them long before 2008. I still do. They are harmful and useless.

Leaf blowers are mostly powered by Earth-heating petroleum and gasoline to move leaves from trees on the ground from one spot to another. Why would anyone want to do that? So that the “gardener” or homeowner can trash those leaves.

Tree leaves: ecology, beauty and light

Imagine the ignorance that also powers this process. Deciduous trees let their leaves drop to the ground in winter. Lower winter temperatures stress trees and prepare them for spring renewal when the leaves reappear to support the life of the trees. And in a normal ecosystem without human intervention the fallen leaves would become food and protective cover for insects and other wildlife, small mammals and amphibians. Leaves would also become fertilizer, and eventually soil. But in the unhealthy environment of cities, humans have this crazy notion they know more and better than nature. What about the overwintering wildlife without the cover of leaves? How’s that biodiversity is supposed to survive without tree leaves? Have we thought enough about the harm we cause with our mania to make trash all this fantastic energy, beauty and light in the leaves of trees?

Inconvenient nature

Lawn-care swindlers employ a variety of toxic chemicals and machines, including leaf blowers, to control nature or to convince homeowners to make their yards look neat and clean.

However, no matter what stupid technologies humans use against nature, they cannot control it. Nature is almighty Earth. On the contrary, homeowners employing leaf blowers are for a big surprise: their machines control them.

The polluting leaf blowers emit Earth-heating gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, and methane), which undermine the present and the future. Leaf blowers are a badly designed and unregulated machines for the mere convenience of the lazy homeowner and for the profit of the manufacturers. Homeowners are trying to impress their neighbors with a yard of turf but leafless. Leaf blowers emit carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and other greenhouse gases. “Pound for pound, gallon for gallon, hour-for-hour,” says the writer James Fallows, “the two-stroke gas powered engines in leaf blowers and similar equipment are vastly the dirtiest and most polluting kind of machinery still in legal use…. Using a two-stroke engine is like heating your house with an open pit fire in the living room — and chopping down your trees to keep it going and trying to whoosh away the fetid black smoke before your children are poisoned by it.” In California, leaf blowers and other lawn-care machines harm human and environmental health more than cars do.

America’s car love affair

Leaf blowers pollute, no doubt about that, but it’s unlikely they can compete with cars. The reporter Somini Sengupta explained the carbon footprint of cars in America this way. “[I]f American cars,” she said, “S.U.V.s and pickup trucks were their own country, they would be the sixth-largest emitter of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions since 1949, putting them behind the total national carbon dioxide emissions produced by the United States, China, Russia, Germany and Japan.”

Blasting sounds and threats

Back to leaf blowers. In 2020, Monmouth University of New Jersey reached these conclusions about leaf blowers. These devices cause detrimental noise to human health. The decibel levels exceed 80, clearly harmful to our health. They also create low frequency noise that travels extensively and causes “increased stress levels.” Leaf blowers also leave a toxic footprint on its users and other humans: their emissions include “high levels of benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde and fine particulates, all of which are known carcinogens or known respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological health risks and which lead to increased levels of mortality in children and the elderly.”

The US EPA also confirms the toxic nature of the gasoline-powered lawn and garden machines (like leaf blowers): An EPA 2011 study says: “Extensive evidence exists on the adverse health effects of exhaust emissions and other fine particulates which include cardiovascular disease, stroke, respiratory disease, cancer, neurological… conditions, premature death, and effects on prenatal development.”

What homeowners hooked on leaf blowers forget is that their machines are nightmares the so-called lawn-care industry created for profit. Those monsters took over their desires from ceaseless advertisements and wrong ideas about the natural world. “[The monsters] come,” says the writer Margaret Renkl, “in a deafening, surging swarm, blasting from lawn to lawn and filling the air with the stench of gasoline and death. I would call them mechanical locusts, descending upon every patch of gold in the neighborhood the way the grasshoppers of old would arrive, in numbers so great they darkened the sky, to lay bare a cornfield in minutes. But that comparison is unfair to locusts. Grasshoppers belong here. Gasoline-powered leaf blowers are invaders, the most maddening of all the maddening, environment-destroying tools of the American lawn-care industry.”

Reactions

I would add that these invading mechanical locusts spoil my day the moment I see and hear their awful noise. I used to talk to some of the gardeners using them like weapons, telling them they should shut them down immediately or abandon them and return to rakes or battery-powered machines. But these gardeners, in Claremont, most of them Spanish speaking Mexicans or Latinos from Central America, did not understand me. I used to raise my voice, but that expression of unhappiness did not make any difference. Besides, they were doing the dirty work of homeowners hiding in their houses watching television. I even wrote to the Claremont City Council, which had already banned petroleum-powered leaf blowers since March 1, 1991, but failed to enforce its decision. My suggestion urged them to send a letter to all homeowners informing them that allowing their gardeners to use a banned machine would result in steep fines. However, the City Council ignored my request.

The abominable machines are still adding greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, making climate chaos worse, while disrupting and polluting human and wildlife in Claremont – and beyond.

Evaggelos Vallianatos, Ph.D., studied history and biology at the University of Illinois; earned his Ph.D. in Greek and European history at the University of Wisconsin; did postdoctoral studies in the history of science at Harvard. He worked on Capitol Hill and the US EPA; taught at several universities and authored several books, including The Antikythera Mechanism: The Story Behind the Genius of the Greek Computer and its Demise. He is the author of Earth on Fire: Brewing Plagues and Climate Chaos in Our Backyards, forthcoming by World Scientific, Spring 2025.

Trump Takes Aim at BRICS and the Global Economy

Imran Khalid

 December 11, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Donald Trump, a man who never shied from bold declarations, has once again turned the global stage into a theater of economic brinkmanship. His target: the BRICS coalition, a bloc of emerging powers that includes China, Brazil, India, Russia, and South Africa (and now Iran, the UAE, Ethiopia, and Egypt as well). With more than 30 countries showing interest, BRICS is steadily challenging the traditional economic order.

Trump, in his signature style, announced on Truth Social that BRICS nations could face 100 percent tariffs should they dare to establish a unified currency or undermine the U.S. dollar. “The idea that BRICS countries are trying to move away from the Dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER,” he declared, a warning laced with the defiance that defined his presidency.

Such rhetoric, pointed and pugnacious, reveals the deep unease in Washington as this coalition’s economic clout grows. Although the notion of a BRICS currency is tantalizing, it faces formidable obstacles: economic disparities, political tensions, and the challenge of aligning diverse national interests. Yet, the use by BRICS of alternative financial systems to sidestep Western sanctions—particularly for Russia and Iran—signals a shift that could chip away at the dollar’s dominance.

Trump’s ultimatum underscores the stakes, but its efficacy remains uncertain. Will it herald a decisive policy shift or is it just more bluster? One thing is clear: the world watches as the economic landscape shifts, with the United States standing at a crossroads between strength and isolation. The consequences of this clash could echo for years to come.

Donald Trump is back to wielding the blunt instrument of economic coercion, and this time, it’s aimed squarely at BRICS. His threat to levy 100% tariffs against BRICS member if they pursue a unified currency or seek alternatives to the U.S. dollar comes just days after he proposed steep tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China to take effect on his first day in office. He has billed his threats against neighboring countries as an answer to the “crime and drugs” crossing the border and a bid to curb illegal immigration. Trump’s ultimatum to both the BRICS and key trading partners fits a pattern: the economic ultimatum as a tool of power, wielded with a blend of bravado and nationalism.

Critics predict a backlash—higher prices for consumers, strained trade deals, and possible rifts with long-standing allies. Yet Trump remains undeterred, believing that aggressive moves, draped in populist rhetoric, are the antidote to the perceived erosion of American sovereignty. Whether this strategy will be a defining moment or a prelude to deeper economic strife is the question of the hour.

Trump’s approach, a blend of coercion and protectionist fervor, echoes the “America First” mantra that propelled him to office. Yet beneath the bombast lies a complex economic calculus with potentially far-reaching consequences. The National Retail Federation (NRF) recently painted a stark picture of the fallout: American consumers could lose $78 billion in annual purchasing power. The implications of such a shift are anything but abstract. Everyday essentials—clothing, toys, appliances, even suitcases for a long-overdue vacation—would become more expensive, a burden felt in the pockets of nearly all consumers. Tariffs, as any economist will tell you, are not impenetrable barriers but shifting weights. Although importers may initially bear the brunt, these costs are rarely kept within the corporate realm. They inevitably cascade down, manifesting as higher prices at the cash register. Experts also warn that retaliatory measures could hurt industries far beyond those Trump claims to defend, leaving American workers more vulnerable.

Trump’s claim that tariffs target foreign exporters overlooks the nuanced reality of global trade. Some manufacturers might absorb the costs or shift production to avoid tariffs, but many importers, caught in the middle, pass on these expenses to consumers. For all of Trump’s talk of economic toughness, American consumers, once again, may find themselves at the center of the storm. Tariffs, as Donald Trump well knows, deliver a message—defiance, recalibration—but they are blunt instruments, echoing the populist call for fairness at a steep cost.

These tariff policies obscure deeper issues at home. The decline of U.S. manufacturing stems not just from foreign competition but from decades of neglect: an inability to modernize the workforce and respond to global changes. Blaming external forces may score points but solves nothing.

The decline of U.S. manufacturing reflects a failure to invest in workforce training, innovation, and adaptability in a world that grows ever more interconnected. While blaming external forces might yield short-term political gains, it falls short of meaningful reform. To rebuild its manufacturing base, the United States must move away from such shortsighted maneuvers and embrace strategies focused on genuine, long-term renewal.

This first appeared on FPIF.

Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and publications.

Today’s Science Skepticism Goes Back to the Scientific Revolution

Karen Bloom Gevirtz

 December 11, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Nikolaus Kopernikus beim Beobachten der Gestirne (Detail von Jan Matejkos Gemälde)

Most of us are aware of the deep problems in the current US pharmaceutical industry. Yet few may realize that today’s issues stem from changes that occurred centuries ago.

As I explain in The Apothecary’s Wife: The Hidden History of Medicine and How it Became a Commodity, the current medication system was established between 1650 and 1740, when professionals used the scientific revolution to push women out of the medical space. At that time, domestic medicine was dominant. Women were the primary sources of medicine in their communities, making medication from organic ingredients at home. Despite using the exact same ingredients for their own medicines, apothecaries and physicians persuaded the public of the superiority of their treatments and began charging for them. Medicinal substances transformed from free, household goods for everyone into commodities available only to those with means. This transformation normalized the practice of withholding life-saving medications from people who could not afford it — and valuing the economic success of corporations over the lives of some citizens.

The forces that transformed medication into a commodity are still with us. For example, domestic medicine encouraged sharing recipes to maximize healing, but today’s commercial medicine attempts to keep recipes secret to maximize profit. The US patent system and the battles between corporations making generic and brand-name drugs is a logical result, even when those mechanisms imperil patients’ health and lives. (See also Victor Roy’s Capitalizing a Cure: How Finance Controls the Price and Value of Medicines.)

Regulation is another legacy of medication’s economic transformation. In an attempt to exclude quacks from the medical marketplace and to protect consumers, 17th- and 18th-century professionals began testing competitors’ medicines to prove their inferiority and then publicizing the results. Joshua Ward (ca. 1685-1761), for instance, widely sold “medications” made of metals such as lead and antimony despite knowing that ingesting them could be fatal (Chapter 7 in The Apothecary’s Wife has a lot to say about him). Regulatory entities such as the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency should do this work now. History provides ample proof that when guided by science, regulation works. It has also shown us that lax oversight, such as in the famous case of thalidomide, the furor over aduhelm, and today’s generic drug industry, endangers patients.

We also continue to experience the fallout from the campaign to elevate “the New Science.” Its 17- and 18-century advocates made it seem more impressive by casting this new way of thinking and discovering as too difficult for ordinary people. That strategy generated an ongoing suspicion of science and a profound misunderstanding of how science functions. Although particularly virulent in the United States, this skepticism and ignorance of science abounds worldwide.

For the United States, this legacy will be even more obvious and determinative after the new government is sworn in on January 20, 2025. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) is America’s only attempt so far at a public health system. For decades, the Republican party on the whole has been opposed to the ACA and national health care more broadly, drawing on the value system that displaced domestic medicine’s ethos with one that prioritizes corporate health over human health. 17- and 18-century professionals recognized this issue in converting medication into a commodity, but decided against adding a mechanism for treating the impoverished. Repealing the ACA would be returning to the three-hundred-year-old roots of today’s system. Similarly, the current nominee to lead the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Mehmet Oz, has pursued profit opportunities in medicine with disregard for science and the health of ordinary people. He has even promoted colloidal silver (more upscale than Joshua Ward, but an equally ancient claim). It is likely that the provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 requiring the CMS to negotiate the prices that it pays for pharmaceuticals will be ignored or removed.

Skepticism and suspicion of science undoubtedly will bear down on federal divisions, departments, and institutes responsible for health care and science. Regulation is a probable early casualty. The nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., harbors these views, exemplified by his opposition to vaccines, fluoridated water, and pasteurized milk. Kennedy’s misunderstanding of how science works, not to mention the role of regulation, leads to a hostility toward scientists that has much in common with witchcraft fears. History suggests that under such leadership, HHS and the CMS will authorize the use of unscientifically tested treatments, reject the scientific foundations of the regulation process, and nurture a national hostility to science and scientists.

The consequences of this approach will appear quickly. Federal opposition to vaccines, for instance, will swiftly raise the mortality rate, especially the infant and child mortality rates, to spectacular highs. As Olivia Craighead drily wrote after Mehmet Oz’s nomination, “Fingers crossed colloidal silver works for measles.” Outbreaks of easily prevented, highly communicable, frequently fatal or permanently debilitating diseases such as measles and pertussis (whooping cough) will likely negatively impact the economy. Tourism will drop as visitors choose to avoid such a perilous environment. The national failure to provide a reliably healthy, sound workforce will curtail domestic productivity and obstruct foreign investment.

Prognostication in this case is fairly easy. Addressing these values and beliefs about the role of medication is not. They are rooted in medication’s transformation into a commodity. Knowing where these ideas came from, however, offers insight into the current system, and as history shows, insight is a step toward action.

This post was originally published on the University of California Press blog and is reprinted here with permission.

Karen Bloom Gevirtz is author of The Apothecary’s Wife: The Hidden History of Medicine and How It Became a Commodity.