B
bach2yoga
Guest
who knew that ATV engines cause greater exhaust emissions than a car???
HARD TO GET COMPROMISE ON 2-STROKE ENGINES
Date: 16 Nov 2003
From: "Peter Montague" {Peter@rachel.org}
By Joan Leary Matthews, Albany Times Union, Nov. 16, 2003
Snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and personal watercraft (more
commonly known by the trade name Jet Skis).
Users love them because they're fast, they're noisy and they provide
access to wilderness areas. Others loathe them because - well -
they're fast, they're noisy and they provide access to wilderness
areas.
These opposing views play out locally and nationally - from the
village of Lake George's ban as of 2006 on personal watercraft within
1,500 feet of the shoreline of the "jewel of the Adirondacks" to the
Bush administration's decision to open more federal lands to
snowmobilers.
The concerns presented by these vehicles are many: air, water and
noise pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and perceived affronts
to the less tangible "quality of life."
Air, water, and noise pollution can be traced to the type of engines
traditionally installed in these vehicles - carbureted two-stroke
engines. These engines are noisy, and the combustion process is not
complete, causing greater exhaust emissions from these vehicles than
from a car.
With this two-stroke technology, approximately one-third of the fuel
goes directly into the air and water. In 1998, California officials
found that one personal watercraft emitted the same amount of smog-
forming pollution in seven hours as a new car driven 100,000 miles.
Habitat destruction is another flash point. Animals, like humans, can
be alarmed by the speed and noise of these vehicle. Personal
watercraft can destroy loon nests, and snowmobiles and ATVs can harm
the terrain of other species.
Apart from the environmental issues that arise, quality of life
concerns are perhaps more rooted in one's preferred choice of
recreation. From the canoeist, cross- country skier and hiker's
perspective, quiet and solitude are a major part of the outdoor
experience. They question why anyone would want to drive a loud,
smelly, polluting vehicle and lose that connection with nature.
In contrast, the operator of the personal watercraft, ATV or
snowmobile may question why one needs to "do all that work" when these
vehicles can get you where you want to go to faster, and you can have
loads of fun getting there. Vehicle operators insist that they have a
right to recreate the way that they want - though it may not be the
choice of other people.
Government officials need to respond - at least to the environmental
concerns raised by the vehicles. The question is, how?
One response is to ban these vehicles completely - throughout the
state or the country. Is this realistic? I'll go out on a limb here
and say probably not.
Partial bans, either lake-by-lake or within a lake, are next on the
list. In the early 1990s, Efner Lake, in Corinth, banned the use of
personal watercraft. Other bans have occurred in designated areas of
lakes, exemplified by the village of Lake George's decision, which
also sets rules that affect other personal recreation vehicles.
Another response is to require changes to the technology - for both
engines and fuel. This approach is showing some promise at the federal
and state levels. Since the 1990s, the federal government has set
emissions limits that have resulted in changes to these engines.
California has established even more stringent emissions limits.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation recently adopted
California's standards requiring more stringent emissions controls on
personal watercraft, beginning with the 2006 model year (though more
reluctantly - it had to be sued to do what the New York Legislature
told it to do).
But how to address that other aspect of vehicle use - individual
choice of recreation? Do we really want everyone to enjoy the same
type of recreation? Perhaps it's best to address the easier and more
tangible environmental issues and leave the recreation choice alone.
* * *
All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2003
HARD TO GET COMPROMISE ON 2-STROKE ENGINES
Date: 16 Nov 2003
From: "Peter Montague" {Peter@rachel.org}
By Joan Leary Matthews, Albany Times Union, Nov. 16, 2003
Snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and personal watercraft (more
commonly known by the trade name Jet Skis).
Users love them because they're fast, they're noisy and they provide
access to wilderness areas. Others loathe them because - well -
they're fast, they're noisy and they provide access to wilderness
areas.
These opposing views play out locally and nationally - from the
village of Lake George's ban as of 2006 on personal watercraft within
1,500 feet of the shoreline of the "jewel of the Adirondacks" to the
Bush administration's decision to open more federal lands to
snowmobilers.
The concerns presented by these vehicles are many: air, water and
noise pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and perceived affronts
to the less tangible "quality of life."
Air, water, and noise pollution can be traced to the type of engines
traditionally installed in these vehicles - carbureted two-stroke
engines. These engines are noisy, and the combustion process is not
complete, causing greater exhaust emissions from these vehicles than
from a car.
With this two-stroke technology, approximately one-third of the fuel
goes directly into the air and water. In 1998, California officials
found that one personal watercraft emitted the same amount of smog-
forming pollution in seven hours as a new car driven 100,000 miles.
Habitat destruction is another flash point. Animals, like humans, can
be alarmed by the speed and noise of these vehicle. Personal
watercraft can destroy loon nests, and snowmobiles and ATVs can harm
the terrain of other species.
Apart from the environmental issues that arise, quality of life
concerns are perhaps more rooted in one's preferred choice of
recreation. From the canoeist, cross- country skier and hiker's
perspective, quiet and solitude are a major part of the outdoor
experience. They question why anyone would want to drive a loud,
smelly, polluting vehicle and lose that connection with nature.
In contrast, the operator of the personal watercraft, ATV or
snowmobile may question why one needs to "do all that work" when these
vehicles can get you where you want to go to faster, and you can have
loads of fun getting there. Vehicle operators insist that they have a
right to recreate the way that they want - though it may not be the
choice of other people.
Government officials need to respond - at least to the environmental
concerns raised by the vehicles. The question is, how?
One response is to ban these vehicles completely - throughout the
state or the country. Is this realistic? I'll go out on a limb here
and say probably not.
Partial bans, either lake-by-lake or within a lake, are next on the
list. In the early 1990s, Efner Lake, in Corinth, banned the use of
personal watercraft. Other bans have occurred in designated areas of
lakes, exemplified by the village of Lake George's decision, which
also sets rules that affect other personal recreation vehicles.
Another response is to require changes to the technology - for both
engines and fuel. This approach is showing some promise at the federal
and state levels. Since the 1990s, the federal government has set
emissions limits that have resulted in changes to these engines.
California has established even more stringent emissions limits.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation recently adopted
California's standards requiring more stringent emissions controls on
personal watercraft, beginning with the 2006 model year (though more
reluctantly - it had to be sued to do what the New York Legislature
told it to do).
But how to address that other aspect of vehicle use - individual
choice of recreation? Do we really want everyone to enjoy the same
type of recreation? Perhaps it's best to address the easier and more
tangible environmental issues and leave the recreation choice alone.
* * *
All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2003
