To the Editor,
Sylvia Vriesendorp certainly touched on a popular peeve a few weeks back by suggesting a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers; and Paul Dozier's response, somewhere between conservative and pragmatic, occasioned more thinking on the subject. To regulate or not? To be sure, nobody wants excessive regulation, but most want it where necessary to protect life, health and wellbeing. I was once involved in regulatory development myself. Contrary to some notions, regulations don't spring fully formed from the imaginations of leftist do-gooders. Rather, they are in response to real world problems which are often quite horrifying, even deadly, and when authorized by legislation. As a well-known local maritime expert of my acquaintance describes passenger vessel safety regs: "they're written in blood".
Leaf blowers don't rise to that level of concern, but there are the human health concerns of noise and two-cycle engine pollution, which includes hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter, all of which are known to harm people’s health. Leaf blowers also spin up clouds of dust that may contain pollen, mold, animal feces, heavy metals, and chemicals from herbicides and pesticides, according to the NY Department of Environmental Conservation. There is also the matter of life quality, which is a "real problem" in a world full of noisy, noisome gadgets. My own special annoyance is the people who just blow stuff around without actually gathering and picking it up, often sending it into the streets where innocent passing motorists have their cars blasted by leaves and grit.
I won't comment on whether to regulate or not, but I do want to share the economist's concept of externalizing costs: this is when a party, be it an oil company or a lawn maintenance service, reduces costs but in so doing burdens others. So, if tanker X has an accidental spill that oils Singing Beach and disappears over the horizon, leaving the cleanup to the locals, the company has made others pay ("externalized") for its lax operations and maintenance. If, as Paul Dozier suggests, landscapers and their customers save money using leaf blowers, they burden others who must deal with the noise, smelly exhaust, and clouds of dust in the air. Sylvia has a point. Paul's "agonizing question": "does our irritation justify making the making the lives of our fellow citizens more difficult?" begs the response: who's making whose lives more difficult?
The solution? Maybe battery-powered leaf blowers? Rakes? Paul also touched on a larger point: modifying our insane approach to lawn care! That topic would be for another series of long letters to the editor.
Mike Dyer
Essex
