No, I use a robotic lawn mower, which is electric and costs me an additional 10 dollars a year in electricity to mow my 1/2 acre lot. There’s no way I’m using an old push lawn mower, ever. If I ever go back to using a gas hog I would be surprised. These little robotic mowers are too fun to watch and enjoy. Instead of talking about going back to the old days, innovate, come up with something new.

And anything large enough to not use a robotic, you don’t want to use a push mower on. Check out the reviews at http://www.bambots.com

On the other hand, there is something to be said for no compromises, push-mowing, or no mowing at all–ie, grow food or let the land lie fallow.

At HUGR (www.hugr.com) we converted Toro equipment to biodiesel starting in 1999.

Disney burned our fuel in the forward swept batwing pictured above a couple years back.

Guess they liked our ideas.

HUGR

Another way to look at this is, if a person is thoughtful enough to pay the money to switch to a biofuel mower they are probably concientious in other ways as well. The are just doing the best they can with the products available. They may avoid using pesticides. They may have flower gardens that the smaller coinhabitants of the earth enjoy. They may compost their waste. I’m not saying gas burners don’t do these things as well, I just think a bio burner would be more likely. Any one who grows plants is helping the CO2 problem.

The bio burner may also more likely to switch to electric (if there is a model that will handle their yard). Take your allies where you can get them. The not-green-enough attitude is counter productive when you are trying to convince people to change.

George Bush has shown by his actions (not his political position) to be the antithesis of environmentalism. So by definition, if George Bush supports it then I am supsicious. The same could be said for Fred Singer – but fewer people have heard of him.

The other points are fair comment though. CO2 is consumed during the growing, but then released during the burning – so we must keep growing – and here’s the important point – in a way that ensures a net reduction in emissions.

Keith

Since it is grown, it consumed some CO2 in the production process (dino fuels did as well but that was some time ago). I’m led to believe there are those who think CO2 is an evil thing.

The emissions from burning biofuels are reported to be less than dino fuel. I have to take them at their word.

You are correct that changing habits is a far superior answer. If you can get the general population to conserve energy will you get them off of those stupid “reality” shows next – please?

There is an evolutionary path here. We start by getting off of dino, go to cleaner fuels, then get off of burning altogether. Yes, it takes time.

BTW, never politicize a scientific argument – you lose credibility.

Think of it this way : George Bush is a supporter of biofuels. Do you need any more reasons to be wary of them?

Sorry, Naib, but I can’t see the promotion of biofuels as being a good thing.