New tractor emmission requirements...

[Junkman]

Do you believe that the new tractor low emissions engines are necessary to save the environment?

 

[California]

Every bit helps.

 

[seapea]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Every bit helps. )</font>

Not necessarily true. Pollution reduction (all types) generally add to cost, so this defers money that could possibly be better spent elsewhere. Maybe rather than adding $200 to each tractor (a made up number on my part) to get some fairly insignificant pollution reduction (I'm not sure what the actual reduction is) would do less good to society than, for example, spending $200 on safety features.

One thing I find we are very bad at is prioritizing where money should be spent to better society. One pet peeve of mind is replacing perfectly good toilets with low flow models. Local water utilities often subsidize these programs "because it is money well spent". However, the water savings per person is literally a drop in the bucket (note, you need to count all the water you use indirectly, like to grow the food you eat and manufacture the products you use). Reducing your toilet water usage by 50% may seem like a big deal, but in the grand scheme of water usage it is not. Improved agricultural water management is one area where very meaningful water savings can be made.

So, to answer Junkmans question, it depends. We really need to know the cost per machine and both the amount and type of pollution reduction. Even with this info, you need an understanding and extent to which these pollutants harm the environment. In the end, it can be boiled down to a $ cost, because pollution does cost us $, mostly in loss of productivity and quality of life due to illness.

 

[Tom_H]

California's Central Valley is ringed by the Coastal, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada ranges. Air becomes trapped in the basin and is difficult to flush out. Our air quality has now become worse than the L.A. basin. Obviously we have more autos and trucks than tractors, however the pollution from one (older) tractor is greater than that from many autos. Twenty five percent of the nation's agriculture is produced in this valley, forty percent in the state as a whole, so we do have quite a few agricultural machines.

I do not wish to engage anyone in political argument, so I'll try to make some factual observations and as much as I can leave out opinion.

On rare occasions, following a winter storm system that has moved quickly through and is completely gone, there is one high spot on my commute to work from which I can see the Coast Range to my left and the Sierra to my right with crystal clarity. Those days used to be more frequent. Now they are very rare. Usually I can see nothing except very brown sky on the horizon.

Our schools have three times the national average for children with asthma. There are days when we cannot safely allow children to go out and play. This spring we had a flu that went around and left many students with weakened bronchia. Right after that the air quality began getting quite bad. There were days when twenty percent of my nine and ten year old students were sitting at their desks, wheezing to get air, unable to summon the pressure to push air past their vocal chords and form words for a question or answer, having to use inhalers and nebulizers in order just to breath. I had one honor student who hates to miss school. Every day he would drag himself to class and by 10:00 a.m., he would be so unable to breath that his mother would have to take him home, put him on the nebulizer, and then to bed for the rest of the day. It was a difficult thing to watch these children suffer like that.

I do not know the percent of our air pollution that comes from tractors versus other sources. I do not know the cost effectiveness of every option of pollution control. I will say that anecdotally, the things I observe make me think that at least rudimentary pollution controls are reasonable for all types of internal combustion engines and two stroke engines incur more cost in environmental damage than they do in purchase cost.

I have to admit that my thoughts, feelings, and opinions are to a great degree formed by the circumstances I see around my own local environment. I think that is probably true for most people. Hopefully, each of us can listen with an open mind to the point of view of others in different circumstances and consider the positions of others to have validity as well.

 

[JazzDad]

Interesting, though- I don't see any tractors in that photo.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Do you believe that the new tractor low emissions engines are necessary to save the environment? )</font>


Necessary to SAVE the enviornment? No. But I do believe that if it is economically feasable, then it should be done. Tractors are but one small piece of the puzzle.

The rub is that many other nations don't follow emission standards that are remotely as rigid as ours are. Just like the issues that California faces, go to El Paso, TX and take a look at the mountain side that divides the city. On one side it is black from smoke, the other side is clear. Most of the polution is from the burning of tires, used to heat many of the small shacks in Juarez. You can't blame the El Paso residents for the polution, and many in Juarez simply can't afford heat other than to burn what we discard. China and some of the developing African nations are horrible polluters, they all pressured the US to sign the antipollution accords that would have held up to one standard while allowing them to essentially freely pollute. Perhaps we do have to lead the way, but not in an irresponsible way.

If we can reduce pollution, it is the right thing to do, but it does have limits.

 

[SkyPup]

</font><font color="blueclass=small">( Do you believe that the new tractor low emissions engines are necessary to save the environment? )</font>

Yes, it sure is great that ULSD will take effect across the nation next summer reducing diesel emissions by 95%.

Unfortunately that will not save the environment though..... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[California]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I don't see any tractors ... )</font>

Fair enough. I'm trying to show in that photo how daylight transitions from filtered overhead sunlight into a murky artificial sunset after 4 pm, hours before physical sunset.

I took this tractor photo a moment later looking east from the same hotel rooftop. Look in the lower center - the tractor is hard to see due to the smog.

Location: Majnu-ka-Tila (Tibetan Colony), a neighborhood in Delhi, India.

This smog is what Delhi looks like *after* a recent forced change to Compressed Natural Gas fuel for all urban vehicles including busses and delivery trucks. Only the few private vehicles, and interstate heavy trucks passing through, are exempt. They say the smog was far worse ten years ago when the autorickshaws (like golf carts) had two cycle engines and everything else ran on diesel.

 

[hobbyfarm]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Do you believe that the new tractor low emissions engines are necessary to save the environment? )</font>

Let's see...those big bore engines running full throttle with a heavy load for hours at a time....uhhhh, Yes!

I think every little bit helps. But, maybe, the first thing would be to get the biodiesel up and going more. That would be a great start.

Funny though, I don't mind the odor of diesel, but I really hate the odor of those tar machines that the roofers use. You smell those for an hour after you've left the area.
P! U! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[SkyPup]

Actually, biodiesel produces even more NOx, just what you do not want where smog is a problem.... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif