Maybe in terms of particulate pollution, but in terms of CO2 that's absolutely unimaginable.
Compression ratio isn't great on these things since half the time the gas is terrible -> no pressure, no NOx
But they are two stroke so a little but of gas and oil leak out on every stroke.
I hate to break it to you, but that cannot possibly be true. That's a 16 hour drive through 1000 miles of mountainous terrain, requiring multiple tanks of gas, vs an hour of a small two-stroke engine spinning a little turbine.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engi...
@roarcher: They still emit lots of CO2 due to decreased efficiency, but the numbers aren't compared (so I'm not sure what they are), which I apologize for as I got CO2 confused with the other several gases being compared.
Considering this entire thread is only about CO2, not air quality, perhaps that would have been worth mentioning in your original comment.
A car produces about a pound per mile. Let’s say that is +- 30% depending on variables of trip.
[1] https://www.quietcleanpdx.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Gas...
Air Quality, yes; but I will admit CO2 is not compared.
A leaf-blower running for one hour will burn roughly 1/2 gal. of fuel. Ca 40mpg car going from LA to Denver will burn about 25 gallons of fuel.
That car trip will generate around 50 times as much CO2 as the blower
That sounds like nonsense.
(FWIW I support banning gas-powered leaf blowers. But your claim is still bogus.)
Where leaf blowers' emission fall apart is volatile organics.
Why do you support banning gas powered landscaping equipment? In cities like LA, sure. But how are utilities going to maintain brush around remote power lines without gas powered equipment?
Its worse in volatile organics, particulates and NOx. Mostly volatile organics due to the two stroke cycle.
But not because a chainsaw is particularly bad, but because a Camry is exceptionally good.
Why is the Camry good? Because it has a four stroke, fuel injected, computer controlled engine and $300 of catalysts breaking everything down. The smoke of the Camry's emissions is water condensing out.
Not just water. A lot of CO, CO2, particulates and NOx are also emitted, especially at lower engine temperatures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
You aren't going to motivate people to be better for the environment (by, say, buying a more expensive 40MPG vehicle instead of a 35MPG one), when it can so easily be wiped away by a guy just leaving a tool on for a few minutes more. Same situation with banning straws - nobody cares about the 1.6 billion masks in the ocean now (literally).