It would be no surprise to me if it came as no surprise to you that running a leaf blower for thirty minutes produces far less pollution than driving a Ford Raptor from Texas to Alaska. Or that an hour’s use of a leaf blower emits nowhere near as much carbon as driving a Toyota Camry for a thousand miles.
But sources claiming the opposite have been floating around the internet for some time, and I haven’t seen them clearly refuted anywhere, so I thought it was time to do it here.
The Claim(s):
A 2011 blog post from Edmunds.com claims that:
A consumer-grade leaf blower emits more pollutants than a 6,200-pound 2011 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor, according to tests conducted by Edmunds’ InsideLine.com, the premier online resource for automotive enthusiasts.
The tests found that a Ryobi 4-stroke leaf blower kicked out almost seven times more oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 13.5 times more carbon monoxide (CO) than the Raptor, which InsideLine.com once dubbed “the ultimate Michigan mudslinger.” An Echo 2-stroke leaf blower performed even worse, generating 23 times CO and nearly 300 times more non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) than the Raptor.
“The hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour of yard work with the two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as a 3,900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a Raptor,” said Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor at Edmunds.com. “As ridiculous as it may sound, it is more ‘green’ to ditch your yard equipment and find a way to blow leaves using a Raptor.”
Leaf Blower’s Emissions Dirtier than High-Performance Pick-Up Truck’s, Says Edmunds’ InsideLine.com
The idea also turns up in Seth Godin’s Carbon Almanac, and has been mentioned many times by Seth in interviews:
You can read the claim repeated directly in a range of ambiguous flavours about what kind of pollution we’re talking about in the New York Times, by the California Environmental Protection Board, and by Environment America. The latter makes some big sounding claims about pollution for all combustion-powered lawn equipment (“more emissions than the entire city of L.A.”) – without making clear about the area they are talking about (greater L.A. emits far more than the figure provided), or providing context by pointing out that lawn equipment represents something like 0.5% of all U.S. emissions.
The Sniff Test
Given the relative size of these engines and the amount of fuel consumed by a blower (or other small engine) in an hour, these claims seem highly improbable and misleading. A leaf blower uses roughly a litre of fuel per hour. A Ford Raptor gets something like 18 miles-to-the-gallon or 8 kilometers-to-the-litre and a Camry is about twice as efficient (about 14 km-per-litre), so both are going to release a lot more CO2 on a long drive than an hour’s worth of leaf blowing (at least 126 times as much CO2 for the Camry).
The Truth
The truth is that leaf-blowers do not emit anywhere near as much carbon (CO2 or CO2 equivalents) as cars per hour of use – but they do emit much more of particular kinds of pollutants than modern car engines (details below). It is also true that they are a big source of noise pollution and a nuisance, but that’s a separate issue.
Leaf-Blower Vs Ford Raptor
These are the figures from the Edmunds article. It’s worth noting that Edmunds is “the trusted guide in car shopping”, and that their motivation in releasing this article was presumably to sell more cars by making cars look clean, rather than accurately representing the pollution caused by leaf-blowers.
You can see here that the 2-stroke leaf blower does indeed release more NMHC’s than the raptor per minute, but the article seems to suggest that this holds true when comparing half an hour of leaf blower use to to a 3,900 mile drive to Alaska… and of course the table doesn’t take conventional CO2 emissions into account.
Note also that the Raptor is traveling very slowly – a simulated 22 miles per hour.
Here’s a table produced with Claude based on this information:
Emissions Comparison: 30 Minutes Leaf Blower vs. 3,900 Mile Raptor Drive
| Pollutant | Echo 2-Stroke Leaf Blower (30 minutes) | 2011 Ford Raptor (3,900 miles) | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMHC | 44.85g | 55.11g | Leaf blower = 81% of Raptor |
| NOx | 0.30g | 55.11g | Raptor emits 184× more |
| CO | 193.35g | 3,040.69g | Raptor emits 16× more |
| CO2 | ~945g¹ | 2,888,275g² | Raptor emits 3,057× more |
CO2-Equivalent Climate Impact
| Source | CO2-Equivalent Calculation | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Echo Leaf Blower (30 min) | CO2: 945g NOx: 0.3g × 10 GWP = 3g CO & NMHC: negligible³ | ~948g CO2-eq |
| Ford Raptor (3,900 miles) | CO2: 2,888,275g NOx: 55g × 10 GWP = 550g CO & NMHC: negligible³ | ~2,888,825g CO2-eq |
The Raptor’s climate impact on a 3,900 mile journey is ~3,050 times greater than the leaf blower’s
¹ Based on typical 2-stroke fuel consumption of ~0.4L in 30 minutes
² Based on 3,900 miles ÷ 12 mpg × 8,887g CO2/gallon
³ CO and NMHC have indirect climate effects but no standard GWP values
Key Points
- The “3,900 mile” claim is slightly exaggerated – the leaf blower produces 81% as much NMHC
- More accurately: 30 min leaf blower = ~3,175 miles of Raptor NMHC
- For climate impact (CO2), the Raptor emits over 3,000× more
- Leaf blower: terrible for local air quality
- Raptor: much worse for climate change
Leaf-Blower Vs Toyota Camry
I am a big fan of Seth Godin, and respect both the community work and the motivation behind the Carbon Almanac – but built into the Carbon Almanac is the (repeated) claim that all the data presented has been rigorously fact-checked, and an invitation to submit errata and corrections if readers find any mistakes. So far, I haven’t seen a clarification or an update concerning leaf blowers (Carbon Almanac footnotes here).
Emissions Comparison: 1 Hour Leaf Blower vs. 1,770 km Toyota Camry Drive
*Note: Toyota Camry values are estimates based on typical SULEV II certification standards, not actual test data
| Pollutant | Echo 2-Stroke Leaf Blower (1 hour) | 2015 Toyota Camry* (1,770 km) | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMHC | 89.7g | ~85-105g | Approximately equal |
| NOx | 0.60g | ~55-70g | Camry emits ~100× more |
| CO | 386.7g | ~1,100-1,400g | Camry emits ~3× more |
| CO2 | ~2,000g¹ | ~290,000g² | Camry emits 145× more |
CO2-Equivalent Climate Impact
| Source | CO2-Equivalent Calculation | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Echo Leaf Blower (1 hour) | CO2: 2,000g NOx: 0.6g × 10 GWP = 6g CO & NMHC: negligible³ | ~2,006g CO2-eq |
| Toyota Camry (1,770 km) | CO2: 290,000g NOx: ~60g × 10 GWP = 600g CO & NMHC: negligible³ | ~290,600g CO2-eq |
The Camry’s climate impact on a 1770km journey is ~145 times greater than the leaf blower’s
¹ Based on typical 2-stroke fuel consumption of ~0.8L in 60 minutes
² Based on 1,770 km at ~7L/100km fuel economy × 2,350g CO2/L gasoline
³ CO and NMHC have indirect climate effects but no standard GWP values
Key Points
- The “1,770 km” claim is accurate ONLY for NMHC emissions
- For climate impact (CO2), the Camry emits 145× more
- This comparison uses SULEV II standards, not actual Camry test data
- Leaf blower: terrible for local air quality
- Camry: much worse for climate change
Conclusions
So there you have it. Leaf blowers are inefficient and bad for the environment, but their impact from emissions is dwarfed by that of cars.
Drive less, Crocodile – and use a rake.
See also:
Technology (25): Vaclav Smil on prime movers and extrasomatic energy
Technology (26): Vaclav Smil on available energy per capita since 1800
Links from Patrick Collison on air pollution and cognition and (so) GDP
One cigarette