On Jun 16, 4:47 pm, "EXT" wrote:
"Nehmo" wrote in message
...
A painless method to reduce the human impact on the environment is to
stop mowing grass.
In general, the only reason for mowing is appearance, and often,
considering the location of the grass, the appearance can only be
appreciated by a small number of people. Moreover, once people get
accustomed to seeing uncut lawns, they may consider them preferable.

Unmowed laws allow the tall weeds to survive, some are classified as
noxious.

I realize the ordinances use the word “noxious”, but the word means
harmful. Harmful to what? And which plants are the ordinances
referring to? Actually, there is no list of noxious plants, and
“noxious” isn’t defined legally. It’s just a word the writers of the
ordinances thought sounded good. Thus, there is yet another reason
for the repeal of these laws. They are vague, perhaps
unconstitutionally vague.

The mania about cutting grass has reached insanity. Many
municipalities in the US have laws forcing people to mow their lawns,
and people actually go to jail for not cutting their grass.

But my focus here will be the environmental impact.

The longer the grass, the more leaf area there is per land area.
Therefore, uncut grass would be more efficient per unit land area at
converting CO2 to oxygen – directly reducing the CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Is this your opinion or a tested fact. My experience has shown that a dense
short lawn becomes a sparse tall lawn, with less stems per square area the
result is less plants per square area, there may be more but may be less
leaf area.


It’s hard to measure the gas exchange of grass, and I don’t have any
research with any definite measurements. However, it stands to reason
the more leaf area, the more stomata (openings for gas); then, the
more gas exchange. But you are suggesting that not cutting reduces the
leaf area by making the grass less dense. So, even though individual
plants contain more gas exchange area, there may be less gas exchange
area per land area with not-cutting.

If you compare an abandoned lawn, one that is uncut and unwatered, to
one kept up, then it looks like the abandoned one is less dense. But
the cause probably is the difference in watering – not cutting. I
didn’t take a position on watering or not watering. That’s a different
issue. But I would suppose watering makes the grass more effective at
transforming CO2 to O2.

And my other argument, the pollution caused by cutting grass, is
untouched by a rebuttal about the gas exchange.
Lawn mower engines cause plenty of pollution of many kinds.

Typically lawn care uses either the two cycle engine or a small four
cycle engine. Two cycle engines are inherently more pollution
producing because they don’t have complete cycles as with a four
stroke engine. Some un-burnt petroleum gas is exhausted as pollution.

Small four stroke (stroke or cycle are just different names) engines
are not as bad as two stroke, but they are still very much pollution
causing. They have no anti-pollution measures that a larger car
engines would. There’s plenty of information on this. I already linked
to two sites, and it’s easy to find more.

Additionally, with lawn mowers, pollution is caused by spilt gasoline,
and gas just sitting in gas cans or small tanks that eventually
evaporates into the atmosphere.
Lawn mowers have highly polluting small engines. In one estimate, one
hour of typical mower engine time is equivalent to an 100 mile trip in
an average carhttp://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98532&page=1
. The EPA states mowing causes 5% of air pollution
http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com...nvironment.htm. Reducing
the use of these engines reduces pollution of many types.

Very generic statement, based on an estimate to prove a point. The worst
mowers are the 2 cycle engines, some are good others not so good, this is
proof of nothing.

How is this "proof of nothing"? Even a good two cycle engine causes
plenty of pollution per unit work. But even if we ban those engines
(which, BTW, have the advantage of being light), the small four cycle
engines don't do well when it comes to emissions either. But we can
substantially reduce the use of both kinds of engines if we don't
mow.
http://www.hikersforcleanair.org/papers/2cycle.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may...-and-youre-out
"Two-stroke engines produce a lot of pollution because the fuel-air
mixture in them gets contaminated with the engine’s lubricating oils.
Simultaneously the combustion chamber draws in the contaminated
mixture as exhaust gases are expelled through an exhaust port. Some of
the fuel and oil gets mixed with the exhaust."

The situation with polluted air is very serious, you know. People and
other animals cough and die.

Most mowing is in urban areas, where pollution is the worst and where
most people breathe.

The habitat of many animals is disturbed by mowing.

Others love short grass, particularly the birds that seek ground insects.

Birds would be better served if we didn't mow. In unmowed forest
preserves birds thrive. In any case, cutting grass is unnatural.

It’s also worth mentioning that numerous accidents, many serious, are
caused directly or indirectly by mowing.

~{|) Nehmo (|}~