Perhaps this is naive, but I would imagine that farm equipment is a rounding error in terms of global emissions. Compare the number of tractors to the number of trucks...

I would have expected policy to be pragmatic here, with (relatively) relaxed emissions requirements, since an affordable and reliable food supply is in the national interest? Sounds like that's not the case

▲

AlotOfReading 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Emissions regimes are complicated, but US tractors fall into the much less restrictive off-road category. As a result, they're a disproportionately significant contributor to things like NOx. A long time ago the off-road category was >20%, and I'm sure that percentage has only grown as regulations have forced emissions reductions in onroad vehicles.

	▲	joecool1029 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> but US tractors fall into the much less restrictive off-road category. Sometimes. Above 26HP tractors do have to have emissions controls like diesel particulate filters now. Below that they don't.

▲

cout 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Compare the number of tractors to the number of gas-powered lawnmowers. Which do you think gets better emissions?

▲

iamcalledrob 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd imagine it depends what kind of emissions you're measuring? Are we talking air quality or climate change?

Two stroke engines are pretty terrible in terms of unburned hydrocarbons and are disgusting for local air quality, which is why I'm glad they're being phased out in many areas.

I'd expect these tractors with I6 diesel engines to run pretty efficiently. I'd bet that the CO2 emissions from tractors are tiny in comparison from the emissions from trucks, fertiliser, and transporting the food.

▲

cout 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Lawnmowers are usually four-stroke, with two-stroke engines reserved for lighter tools like string trimmers and chainsaws.

I would still guess that lawnmowers produce more emissions overall, given that there are so many more mowers than tractors. But they get used less often than tractors, so who knows? Either way, I agree with your thinking process, that the most economical way to reduce overall emissions is to focus on what are actually producing the bulk of emissions.

I don't know how much better cars and trucks can get, and for mowers maybe electric is the answer. Mine is gas-powered, and I know it runs rich. I would love to come inside after mowing and not smell like fuel, so I'm in favor of better emissions controls on mowers.

▲

arein3 6 hours ago | parent [-]

For tools electric is the answer. To take a chainsaw, the battery needs to be replaced just as often as with refilling the fuel tank. And with newer batteries you might recharge the depleted one as fast as discharging a fresh one. Not sure, just an assumption.

The future for tools is electric 100%.

▲

edm0nd 6 hours ago | parent [-]

my brother in Christ, electric chainsaws are garbage, have you ever used one? I tried one out to clear a huge 3 foot wide tree that fell on my property and yeah those things cannot hang with gas powered chainsaws in any way, shape, or form. No one is using electric chainsaws for cutting anything significant.

they may have a place in the distant future but in 2026, aint no way.

	▲	jcgrillo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I like the electric saw for limbing and felling small stuff because it's light and quiet but yeah for anything bigger than like 9" or extended work it's not the tool for the job.