Hand-Held Leaf Burners: A New Trend?
by Mairi Beautyman, Berlin, Germany on 11. 7.06
On a trip to Cologne, Germany, this man was seen incinerating leaves with a hand-held burner in front of a posh hotel. The device is most likely composed of a propane fuel tank, a fuel hose, a metal wand with a burner head, and a control valve for controlling the gas. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, leaf burning leads to air pollution, health problems, and fire hazards. Tiny carcinogenic cancer-causing particles in the smoke can slip into the lungs and set up camp for several years. So this device could be a green alternative in areas where composting is not possible, if clean burning. The cons: It is uncomfortably loud, expensive, and requires fuel. From farmers to the Queen of England, people are already starting to use these hand-held burners as weed killers, effectively replacing pesticides. But for leaves? The jury is still out. ::Environmental Protection Agency
People have used these types of things for a 100 years - I remember farmers using them in my youth 50 years ago. They seemed to have died out over the last 30 years or so. For farmers they sort of make sense; the weeds don't come back. But in an urban area? In GERMANY no less??? Amazing. Why don't they use a leaf blower (even an electric one)? Aside from the obvious pollution, I'd like to see the reaction of the owner of the balck Benz in the background reacts as a burning leaf lands on his paint
;0
Wait, why is the jury out on this? Using fuel to burn leaves that should be collected is not green. Maybe it's cleaner than the blue smoke put out by the blower, but it's a sad choice of the lesser of two evils. The landscape needs to be designed for depositing leaves near by or ease of collection.
In most instances where a device like this is desired (to remove vegetation from the cracks of asphalt and concrete), salt and a sharp hoe work surprisingly well.
But being American, I can see the appeal of using a flamethrower for almost any application.
Why isn't it green? It's merely releasing the carbon the same as composting, albeit a much faster rate.
You've gotta be kidding me. I thought there was nothing worse than the gas-powered leaf blower but this thing takes the cake. Get a friggin' broom.
"Why isn't it green? It's merely releasing the carbon the same as composting, albeit a much faster rate."
Not exactly. There's the emissions from the fuel used to make the flame too, but also when you compost you get something useful (soil).
Why isn't it green? It's merely releasing the carbon the same as composting, albeit a much faster rate.
Um, composting puts carbon in the ground (ie, sequesters it) while burning fossil fuels puts it in the atmosphere.
This is basic stuff.
That only looks like a flame thrower. It actually is ionic particle defabulator.
Burn baby burn.
It's a german weed burning inferno...
Bad idea! I've found a much quicker, cleaner, more environmentally-friendly solution.Where I live, all our power is from renewable energy sources(hydro power) so I bought an electric leaf blower/vacuum. I vacuum up the leaves and they are also mulched to about 10% of their original volumn. The mulch comes at just the right time of year to cover my flower beds for winter. In summer all this mulch rots down and adds organic matter to my soil.The worms love it!
Absolutely ridiculous, the only thing remotely green about this product might be the slight green/blue discoloration of the flame. When you have a product that causes carconogenic by products, Carbon emissions and works on the principle of burning unrenewable energy, there is no way that this can be seen as a good idea or green! This article should be removed from the site and replaced by something relevant, and the leaf burner should be removed from the shelves and replaced with a rake!
Morris: i think the point is showing how ridiculous the leaf burners are, not advocating them.
Even leaf blowers are insane, but burning them like that takes the cake. no wonder people are fat.
People fat because they burn leaves? Wow great conclusion. Also excellent use of a blurry photo.