The State of Minnesota is making a move to join the ranks of the progressive West Coast with a new bill proposed in the state House that would ban the sale and distribution of gasoline powered lawn and garden tools. Authored by Democratic Representatives Jerry Newton of Coon Rapids and Heather Edelson of Edina, the bill would take effect on January 1, 2025 and would prohibit the sale of “fossil fuel powered” lawn and garden tools. This includes equipment such as lawnmowers, leaf blowers, hedge clippers, chainsaws, lawn edgers, string trimmers, and brush cutters.
— Cara Schulz (@cara_schulz) February 14, 2023
The proposed ban has been met with criticism from those who live outside of the Twin Cities suburbs, as they are more likely to have larger yards and properties that require more powerful tools than those that are powered by electricity. This could also have a negative impact on lawn and garden service companies, as they would need to double their equipment in order to do the same amount of work due to the downtime needed to recharge electric tools.
The Center for the American Experiment has also pointed out that electric tools are insufficient for those who need to do serious work in rural areas, such as hunters who need to chop trees for fire or shelter. Electric chainsaws would be unable to be used in these instances, as there is no way to plug them in while miles deep into the woods. Furthermore, electric equipment relies on electricity which is often generated from fossil fuels.
The implications of this proposed ban demonstrate the lack of understanding that urban and suburban liberals have for rural Minnesotans and their way of life. It also suggests that they do not care to learn about it. The bill is indicative of President Joe Biden’s mission to end fossil fuels, regardless of their impact on Minnesota businesses and residents.
Ultimately, this proposed ban on gasoline powered lawn and garden tools in Minnesota is a misguided attempt to join the progressive West Coast, as it fails to consider the needs of those who live outside of the Twin Cities suburbs. It could also have a negative effect on businesses and residents in the state, while also being counterintuitive to its purpose of ending fossil fuels.
The preceding article is a summary of an article that originally appeared on Townhall