Reply #16: Whilst I understand your sentiment ...

[Nihil]

... and prefer the "all options" approach, I am with Hatrack on this one.

The use of weasel words like "up to" and the avoidance of any significant
impact will minimise the effectiveness of this project whilst the targetting
of the domestic public will maximise the anti-environmentalist rebound.

If I've got this right, working on lawnmowers that produce "up to 10%"
of the pollution problem by "up to 40%" means that the best case
improvement will mean lawnmowers only produce "up to 6%" of the total
problem (i.e., total pollution reduces from 100% to 96%+).

In the process, the EPA would successfully piss off a large number of
the environmentally-ignorant general public and get everyone's back up
against future actions.

Now if the EPA were to achieve an "up to 40%" reduction of the 90%+
polluters excluding lawnmowers, that would translate to a total reduction
from 100% to 60%+ (or even less depending on how "up to" the original
hand-wave of "up to 10%" was).

Pollution down to 96% + pissed off general public + happy CEOs
vs.
Pollution down to 60% + pissed off CEOs

Yes, we can see why the EPA chose this for an effective strategy ... :eyes: