I can't believe this is your response when you chose to respond. How does this response support your idea that banning gas-powered leaf blowers is any type of punishment without alternatives when electric leaf blowers are not only readily available but are less expensive to purchase and less expensive to operate? Nor does this support the idea that the city using generators to power electric leaf-blowers is some sort of unintended negative consequence. Absent any proof this was not the cities intent from the beginning a quick glance at the numbers demonstrate running electric leaf-blowers, even off a gasoline generator, still offers reductions in emissions. If you want to argue that banning gas-powered leaf-blowers is not an effective means of reducing emissions and more needs to be done I'm with you there but I fail to see how the example you provided is evidence of what you suggest. Fuel consumption is more than simply displacement and emissions are more than just fuel consumed. You need to know much more than 337cc vs 24.5cc to know anything meaningful. The lambda is the ratio of air divided to fuel, divided by the stoichiometric ratio. Then you need displacement times RPM. That will get you close to a meaningful number. I won't repeat the numbers here but the EPA has them readily available as does the City of Palo Alto.
John Thornton