5 ms·
Consider instead something other than a lawn. They don't call it "green concrete" for nothing. https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster-182
by UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Consider instead something other than a lawn. They don't call it "green concrete" for nothing.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster-1826070720 https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster...
- dawnerd 7y agoDepends on your climate. In the PNW for example you don't have to water really so having a nice lawn isn't an ecological disaster that the article would make out.
- UnFleshedOne 7y agoWatering, weeding and fertilizing is not the only problems -- there is also intentional lack of biodiversity. Plants native to the area will always support more.
- dawnerd 7y agoYep, people should use local grasses and clovers. I've let the clover here take over my back yard and it's been wonderful with attracting bees - plus I don't have to mow it very often.
- SnowingXIV 7y agoNot an option. There is an association and this a new development. I'm just looking to for the most affordable and hands free maintenance aside from hiring out a company to do it which I still might do.
- cjensen 7y agoThat was all based on a "green" news article being recycled on gizmodo. The original article was full of incorrect interpretations of data and so forth. E.g. lawns are not, contrary to the original article, the #1 crop by area. Lawns in general are green by being carbon sinks. But as with all things, it depends. If you live in the midwest with plenty of summer rain, the lawn costs very little. If you're in Arizona or California, water use is an issue.