5 ms·

The answer is trees everywhere in numbers that you don’t find in western cities. Like 100x the number of trees normally found in a city. The benefits aren’t jus

by voisin 2y ago

The answer is trees everywhere in numbers that you don’t find in western cities. Like 100x the number of trees normally found in a city. The benefits aren’t just in temperature but also air quality, biodiversity, etc etc. Edit: for those saying “But there’s not enough water”, I strongly suggest reading “Rainwater Harvesting in Drylands and Beyond” written by Brad Lancaster in Arizona. For those who don’t want to read the book, check out his TED Talk here (warning: his enthusiasm is infectious and you’ll want to read the book afterward): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I2xDZlpInik https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I2xDZlpInik

turnsout 2y ago
Works really well as long as you can find trees that don't consume water. The challenge in these western cities is that they don't even have enough water to run the taps. The reality is that the western US should not be this populated, period.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  That's exactly what Phoenix is doing[1], well not no water but they're native and use very little. [1] https://www.phoenix.gov/oepsite/Documents/Tree%20and%20Shade%20Master%20Plan.pdf#search=Tree%20and%20Shade%20master%20Plan https://www.phoenix.gov/oepsite/Documents/Tree%20and%20Shade...
  - hosh 2y ago
    I live in Phoenix, and have seen the tree planting. There is a lot more that could be done that is not done. From my eyes, it looks more like, there are X number of trees that need to be planted and they are planted to fulfill those goals. There is little in the way of consideration for sunlight patterns, rainwater patterns, microclimates, planting methods, etc.
    - voisin 2y ago
      While imperfect sounding, just getting trees in the ground and then moving the goalposts to constantly increase the number, is a huge step forward. I think once in the ground, nature will take over and adapt.
- vhost- 2y ago
  I live in Portland, a place covered in trees and there’s definitely plenty of water for them. When I travel through parts of East Portland, it’s very noticeably hotter and there’s a noticeable lack of trees. The problem seems to be part political, part budget and part passing the buck (BUT WHOS GONNA TAKE CARE OF THEM??). It’s very frustrating.
  - turnsout 2y ago
    True, I should have been more precise; I was talking about the southwest. The PNW is a wonderland.
- estebank 2y ago
  The vast majority of water in western US goes to agriculture. You can of course make the obvious argument about local food production being necessary, but if the choice is more people can drink water at the cost of more expensive almonds and alfalfa, I'm ok with that. The idea that the west has done anywhere close to enough to optimize water consumption is not right, there's quite a bit of headroom left (that should be used to replenish aquifers).
  - lispisok 2y ago
    People might think you're being hyperbolic about the alfalfa but you are not. 25% of Colorado River water is used to grow alfalfa which is crazy given the contention around Colorado River water rights. https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-water-use-cherish-hamburger/ https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-w...
  - hosh 2y ago
    One of the more enduring way of restoring the aquifer is to restore the riverlands the way it had been before we hunted out all the beavers. That is, to slow down water flow in the hydrological cycle so that it spreads out and meanders throughout the land.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  Treated wastewater is almost waste itself, because at least in the United States we're reluctant to use it for agriculture for the obvious reasons. And trees aren't particularly large consumers of water, because the irrigation methods are non-lossy. Not spraying sprinklers up in the air so half is lost to evap. Or flooding little furrows in between the rows of a crop. It's not that big of a challenge, at least water wise. Infrastructure, if anything, is the problem... cities would have to go digging up a fuckton of sidewalk, and spend extra on maintenance every time there's a leak. Worse still, is having two separate water systems (can't connect to the potable water mains).
  - hosh 2y ago
    Drip irrigation isn't always good for trees to develop robust root system. Wastewater depends ... residential greywater can be used onsite if the residents are careful about the type of detergents they use. There are methods to treat blackwater onsite (more than just a septic tank and a leech field). For trees, I think the biggest factor is if you use woodchips in a basin. Even a six-foot diameter with 1 ft depth, filled with arborist chips makes a huge difference in water retention and nutrition for the trees. These are rain water harvesting structures that do not require a drip system.
- eep_social 2y ago
  Which cities? Metro Phoenix non-agricultural water usage is flat over the past 30 or 40 years despite experiencing double digit population growth for most of that time. Agriculture is the majority consumer and incentives and stewardship norms are evolving.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  The desert has always been a place humans needed technology to thrive in, since the ancient Gardens of Babylon or the Phoenix canals constructed by the Native Americans. The challenge is we need to invest in technology (Did you know the AZ border is only 60 miles from the Sea of Cortez?). There are lots of solutions that don’t involve throwing our hands up and saying “aw shucks it’s too hard to build infrastructure so I guess we should go home”
somenameforme 2y ago
Yip I've lived in many places where you have months of 40C+ (~104F), but when you past through a nice forested area the temperature just instantly plummets.
jedberg 2y ago
Water is the problem. You don't see a lot of trees in southwestern cities because we don't have the water to keep them alive.
- DoctorDabadedoo 2y ago
  I would argue that the problem is maintenance. Trees need to be pruned, watered, checked for pests, can get into sewer lines, waterways, etc. To sum up, they require work and one thing that governments hate is extra work.
  - estebank 2y ago
    I would argue that it's not so much that governments dislike extra work but rather that the populace dislikes the additional tax expenditures that accompany it.
  - voisin 2y ago
    Yet municipalities never seem upset by all the future maintenance required when they allow new subdivisions with roads, sewer, water infrastructure to support in perpetuity.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Something I've seen in many cities around the world (though never once in the US) is cities that essentially integrate literal forests into their layout. It's not the typical aesthetic or small-park type setting with a few dozen neatly sculpted and organized trees that would shortly give way without constant attention, but literal overgrown and completely self-sustaining forests. The closest I could find with an image search was apparently in Melbourne. [1] Imagine something like that, but somewhat more chaotic and natural. It works really well, but runs contrary to the sort of sterile aesthetic that most Western cities generally aim for. [1] - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/c3/09/ecc309a7ebfb8f2235f194b4e7d4e2c9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/c3/09/ecc309a7ebfb8f2235f1...
  - patchorang 2y ago
the_snooze 2y ago
Where do you put the trees when 1) many cities require a certain amount of parking for buildings and 2) surface parking lots are the cheapest form of parking? Cities lack trees because the requirements and incentives directly lead to paving the whole place over.
masklinn 2y ago
There's plenty of measures e.g. buildings close together so they can shade passages and funnel wind, literally look at middle eastern cities and you'll see it.
_yb2s 2y ago
Most of the US Southwest is naturally desert. There are only a few kinds of trees- such as the native palm that can live in these harsh conditions, and they naturally would only occur in arroyos or places where water accumulates and wind speeds are lower during storms. The soil is also just sand, and cannot support a large tree. The Los Angeles area is filled with non-native trees that are planted in sand and watered at great expense, but they fall and destroy houses and cars everytime it gets windy.
- hosh 2y ago
  Brad Landcaster lives in Tuscon and has successfully been able to implement the rainwater harvesting methods to provide substantial shade in his neighborhood. It's not just planting trees, but changing the conditions to support a forest ecosystem. Water retention has a lot to do with whether water gets absorbed into the ground, and the best way to do this is provide organic matter. Here is an example, this one from Andrew Millison talking about how the central canal project of Arizona accidentally created a condition that naturally supports a forest along the canal structure. It isn't because the canal leaked, but because the canal forms a berm structure, which then accumulated enough organics to retain the monsoon rains, that then jumpstarted the succession to a forest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf8usAesJvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf8usAesJvo
  - TomK32 2y ago
    Water retention also helps to prevent flash floods downstream and reduces the spikes in city water canals.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
Property value is typically proportional to tree density. The US should go on a federally-subsidized, concrete-busting, native tree-planting bonanza. Also, it should be possible to identify structures with insufficient trees by satellite to offer property owners a suggestion and a partial subsidy.

by voisin 2y ago

turnsout 2y ago

Works really well as long as you can find trees that don't consume water. The challenge in these western cities is that they don't even have enough water to run the taps. The reality is that the western US should not be this populated, period.

ch4s3 2y ago
That's exactly what Phoenix is doing[1], well not no water but they're native and use very little. [1] https://www.phoenix.gov/oepsite/Documents/Tree%20and%20Shade%20Master%20Plan.pdf#search=Tree%20and%20Shade%20master%20Plan https://www.phoenix.gov/oepsite/Documents/Tree%20and%20Shade...
- hosh 2y ago
  I live in Phoenix, and have seen the tree planting. There is a lot more that could be done that is not done. From my eyes, it looks more like, there are X number of trees that need to be planted and they are planted to fulfill those goals. There is little in the way of consideration for sunlight patterns, rainwater patterns, microclimates, planting methods, etc.
  - voisin 2y ago
    While imperfect sounding, just getting trees in the ground and then moving the goalposts to constantly increase the number, is a huge step forward. I think once in the ground, nature will take over and adapt.
vhost- 2y ago
I live in Portland, a place covered in trees and there’s definitely plenty of water for them. When I travel through parts of East Portland, it’s very noticeably hotter and there’s a noticeable lack of trees. The problem seems to be part political, part budget and part passing the buck (BUT WHOS GONNA TAKE CARE OF THEM??). It’s very frustrating.
- turnsout 2y ago
  True, I should have been more precise; I was talking about the southwest. The PNW is a wonderland.
estebank 2y ago
The vast majority of water in western US goes to agriculture. You can of course make the obvious argument about local food production being necessary, but if the choice is more people can drink water at the cost of more expensive almonds and alfalfa, I'm ok with that. The idea that the west has done anywhere close to enough to optimize water consumption is not right, there's quite a bit of headroom left (that should be used to replenish aquifers).
- lispisok 2y ago
  People might think you're being hyperbolic about the alfalfa but you are not. 25% of Colorado River water is used to grow alfalfa which is crazy given the contention around Colorado River water rights. https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-water-use-cherish-hamburger/ https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-w...
- hosh 2y ago
  One of the more enduring way of restoring the aquifer is to restore the riverlands the way it had been before we hunted out all the beavers. That is, to slow down water flow in the hydrological cycle so that it spreads out and meanders throughout the land.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
Treated wastewater is almost waste itself, because at least in the United States we're reluctant to use it for agriculture for the obvious reasons. And trees aren't particularly large consumers of water, because the irrigation methods are non-lossy. Not spraying sprinklers up in the air so half is lost to evap. Or flooding little furrows in between the rows of a crop. It's not that big of a challenge, at least water wise. Infrastructure, if anything, is the problem... cities would have to go digging up a fuckton of sidewalk, and spend extra on maintenance every time there's a leak. Worse still, is having two separate water systems (can't connect to the potable water mains).
- hosh 2y ago
  Drip irrigation isn't always good for trees to develop robust root system. Wastewater depends ... residential greywater can be used onsite if the residents are careful about the type of detergents they use. There are methods to treat blackwater onsite (more than just a septic tank and a leech field). For trees, I think the biggest factor is if you use woodchips in a basin. Even a six-foot diameter with 1 ft depth, filled with arborist chips makes a huge difference in water retention and nutrition for the trees. These are rain water harvesting structures that do not require a drip system.
eep_social 2y ago
Which cities? Metro Phoenix non-agricultural water usage is flat over the past 30 or 40 years despite experiencing double digit population growth for most of that time. Agriculture is the majority consumer and incentives and stewardship norms are evolving.
oceanplexian 2y ago
The desert has always been a place humans needed technology to thrive in, since the ancient Gardens of Babylon or the Phoenix canals constructed by the Native Americans. The challenge is we need to invest in technology (Did you know the AZ border is only 60 miles from the Sea of Cortez?). There are lots of solutions that don’t involve throwing our hands up and saying “aw shucks it’s too hard to build infrastructure so I guess we should go home”

somenameforme 2y ago

Yip I've lived in many places where you have months of 40C+ (~104F), but when you past through a nice forested area the temperature just instantly plummets.

jedberg 2y ago

Water is the problem. You don't see a lot of trees in southwestern cities because we don't have the water to keep them alive.

DoctorDabadedoo 2y ago
I would argue that the problem is maintenance. Trees need to be pruned, watered, checked for pests, can get into sewer lines, waterways, etc. To sum up, they require work and one thing that governments hate is extra work.
- estebank 2y ago
  I would argue that it's not so much that governments dislike extra work but rather that the populace dislikes the additional tax expenditures that accompany it.
- voisin 2y ago
  Yet municipalities never seem upset by all the future maintenance required when they allow new subdivisions with roads, sewer, water infrastructure to support in perpetuity.
somenameforme 2y ago
Something I've seen in many cities around the world (though never once in the US) is cities that essentially integrate literal forests into their layout. It's not the typical aesthetic or small-park type setting with a few dozen neatly sculpted and organized trees that would shortly give way without constant attention, but literal overgrown and completely self-sustaining forests. The closest I could find with an image search was apparently in Melbourne. [1] Imagine something like that, but somewhat more chaotic and natural. It works really well, but runs contrary to the sort of sterile aesthetic that most Western cities generally aim for. [1] - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/c3/09/ecc309a7ebfb8f2235f194b4e7d4e2c9.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/c3/09/ecc309a7ebfb8f2235f1...
- patchorang 2y ago

the_snooze 2y ago

Where do you put the trees when 1) many cities require a certain amount of parking for buildings and 2) surface parking lots are the cheapest form of parking? Cities lack trees because the requirements and incentives directly lead to paving the whole place over.

masklinn 2y ago

There's plenty of measures e.g. buildings close together so they can shade passages and funnel wind, literally look at middle eastern cities and you'll see it.

_yb2s 2y ago

Most of the US Southwest is naturally desert. There are only a few kinds of trees- such as the native palm that can live in these harsh conditions, and they naturally would only occur in arroyos or places where water accumulates and wind speeds are lower during storms. The soil is also just sand, and cannot support a large tree. The Los Angeles area is filled with non-native trees that are planted in sand and watered at great expense, but they fall and destroy houses and cars everytime it gets windy.

hosh 2y ago
Brad Landcaster lives in Tuscon and has successfully been able to implement the rainwater harvesting methods to provide substantial shade in his neighborhood. It's not just planting trees, but changing the conditions to support a forest ecosystem. Water retention has a lot to do with whether water gets absorbed into the ground, and the best way to do this is provide organic matter. Here is an example, this one from Andrew Millison talking about how the central canal project of Arizona accidentally created a condition that naturally supports a forest along the canal structure. It isn't because the canal leaked, but because the canal forms a berm structure, which then accumulated enough organics to retain the monsoon rains, that then jumpstarted the succession to a forest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf8usAesJvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf8usAesJvo
- TomK32 2y ago
  Water retention also helps to prevent flash floods downstream and reduces the spikes in city water canals.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

Property value is typically proportional to tree density. The US should go on a federally-subsidized, concrete-busting, native tree-planting bonanza. Also, it should be possible to identify structures with insufficient trees by satellite to offer property owners a suggestion and a partial subsidy.