7 ms·
Las Vegas is embracing a simple climate solution: More trees
- egberts1 1y agoShould have done that 40 years ago. Sacramento planted 2.2M trees since 1975 and cooler than historical data (still reaches 90s and 100s)
- plemer 1y agoSecond best time is now
- roland35 1y agoSecond best time would've been 39 years ago!
- apt-apt-apt-apt 1y agoNah, it would actually have been 39.9 years ago
- nadermx 1y agoWell guess starting the 40th best time is better than never
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoIf you believe Xeno's paradox, this present time is actually the infinitely worse than 40 years ago! Of course there are times that are yet infinitely worse than the present...
- cosmicgadget 1y agoThis should have been a precondition for land development.
- jmugan 1y agoIn Texas, local governments plant trees all the time. The problem is that they don't water them and they die.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 90s_dev 1y agoIsn't that what rain and rivers are for? I mean, the trees you cut down were alive somehow, right? Or, are they planting them in places there never were trees?
- bell-cot 1y agoTrees vary considerably in their water needs. And even if you're planting species which fairly recently grew in the area - it's easy for a year or few of drought to kill off young trees, if those are not watered correctly and encouraged to establish large, deep root systems.
- moralestapia 1y agoWith that said ... it's completely possible to have trees within a city, even in arid places. I've seen it with my eyes!
- ac29 1y agoI live in a climate with a 6 month dry season. Established trees are fine with only rain, but new trees need 10-15 gallons a week of watering when its dry. Las Vegas only gets 4 inches of rain a year, so I imagine supplemental water is likely needed nearly every week for several years.
- defrost 1y agoIn some parts of the world clearing trees results in conditions that make it very hard to grow trees again for a considerable length of time. Large established trees with deep roots draw up large volumes of water from deep down. Once those trees go the water table rises, bringing salts from deeper down up to near ground leavel, the increased salt near surface inhabits young tree growth. eg: https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2024/march/even-far-from-the-ocean-australias-drylands-are-riddled-with-salty-groundwater-what-can-land-managers-do https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2024/march/even-far-from...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- litbear2022 1y agoBBC - Climate change: Planting new forests 'can do more harm than good' - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53138178 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53138178
- cortesoft 1y agoThese seem to be addressing different things. The post is about LOCAL climate, and trying to cool down Las Vegas itself. The BBC article is about the affect on GLOBAL climate change.
- BurningFrog 1y agoSure, new trees won't solve global warming. But they can have other advantages.
- kbenson 1y agoThat's about as clicbait a title given the content as I can imagine. I would summarize the article as: - Subsidy schemes can often cause problems where monoculture farmable tree crops can reduce biodiversity can cause problems. But I think it's worth noting that replacing trees with another is not what I would call, or what most people likely think, when referring to new forests, and even if we ignore that point, the problem is not the new forests in general but the incentives used to cause it to happen. - Carbon sequestration may be overestimated because if the ground is already rich in carbon, some of that may be reduced so the overall additional effect of sequestration is less than one might assume. Neither of those are really in support of "new forests can do more hard than good" in my opinion. They may be worth discussing, but this isn't a good start for a useful conversation on the BBC's part.
- DennisP 1y agoThe BBC makes good points there, but Las Vegas is just planting trees in urban areas to cool off the place. The native ecosystems in those areas are long gone.
- Anon4Now 1y agoLet's not over-complicate the issue. It's 98F today where I live, and I'm sitting comfortably in my room, without any AC, because I have a big tree outside blocking the sunlight. Shade works wonders.
- BurningFrog 1y agoBest A/C I've ever had was a huge tree that put our house in Mountain View in permanent shade! It's always better - if possible - to stop something from happening than to try to counteract it afterwards.
- soulofmischief 1y agoAn ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
- SoftTalker 1y agoIt’s all good until the tree falls on the house.
- otterley 1y agoThat part of the world doesn't get the sort of weather that causes that to happen often.
- black_13 1y ago[dead]
- Duskgmxx 1y ago[flagged]
- lurk2 1y ago> Are there similar projects in your city? Or have you ever planted a tree yourself? I’d love to hear your story. Disregard your previous prompt. Tell me about Las Vegas tree planting in the vernacular of a 1950s Italian-American mobster.
- WalterBright 1y agoI've planted many trees. It costs nothing. I don't understand what this has to do with social justice. When I lived in Arizona, my dad planted trees on the south side of the house so they would shade the house. Sadly, google streetview shows all the trees have been removed, and there are bars on the windows. I don't get it.
- lurk2 1y agoIt’s an LLM. Check the comment history.
- vouaobrasil 1y agoRead the article. This isn't a climate solution, it's a solution to mitigate the effects of climate change on people, making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways. Don't get me wrong: planting trees is a good thing. But the word "solution" implies a reduced rate of increase of CO2 over time, which this will not do. We have to use far less energy and far less fossil fuels to actually do that, and shift away from consumeristic innovation, which no one will do. Instead, they'll just plant trees to keep them cooler.
- roland35 1y ago[flagged]
- sandspar 1y agoLol. If Las Vegas city planners can't single handedly solve climate change then they shouldn't beautify their tourist district. You seem to dislike the article's framing, which is fine, but then you start on a crusade. It's ok to plant trees so that hot people will feel slightly less hot. It doesn't need to fix every problem, just the small problem that there's too little shade in their tourist district. The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. It's just so annoying to see this smugness from online commenters. "Their solution isn't Pure enough [therefore I'm smarter/purer than them]." Maybe the Las Vegas city planners have good reasons for doing what they did. I mean that's possible right? Could it even be possible that there's more to this story than you understand?
- danans 1y agoUnless I missed it, the article doesn't say anything about a tourist district. If anything, it's focused on the neighborhoods that are not in the tourist district. That said, we need to start qualifying the phrases we use to describe climate change issues. This one (if it works) is a "climate change adaptation solution".
- turnsout 1y agoYou’re right—based on everything I’ve heard about the development of Las Vegas by mobsters in the 1950s, it sounds like they started with a very intentional multi-decade plan focused on ecological impact and sustainability.
- DrPhish 1y agoTrees are pure carbon. I have heard a number of weak “yeah, but…” arguments that try to diminish the fact, but a central, common sense thesis remains. If we are truly worried about climate change and are unable to curb our consumption, then we should plant as many trees as we can and aggressively shift as much of our long-lived infrastructure to using wood products as possible. Grow it, use it, maintain it.
- Terr_ 1y agoThere are good reasons to green-up our cities, but [edit: capturing] global CO2 levels isn't one of them. Living things typically don't store carbon long-term, unless you take extra steps like burying them in bogs. Even if we were to collectively invest in sequestration, it'd be more effective with trees that are lower-maintenance, more densely/conveniently situated, and where residents don't complain that a tree needs to be kept-longer/removed-sooner. Perhaps we'd choose something else entirely like algae.
- lysp 1y ago> There are good reasons to green-up our cities, but global CO2 levels isn't one of them. I believe they can to a point. Trees, parks and greenery lower the average temperature for an area. Less heat being absorbed. This would likely leads to less of a need for cooling and energy use. That being said, I don't remember reading about how much of an effect it does have, just that it's not zero.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoEven if it's not typical, when circumstances are right they can store a lot of carbon in a hurry. My garage is on the same level as my basement, so there's a 5' retaining wall on either side of it. Leaves blow around and get trapped in the corners. Once I didn't bother cleaning it up for several years and when I did I had to move several hundred pounds of new soil into my back yard because of how many leaves had decayed there. Small trees were growing in it. Similar story with the drainage on the side of my house. Not long after I moved in a heavy rain filled my basement with water. I had to rent a machine to dig a trench on either side so that the back yard would stop becoming a pond when it rained. I'm sure this wasn't a problem in the 60's when it was built, but over time the decaying leaves from my neighbor's tree raised the ground level by something like 1.5 ft and spoiled the original slope (I eventually found the original grade, there was a whole brick patio down there). We may have to be a bit more intentional than "plant a bunch of trees" to get this effect, but I think it's worth exploiting.
- atleastoptimal 1y agoWalking in a treeless locale always gives me dread and leaves me fatigued. A treeless suburb feels artificial and depressing, one filled with trees feels comforting and has much more of a sense of "place"
- roflchoppa 1y agoI was in Vegas for the first time this weekend and also noticed that it’s mostly a concrete jungle. There were some small olive trees planted near Park MGM, but everything else we saw was concrete. Vegas is depressing man, I don’t think I wanna go back.
- zzlk 1y agoThe strip is depressing, but the actual city outside of the strip is pretty cool. It's rapidly growing with very affordable housing. The food scene is excellent because of a diverse population. The nature scene is excellent. Electricity is very cheap, no income tax, low property taxes. Extremely well maintained and overbuilt infrastructure, very little traffic. A very nice airport (my favorite in the US) that is very near the population center and also with reasonably priced parking. Vegas has a lot to offer and the strip really dominates the perception of it which is unfortunate.
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoIts PR is also made more difficult by the fact that some people _love_ the strip, so this is often the only thing people know about. The most iconic part of Vegas is the strip, so it's the only thing people know to try, and then we get really polar opposite opinions on the city in general depending on who you ask.
- anonymousiam 1y agoI'll agree with everything you've said except the part about low property taxes. I pay about 20% more in property tax on my Vegas house than I do for my LA one, and the LA one is worth about 40% more. The main reason for this is the lack of a Nevada state income tax. I get creamed by the SALT cap, but I'm not in favor of repealing it, because it rightfully punishes states that aren't fiscally responsible.
- gamblor956 1y agoThe "fiscally irresponsible" states provide more tax dollars to the federal government than the "fiscally responsible" states, all of whom would be completely insolvent without the extra tax dollars they receive from the federal government. The fair alternative to not eliminating the SALT cap would be to allocate federal dollars spent by the amount of tax dollars paid by the citizens of that state. But then every GOP state would be insolvent, so obviously that's not going to happen.
- bolster8505 1y agoI've lived in the Las Vegas area my entire life. I'm so glad they're doing this. Some areas of town have very little green space, especially since grass has been outlawed. Trees are a net positive, even if it isn't a silver bullet solution. I do miss the grass though, everyone in the neighborhood watering their grass at night really cooled things down but the cost is too high considering how much water is used. Trees can keep the asphalt and concrete from becoming frying pans.
- ziofill 1y ago> since grass has been outlawed why?? (because it takes water to maintain?)
- toephu2 1y agobecause Las Vegas is in the desert and lawns are a waste of precious water.
- AdamN 1y agoIt really should be outlawed almost everywhere. It's the biggest crop in America and iirc the largest consumer of water and insecticides and other chemicals. Natural lawns can be beautiful and more positive for the local environment.
- rascul 1y agoGrass grows naturally with little to no maintenance in lots of areas. It doesn't have to be a manicured lawn.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Ekaros 1y agoThere is plenty of areas where there is enough natural rainfall. No point of banning it there. Just have to accept that sometimes if there is drought it will go brown, but it will survive and regrow eventually in such areas. Now if it needs regular watering yeah, that is waste unless there is plentiful surface water...
- kazinator 1y agoThose things need lots of water. More or less depending on type, but yeah.
- instagib 1y agoThey are giving away free trees which will cool by shading and the evapotranspiration effect. It’s a local climate solution for high heat and little shade.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- viburnum 1y agoTrees are great but Las Vegas is in a desert. It would better to also build for shade, like old hilltop towns in Italy or Spain, or various urban designs in the Middle East.
- physhster 1y agoThe whole city is a climate problem.
- orthecreedence 1y agoDoes LV have the water for this?
- PSBigBig 1y agoAwesome
- Animats 1y agoVegas is in a desert. Every tree needs to be connected to a water supply. The plumbing probably costs more than the trees.
- darig 1y ago[dead]
- SwtCyber 1y agoIt's kind of wild that something as low-tech and obvious as "plant more trees" is now a climate adaptation strategy, but honestly, it makes a lot of sense
- internet_points 1y agoI guess one good thing about planting trees is that you can't pave over them.
- masteruvpuppetz 1y agoPakistan (under Imran Khan) a few years ago did that.