Absolutely not – that’s absurd.
In a recent FHB mini-article, the argument is made that we can really make a difference if we replace our watered lawns with decorative gravel arrangements. Aesthetics aside, nothing showcases the absurdity of the ‘green’ movement more than this topic.
Perhaps the best counter comes from within the movement, where the exact opposite approach is encouraged. They preach the ‘heat island’ effect of development, encourage ‘greenways,’ and even give you ‘points’ for planting grass on your roof.
More to the point, anyone who has replaced a dirt patch with grass – or done the opposite – has noticed an immediate difference inside their home; dirt and rock reflect an enormous amount of heat into the home, as compared to grass. Or, for that matter, ANY ground cover. The article fails to take into account the increased air conditioning load from “xeriscaping.”
If man is upsetting the climate with his ‘heat islands,’ it seems to me that we would want to encourage as much greenery as possible. As for ‘carbon emissions,’ plants exist for the specific purpose of removing carbon from the air – where do you think all that plant material comes from?
Of course, one could just let the ‘market’ exercise restraint, as prices change to reflect demand. Such an approach, however, is nowhere near as much fun as the ‘big brother’ approach, where every man has to face countless committees for anything he might want to do on HIS property.
Which, perhaps, is the real point to all of this. “Green” isn’t about saving the planet – it’s about another person assuming that their opinion matters more than yours, even in those areas that clearly belong to you.
Replies
Which areas
clearly belong to you?
Weak!
Renosteinke,
I think you may have missed the point and taken it too personally. Not to mention your argument is weak.
This is not a soviet regime and the government nor FHB is out to get you or turn you into a hippie against your free will. You can have green grass if you like (unless there is a watering ban).
Xeriscaping is nothing new. While the term "brown" isn't exactly precise to describe xeriscaping, I think the point was really geared more towards the idea of planning better to get more out of your yard while using less recourses. Not many want a dirt yard and few wish for a dead grass yard but that's mostly because we have this american paradigm that dictates white picket fences around lush green yards. Which I believe is fine as long as the grass grows naturally like that (maybe it gets watered a little just to start the seeds) good for you to have rich fertile soils. But shame on you to have a lush green lawn if you live in the desert. Why? Hey, it's a desert. You chose to live in a desert so live in a desert not a rainforest that is transplanted in the desert and needs wasteful loads of water just so you can see green when you look out your window. An extreme example? Yes. But hopefully you get the point this time.
A more common example is my yard. I live in Michigan. Lots of water, we're surrounded by it. Still, I don't water my yard. Yes, it's green most of the time but if we get drought it might brown. Still I don't water it. It is what it is. And in the winter time, the snow falls and covers it. It's not like I'm going to shovel the snow off my lawn and water it and heat it (or whatever would be opposite comparison of what they do in a desert). It is what it is. I used native Michigan grass seed so I know it's right for my climate without any extra provision, short of mowing it once a week or so in summer.
So, you can do whatever you want with your yard. But to be "brown" or otherwise ecologically sensitive, you should plan to create a yard that doesn't need watering, or any tending for that matter. Use stone and mulch to accent. Give xeriscaping a try. Think about cistern-ing water for any watering needs you can't live without. Look into native plant varieties. Plan ahead, be smart, work less and benefit the planet a little more.
DC
Good post Dreamcatcher
I live in Colorado and where as I do water my grass I also take steps to minimize my watering, i.e. I only fertilize when the is going to be some natural precipitation, aerate properly, water in early morning before dawn to minimize evaporation (some would disagree and say to water at night, however this cause other problems such as bug and disease issues). Only water every third day with a decent soak to allow the water to penetrate the ground well, to encourage deep roots (which will help when it is very hot and if I miss a day or 2 of watering. Also being green is not just about saving the planet it is about not being so wasteful with everything. It is not very hard and has a lot of rewards...recycling means not as taking the garbage out as much, composting means some kicka** fertilizer for your garden and plants for FREE! Etc, etc...
Dan
Well put, sir! I live in the desert ... near Death Valley ... and it amazes me that they have historically insisted that they have green lawns and trees found in other climates (e.g. cotton woods, sycamores, etc.). OMG I said to myself when I moved here 4 yrs ago!! They use water like it's an unlimited resource ... I guess they failed to look just over the mountains at the woes, trials, and tribulations of LA over the last 5-6 decades to even have the most basic understanding and respect for their water resource.
Here ... the sunniest and driest place in the US ... and we pay about only 60%for water that I pay for a house up in the NW that is w/in a mile of the Columbia River ... among some of the largest watersheds on the planet! Now that makes no sense to me. I'm guessing we should be paying a cool 4 x the cost up in the NW ... go figure, eh? No incentives to switch all the old toilets and shower heads or to xeriscape.
Cisterning illegal in desert communities
I lived in Utah until several months ago, and capturing rainfall for personal use is illegal there, at least where I lived. All water is community property and rainbarrels are not allowed. They also mandate a certain amount of green lawn and ticket xeriscapers. There was a big stink a few years ago in the next town over when the guy ticketing a grandma for not watering her lawn knocked her to the ground and handcuffed her because she wasn't cooperating by providing id, even though she was in her own home. By the time I left UT, I was really tired of the frequent letters in our utility bills telling us ways to conserve water, despite the fact that we were REQUIRED to have the lawn that used so much water, even as the local churches and government buildings were watering their lawns at high noon.
I agree with reno that government agencies of any kind mandating our yards and homes is un-American. Yes, there is risk that the neighbor will put purple roof tiles on their home that you don't care for. But quite frankly I'd rather have that than the sameness imposed by homeowner's associations. While the greater good is served by protecting natural resources, it is also improved by actually following the intentions of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The simple way to achieve both ends is to charge through the nose for household water use beyond a certain threshold. The water company is happy because they make more money. The people to whom a green lawn is really important pay for it. The rest of us live with brown grass because playing soccer on gravel isn't much fun.
You can find stupid laws everywhere, especially in "planned" communities where most people are relatively wealthy out-of-state retirees. This says nothing about either the merits of being ecologically conscious, or the merits of having governments in the first place. What it does say is that sometimes democracy does stupid things, when the voters are self-centered and/or ill-informed.
But that's democracy -- if you want perfection make me dictator.
Brown the New Green
You may have a point there, check this link:
http://www.cfact.org/a/1581/Tiny-fish-threatens-to-turn-Californias--Central-Valley-into-Dust-Bowl
The problem is more with unsuitable designs
The problem isn't with the xeriscaping, but more with the total design being unsuitable for the environment in which the structure must function.
Las Vegas, and Clark County, Nevada went so far as to ban banked earth structures. And with a ground temp at 5-ft depth of 71-degrees, it is a truly an ideal location for such construction.
The consequence is that there are a lot of stick-built, stucco covered tract homes, that will always be energy inefficient.
They did ban shake, and cedar shingle roofs eventually though, but that was because after a few year in the sun, they would tend to combust at the slightest application of flame.
The goal should be to design, and construct homes, that are in tune with their environmental setting. The use of native vegatation for landscaping should be the last part of the design consideration.
I live in Salmon, Idaho. It gets cold, and I spend the majority of the winter in the finished basement, and only go up into the main floor of my 70's ranch style home to sleep during the winter. The upstairs heat is set to come on a 50-degrees, and since almost all of the heat loss from the basement, is up into the main floor, that furnace rarely comes on. The down stairs, which only has four small window openings that go directly outside, stays heated to 68-degrees, and because it doesn't have the losses to the outside it is pretty inexpensive to heat.
If I built new, I would bury the whole house.
I'm guessing earth-banked structures were banned because the people next door with their elaborate lawns watered from Lake Mead didn't like the way they looked.
Similarly, in many parts of the country if you build a "rain garden" to control runoff from your property, the neighbors will complain about the weeds. (And &diety forbid that you should plant half of your large far-suburban lot with prairie grass).
---------------
As others have said, we rarely water our lawn. Even if we have a protracted dry spell in the summer, we just let the grass "go dormant" (which climate-appropriate grass will do). If, instead, you water it every day during the heat of summer and then are prevented from doing so by a watering ban, the grass will turn yellow and die in about a week.
Xeriscaping is not about eliminating landscaping elements and plants. It's about alternatives that produce an aesthetic result w/ much less demand on our resources.
The only thing absurd here is your statements and lack of knowledge. Xeriscaping will not increase the heat island affect. I bet you are the guy that gets tired of mowing his lawn, so he concretes his front yard. While I tend to hate the 'green' hype tha is being thrown around like candy in a parade, the intent is clear: do more w/ less and be better stewards of our resources than we have in the past. Work smarter and us technology and our intelligence to provide better solutions to resource management.
You sound like a guy that would be in a life raft w/ a bunch of people and since you have money in your pocket, you buy all the resources in the raft. In the end, all is lost, because you bought up and used all the resources that could have saved the whole group.
While non of us like [the gov't] telling us what to do ... we all enjoy the benefits the government provides us ... streets, water systems, sewer systems, fire protection, etc.
I suggest you use your time to begin your education about resources and resource management rather than simply whining about how or why the gov't shouldn't be playing big brother with resource management. Frankly most people (the masses) need resource management requirements else their greed and/or ignorance will squander the resources.
You can't use a resource without affecting the guy next to you and it isn't fair (regardless of how hard you work or how rich you are) to be wasteful.
The replies so far have done more to support my fears than I had imagined.
I note that the first reply seemed to infer that there was something unclear about the 'private' in 'private property. Nor was the concept that something you have paid for - even water- is yours. That's one of my main points regarding the 'green' movement: these folks have the very idea of private property in the cross-hairs.
The most recent reply has done a fine job of explaining just what a rotten person I am, If anything, the poster was overly kind. Yet, the idea that 'nice' folks get to tell the rest of us what to do is a concept foreign to the Founding Fathers.
Indeed, looking back upon millennia of 'nice' folks doing the most evil things to their neighbors, all in the name of higher principles, was certainly one of the motives behind this country being set up the way it was - a deliberate attempt to save the rest of us from tyranny, however 'enlightened.'
I fail to see how concrete, rooftops, and bare earth can create a 'heat island' - something strenously asserted by the Green Movement, and incorporated into LEED design, yet bare earth and gravel in your yard will not. Whatever my personal flaws may be, the assertion of the article (that brown is green) is in direct conflict with the 'plant your roof' LEED desire. I assert that grass on the roof needs at least as much water as grass in the yard. This alone pulls the rug out from their own premise - and the illogic remains, without regard to the personal merits of any individual.
The other bit of madness regards the role of plants in our world. The Greenies will assert that we are doing terrible things by adding carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, to the air. Well, the very purpose of plants is to remove that carbon = and there's no better place for them than near the souce of the carbon. That would be US. So, to attack the root of their asserted problem, one would expect them to want as much greenery as possible - not gravel yards!
There are any number of countries where 'committees' make decisions on behalf of everyone else. It's easy to tell which countries these are - just count the 'boat people' leaving and the US aid arriving. It wasn't the Chinese who have repeateatedly aided folks after earthquakes, hurricaines, etc. I have also lost count of the 'paradises' that folks have fled, at great risk and effort. Why should we adopt an obviously failed model?
Nor was the concept that something you have paid for - even water- is yours.
Think again. When the water is highly subsidized by the government and price-limited by ancient water treaties, how is it "something you have paid for"?? We all freakin' paid for it and we as a community should have some say in how it's used.
You do bring up some very good points. But the simple facts of managing LIMITED resources remain in terms of importance. You have no rights as a private property owner to use/consume a limited resource at will that is fundamental to human existence ... referring specifically to water here. Regardless of how rich you are or how hard you work, you do not/should not have that right. There is not even a logical reason for you to waste a resource just because you have the bucks to buy it when there are ways to mitigate the waste.
The 'freedom' that we were to enjoy with this 'new' country was not to simply 'do whatever we want', but to enjoy the pursuit of hapiness ... albeit not at the expense or demise of others. With freedoms come responsibilities and I think a lot of people have forgotten the notion that the responsibilities takes a lot of effort and care to maintain. I don't think for one second, the founding fathers intended that we have an attitude of 'damn my neighbor, I'm free to do whatever I f'ng well please!'
In the early years of this country resources were plentiful and it was hard to imagine that we could stress these resources to limits. But as we've grown, we become wiser and realize that resource management is necessary and that the individuals of the masses will not have a tendency to manage the resources in a manner that will sustain those resources.
The intent of 'green' is to simply strive to minimize resource use while maintaining our enjoyment of some of our freedoms ... to have a landscaped yard or heated/cooled houses. The biggest emphasis being on waste ... using a resource in a manner that provides little or no significant benefit. As such, I advocate landscaping that is indigenous to the climate and low flush toilets that do (often a better) job with a lot less. If that means lush green lawns, fine. But here in the desert, it doesn't and I support alternative plants that require minimal water. This ain't the UK where green tends to be natural.
If you need/want a lush lawn, make sure you live in the right climate. If not, take the responsibility and xerescape.
Yet the contradiction remains .... how is a grassy lawn less 'green' than a grassy roof?
It is taught in some circles that deserts are made by man, by removing the natural vegetation as part of his development. Would not the opposite also be true, that by introducing water and vegetation that the climate can be changed back, and the desert rolled back? That is the line of reasoning behind 'green belts' and other 'green' mandates.
Again, how can a plot of grass in a park be any different, environmentally, from a plot of grass in my yard?
Yet, you advocate an approach that would have me fined, imprisoned, and have my property seized ... all for doing what you would force me to have done in 'public' spaces, or on different parts of my property.
With there being such an inherent contridiction to the logic ... is it the fining, imprisoning of me, and the seizing of my property, that is the true motive?
Again, how can a plot of grass in a park be any different, environmentally, from a plot of grass in my yard?
I've never seen a park that was sprinklered with water imported from hundreds of miles away. (Though I guess I have seen "parkways" in LA stupidly sprinklered this way.)
Grass isn't "good" or "bad". It's the context -- whether the flora is naturally self-sustaining or must be maintained at considerable expense, both financially and environmentally.
And while there have been some stupid cases of local authorities going overboard in enforcing (stupid) green lawn requirements, again that's not the fault of government in the generic sense, that's the fault of the local voters who voted in such stupid requirements. In the US government at all levels is a democracy -- things don't happen without the voters' approval, whether it be explicit or tacit.
I don't know that anyone implied that you should be imprisoned or your house seized for non compliance. But, if you and others waste enough water, that is exactly the kind of thing we might face for violations.
So, if you were in a life raft and had lots of money, but no fishing skills, would you buy all the fish from others for your own consumption just because you worked hard for the money you have and feel you have the right to it and you simply want it?
While we are far from this scenario, I'd venture to say we don't know how far from land our raft might be, but we know if we don't ration and come together as a team, we could easily perish.
The days of thinking that just because water covers 3/4 of the earth, it is a boundless resource without issues of quality and quantity are over. It only takes a quick look at the woes of LA to see what kinds of problems we can have with water.
You seem to advocate exactly what LA has done over the years ... take water from others and destroy their resource for their own gain (as evidenced by the draining of Owens Lake). Lots of money, lots of power, take what they want w/out regard to others outside their circle. In hindsight this was uterly absurd ... but hopefully we can learn a lot from their experience ... if we have the intelligence to learn from history.
I continue to see a lot of assertions with 'you this' or 'you that' in them, as if RenoSteinke were the topic. Well, I'm not.
Let's look at two facts:
The FHB article asserts environmental benefits from replacing your lawn with rocks.
LEED -among others in the green camp- advocate 'green belts' and planted roofs as ways to reap environmental benefits.
I ask: How can grass on the roof be any different environmentally than grass on the yard? How can grass in the park differ from grass on the lawn?
There's been some blather about 'history,' which is ironic. The various enviro groups want to address their arrerted problems with central planning - a method that has been shown to simply not work, no matter who is in charge. At the same time, they casually ignore the way the operation of a free market successfully prevents crises and addresses changing circumstances. For example, nearly a centurey before "Greenpeace" existed, the whales were saved - buy guys with names like Rockefeller and Platt, who replace whale oil by developing a new resource (petroleum).
Yet, persecution and prison is exactly what the future promises those who go, yet again, down the path of central control. That some would continue to assert that political controls work better than market controls defies logic, given the centuries of evidence to the contrary.
Until someone can explain to me how grass on nthe roof benefits me, while grass on the lawn is harmful, I'll consider the case against the 'green' ideology proven, and the theology bankrupt. Of all the replies, not one has addressed this point.
BTW .. I'm not in any lifeboat; I'm on the mother ship :D
Why can't you understand that these recommendations apply to two totally different sets of circumstances???
And, even if this did happen to be a valid inconsistency in recommendations between various "authorities", why do you insist in painting it as a government conspiracy, vs simply "authorities" disagreeing with each other???
Grass on roof vs. grass on your lawn is more about energy than it is about landscaping and water. I think the LEED 'green roof' option is about reducing energy by having a 'cooler roof'. I don't know the details right off, but the intent is to place some mass in the roof to affect energy consumption. And I think the intention is to do so by using xerescaping rather than literally, lawns/turf/grass (vs. bare dirt). I don't believe there is an intent or requirement to water that landscaping.
While you are referring to the article, you are assuming you are 'quoting' from the article. While your arguments are much appreciated, they are YOUR interpretations and not necessarily an accurate reflection of the article. So since it is your opinion, it is 'you' (notwithstanding my next comment). I only recall breezing through the article. I can see, though a mediocre writing resulting in your comments. Lots of that ... particularly with this topic of 'green' and LEED certification.
I'm not a big fan of LEED or 'green' in spite of the fact that I support their basic ideas. I saw a fiberglass insulation add that said it was 'green' 'cause it reduced carbon emissions. hmm Just about everyone is touting 'green' this or that for their products today. It makes me ill much of the time. And LEED certified buildings are often a marketing ploy used by designers to make it look like they did a good job when in fact they [again] did a mediocre job at best. Some designers really apply themselves, but they aren't the norm among LEED applicants (IMO).
I don't know what posts you've been reading, Dan ... I can't see where you find the points you're responding to.
Different circumstances? Neither the FHB article, nor LEED standards make any mention of different circumstances. Instead, they say 'do this' and you'll seve the earth, get points, be eco-friendly, etc. Thus the contradiction.
As for 'government conspiracy,' I have not alleged such a conspiricy, ever. Nor have I even used the term 'conspiracy.' WHat I have done, though, is draw attention to the fact that these folks all want to manipulate verious governing mechanisms - be they codes, zoning, homeonwners' associations, whatever= to insert themselves into decisions that are not now theirs to make. In simple terms, they want to tell me what I can do with my property because they think they know better.
Even granting their greater wisdom, I have to ask why they choose a means - the force of law - to impose their solutions, when that approach has failed over and over again. If these folks are half as educated as they claim to be, they must surely be aware of this - as well as the fact that free markets have done a far better job of addressing the 'common good.' So, I have to speculate as to their actual motives; it seems it is the power that they love, for countless 'crisis' are produced to justify them even greater scope.
MY property. MY grass. MY water. It will be MY decision whether to put the grass on the roof or the yard. Introduce anyone else into the equation, and you are taking away from me.
Perhaps the point becomes clearer if you reverse the circumstances. Would you willingly let me make these decisions for you? That's what it comes down to; when you advocate another law, you're trusting that the enforcers will be wiser than you are.
And you say
As for 'government conspiracy,' I have not alleged such a conspiricy, ever. Nor have I even used the term 'conspiracy.'
Then you say
WHat I have done, though, is draw attention to the fact that these folks all want to manipulate verious governing mechanisms - be they codes, zoning, homeonwners' associations, whatever= to insert themselves into decisions that are not now theirs to make.
Sure sounds like you're calling it a conspiracy to me.
[Lost post]
The "different
[Lost post]
The "different circumstances" are that xeriscaping is for (as you explicitly say in your first post) WATERED lawns. Green roofs, on the other hand, capture and hold rainwater.
I have to ask why they choose a means - the force of law - to impose their solutions, when that approach has failed over and over again.
Who are "they", and how have "they" employed the force of law? Do you mean that people should be entitled to wastefully use a precious commodity (such as water in the West) without regard to the needs of their neighbors, and without regard to the fact that EVERYONE (including you and I) is subsidizing that water supply?
And, if the force of law has failed over and over again, why would you support ANY laws? Why laws governing which side of the road you can drive on? Why laws prohibiting robbery and murder? They're all misguided, right?
I can't believe this thread is still going.
You guys can't tell that he's just arguing for argument sake. This thread was just posted as a ruse, a joke to him. He's been around here for a longtime and he does this sort of thing often. It's just what he does. Nothing you say, no matter how logical and true, is going to make him see your point. You might as well be trying to sell the global warming to Sarah Palin.
I just gotta find out how to turn off this post so I stop receiving email updates - not worth my time.
DC
Yeah, but all the other good sparring partners have left.
Yeah, but this is good fodder for 'awareness', which I promote in every form. You have to present the half baked with the sound reasoning to begin to form an opinion. While a lot of the 'green' talk is often half baked hype IMO to simply sell something, the basic premise is to simply use limited resources more wisely. Be smarter; use technology in the best ways to minimize our demand on resources. Sometimes this simply means using our knowledge and not necessarily buying another widget.
The OP wants to discuss this, fine. He can show everyone his point of view and let most people take it for what it's worth ... which is most likely a lot; they realize how absurd he is while claiming the rest of us are.
Well, I see the personal attacks go unabated - though I do thank those who have at least attempted to address the basic questions regardin g grassy roofs and grassy lawns.
Baiting? Well, if you think I'll let the mindless political assertions of those whom I believe to be in error go unanswered, to allow them to present their flawed theology unquestioned, you've made an error.
I note that the various 'green' groups are extremely active in politics - something that is well within their rights - yet, for noting this political activity, it is somehow inferred that I am some manner of 'conspiracy theorist.' Cut, paste, and twist all you like ... just don't be surprised when you assemble a Frankenstein, a monstrosity that bears but superficial resemblence to the real views expressed. Perhaps this is but another attempt to apply the 'rules for radicals' codified by Saul Alinsky? Identify criticise, , marginalize, ostracise, and destroy? Well, as Patton was once claimed to have said while thinking about Rommel I read your book!
While Sarah Palin may be a lovely, wonderful lady, I don't think she has spoken on this topic. Why was she referred to? What has she to do with this discussion? It would have been more relevant to the topic had you mentioned that "Earth Day" is celebrated on Lenin's birthday. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
The very premises behind the 'green' movement are filled with contradiction and error. The latest FHB squib simply did a fine job of clearly identifying one of them. It's my duty to both see that such cant not go unchallenged - and to draw your attention to the patent illogic of the position. Gr4assy roofs vs. grassy lawns. Grassy parks vs. grassy lawns.
A final note: I thought the very idea of a roof was to shed water. Does not making it hold and collect water lead to countless threads here, on how to fix the damage? Then again, how else is Santa to feed his reindeer? :D
Perhaps this is but another attempt to apply the 'rules for radicals' codified by Saul Alinsky? Identify criticise, , marginalize, ostracise, and destroy?
Yep, that's the Tea Party mantra.