It seems like an environmental nightmare and an inefficient use of resources that could be cut without a major disruption.
Lawn care uses a lot of water and petroleum for aesthetics. If we are going to take environmentalism seriously should we not allow lawns to revert back to their natural state instead trying to manicure them into something we think looks cool? People that drive big Hummers are seen as wasteful by the very people that water their lawns and cut their grass and stray their yards with chemicals.
There was a push a few years ago in Michigan to allow lawns to go natural. I did it because my wife bought grass seed with “other” in it. The grass grew slowly and the weeds (other) took off. Wild flowers and weeds take a little getting used to. Neighbors convinced my wife it was bad and I tore it up and redid it again. There was a bit of bitching by people I did not even know.
Inefficient according to whom? You? If I want to pay the price to water, fertilize, and do whatever else to my lawn, then, to me, that’s an efficient use of resources. When the prices rises to make that unaffordable to me, then it will be inefficient. You don’t get to determine what’s efficient or inefficient for me.
Considering that there is a massive shortfall of clean drinking water in the world, I would say that a guy in Maryland using that water to make his lawn pretty is an inefficient use of that water.
But if having a nice lawn is more important to you than children dying of dysentery, what can I say? Personally, I would like us to save this water and ship it to help these poor people.
I am all for everyone abandoning any sort of lawn care of the Tru-Green Chemlawn types of weed killers simply because it causes massive alge blooms in runoffs which can choke and kill otherwise relatively healthy bodies of water. as well as introduce toxic chemicals into the environment.
I also think that golf courses should be designed to be self sustaining when it comes to water consumption and that the outflow of any water from such treated lawns should be strictly regulated.
Well, I think you have to show that it’s feasible to get the water from Maryland to other continents in large quantities before claiming that it’s inefficient. If you can’t do that, you have to claim that water is a scarce resource in Maryland and that regulation greatly benefits the community. If everyone already has access to water in Maryland, and it can’t realistically be shipped to places that need it, it can be used locally without guilt for whatever reason.
WHAA? Not on the radar? Read the back of any lawncare product in your local home improvement store. You think Scotts or Ortho put those warnings on the back to be good corporate citizens?
Why can’t it be shipped? The grocery store down the street has water from Iceland, France, Fuji, and Atlanta (other places, too). Instead of spraying water on lawns, we could ship it to places that do not have clean drinking water. We could even help to pay for it by placing a large tax on imported bottled water.
If the kids dying of dysentery were in Maryland, then it makes sense. Otherwise, not so much. imagine water, which, unlike air cannot be compressed, being boxed up and shipped to the sick kiddies. Imagine how much fuel it would take to get it there. Imagine how much fuel you’d waste trucking it in. It could end up being more efficient to ship evian straight from the plant than to ship municipal water from Maryland.
Simply, it makes more sense to put water plants where they’re needed than to ship water to and fro. And we get water from all over the world because we PAY for it. Fiji isn’t sending their water to us just because.
Somehow I really dont understand how the water I pump from 175 feet under the land I own gets magically transported to Zimbabwe [or where ever the poster sprogs are for this] if I dont use it to water my lawn. Not that I actually water my lawn,or wash my car mind you, but if I did it would trickle back down into my very own little slice of water table…Is it the same way that not eating that last but of mashed potatoes that I didnt serve to myself on my plate was going to not be feeding some kid in China [or wherever the starving kids in the 60s were …]
I believe the OP is talking about “resources” in the sense of water, and energy, not personal or financial resources. Yes, even water in Maryland can be considered a limited resource to be conserved. It takes energy to treat water and it’s usually done in ways that generate N2O, a greenhouse gas. Practically, it doesn’t need to be considered a critical resource in much of the country, but out west, water rights are a huge issue.
In California, lawn care is on the environmental radar, at least as far as most air boards are concerned. They have things like mower exchange programs where you can turn in old polluters for newer mowers with low emissions.
In areas with water shortages like Nevada, they have designated watering days and times. If you’re watering on the wrong day (you get 2 per week where I lived) or at the wrong time (high noon is grossly inefficient) you can get a fine.
I’d say lawns are on the radar, but they’re not a high priority. It may also create problems; letting lawns run wild could promote pests.
Well Hell’s Bell’s people, there’s a serious water shortage in the Southwestern US. Using less water on our lawns will help people who are arguably in the same “water market” without having to ship it to Africa.
Why bring the world into this? The amount of clean drinking water available in Paris, France has no relation to the amount of clean drinking water in Dallas, Texas. Dallas can conserve or waste all the water it wants without affecting the potable water available in other parts of the world. I can see how Dallas’ consumption might affect Texas or surrounding states but the world? That’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think?
Years ago, I removed my entire lawn and xeriscaped it instead. O, the giant rosemary! O, the rockrose and ceanothus! I use grey water in August, but hope eventually to install a rainwater /grey water cistern for year-round use. Now my only problem is other people’s grass seed drifting in from other yards.
Because a lot more water needs to be moved a lot more often if we’re going to combat a lack of clean drinking water in other parts of the world. I don’t have the numbers, but I bet bottled water is a drop in the bucket compared to the total consumption in any given area in the US.
I’d rather focus our efforts in building water distillation plants in other parts of the world, which I think would be more effective and cheaper in the long run.
Since I get my water from a well and there are no resources used to clean it (aside from a filter I use to take nitrates out of my drinking water – a filter I pay for), I’d say that any argument about me taking care of my lawn hurting the environment is pretty much BS. There is no way that if I quit watering my lawn (and, in fact, I do it very rarely – I water my garden much more. But that’s “producing food locally” and thus something that enviros love, so I doubt I’ll get any crap for that) it’s going to do anything to help anyone.
The idea that restricting my water usage will help produce clean drinking water for kids in Africa is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve read on this board.