I pretty much view the whole 'Freakonomics' phenomenon with contempt, especially given the authors' blase approach to climate change, with the belief that geoengineering can save the day, is boneheaded, though not the most boneheaded approach. Generally speaking, I can't stand these guys, but while changing radio stations on my way to work last Saturday, I actually stopped and listened to their radio show, because they were covering a topic which has long been a mini-obsession of mine... the American obsession with lawns.
My take on lawns is that they are only appropriate for athletic fields of various sorts- they are wasteful monocultures, costly in terms of money spent and biodiversity lost. To me, the best symbol of the idiocy of the lawn is the suburbanites' war on the dandelion, a plant which is useful in every part, in order to grow turf grass, which is only useful to ruminants. To use potable water in order to grow this useless, invasive turf grass is extremely wasteful.
Personally, I think that a combination of native wildflower and herb/vegetable gardens is the way to go... people should at least consider having a couple of milkweed plants in their yard. I would even advocate a 'million milkweed median' program for the national highway system in order to bolster the endangered monarch butterfly population.
I listened to the entire 'Freakonomics' show, and I note that their characterization of lawns as 'carbon sinks' is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration the carbon costs of lawn maintenance and the transportation infrastructure used to support the industry, and the fact that mown turf grass doesn't remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as most plants, especially trees. I still hold the 'Freakonmics' staff in contempt, but I am pleased that they at least covered this topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
One question, one observation.
Question: I didn't hear the broadcast, but if they described suburban lawns as carbon sinks I would expect that means that on NET they take more carbon out of the atmosphere than they contribute through process. Either that or they ar lying - as it would be a fairly simple calculation to make. If they are lying, that's a very bad thing, but if they are not then they are right and you are wrong about the carbon footprint of suburban lawns overall.
Also, too - and I certainly don't mean this as any kind of insult - but this kind of "I'm WAY more progressive than they are" argument really smacks of self-righteousness. It's the old "Oh, I never watch teevee" or "I never eat meat because of the way it's raised" pompous chest thumping.
If I have an 1800 square foot lawn but I drive an electric car, or have PV panels on my roof, or take public transit to work, I've offset the carbon footprint of my lawn and I'm every bit as climate-conscious as you. Sneering at me for having a lawn without knowing my actual impact on the environment seems the kind of bullshit I'd expect from a Hannity type.
I don't know anything about that radio program, but I'm really starting to worry about the number of my liberal friends who HATE particular journalists, writers and pundits because they don't ALWAYS, reliably tell me exactly what I already believe (see Chait, Yglesias, Drum etc). If you can't even stand to hear your own personal orthodoxy challenged - you still can decide not to accept the premise - you are retreating into the kind of epistemological closure that has crippled the ability of the American political right to think critically...
This is one of our family's mini-obsessions too (my wife and I both work in the environment field). You are absolutely correct. When we moved into our current home 15 years ago, the backyard had a few large trees along the borders of the yard but everything else was grass. Very boring. Over the intervening years, we have gradually infiltrated this lawn with native American species of trees, shrubs and other plants, especially pollinator attractants. We built a "vernal" pool which, because of its location is really mostly full year round and is popular with critters like foxes, birds, frogs and no doubt nocturnal types we rarely see (e.g. raccoons, coyotes and possums). We still have a narrow strip of lawn in the middle but we don't maintain it other than cutting it so we get daisies, clover and other plants. We have an ever-expanding grove of paw-paw trees too. We still have an herb and vegetable garden, which is non-native for the most part but the yard is now a real haven for wildlife.
Thank god somebody finally said it.
The other thing that's always gotten on my last nerve is tax breaks for country clubs as "green spaces" (for the well to do that is). Tax them at 'highest and best use' and let these dicks drive an extra 10 or 20 miles out if golf means that much to them.
I don't know anything about that radio program, but I'm really starting to worry about the number of my liberal friends who HATE particular journalists, writers and pundits because they don't ALWAYS, reliably tell me exactly what I already believe (see Chait, Yglesias, Drum etc). If you can't even stand to hear your own personal orthodoxy challenged - you still can decide not to accept the premise - you are retreating into the kind of epistemological closure that has crippled the ability of the American political right to think critically...
My beef with them is that they deliberately distorted the science on Climate Change in their bestselling second book. Even in this podcast, they are distorting the truth by ignoring externalities in order to push part of their thesis. They like to be 'professional contrarians', but they play fast and loose with the facts in order to play their game.
We have an ever-expanding grove of paw-paw trees too. We still have an herb and vegetable garden, which is non-native for the most part but the yard is now a real haven for wildlife.
There are paw-paw trees in Staten Island, and a farmer who grows them in CT, but lordy-loo how I'd love to have a couple of paw-paws up here in NY's northern suburbs.
The other thing that's always gotten on my last nerve is tax breaks for country clubs as "green spaces" (for the well to do that is). Tax them at 'highest and best use' and let these dicks drive an extra 10 or 20 miles out if golf means that much to them.
The deck really is stacked in the favor of the fat-cats.
Post a Comment