The reality is that most environmentalists don't care about the environment, they just care about making people miserable. I joined some environmentalist forums because I cared only to realize how misanthropic most of them were, and they did not care at all about reality.
This is one of my favorite things about permaculture. It’s turning gardeners into conservationists, not conservationists into gardeners. If you don’t already like plants it’s too involved (intellectually and sometimes physically) of a hobby/cause to get into it just so you can lambast people.
The glaring exception to this is that we absolutely are all coming after your lawn, and that’s such a hot button issue for people.
are lawns really such a problem? I see an ecosystem next to my front door as a risk. Lawns are easily managed, they provide line of sight across my property to the street, it's hard for wild animals to nest next to where i, and my future children, need to walk every day. I really dont see it as a problem.
on the flipside, the greater back half of my yard not near the house i encourage to be an ecosystem. If everyone on the block did so, then the entire middle of the block would be a continuous piece of nature. Front lawns create scattered pockets of nature at best and seem to cause a lot of friction.
I think of the Geese all around the industrial park near me, and how going into and out of your office on the sidewalk can become a problem if theres a mother goose around who thinks youre threatening her family
Some substantial fraction of all pesticide and fertilizer release into waterways comes from cities not farms. Also a huge part of the non agricultural water supply goes to lawns. So while I empathize with the people who say that asking residents to stop watering their lawns to conserve water, but we don't do that for farmers, that's still quite an impactful action from the perspective of the city's water supply.
The farmer is filling up a tank or hopper with hundreds or thousands of pounds of chemicals that cost them a ton of money so they can't really afford to have it just sitting around. They know when they fertilize right before a rainstorm just how much money they lost. The feedback is pretty immediate. Some people would say this is sufficient to prevent problems, but we know that's not true. It discourages problems, but it doesn't prevent them.
Meanwhile your neighbor has a $10 container they bought last year and they'll need a new one next year even if they didn't use it, so who cares if I fertilize and forget to turn off the sprinklers? Hardly any discouragement at all. It's very open loop.
I wasnt thinking about the water supply, the dangers there makes sense. The fertilizer issue seems tangential. We can ban / limit the sue of fertilizer without telling people they cant have lawns.
What's the alternative? without a lawn people will likely opt to concrete their property - which I guess would be better for water but kind of depressing
IMO, most lawns are fake and not actually comprised of native species, which is where the waste and pollution comes in. A person in Arizona or California can xeriscape using native cactii etc. or they can put in a St. Augustine lawn - it seems to me that the former would be easier to manage with less waste than the latter.
Do you have any good resources for lawn-free land management? I'm moving to Appalachia and will have an acre of creekside lawn I'd love to replace with something more sustainable/productive. And I'm a big gardener already.
I’ve noticed this too. There’s a certain religious fervor to it, where the only acceptable options to address a threat to the environment must involve some pain or cost. Solutions that increase abundance, or don’t require suffering, are at best suspect at worst unspeakable.
