• Cethin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    The environmental impact of actual grass that you keep cut is likely far worse. Preferably, grass lawns are banned generally. The expectation of keeping short grass maintained should die.

    • Rokk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      So you’d rather concrete jungle over lawns? I feel like if you banned grass lawns that’s what you’d get.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s a stupid false dichotomy. Why would those be the only options. Clover is a good low growing grass substitute. You can also grow native pants in most of the space so cutting isn’t required. There are many options that aren’t grass lawns that require a ton of maintenance.

        • Rokk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          You think if you told people they all had to get rid of their grass lawns heaps of them wouldn’t just replace them with a load of concrete if they didn’t want the maintenance? Enough people do it already without being forced to by a ban.

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, some would if that were the rule. How about we ban both. The option isn’t binary.

            • Rokk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Good luck with banning either. Sounds like it’d be a popular policy.

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          We’re in a thread about astro turfing lawns, so when you paraphrase “a kept lawn is likely worse for the environment”, what you are implying is that astroturfing a lawn is better for the environment than a real one. Which I think is a very bold statement to make.

          That aside I do like the idea of things like clover lawns, but is that going to appeal to the sort of person that astroturfs their lawn because “muh dog shit and piss” or because they can’t be bothered to get the lawnmower out?

          • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It is. The grasses we use for our gardens are generally native, well unless you got some exotic grass for some weird reason.

            Also, let the weeds grow! Your perfectly manicured garden looks weird and monocultures are bad!

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Natural grass is a habitat and food source for many insects and small animals, and healthy plant covered soil is a natural carbon sink. Fake grass provides none of that, while creating substantial CO2 emissions in production and installation, and damaging local biodiversity.

    • Mex@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The American style super manicured laws with sprinklers and all maybe, but your average home lawn that gets cut on average once a month and is the home to all sorts of wild life no way.