But let's keep things in perspective here. The big argument against lawns is water use. I agree. But in California, for example, all residential water use accounts for less than 15% of the total use of water in the state.

If we want to save the environment we should start with what's taking the remaining 85%.

[–] TurtleJoe 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My main argument against lawns is the massive amounts of pesticides, weed killers, and fertilizer they require to look like the ones in the picture. Coincidentally, that's the point this meme is making.

Also, just because lawns aren't the worst possible use off water that you can think of, doesn't make them not wastes of water. Just because almond farms in California use more water that lawns on the same state doesn't change the fact that lawns waste water. Those same California almond farms sissy have nothing to do with the thousands of suburbs in other areas which have HOAs that require grass lawns.

Aside from all that, not all of the 85% of industrial water usage is wasteful. Efficiency needs to be improved, but we do need to grow food to eat.

So don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] paganini 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I partially agree with your comment.

I'm not saying that we should not improve lawns (by removing them), but rather, that we should also go after the big offenders, and maybe focus on them first because that's where the most immediate gains are.

Every time we have a drought, I see the old drama of taking shorter showers, people filling buckets in the shower to flush their toilets later, etc, all while farmers are planting Alfalfa to export it for cheap. IIRC, alfalfa was the largest consumer of irrigation water, which breaks down the farmers mantra that "we are using water to grow your food".

Even when you consider almonds, which we do eat, it's not a staple food. Nobody will starve if the almond industry collapses. They make a lot of money but mostly for a closed set of farmers. They're also not a large employer on the state.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

besides, industries like that don't even have to collapse. they should just pay for the commons they use to keep said commons sustainable, which would make their product more expensive, and yes, definitely cause a downturn in business, but they would survive in the end, and so would the rest of us.