Recently there was an article in the "Guardian" about the alleged success of El Paso Texas in managing the drought.
I was struck by a variety of facts unmentioned by the article.
People continue to have grass in front of their homes. That grass requires water,
more water than would be naturally available from local rainfall. (And, if there is
a drought, or if the drought continues, then that amount of water will not remain constant.)
In addition the rock gardens which have replaced the green lawns (UK: gardens) require
the use of chemicals or, at the very least, strong vinegar. When I arrived two years ago
my father had a supply of "Roundup", a very powerful pesticide. I believe (but please do
not quote me) that this product was recommended to him by the people who put in
his rock garden--replacing the water hungry Bermuda Grass.
Moreover, there are homes whose lawns have been replaced by cement, paved surfaces which turn the former lawn into a parking lot for big trucks. Those surfaces increase the area that reflects sunlight back into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. (How much? I do not know. However I do know that a scientist discussing global warming in Slovakia made the point about the large parking lots built by Carrefour and other stores in Bratislava.)
To what extent do homes and buildings in El Paso continue to be surrounded by imported
plants and shrubs? The article did not discuss that point.
However, without discussion of that point, it is hard to see how anyone would have a right to assert that the city can't do better by way of preserving water.
The most basic question is how to design a city that makes a realistic attempt to fit within the local environment. So long as the organization of the city is determined by so-called "market forces" there will not be a reasonable attempt to be realistic about ecological reality. (I apologize for the brief statement of that claim. I recognize that more should be said on behalf of its defense.)
It was also amusing to see the word "conservative" used to describe the unwillingness of Texas to consider the possibility of anthropocentric global warming. After all, isn't this a state where the oil industry has a great influence? A more accurate--though admittedly less diplomatic term--might be "ignorant".
No comments:
Post a Comment