The editors of E! The Environmental Magazine , in answering a question about the environmental pro’s and cons of artificial turf, cited some interesting news on that front: that Las Vegas now give a $1 rebate for every square foot of real grass replaced with the fake stuff, and Southern California took action last month to initiate a similar program there. Now can I pick some nits?
E’s answer refers to artificial turf as petroleum-based, but the newer ones aren’t.
And then there’s this:
grass lawns over to less resource intensive landscaping—known as
“xeriscaping”—is also catching on. Drought-tolerant native shrubs,
plants and ornamental grasses don’t require large amounts of water,
fertilizer or pesticides to survive. Many groundcover plants naturally
hold back weeds and contribute to the health of the soil. Even rock
gardens are attractive and essentially maintenance-free. Given all the
natural alternatives, homeowners need not convert their back yards over
to fake turf.
Okay, since I’ve been ranting about sweeping generalizations for a while now you won’t be surprised at my complaints about this story:
- WHO SAYS rock gardens are "essentially maintenance-free"? Not the rock gardeners I know.
- And again with the "drought-tolerant native shrubs" that "don’t require large amounts of water," etc. Here’s some recent news on the subject, and I have 2 newly drought-killed dogwoods to illustrate the point.
- What are these groundcovers that "contribute to the health of the soil"? Gardeners want to know!
For reference, here’s our first discussion of artificial turf – great comments, especially from a savvy landscape professional in arid California.
And by the way, I just got invited to a demonstration of pervious concrete (!) so maybe technology will save our water after all.