Recommendations for biodiversity and CO2 reduction

[Nacho]

Hi,

I've written some ideas and recommendations to increase the
biodiversity and reduce CO2 while also saving water.

The document is http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dczj6273_394jmt3zct

Let me know your comments,
Best regards,
Ignacio.

[Nacho]

Hi,

I've updated the document in http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dczj6273_394jmt3zct
to include the comments that the Water working team has giving me.
In particular, I've included much more references and data. I've also
'phased' the recommendations.

Comments, etc, are, as usual, welcome.
Best regards,
Nacho.

Avoiding 'standard' lawns, promoting native plants and weeds

Background

Reducing CO2, saving water and increasing the biodiversity of our
yards, gardens and parks can be achieved but just changing our
aesthetic criteria.
Recommendations
Phase 1 recommendations.
* Ban the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in Mountain
View
* Promote the use of native, drought tolerant plants and/or weeds,
allow and promote the lack of landscaping.
* Ban HOAs making landscaping compulsory. If somebody decides not to
have a lawn, it has to be allowed.
* Ban replacing lawns with concrete or non-permeable materials.

Phase 2 recommendations
* Push communities through a no-lawn policy by banning the use of
landscaping plants requiring irrigation once they are established.
Exclude golf courses, since they are pretty important in economic
terms.

Phase 3 recommendations
* Apply the no-lawn policy to golf courses, as well. There are grass
species that do not need almost water once they are
established,although they have a 'rough' look.
Why?

Pros & Cons of regular lawns:

Pros:
* Satisfies the standard aesthetic criteria.
Cons:
* Needs water. The average lawn uses up to 10,000 gallons of water
over a summer [1]. Estimated annual water consumption on lawns in some
western U.S. states in 1990, was 67% of total water consumption [2].
* Needs fertilization (fertilizers pollute the static and phreatic
water tables with nitrates[6] that the body transforms into nitrites
[6] producing cancer [7]. They require natural gas for being
manufactured, thus producing CO2)
* Needs pesticides. (Pesticides reduce the biodiversity, are
dangerous for human beings and pets and reduce the amount of insects
to be eaten by other beneficial insects and birds). The average
suburban lawn uses 10 times the pesticides as an acre of farmland [1]
* Needs herbicides. (Herbicides reduce the biodiversity, are
dangerous for human beings and pets and reduce the population of other
vegetable species that are needed for the subsistence of insects and
animals. The generation of herbicides require energy, so produces
CO2). Estimated amount of chemicals applied to American lawns in 1989,
70 millions of pounds [2]
* Needs to be mowed. (Thus generating CO2 during the process)
* The mowed grass has to be thrown away. (Either filling a
landfill or being recycled as compost, in any case has to be
transported and processed, thus producing CO2 and wasting energy).
Maximum estimated percentage of American landfills consumed by yard
waste, in 1992: 50% [2]
* Mowing produces acoustic contamination (reducing the quality of
life of the community).
* Lawn is not edible. The main use of lawn is for feeding cattle
and consequently has no economical value in residential areas.
* Number of people treated in American hospital emergency rooms
for lawn-mower related injuries, in 1989: 60,000[2].Average annual
number of mower-related deaths in the U.S., in the 1980s: 100 [2]

Pros & Cons of a non-landscaped yard with weeds and other wild plants
Pros:
* No need of water
* No need of fertilization
* No need of pesticides
* No need of herbicides
* Increases the fertility of the soil [8] (weeds like clover fix
nitrogen from the atmosphere. The mix of several wild plants does not
deplete nutrients from the soil, as amonocultive of grass)
* Attracts insects, most of them beneficial, like butterflies,
ladybugs, etc. [4] This is specially important as the Colony Collapse
Disorder [5] continue decimating bees population.
* Attracts birds. In part due to the presence of insects that can
be eaten.
* No mowing necessary.
* Several wild plants or weeds are edible and/or have medicinal
properties [8] (for instance, the dandelion roots, leaves and flowers
are edible, plus it contains vitamin C in high concentrations)
* It is free to maintain. Nature does it for us.
* No acoustic contamination
* No CO2 emissions.
Cons:
* Does not satisfy the current, culturally imposed, aesthetic
criteria.
Alternatives
An alternative is to plant native plants, or to transform the lawns
into productive vegetable gardens. Even this alternatives are
forbidden in someHOAs, and consequently the City should ban such
prohibitions.
Cost
Phase 1:
The cost of educating people in the new policy. $5000 for
advertisement in Mountain View Voice and printing some leaflets.
Phase 2:
No cost.
Impact
It is difficult to estimate the CO2 saved.
The amount of water saved is significant (67% according to [2])
The biodiversity of plants, insects, birds, and small animals
(lizards, toads, salamanders, etc) will be significantly increased.
Decrease of health problems associated with pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers.
Decrease the quantity of nitrates going into the water. "The primary
inorganic nitrates which may contaminate drinking water are potassium
nitrate and ammonium nitrate both of which are widely used as
fertilizers" (EPA [6]).
Decrease of accidents related with mowing.
Decrease the amount of grass clips going into waste. (Up to 50%
according to [2])
Increase the knowledge and acceptance of wild and native plants.
Obstacles
Business selling herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers might oppose
the recommendation.
Landscaping demand will decrease, so these business might oppose the
recommendation.
Resources/references
[1] http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/issues/resource.html?Id=806
[2] http://www.easst.net/review/june1995/rogers
[3] http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/3/658
[4] http://nature.berkeley.edu/blogs/news/2007/09/suburban_gardens_soluti...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder
[6] http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/contaminants/dw_contamfs/nitrates.html
[7] Further evidence of a positive correlation between exposure to
nitrate fertilizers (NaNO3 and KNO3) and gastric cancer death rates:
Nitrites and nitrosamines. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
(CMLS). Volume 31, Number 11 / November, 1975
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t15761m3n5187106/
[8] www.metafro.be/leisa/1995/11-3-20.pdf