Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#21

Post by DoreenMichele »

asu_thomas wrote: post #20
DoreenMichele wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think "they" refers to anyone other than farmers?

Fair question. If you're talking about actual laborers, most of them aren't even citizens and this is not a priority for them. If you're talking about the corporate boards who run the agriculture industry, this increases cost without increasing profit so this is not a priority for them. I just can't think of how the agriculture industry could possibly get behind this.

As far as I know, they live on planet Earth along with the rest of us schmucks and if they burn the entire world to the ground for profit, fleeing to a compound in New Zealand won't actually save them -- unless "New Zealand" is really code for some off planet haven, which I very seriously doubt.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#22

Post by photonerd »

iraqmtpizza wrote: post #15
someonehere wrote: post #2

Get rid of golf courses first. I saw many on my road trip from one side of the state to the other. We also need more water storage because we just had a ton of rainfall and let it run out to the ocean this summer.

[flagged]

You… don’t read much, do you?

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#24

Post by cute_boi »

Hopefully, it doesn't become a situation where people only get 30 gallon of water every week that we see in Asia.

We must stop overuse of water especially alfalfa. This mean stopping/reducing our food habits i.e meat which might be unacceptable to many people.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#25

Post by cute_boi »

polski-g wrote: post #14
bluefirebrand wrote: post #8

Everywhere should be getting rid of grass that's only there for looks.

It converts CO2 to O2. It lowers temperature compared to pavement. It's quite useful.

But, water is way more important than the points you have raised. Maybe if grass can't grow on its own, then we should not intervene nature that much?

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#26

Post by bbu »

polski-g wrote: post #14
bluefirebrand wrote: post #8

Everywhere should be getting rid of grass that's only there for looks.

It converts CO2 to O2. It lowers temperature compared to pavement. It's quite useful.

Native plants do that just as well, if not better though.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#27

Post by stahtops »

cute_boi wrote: post #25
polski-g wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It converts CO2 to O2. It lowers temperature compared to pavement. It's quite useful.

But, water is way more important than the points you have raised. Maybe if grass can't grow on its own, then we should not intervene nature that much?

Great point. We should shut down all markets and grocery stores as well- if people can’t survive on their own, we shouldn’t be supporting that, it’s unnatural.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#28

Post by relativ575 »

someonehere wrote: post #2

Get rid of golf courses first. I saw many on my road trip from one side of the state to the other. We also need more water storage because we just had a ton of rainfall and let it run out to the ocean this summer.

> Get rid of golf courses first. I saw many on my road trip from one side of the state to the other.

Do you know what the golfers would say? "How about you tech people stop playing games, so there would be less energy consumption and less manufacturing, obesity would be less of an issue; you stop traveling so there would be less CO2 emission. Golf is the only pastime hobby for me now and you want to get rid of it?"

How would you respond to that?

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#30

Post by asu_thomas »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #21
asu_thomas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair question. If you're talking about actual laborers, most of them aren't even citizens and this is not a priority for them. If you're talking about the corporate boards who run the agriculture industry, this increases cost without increasing profit so this is not a priority for them. I just can't think of how the agriculture industry could possibly get behind this.

As far as I know, they live on planet Earth along with the rest of us schmucks and if they burn the entire world to the ground for profit, fleeing to a compound in New Zealand won't actually save them -- unless "New Zealand" is really code for some off planet haven, which I very seriously doubt.

See: priority

Something being a problem for someone doesn't mean it's a priority.

Poor people will never prioritize global warming. They will always have more urgent priorities. This is one reason why environmentalism under capitalism is absolutely doomed.

Post reply on HN