71–80 of 180 posts
All data centers use less than 0.2 (of which only less than 0.02 is used for cooling the servers, the rest is just electricity generation, which can and should be replaced with solar).
There's no replacement for water usage for golf courses and even half a trillion number is after recent 30% reduction of usage from what it was before.
I am not sure how it is in USA but in my country golf courses are abuse of public resources for (almost) private use. For a very few who can lobby enough for renewal of these leases and these are kept out of reach of the normal public, either by rule or by cost, sometimes both. Golf courses are lungs of many of the growing cities, across the world, but I do believe they should not be kept exclusive. Also, this comes…
What? Why and how? And why wouldn't leaving a patch of forest there be way more efficient?
Golf is a sport I never tried but really want to. Also from the outside it looks both fun and relaxing to be outside in the nature. But I’m in the wrong country for that currently lol, golf is a niche here in Eastern Europe
Golf is a social marker in Anglo-Saxon countries. Only the highest classes used to be able to afford it. In America they built a lot of courses because they have the space, and there was demand, obviously because lower classes wanted to feel like they’ve made it. Kind of like wearing tuxedos (or owning a Mercedes Benz in Eastern Europe).
Obviously the higher classes just got more exclusive markers (particular clubs, private jets, islands, etc.), but America is left with all that land converted into courses which apparently aren’t even used that much nowadays. Turns out it can get boring quickly.
Golf is a sport I never tried but really want to. Also from the outside it looks both fun and relaxing to be outside in the nature. But I’m in the wrong country for that currently lol, golf is a niche here in Eastern Europe
It definitely can be enjoyed, but does it beat a walk in the forest? Not necessarily. Golf is a social marker in Anglo-Saxon countries. Only the highest classes used to be able to afford it. In America they built a lot of courses because they have the space, and there was demand, obviously because lower classes wanted to feel like they’ve made it. Kind of like wearing tuxedos (or owning a Mercedes Benz in Eastern Eur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the USA as elsewhere golf courses are incredible wastes of water and false green spaces that would function better as green spaces were they actually parks open to the public they serve the wealthy. What is different is that in the US there is very little real (operational) worry about waste of water (or other resources) - at least compared to other places - and there is lots of space compared to other places.
That is an overly broad generalisation. Where I live, golf courses aren’t irrigated at all - they just rely on rainwater, like every other farm does. One of the golf courses near me has tee times for $10. I do not consider that something that only “serves the wealthy”. They also periodically close the course and open it up for RC plane enthusiasts. Another one you can easily go for a walk in - I often do. It is effec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The amount of water used is somewhat less important than what the source of the water is." Where I live, the golf courses are the largest and often only consumers of recycled water — in a water stressed city. This directly subsidises indigent water use. It doesn't stop the easily-offended from agitating to convert them into low-cost housing.
“easily-offended / agitating”? Hmm. There’s lots of good reasons to convert golf courses to low-cost housing, or use the recycled water for something else. Expand irrigation of parks, recharge groundwater, create wetlands, create dual plumbing networks to use the recycled water for toilet flushing etc.
It's easy though to dismiss options which don't benefit me personally. If I don't cycle then money spent on cycle tracks is wasted. If I don't golf then I'll lean towards non-golf options.
Incidentally it's very seldom local users who are lobbying for more local low-cost housing. That typically reduces neighborhood property values.
Equally having green spaces is something that drives up property values etc.
And yes, creative use of effluent would be nice. We should be able to recycle grey water into toilets etc. But that is an infrastructure change, so not easy to implement.
Yes we need public green spaces. And yes we need sports fields and golf courses and so on. It's not necessarily an either/or situation.