81–90 of 155 posts
Totally random numbers picked up to be a catching name for trying to get celebrity. Could have been 200 meters or 500 meters or 4 trees or 2 or flowers. This is the kind of ideology that is ruining public policies instead of being grounded on concrete and scientific facts and goals.
I learned from geoguessr pro, Rainbolt, that every tree and its species is mapped for NYC: https://tree-map.nycgovparks.org/tree-map Now I am curious if there is a dataset for the location of every tree in every city in the world? https://overpass-turbo.eu ?
[0] https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environm...
One thing that I really really like about living in Amsterdam, is that we have trees and plants everwhere. Also, for 2 years now, city stopped cutting most of the plant growth in parks and on the side of roads. Its so beautiful green and colourful now and insects are having a great time. I counted this year already 6 different sorts of humblebees in my garden.
One thing that I really really like about living in Amsterdam, is that we have trees and plants everwhere. Also, for 2 years now, city stopped cutting most of the plant growth in parks and on the side of roads. Its so beautiful green and colourful now and insects are having a great time. I counted this year already 6 different sorts of humblebees in my garden.
I can, however, easily explain the division in Europe: In Italy (for example, in Palermo), the vigorous growth of many species very often leads to significant damage to infrastructure.
Here in Vienna, there’s a directory of trees[1] where you can see, among other things, the species and age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure whether GP means the City or central London in general. It gets greener as you go further out. One of the big problems in the UK has been the rise of low maintenance gardens, replacing plants with decking concrete, gravel etc.
They mean the City of London. They capitalised the C and everything, it's a thing.
It makes me wonder whether they know which bit is actually the City.
later on:
> Sure, you have a small/big park here and there
What big park is there within the City? The whole of the City is smaller than Hyde Park (including Kensington Gardens).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is already a predator species that eats red deer. Just up our venison consumption!
This is very much a true thing in the UK. Deer are overpopulated and causing damage to their environment. As you have pointed out the solution is to eat more venison, but most local butchers stock hardly any of it because of low demand.
British eating habits have become really narrow over the years. Its hard to find offal (healthier and greener than just eating muscle meat). Rabbit seems to have pretty much disappeared too.
I was walking in central London and something felt wrong. I couldn't quite tell what though, but I had this constant feeling of unease. It took me a few days to understand - there are no trees in central London (the City). Sure, you have a small/big park here and there, but no random trees on side walks. It's literally a (beautiful) concrete/glass wasteland. Note: I only walked a few of the main streets, I'm sure I'm…
30% tree cover looks very different depending on the trees your municipality chooses.
For example, Barcelona covers everything with a variety of Platanus, which is easier to keep than other trees, but it’s quite dirty and produces A LOT of pollen. For me, that I’m allergic to it, it just makes the city unavailable for 2-4 weeks every year.
Having smaller plants, with more variety also feels much better than just sprinkling the right amount of massive trees with equal spacing. I’m pretty convinced part of the “we need more green” feeling people get is actually “I need something in my environment to not look like a grid”.