Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

I have a large backyard lawn in Northern California. The water bill in summer months crosses $200 (and that doesn't count the gardeners), but it's worth every penny. The lawn is the centerpiece of the house. People play on it, camp on it, picnic on it, and lounge on it all the time. As far as I'm concerned, it's a gorgeous backyard with an afterthought of a house attached. Sometimes my wife and I sleep in a tent overnight just for fun.

I find articles like this somewhat offensive. Different people are motivated by different things; who is the author to make such far-reaching claims? I'm sympathetic to people who want to replace their lawns, but I also respect people who prefer to enjoy theirs. Why does this need to become a moral crusade?

View on HN

The article isn't saying that you're evil for enjoying your lawn. It's merely saying that most people don't really benefit from them and that they'd be better off without them. As far as I can tell, that's true, and it's not contradicted by your relatively unusual enjoyment of yours.

It's a moral crusade because millions of people are sold on the idea of lawns and end up not benefitting from them, causing wasted resources and environmental damage along the way.

Articles like these are primarily about signaling that one is an enlightened urbanite rather than an uncultured suburban troglodyte. In other words, simple cultural warfare. Even the title gives it away... lawns are "soul-crushing"? Only to pompous urban J-school graduates whose entire parasitic existence depends on the productive classes of society.

Lawns are soul-crushing to the suburban homeowners who are are coerced to slash their natural meadows to conform to demands for artificially maintained turf.

Well, that does sound like what I felt when I was twelve years old and sent out to mow the lawn. Decades later, after encountering much more thoroughly soul-bruising experiences, I don't agree. I do feel for the guy who lives on a street where everyone want to have lawns that look like the greens at Augusta. But 45 minutes with a mower every week (fall and spring) or two doesn't crush my soul that badly these days.

> I find articles like this somewhat offensive. Different people are motivated by different things; who is the author to make such far-reaching claims? I'm sympathetic to people who want to replace their lawns, but I also respect people who prefer to enjoy theirs. Why does this need to become a moral crusade?

For the same reason you would be offended if someone threw perfectly good food out while people go hungry. It's conspicuous consumption. Because you can do something does not mean others won't judge. If you don't care, don't care! But don't be shocked when people rally against such waste of resources (in California, of all places!), and pass laws to rectify the problem.

Is it a waste if he or she enjoys it? With a few exceptions, California's water problems are not due to residential use, but rather over-use by agriculture, which uses almost all the water yet represents only 2% of California's GDP. If having a big lawn will increase your quality of life, have a big lawn.

The law regulates many a thing that people might enjoy, but for one reason or another, we don't permit it.

Your whole argument revolved around large lawns being a waste of resources ("in California, of all places!"), not that "excess" water use is unlawful

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/06/04/the-problem-of-lawns...

"Today, American lawns occupy some 30-40 million acres of land. Lawnmowers to maintain them account for some 5 percent of the nation’s air pollution – probably more in urban areas. Each year more than 17 million gallons of fuel are spilled during the refilling of lawn and garden equipment—more than the oil that the Exxon Valdez spilled.

Homeowners spend billions of dollars and typically use 10 times the amount of pesticide and fertilizers per acre on their lawns as farmers do on crops; the majority of these chemicals are wasted due to inappropriate timing and application. These chemicals then runoff and become a major source of water pollution.Last but not least, 30 to 60 percent of urban fresh water is used on lawns. Most of this water is also wasted due to poor timing and application."

It's only conspicuous consumption if the main goal is to show off to others. If their main enjoyment is the use they get from it, I don't think it qualifies.

I don't think your analogy is a good one. It's probably more similar to buying and eating expensive food, not throwing food out.

Many problems are distribution problems, not production or waste problems.

The amount of subsidies that go into supporting lawns is one reason its a moral crusade. From regressive tax breaks & water subsidies to inefficient oil payouts, its relatively simple to draw a moral argument against private suburban yards.

> From regressive tax breaks & water subsidies to inefficient oil payouts, its relatively simple to draw a moral argument against private suburban yards.

But 95% of water use isn't even residential...

And its pretty easy to start a moral crusade against modern agriculture as well, and that supplies food...

Ummm, what the heck are you talking about? I don't get any regressive tax breaks or oil subsidies for having a few hundred square feet of lawn...

Sheesh, some people just aren't happy unless they can control every aspect of everyone else's lives.

If you own a home in the USA you participate in one of the most regressive tax breaks in the world in the form of the mortgage interest & guarantee subsidies. Even if you don't directly receive those, which would put you in a large minority, you benefit from the halo effect.

As for oil subsidies, between the commuting costs, care (lawn mower/herbicide/what have you) and heat costs energy to maintain most lawns is higher than people imagine.

I actually think you should own a yard if it provides you happiness & you pay for it. But its a trivial excercise to argue against them.

Do you partake in the mortgage interest tax deduction? Does your neighborhood have maximum density and zoning requirements that force people to live farther apart from each other and amenities, increasing oil usage?

Neither of those things are related to the presence or non-presence of my lawn. I could rip it up and replace it with gravel and nothing would change wrt taxes and subsidies.

Your clear disdain for and anger toward suburban life is leaking over in to a discussion on lawn care. Must suck to tied up in how other people choose to pursue happiness rather than just enjoying your own life.

I have a fairly large lawn in Northern California as well. We enjoy it thoroughly. The kids and I play on it daily and camp on it as well. My water bill was about $170 last month but that was the peak. Most of the year it's under $100 and in the winter months it's about $20 per month (I did not irrigate for 4 months last winter). Not all of California is an overpopulated desert using imported water.

On the other hand, having a lawn at other times in my life did seem to just need to be mowed all the time and still looked bad.

I live just outside of Boston, have an acre of lawn I don't even have to water, and drive 20 minutes to work. Resumes welcome any time :-)

Same here. I've almost been enjoying this drought this year, since I haven't had to mow my grass every week this summer - although I'm getting sick of watering the vegetable garden twice a day.

That does sound nice though I am tied to California by family. I have a 10 min drive to my office, but I would like to move my office closer when possible.

I becomes a moral crusade for exactly the same reason you get offended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com