American lawns take up the same area as NY state, cost $40 billion a year | Hacker News Reader

American lawns take up the same area as NY state, cost $40 billion a year

newyorker.com

11 pointstheoneill33 comments

This study sounds way off. It was by NASA which means they were trying to tell a lawn from satellite. That's probably tough--having to discount natural grass land and farms (which there is a fair amount of) and accurately getting the percentage. Not to mention seeing through tree cover to see if there is grass below. There is a lot of green out there, not a whole lot of it is mowed lawns.

50,000 square miles is 1/70th of all land in the US including Alaska (3.5m sq mi total). If you've ever driven through the country, 1/70th is not a mowed lawn. You can drive for hundreds of miles without seeing a single one. If you discount Alaska the total is 1/58th.

Looking another way that would be 32,000,000 acres of lawn. which comes out to 1/10 acre of lawn per person in the country. At first that seems more reasonable, 1/10th of an acre isn't a lot, but that's per person not household. A 4-person family comes to 4/10 of an acre--a decent sized lot. And since there are large numbers of people with no lawn the number increases for people who actually do (10m in NYC without one means 10m other people would need twice as much space, etc).

Congratulations, you're smarter than NASA. Well done.

Now please solve this problem too: making NASA competent.

(To be clear: no sarcasm intended.)

I don't think he was saying that NASA was incompetent, but that the task at hand was infeasible, particularly using the means that NASA typically has a hand (ie. using satellite images instead of of county records.)

He didn't say that, I did. He just pointed out mistakes they made, including not subjecting their results to a basic sanity test.

I found the study in question:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Lawn/

And does admit the limitations:

> The satellites that can identify such small areas only observe small areas at a time, and the images they collect are expensive.

So the author of the study created an equation and plugged in some numbers. Hardly actual research. The actual methodology is cute, check the sat for lights at night and then predict how "urban" it is and that means there is less lawn. (Though ironically on her map NYC is the highest concentration of lawn in America.) Too bad the results don't pass a reality check.

She claims more lawn than farm, which is absurd (the CIA World Factbook shows the US at 18.01% arable land which is a cool 600,000 sq mi).

Yes, but I like my lawn. It's green, I can lay on it, or just walk across it in my bare feet.

The point is, its our 40 billion, and we can spend it any way we like.

It is your $40 billion, however...when you see huge green lawns in deserts like central CA or Phoenix you should also see the enormous subsidies that are being handed out. If those that lived in deserts paid the real cost of water (not the public-monopoly regulated price), I suspect there would be a LOT fewer lawns. The same argument applies to the suburban sprawl: if those that decide to live 50 miles from the city center had to pay the real cost of building 6 lane highways to their "communities," few track houses would be built. Instead, an entire state or country splits the bill for roads and we get inefficient land use. // end rant;

I have a lawn because I know in the very near future I will be able to use vats of bacteria in my backyard to convert the clippings into: 1. Oil 2. Steak

You know, in the distant past people had devices which converted them into steak too.

Why do print magazines make such poor use of the internet? It's not like it would have hurt them to add references to their research.(eg, how did they arrive at $40B figure?).

I'm proud to contribute my 3 acres to this. I definitely don't water any of it though - I want it to grow as little as possible! More growing = more mowing.

I switched to no-tech aquascape instead no more watering :D (maybe once a week water change) and only about once in three months for 'mowing' along with cleaning up

fertilizing is also easy, fish and turtle excesses: just feed my turtles (separate aquarium) with excess floating leaves ... and get the fert the next day (the same spirit with those who use rabbit for fert)

Alongside, i romantized with chemistry lab 101 ... after reading forums on ferts (google PMDD and Estimative Index)

Made my own fert, mixing KNO3, KH2PO4 (NPK part), Mg,Zn,Fe and minor traces

Chemistry is another side of life that u can get a lot with little effort ... so is aquascape (compared to gardening)

These stuffs are almost like hacking/programming (tho not as scalable) so naturally i'm interested ;)

That's fine, but lets ban watering the lawn, its not your drinkable water to waste...

Yes it is. I bought it. To me it's not a waste at all.

If there's some sort of externality I'm not seeing, have the government tax me for it.

Furthermore, even if I did pour the water down a drain, what business of yours is it as long as I bought it fairly?

I agree with both of you! What I mean is, that if only the government would price water correctly, I wouldn't mind at all if you and everyone else would pour it down the drain all day long.

The problem is, the price of water is not set on the free market. I red somewhere that Seattle,WA has higher water prices then Phoenix,AZ.

Yes it is my business. This is the same approach people took on gas and corn. Consume so much until the price impacts us. Except this time, I don't want to pay $5 a gallon on water in 2020, because a bunch of people wanted to run it all day on their lawn at 25 cents a gallon in 2008. People already are stuggling on fuel, we don't need the same approach on water.

These problems are going to be solved by capitalistic means, not moral ones. When the economy and prices get people to do something, it will be done. But saying, oh please why don't you help the environment will not have a huge effect.

This is why I don't participate in environmental rallies or clubs or whatever other crap our school tries to get us to participate in. Because for change to occur, it has to occur forcefully, not willingly. Either there have to be climate change/environmental protection laws, or there have to be economic incentives.

Do not conflate capitalistic means with legal ones.

My main point was that eventually the problem will be solved due to economic incentives, not moral ones. Somehow the mention of laws (legal incentives, I suppose?) crept into my post after I started writing it.

Note that following, rather than ignoring, economic incentives is the more moral way of life (other things being equal).

Why? I don't really see the correlation... Unless it's of the basis that it is morally good to do things you find enjoyable?

Morality = how to live.

Other things being equal, following economic incentives makes you richer than if you didn't, which is pretty clearly a better life (everything else being equal). It means you can buy a better education for your kids, or for kids in africa, or a million other good things.

"These problems are going to be solved by capitalistic means, not moral ones."

What precisely is a 'moral means?' I can see the term 'moral means' in contrast to 'immoral means,' but not in contrast with 'capitalistic means.' Are you implying that capitalism is immoral? Or, do really mean 'emotive means?'

Water is entirely unlike oil, in that it's renewable. (You might have noticed that it falls out of the sky every now and then.)

Whatever water you use in 2008 will still be available for use in 2020. Dams are already built and are collecting water whether you use it or not, so unless the water levels in your local dam are getting low there's no point in conserving it.

While water is renewable, there is a limited supply of cheap water for crops, and some areas are using it at a higher rate than it is being replenished. Wikipedia mentions that the Ogallala Aquifer, which is used to irrigate a significant portion of Midwest farmland, may run dry in 25 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

For the people in that area, the aquifer is their "local dam" and it is getting low.

That's true. My comments don't apply if you're in an area which uses underground water.

As you mentioned in a later post underground water is not renewable, and about half the US uses underground water (pretty much all the western half of the US).

Only communities nears rivers use renewable water.

Your government can't make it so expensive that people don't do it anymore. If they do they won't be elected next time.

Americans spend about as much on pets, too.

Do you want to ban feeding pets as wasteful?

Yes! It will get those dogs next door to shut up.

Then again, whose business is it really to decide what is wasteful or not? Value is ultimately subjective. Maybe I value drag racing more than my life, whose business is that really?

It's is wasteful.

If you define wasteful as anything not critical to staying alive.

But then again pretty much everything is wasteful.

> The same study concluded that most of this New York State-size lawn was growing in places where turfgrass should never have been planted.

That is scientism. They are pretending to be doing science (with all the respect due science) but are giving conclusions about moral issues like whether people should plant grass in a way that makes them happy, or not.

how much will the cover of the New Yorker cost a year when Obama doesn't get elected? how many more will die in Iraq for no reason? How many innocent Iranians will die from McCains bombs?

These are the questions you should be asking, New Yorker!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com