Corner Parks are Now Responsible for Global Warming

Sometimes, I think these people should just shut up. In an effort to help the global warming cause, the University of California Irvine is releasing the results of their study that says that the park down on the corner of your street is contributing to the carbon in the air.  Yes, the green space actually helps to retain carbon, but the amount of carbon it takes to maintain the parks is greater than the amount of carbon it saves.  That's when you look at the mowing, fertilizing and other lawn care maintenance that goes on. I'm not going to dispute their findings, but did they really consider the impact their study would produce?  Look at just some of the headlines that already being produced:  "Urban 'green' spaces may contribute to global warming, UCI study finds", "City Parks May Be Bad for the Environment" and "Urban 'green' spaces not so environmentally friendly". In this world where few people read past the headlines, the impression is that city parks are bad and we should get rid of them.  Even worse, when you read the full articles, that's what the conclusion is.  We shouldn't have city parks. This is such a lame brain news release. Anyone who has the slightest doubts about global warming will be laughing at this.  How could they not?  How could this be taken seriously?  Talk about fuel for the fire.  This damages the global warming cause more than aids it.  Taking care of greenspaces are things a simple thing that the average joe can do and can relate to.  Now they are being told that greenspaces are bad. Let's take the study to its rightful conclusion, something that seems to be sorely lacking:  If you get rid of the park, what will replace it?  A family home?  A store?  A factory?  It's going to be something because they are not going to leave it as an overgrown path of weeds.  And then the real question becomes, what takes up more carbon, a playground or a factory? Duh. Studies like this do more damage to the global warming cause than good.  These people need to move past raw data and look at real life and real consequences. Like I said, I think these people should just shut up.  UCI (Jan 19, 2010) - Urban 'green' spaces may contribute to global warming, UCI study finds Dispelling the notion that urban “green” spaces help counteract greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found – in Southern California at least – that total emissions would be lower if lawns did not exist. Turfgrass lawns help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store it as organic carbon in soil, making them important “carbon sinks.” However, greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production, mowing, leaf blowing and other lawn management practices are four times greater than the amount of carbon stored by ornamental grass in parks, a UC Irvine study shows. These emissions include nitrous oxide released from soil after fertilization. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that’s 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, the Earth’s most problematic climate warmer. “Lawns look great – they’re nice and green and healthy, and they’re photosynthesizing a lot of organic carbon. But the carbon-storing benefits of lawns are counteracted by fuel consumption,” said Amy Townsend-Small, Earth system science postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study, forthcoming in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. . . . Read the full story here... Bil An Outraged Dad