There’s something about the great outdoors that features heavily in childhood memories, regardless of generation. Perhaps it’s the novelty of a place that isn’t so familiar as the four walls of home. Perhaps it’s sensual — the rough, knowledgeable texture of tree bark, the intoxicating scent of nature’s perfumes, or the piquant, autumnal taste of a swollen, sour blackberry.
Or perhaps it’s the danger of freedom. The thrill of becoming lost. The imperfections of nature that cannot offer complete, bubble-wrapped security and comfort. But wherever imperfection exists, there is someone out there to sell you the dream. Why submit to the chaotic, beautiful imperfections of nature, when you can have a “forever flawless” artificial lawn?
Advertised by their promoters as the perfect solution to gardens bronzed by the unrelenting warmth of climate change, time spent outside mowing and weeding, burn marks from pet urine, and dirty shoes, the artificial lawn market has expanded rapidly in the last decade. There is money to be made — with industry forecasters predicting that global demand for artificial lawn will reach $7 billion by 2025. They’re not cheap either — Which? magazine advises that a fake lawn is comparatively expensive, especially if landscapers or specialists are employed for its installation, which is important for preventing visible seams, wrinkles and having a properly fitted underlay: “The prices quoted for fitting a 50m² area ranged from £1,000 to £2,700 — double the price of the artificial grass alone.”
So what is the appeal of artificial grass, and why is this such a rapidly expanding industry? Clues are abundant in marketing pitches for the product, citing low maintenance burdens and year-round “flawless” green lawn. One advert for New Lawn promises to “give your family the perfect, safe and mud-free garden year round”.
But this vision of perfection is, frankly, chilling. Can you imagine any child delighting in the artificial crunch of plastic under their feet over the sensory stimulation of real, natural grass in its resplendent, fragrant verdancy? Artificial lawn gardens are fundamentally sterile. The removal of nature goes well beyond the blades of grass. To install outdoor carpet, plastic membranes must be laid down to ensure that plants are unable to take root and grow among the artificial fibres. This means no clover, no buttercups, no daisies. None of the invertebrates and other insects that feed on pollen and decomposing matter. No birds, either — what are they to feed upon in this barren wasteland?
Perfect Grass Ltd. offers this dystopian advice for preventing the simple pleasure of watching birds enjoy a source of food during a long, cold winter: “Keep bird feeders well away from your artificial grass. These will only encourage droppings to build up and rodents to dig at the grass below the feeder.” Grim. The desert conditions persist below ground too — without a source of grass cuttings and other organic matter breaking down into the soil, detritivores like earthworms are starved too. Instead of decomposing humic matter and aerating the soil, without food, they themselves decompose. And deprived of oxygen, the conditions underfoot offer forth the foul odours of the anaerobic rot of whatever organic matter remains, often amplified by pet urine, a known problem for artificial grass.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am thrilled that someone finally shed light on this plague on humanity! If anything returns us to the primitive it will be plastic lawns. Bravo!
I am thrilled that someone finally shed light on this plague on humanity! If anything returns us to the primitive it will be plastic lawns. Bravo!
“Can you imagine any child delighting in the artificial crunch of plastic under their feet over the sensory stimulation of real, natural grass…….?”
I can’t even imagine children in my neighbourhood going outside. There are children around somewhere but I never see them. Things are far too dangerous in the outside world – nasty old people,school bullies, the rays from the sun, exercise, the impurities in the air (Dyson toys welcomed in my area, especially if it’s on the NHS – as one poster points out), dirt from the ground, insects which bite, viruses which can give you a runny nose. It is just not safe for children to venture outside.
But they could have artificial grass in their bedrooms, as well as bonsai trees. And the grass doesn’t even have to be green.
“Can you imagine any child delighting in the artificial crunch of plastic under their feet over the sensory stimulation of real, natural grass…….?”
I can’t even imagine children in my neighbourhood going outside. There are children around somewhere but I never see them. Things are far too dangerous in the outside world – nasty old people,school bullies, the rays from the sun, exercise, the impurities in the air (Dyson toys welcomed in my area, especially if it’s on the NHS – as one poster points out), dirt from the ground, insects which bite, viruses which can give you a runny nose. It is just not safe for children to venture outside.
But they could have artificial grass in their bedrooms, as well as bonsai trees. And the grass doesn’t even have to be green.
Great article, very well articulating another user friendly fad, which ultimately damages the environment while pertaining to mimic it.
Great article, very well articulating another user friendly fad, which ultimately damages the environment while pertaining to mimic it.
The article correctly says that plastic grass is ugly, therefore pointless. But the article does not go into the huge pollution problems from plastic as it breaks apart and moves into waterways. It is not toxic like some chemicals, but it still is causing serious problems for creatures like fish.
It does refers it as a major source of microplastic pollution
I find this a nice summary in the article. What would be nice is the citations (which I know exist because I’ve used them – ,from. Report commissioned by FIFA to one by the surfriders foundation and published research studies .
“Research on microplastic emissions from domestic artificial lawn is limited, but playing-field astroturf has been estimated to be the second-largest source of microplastics in the environment after road wear and tyre abrasion. The remainder, once it reaches the end of its useful life of potentially less than ten years, is very hard to recycle, owing to the sheer variety of polymers involved to achieve the “right” texture, ultraviolet light resistance, colour and general durability. Thus, it ends up in landfill.”
It does refers it as a major source of microplastic pollution
I find this a nice summary in the article. What would be nice is the citations (which I know exist because I’ve used them – ,from. Report commissioned by FIFA to one by the surfriders foundation and published research studies .
“Research on microplastic emissions from domestic artificial lawn is limited, but playing-field astroturf has been estimated to be the second-largest source of microplastics in the environment after road wear and tyre abrasion. The remainder, once it reaches the end of its useful life of potentially less than ten years, is very hard to recycle, owing to the sheer variety of polymers involved to achieve the “right” texture, ultraviolet light resistance, colour and general durability. Thus, it ends up in landfill.”
The article correctly says that plastic grass is ugly, therefore pointless. But the article does not go into the huge pollution problems from plastic as it breaks apart and moves into waterways. It is not toxic like some chemicals, but it still is causing serious problems for creatures like fish.
the eco freaks are already trying banning fur and other natural fibres! They don’t realise most polyester and artificial materials are by products of oil!!! And recycled polyester cannot never degrade! Just like the net zero terrorists we are warned and berated for using natural energy. Renewables are renewable, nor sustainable.
the eco freaks are already trying banning fur and other natural fibres! They don’t realise most polyester and artificial materials are by products of oil!!! And recycled polyester cannot never degrade! Just like the net zero terrorists we are warned and berated for using natural energy. Renewables are renewable, nor sustainable.
Is it just me or are the caliber of comments on Unherd degenerating?
No, it’s the subject matter. When people argue about things that come down to personal taste and/or personal bias, this is the result. One cannot intelligently debate the relative merits of blue, red, and purple.
But artificial grass, pretending to be natural and perfect, and it’s consequent negative impact on the environment when put to waste is a pretty fantastic ‘pitch’ on which to debate important topical issues – the environment; humanity seeking perfection. You seem to have overlooked that opportunity.
Or sometimes a case of “you can’t use reason to change someone’s position when they didn’t use reason to arrive at it in the first place”?
But artificial grass, pretending to be natural and perfect, and it’s consequent negative impact on the environment when put to waste is a pretty fantastic ‘pitch’ on which to debate important topical issues – the environment; humanity seeking perfection. You seem to have overlooked that opportunity.
Or sometimes a case of “you can’t use reason to change someone’s position when they didn’t use reason to arrive at it in the first place”?
No, it’s the subject matter. When people argue about things that come down to personal taste and/or personal bias, this is the result. One cannot intelligently debate the relative merits of blue, red, and purple.
Is it just me or are the caliber of comments on Unherd degenerating?
Thank you James. I was toying with the idea of replacing my lawn and you convinced me otherwise. Living in Lisbon I’m sure the temperature would easily surpass the 60C mark. At the moment we are experiencing heavy rainfall and problems draining the water (I always abjected to the idea of having a swimming pool but mother nature had a different idea). I will keep my lawn, I have to come up with a solution for watering the damn thing during spring and summer.
Unless you frequently play lawn games on
it why not replace with drought and heat adapted living vegetation?
Unless you frequently play lawn games on
it why not replace with drought and heat adapted living vegetation?
Thank you James. I was toying with the idea of replacing my lawn and you convinced me otherwise. Living in Lisbon I’m sure the temperature would easily surpass the 60C mark. At the moment we are experiencing heavy rainfall and problems draining the water (I always abjected to the idea of having a swimming pool but mother nature had a different idea). I will keep my lawn, I have to come up with a solution for watering the damn thing during spring and summer.
Well, despite the simplicity (or merely simplistic?) of this article, the subject is complicated. From a 2010 article published by Columbia University’s Climate School:
“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.”
The writer seems to assume water is not a scarce resource, yet draws on statistics that are heavily influenced by water-parched areas of the world. He also writes about “astro turf” of a previous generation despite significant changes in design, manufacturing and installation that make the experience significantly different today that that he describes (most new artificial lawns -properly installed- are aerated, for example). After wuite a bit of study, we installed a patch of artificial lawn in our wet climate in Canada (water availability was not the issue) along with a rock garden and plants due to those cute birds the author mentioned (in our case, flocks of crows) annually ripping up entire lawns on the street and nothing but moss growing in the shaded areas. Regarding the author’s assertions about product deterioration: judging the wear of an artifical lawn on the basis of a sport stadium’s use makes as much sense as judging regular grass replacement and maintenance based on what happens at Wimbledon stadium during a certain two weeks a year.
I do not suggest those artificial lawns are the perfect answer for all but the very soft, aesthetically pleasing, draining artificial lawns provide (based on the Columbia article and many other reviews) some material environmental benefits overlooked in this article.
That’s a different subject. Pot bellied unmanly men buttressing their masculinity with giant lawn tractors are as silly, grossly polluting for no real reason, just like the fake lawns.
Real men, those with the sense to maintain their fitness , use push mowers, and I don’t believe there is a more perfect ” Work-ercize”- exercise that actually accomplishes something.
Full body workout from head to toe and after the small investment in the mower, just keep it lubricated and get the blades sharpened every few years and you are all set.
And push mowers are virtually silent, no two stroke whine or four stroke rumble.
I have an acre and a half lawn up at my cottage and a tractor to mow it. If i tried to mow it with a push mower, I would not have time to go to work. Then I would be poor and have a small lawn, like you. And i guess I would say mean things about people with tractors, projecting my own insecurities onto them.
I have an acre and a half lawn up at my cottage and a tractor to mow it. If i tried to mow it with a push mower, I would not have time to go to work. Then I would be poor and have a small lawn, like you. And i guess I would say mean things about people with tractors, projecting my own insecurities onto them.
This comment, and the responses, all of which are very reasonable and relevant, underscore the fact that ultimately, all environmentalism is an exercise in subjective reasoning. Since the environment cannot speak for itself, there is no ascertaining what is best for it, only a series of human advocates who claim to speak for it and know what’s best for it. They also underscore how idealism and romantic notions are utterly useless when faced with real concerns like human needs and basic resource requirements.
First we are part of nature and what affects nature affects us. And hmmm- to your argument about nature not speaking- young children also cannot speak for themselves ..So.would you say just expose them to known harms until and unless they can speak for themselves? Also are you saying we should ignore the objective truth that plastic outdoor carpeting is manufactured with known toxic chemicals and other toxic substances added to keep up the make believe ? Alternatives.to lawn are other natural landscaping Plastic carpeting is objectively harmful and unacceptable .
First we are part of nature and what affects nature affects us. And hmmm- to your argument about nature not speaking- young children also cannot speak for themselves ..So.would you say just expose them to known harms until and unless they can speak for themselves? Also are you saying we should ignore the objective truth that plastic outdoor carpeting is manufactured with known toxic chemicals and other toxic substances added to keep up the make believe ? Alternatives.to lawn are other natural landscaping Plastic carpeting is objectively harmful and unacceptable .
Well said.
We’ve had our artificial lawn for 9 years now, and it still looks and feels great.
All that is true. In some areas the best option is not to have a lawn! But the point of the article is not replacing the lawn with plastic. The environmental impact of a lawn in the New England is far less than in California or Arizona. There are also different species of grass, some are lesser beautiful and more sturdy. Another issue is the way water is managed in the US. Specially in places like southern California , sewer water should be treated in order to be used for watering gardens, for washing machines and toilet flush. The age old technology of collecting rain water and deposit in underground tanks can also help. In any case the argument presented in the article is sound. Don’t have the plastic lawn as an option. You can always .have no lawn as an option.
That’s a different subject. Pot bellied unmanly men buttressing their masculinity with giant lawn tractors are as silly, grossly polluting for no real reason, just like the fake lawns.
Real men, those with the sense to maintain their fitness , use push mowers, and I don’t believe there is a more perfect ” Work-ercize”- exercise that actually accomplishes something.
Full body workout from head to toe and after the small investment in the mower, just keep it lubricated and get the blades sharpened every few years and you are all set.
And push mowers are virtually silent, no two stroke whine or four stroke rumble.
This comment, and the responses, all of which are very reasonable and relevant, underscore the fact that ultimately, all environmentalism is an exercise in subjective reasoning. Since the environment cannot speak for itself, there is no ascertaining what is best for it, only a series of human advocates who claim to speak for it and know what’s best for it. They also underscore how idealism and romantic notions are utterly useless when faced with real concerns like human needs and basic resource requirements.
Well said.
We’ve had our artificial lawn for 9 years now, and it still looks and feels great.
All that is true. In some areas the best option is not to have a lawn! But the point of the article is not replacing the lawn with plastic. The environmental impact of a lawn in the New England is far less than in California or Arizona. There are also different species of grass, some are lesser beautiful and more sturdy. Another issue is the way water is managed in the US. Specially in places like southern California , sewer water should be treated in order to be used for watering gardens, for washing machines and toilet flush. The age old technology of collecting rain water and deposit in underground tanks can also help. In any case the argument presented in the article is sound. Don’t have the plastic lawn as an option. You can always .have no lawn as an option.
Well, despite the simplicity (or merely simplistic?) of this article, the subject is complicated. From a 2010 article published by Columbia University’s Climate School:
“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.”
The writer seems to assume water is not a scarce resource, yet draws on statistics that are heavily influenced by water-parched areas of the world. He also writes about “astro turf” of a previous generation despite significant changes in design, manufacturing and installation that make the experience significantly different today that that he describes (most new artificial lawns -properly installed- are aerated, for example). After wuite a bit of study, we installed a patch of artificial lawn in our wet climate in Canada (water availability was not the issue) along with a rock garden and plants due to those cute birds the author mentioned (in our case, flocks of crows) annually ripping up entire lawns on the street and nothing but moss growing in the shaded areas. Regarding the author’s assertions about product deterioration: judging the wear of an artifical lawn on the basis of a sport stadium’s use makes as much sense as judging regular grass replacement and maintenance based on what happens at Wimbledon stadium during a certain two weeks a year.
I do not suggest those artificial lawns are the perfect answer for all but the very soft, aesthetically pleasing, draining artificial lawns provide (based on the Columbia article and many other reviews) some material environmental benefits overlooked in this article.
I’ve only ever seen astro turf installed in places such as blocks of flats with communal courtyards that get little sunlight. I’ve never heard of it being fitted in regular housing in place of grass lawns so I’m not sure how widespread it actually is
My Mum has it in Dorset (she is over 80 and loves it) My Sister has it in a house she bought in London and as she is not a gardener I cannot imagine her wanting anything else. Her kids love both lawns for all year play but also enjoy grass, flowers, trees etc when out and about. I love plants, birds, flowers and would NEVER have it!
My Mum has it in Dorset (she is over 80 and loves it) My Sister has it in a house she bought in London and as she is not a gardener I cannot imagine her wanting anything else. Her kids love both lawns for all year play but also enjoy grass, flowers, trees etc when out and about. I love plants, birds, flowers and would NEVER have it!
I’ve only ever seen astro turf installed in places such as blocks of flats with communal courtyards that get little sunlight. I’ve never heard of it being fitted in regular housing in place of grass lawns so I’m not sure how widespread it actually is
I hear, but if you are a Lefty Liberal do not get excited just yet as we have to see if it plays out yet, but I hear a bunch of Gasht-e Ershad may shortly be out of work – you know the old ‘Prevention of Vice, Promoting Virtue’ Cops from Iran.
What could be more perfect than hiring on a couple squads of them and getting them right on this astro-turf thing? Surely this is right in their perview, as is all the Carbon/plastic, CO2, oil, gas, coal – ESG* (*Environmental, Social, and Governance) ethical vice/virtue stuff.
I mean it is a vice to have this worm killing fake grass, and throwing a can of soup over it just does not do much. No. What is needed are ESG Morality Police, and the Gasht-e Ershad have shown themselves to be very good at this kind of thing. Gretta would approve. Problem solved.
I hear, but if you are a Lefty Liberal do not get excited just yet as we have to see if it plays out yet, but I hear a bunch of Gasht-e Ershad may shortly be out of work – you know the old ‘Prevention of Vice, Promoting Virtue’ Cops from Iran.
What could be more perfect than hiring on a couple squads of them and getting them right on this astro-turf thing? Surely this is right in their perview, as is all the Carbon/plastic, CO2, oil, gas, coal – ESG* (*Environmental, Social, and Governance) ethical vice/virtue stuff.
I mean it is a vice to have this worm killing fake grass, and throwing a can of soup over it just does not do much. No. What is needed are ESG Morality Police, and the Gasht-e Ershad have shown themselves to be very good at this kind of thing. Gretta would approve. Problem solved.
There are several lessons to be drawn from this article, none of which is the message the author intended. First, it shows how American culture was exported everywhere else for the past fifty or so years. The front lawn is largely an American invention from the 1950s, when the first suburbs were built outside American cities, which brings us to the second lesson. It was the widespread availability of automobiles to middle and lower class workers than enabled them to move farther from their place of work and commute the distance in a reasonable time, allowing suburbs to be economically built and profitably sold away from urban centers where there was still cheap land available. In all those old advertisements for the cookie cutter houses there’s always a car in the driveway. It wasn’t just the automobile of course, but other things like washing machines, vacuums, electric lights, heating and air conditioning, and a host of other inventions that made modern lifestyles possible. Before this time, home ownership was limited to the affluent who could afford servants to maintain houses and to rural family units which often housed multiple generations under one roof and who usually had enough children and elderly to keep up the family property (and feed the chickens and slop the hogs and weed the garden and so on). The whole concept that the author spends several paragraphs romanticizing is actually a fairly recent invention. Well groomed front lawns were always unnatural, always sterile, always a symbol of humanity’s dominion over nature, always required constant maintenance, and always caused problems. Entirely manufactured lawns for whatever purpose private or public are, at worst, only marginally more so. Depending on where one lives and the availability of water, if you MUST have a lawn to satisfy some romantic notion from your childhood, an artificial lawn might make a good option. As we can see just from the comments in this article, what’s best for ‘the environment’ is debatable, and also entirely subjective. Debating what’s best for ‘the environment’ and what humanity’s ‘proper’ relationship is to the environment has become a hobby of modern romantics and their sentimental attachments to their own ideas and a colossal waste of intellectual resources. We’ve quite enough to worry about learning to properly and respectfully relate to one another.
There are several lessons to be drawn from this article, none of which is the message the author intended. First, it shows how American culture was exported everywhere else for the past fifty or so years. The front lawn is largely an American invention from the 1950s, when the first suburbs were built outside American cities, which brings us to the second lesson. It was the widespread availability of automobiles to middle and lower class workers than enabled them to move farther from their place of work and commute the distance in a reasonable time, allowing suburbs to be economically built and profitably sold away from urban centers where there was still cheap land available. In all those old advertisements for the cookie cutter houses there’s always a car in the driveway. It wasn’t just the automobile of course, but other things like washing machines, vacuums, electric lights, heating and air conditioning, and a host of other inventions that made modern lifestyles possible. Before this time, home ownership was limited to the affluent who could afford servants to maintain houses and to rural family units which often housed multiple generations under one roof and who usually had enough children and elderly to keep up the family property (and feed the chickens and slop the hogs and weed the garden and so on). The whole concept that the author spends several paragraphs romanticizing is actually a fairly recent invention. Well groomed front lawns were always unnatural, always sterile, always a symbol of humanity’s dominion over nature, always required constant maintenance, and always caused problems. Entirely manufactured lawns for whatever purpose private or public are, at worst, only marginally more so. Depending on where one lives and the availability of water, if you MUST have a lawn to satisfy some romantic notion from your childhood, an artificial lawn might make a good option. As we can see just from the comments in this article, what’s best for ‘the environment’ is debatable, and also entirely subjective. Debating what’s best for ‘the environment’ and what humanity’s ‘proper’ relationship is to the environment has become a hobby of modern romantics and their sentimental attachments to their own ideas and a colossal waste of intellectual resources. We’ve quite enough to worry about learning to properly and respectfully relate to one another.
I love our artificial lawn… looks great and the kids can finally play outside without turning what was a horrid little patch of grass into a mud-pit.
In terms of being unnatural… we’d already gone down that route with a tarmac drive, LVT kitchen floor and carpets throughout the rest of the house. Purists would probably reject the render finish on our external walls and carp (pun intended) about the poor fish held in eternal captivity within their glass prison.
On the plus side, we have one of those natural gas powered central heating systems instead of a filthy log-burner.
I love our artificial lawn… looks great and the kids can finally play outside without turning what was a horrid little patch of grass into a mud-pit.
In terms of being unnatural… we’d already gone down that route with a tarmac drive, LVT kitchen floor and carpets throughout the rest of the house. Purists would probably reject the render finish on our external walls and carp (pun intended) about the poor fish held in eternal captivity within their glass prison.
On the plus side, we have one of those natural gas powered central heating systems instead of a filthy log-burner.
You know, I think this sort of attack on the plebs would sell better at some wokey lefty virtue-signaling organ of the educated gentry.
Dull dogs like me say: well, artificial lawns are not quite out of the top drawer, old chap. But peasants gotta peasant.
Now, since you mention the Dutch, we may all quail at the very idea of Dutch farmers adding to the methane in the atmosphere, at present a shattering total of 0.00018% — as against oxygen at 21%. That is what fills me with terror and outrage.
So do the research and write an article about Holland.
You’re late, mate. In lefty virtue-signaling organs we already know that “natural” lawns are awful for the environment. Wild gardens are where it is at now. All the smugness of saving the planet without having to contend with much garden-related work.
So do the research and write an article about Holland.
You’re late, mate. In lefty virtue-signaling organs we already know that “natural” lawns are awful for the environment. Wild gardens are where it is at now. All the smugness of saving the planet without having to contend with much garden-related work.
You know, I think this sort of attack on the plebs would sell better at some wokey lefty virtue-signaling organ of the educated gentry.
Dull dogs like me say: well, artificial lawns are not quite out of the top drawer, old chap. But peasants gotta peasant.
Now, since you mention the Dutch, we may all quail at the very idea of Dutch farmers adding to the methane in the atmosphere, at present a shattering total of 0.00018% — as against oxygen at 21%. That is what fills me with terror and outrage.
We have a 20’ x 20’ lawn at our house in the middle of the city. With two big dogs peeing on it several times a day, at least half of the grass was dead, so essentially it was just mud – especially in the winter, which is most of the year in Canada. Last June we put in artificial grass and we couldn’t be happier with the result. Yes it smells like pee in dry spells. Yes we disrupted the ecosystem of a small patch of ground. But for the love of god is it really worse than pavement? And it cost us $7000 – at that price it’s never going to be as widespread as the author fears. Note to anyone ‘civic minded’ tempted to take the author’s advice and vandalize our lawn: we will let the dogs out, and happily observe the unrestrained forces of nature take their course!
I bet all the nature lovers grieving for the dead microbes in my yard also wear masks, disinfect their groceries and support lockdowns – to protect themselves from … microbes.
This actually made me laugh. Great comment despite the downticks. The self contradiction of smug self described liberals is a bottomless well of humor. See my comment for further information on how laughable the notion of the sacred naturality of the front lawn actually is.
This actually made me laugh. Great comment despite the downticks. The self contradiction of smug self described liberals is a bottomless well of humor. See my comment for further information on how laughable the notion of the sacred naturality of the front lawn actually is.
“is it really worse than pavement?”
Brilliant 🙂
I bet all the nature lovers grieving for the dead microbes in my yard also wear masks, disinfect their groceries and support lockdowns – to protect themselves from … microbes.
“is it really worse than pavement?”
Brilliant 🙂
We have a 20’ x 20’ lawn at our house in the middle of the city. With two big dogs peeing on it several times a day, at least half of the grass was dead, so essentially it was just mud – especially in the winter, which is most of the year in Canada. Last June we put in artificial grass and we couldn’t be happier with the result. Yes it smells like pee in dry spells. Yes we disrupted the ecosystem of a small patch of ground. But for the love of god is it really worse than pavement? And it cost us $7000 – at that price it’s never going to be as widespread as the author fears. Note to anyone ‘civic minded’ tempted to take the author’s advice and vandalize our lawn: we will let the dogs out, and happily observe the unrestrained forces of nature take their course!
Who cares? Get a life and find something else to whine and purge about
Indeed.Why don’t you do that?
Indeed.Why don’t you do that?
Who cares? Get a life and find something else to whine and purge about