Anonymous wrote:May I ask for the source that the forest obsorbs 25x more water? Is it because the ground is not packed so hard or other reason(s). Thx

Think about it. Trees are tall, and able to absorb lots of water. Not grass.

We need to give people a per tree planted on their property credit.

May I ask for the source that the forest obsorbs 25x more water? Is it because the ground is not packed so hard or other reason(s). Thx

We are growing many trees in our yard this year because
we made the conscious choice not to pick up all the dropped acorns. Not sure our neighbors are happy.

Anonymous wrote:
Besides trees, are meadow type perennials helpful? Or certain bushes? Is lawn just the bottom of the chain as far as holding soil is concerned?

Is it better to let the weeds grow? That would make me feel better about my lawn!

I'm not an expert but my understanding is that bushes, especially flowering/fruit-bearing natives and especially when planted in clumps, are very good at providing food and shelter for birds and pollinators. If you think about the increased biomass that evapotranspires and the root depth, they're far, far better than lawns in terms of absorbing water, though probably not as good as a large tree.
As far as perennials go, I'm not sure what you mean by meadow type but there again I think native plants are best. Lawn is definitely the bottom of the chain apart from barren soil and pavement.

We don't spray or seed and our yard starts out in the spring with a field of dandelions and wild violet (the yellow and purple contrast is gorgeous), followed by a great deal of clover among the weeds, with the occasional patch of wildflowers. Bees love the clover. We have bugs in the yard, although one particular, large flowering bush which used to teem with bees in late spring is still getting visitors, but unfortunately fewer each year...

Besides trees, are meadow type perennials helpful? Or certain bushes? Is lawn just the bottom of the chain as far as holding soil is concerned?

Is it better to let the weeds grow? That would make me feel better about my lawn!

Anonymous wrote:I've planted 4 this year, which makes 11 since I moved in. But I think to move the needle on carbon recapture the govt is going to have to incentivize building on the huge privately-owned commercial tracts that are currently held as potential subdivisions/farmland. I'm envisioning something like how they pay people $x/year in some states to keep an eye on wild horses on their ranges -- they'd have to pay a good chunk up front to get people to plant a "forest" and then a maintenance fee to keep them from logging or cutting it down to be used otherwise.

Building should be "planting", obviously.

I've planted 4 this year, which makes 11 since I moved in. But I think to move the needle on carbon recapture the govt is going to have to incentivize building on the huge privately-owned commercial tracts that are currently held as potential subdivisions/farmland. I'm envisioning something like how they pay people $x/year in some states to keep an eye on wild horses on their ranges -- they'd have to pay a good chunk up front to get people to plant a "forest" and then a maintenance fee to keep them from logging or cutting it down to be used otherwise.

I hate having a yard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the problem worsened by all the new builds where people cut down most of the trees on their lot, to make way for larger houses?

This. It's much easier to just not build giant subdivisions by first razing everything to the ground instead of planting new trees. Not that you shouldn't plant new trees.

Yes, but people need housing. I don't know why a family of 4 would need a 5000+ sq. ft. home--we live in 3000 sq. ft. and never use a third of it. But they may be buying what's on offer as long as they can afford it (which is why we live in 3000 sq. ft). I read somewhere that developers prioritize big houses because the profit margin is larger than providing higher quality in a smaller home.

Lawns on the other hand, are just ugly, boring, barren and environmentally harmful outdoor green carpeting.

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the problem worsened by all the new builds where people cut down most of the trees on their lot, to make way for larger houses?

This. It's much easier to just not build giant subdivisions by first razing everything to the ground instead of planting new trees. Not that you shouldn't plant new trees.

Isn’t the problem worsened by all the new builds where people cut down most of the trees on their lot, to make way for larger houses?

I planted 5 last year on our urban lot.

Thank you, OP.

Grow trees. Grow food. Lawns are terrible. Their original purpose was to show wealth - that you didn't have to grow food. We can move away from that now, I think.

The flooding earlier this week destroyed part of a newly repaved road in our neighborhood and submerged a truck at an intersection. People who have lived here for decades say they never saw anything like it.

Forest floor absorbs about 25 times as much water as the same area of lawn. Over a third of the WMA's urban forest has been lost in the last two decades.

On top of which, a study came out last week in the journal Science, showing that one of the most effective and cheapest ways to combat climate change would be to plant one trillion trees on a currently available three and a half million acres of land, without impacting human activity.

While we wait for some government entity to do something about the global problem, we've planted twelve native saplings in the last year on our half acre. But this will only work if many of us participate.