It is all the rage for city and state governments to block off large tracts of land as “green space” or “open space,” where homes and businesses may not be built. And there is much to be said, of course, for parks and areas of natural beauty in the midst of city development. Consider Chattanooga’s attractive and popular Coolidge Park, for instance.
But the “green space” movement has been so strident in some areas that it has sharply limited the availability of real estate, making housing unaffordable for many.
And now, scientists are questioning the assumption that city green spaces reduce “global warming.”
Researchers at the University of California at Irvine studied a number of grassy parks. The grass does pull some carbon dioxide – which environmentalists blame for global warming – out of the atmosphere and stores it in soil. But, the scientists found, the fertilizer, mowing and so forth required to maintain those parks can create greenhouse gas emissions “four times greater than the amount of carbon that green spaces store,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
So green spaces may be pleasant, but if you buy into global warming theory, you ought not to assume that they are cooling the planet.
Ironically, The Washington Post noted in a series of articles in 2004 that severe land-use restrictions in and around Washington had driven many people to build homes far outside the city – where land is more affordable – and commute long distances to work. Their cars thus emit far more greenhouse gases than would be the case if they could afford to build closer in.
Alas, that is the type of unintended consequence that does not seem to occur to those who favor harsh environmental restrictions.