Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg
Many US cities have woods and big trees all over the place, and not as part of some plan endorsed by Twitter or wherever this article came from. Trees aren't a new idea.
|
The article came from ZME Science which, according to
an organization that would know, knows more about the issue than you do. So you can stop being petty and harumphing about the topic like an offended old spinster any time you like. Nobody said trees were a new idea. We know they aren't. No shit, Sherlock, as some would say, even.
What is new though, is to be able to work the quantified benefits of trees and greenspace into costs and projections, and to maximize their impacts in architecture and urban design. To, for example, be able to figure out exactly how many trees it would take, and what kind, and where they should be placed, to appreciably cool the Place de l'Opera in Paris.
And correct me if I'm wrong, things like that are what we're here on this forum to discuss.
Quote:
Also, many poor Americans don't understand nutrition/hydration and refuse to drink water and/or electrolytes while working in the heat or while just sitting around. You can't teach them otherwise.
|
Well, you've convinced me. I, too, am now offended by the presence of trees in urban areas, and I'm even more offended that anyone would try to quantify their benefits in the built environment. How dare they? Have these so-called "scientists" no decency?