Dan Rodricks, Baltimore Sun’s columnist writes:
“Little does not mean nothing. Lawns sequester carbon dioxide, but not like native plants and grasses do, and certainly not to the extent trees do. Homeowners in the Villes — Cockeysville, Clarksville, Churchville, Crownsville, Sykesville — could do a lot more for the environment by giving up just a portion of a sprawling lawn for trees. Or you could do something more interesting and challenging; you could plan a “victory-over-climate-change garden” of native plants and bushes. You can find, as I did, all sorts of alternatives to sprawling lawns on the internet. Here’s some practical advice from a gardening blog: “Don’t make your lawn any bigger than you need. Have just enough to let the kids play a bit, and to make the house look good. If you don’t use the lawn, consider making it a natural wildlife place. If you have a larger lot, consider reducing the amount of lawn by converting some of it to a more natural environment.”
I suggest trees. They’re burning in the Amazon, and California lost 18 million of them to wildfires last year. If homeowners with sprawling lawns in just the mid-Atlantic were to convert from grass to trees, they would help make up for some of those tragic losses. They would be restoring the land to its historic best. They would be acting against climate change instead of just worrying about it. And they’d be giving their children and grandchildren a better future, and trees to climb and swing from”.
Read the full article, here: Lawns for Trees