Comment on It should be a strict rule

• probablymissing@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  “amazing for the environment”

  do you know their arguement for this i would like to know

  source

  • Matty_r@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Probably because fields of grass are better than housing development? Which for the environment, is technically true

    source

    • NannerBanner@literature.cafe ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I have a neighbor who thinks a golf course is better than a park. I just want to shake folks sometimes. How is a hellscape of a solitary grass better than a place where you could get all sorts of plants going? One with hiking paths for everyone, and all sorts of goodies like gazebos, meadows, benches…

      source
    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      As though those are the only two options…

      source

      • Matty_r@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yep, that’s it. Nothing in between.

        source
  • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    oh basically just that it’s curated green space and that’s better or something.

    source

    • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s almost worth comparing, if the resources and human effort needed to maintain a golf course, plus any other positive or negative environmental impacts, are favorable to the effects of a parking lot or whatever. But I imagine that, either way, a proper public park would be way better.

      source

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I mean it’s like anything, you can argue either way. Depending on how the grounds are kept it could be a net positive or a negative. But a lot of golf courses are massive polluter because they use resource-intensive grasses and lots of fertilizers and water to keep it alive. There are more eco-friendly ways to manage a golf course but those are not popular because they cost more and golfers don’t like scrub grasses

        source