Don't Blame the Grass III

OK, hopefully this will be the last installment of “Don’t Blame the Grass.” The first “Don’t Blame the Grass” was regarding how Bay Area communities may possibly begin restricting lawn sizes and how we can better learn to manage our individual lawns.

“Don’t Blame the Grass II” was regarding a subsequent article I read on Science Daily about a recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Irvine titled, “Urban 'Green' Spaces May Contribute to Global Warming.” That study concluded that GHGS (greenhouse gas sinks) were negative polluters meaning care and maintenance of these carbon ‘sinks’ actually created a negative effect.
Well now we come to find out that just a few days after this study was released the study was apparently full of holes and inaccurate information. So much so that UCI released another paper to explain the problems of the first study! This “peer-reviewed” study was never properly verified and yet it was trotted out as an accurate study! Truly amazing!

According to Lawn & Landscape Magazine days after the release of the first study another study titled “Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Urban Turf” was released by the Toro Company's Center for Advanced Turf Technology (CATT)which sought to correct certain points of misinformation that the first study had based its findings on and thus reported. That information was apparently based on faulty, non-verified calculations. Apparently "CO2 emissions reported for fuel use by turf maintenance equipment was an order of magnitude higher than work done by Toro’s research team" and thus needed correcting.

The article goes on to mention, "With the error corrected, turfgrass is actually found to be a net positive sequester of carbon,” said Dana Lonn, managing director of Toro’s CATT group. “In other words, properly maintained turfgrass actually traps and utilizes carbon thus removing it from the atmosphere. We credit the authors for tackling a complex and comprehensive issue. Consistent with what we have found in working with leading research institutions, this study provides a solid foundation for future work. With further improvements in technology to increase efficiency and reduce fuel consumption, grass can become an even greater asset."

As Gomer Pyle used to say, "SHAZAM!"

And how did this come about so? What was the catalyst for this change in thought regarding carbon sink holes and the true positive effect they offer the environment? Well I suspect it has everything to do with dollars quite frankly. Can I prove it? Nope. Should you care then or should I? Well that depends on what you choose to care about.

My personal feeling is that UCI suddenly remembered who was buttering their bread quite frankly because there were many in the lawn and turf industry up in arms about the first study. What are we being led to think? Can we take any study regarding water and turf management as fact? How many other studies regarding water and turf management and the effect on the environment have been done with faulty information only to be corrected by industry interested in protecting its own interests?

I think this is just another reason why managing your own personal law turf is so vitally important.