peterstrong saidOk, let's examine where lawns come from ?
Lawns were created as a snobbish English status symbol signifying
the fact that the inhabitants were so wealthy they did not need to grow crops in the yard to feed animals out back.
Lawns are horrible for the environment and for biodiversity.
What the planet needs now is more habitat for native plants, wildflowers, bees, butterflies, and birds.
Americans have lawns like unconscious zombies following in a rut not knowing any better.
So people could be doing something great for the environment by getting rid of lawns and planting native plants which because they are adapted to the region, require no water and can withstand periods of draught, while saving themselves the expense and thus creating something to gaze upon with awe.
Close, but no cigar. There's nothing necessitated in lawn growth that eliminates biodiversity. My parents lawn, for example:
Clover (several kinds)
Alfalfa, plus at least 4 other kinds of grass
ground-ivy (not a true ivy, actually an ajuga)
among many other things.
Also, without a natural wildfire cycle, no "prairie" type land will continue on its own, which leaves large populations of birds, butterflies, and NATIVE plants and flowers without a habitat, both in and on the edges of these "prairie" areas (blue birds, phoebes, cat birds, many many finches, robins, swallows, orioles, grossbeaks, warblers... and that's just the *birds* in my New England area, not to mention the vast swathes of butterflies, etc).
Don't protest "lawns," protest chem-lawns and monocultured watered monstrosities.