"We found that for every increase of 10 per cent tree canopy cover, you get a 0.62-degree celsius decrease in land surface temperatures," he said. So if you take the extremes, from no canopy cover to full canopy cover, there's about a 6-degree celsius [42.8F] difference."
My suburb is losing trees far too fast for reasons including
- people want to build a second or third house in their backyard
- people don't want to be bothered [or in some cases genuinely can't afford] to spend the money on an aborist to prune the tree regularly to keep it safe.
My local council has let people remove *street trees* - which are on verges, which are PUBLIC LAND and belong to everyone, not the homeowner - for reasons including "we're elderly and can't sweep up the leaves".
My council has a free service where they will put your bins out and back for you every week if you genuinely can't take your bins out yourself due to age/Disability
so why not a free service where they'll sweep up after a street tree once a month if you genuinely can't manage it due to age/Disability and genuinely can't afford to pay someone else?
I really think there is no excuse to remove a verge street tree other than a) it's blocking visibility in a way that is dangerous for pedestrians/cyclists/drivers
b) it's genuinely in danger of dropping heavy branches on people (some Australian Eucalypts do this without warning, and those particular species of Eucalypt should NEVER have been planted right next to public footpaths)
no subject
"We found that for every increase of 10 per cent tree canopy cover, you get a 0.62-degree celsius decrease in land surface temperatures," he said. So if you take the extremes, from no canopy cover to full canopy cover, there's about a 6-degree celsius [42.8F] difference."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-17/tree-canopy-in-perth-how-hot-is-your-neighbourhood/9857710?nw=0
My suburb is losing trees far too fast for reasons including
- people want to build a second or third house in their backyard
- people don't want to be bothered [or in some cases genuinely can't afford] to spend the money on an aborist to prune the tree regularly to keep it safe.
My local council has let people remove *street trees* - which are on verges, which are PUBLIC LAND and belong to everyone, not the homeowner - for reasons including "we're elderly and can't sweep up the leaves".
My council has a free service where they will put your bins out and back for you every week if you genuinely can't take your bins out yourself due to age/Disability
so why not a free service where they'll sweep up after a street tree once a month if you genuinely can't manage it due to age/Disability and genuinely can't afford to pay someone else?
I really think there is no excuse to remove a verge street tree other than
a) it's blocking visibility in a way that is dangerous for pedestrians/cyclists/drivers
b) it's genuinely in danger of dropping heavy branches on people (some Australian Eucalypts do this without warning, and those particular species of Eucalypt should NEVER have been planted right next to public footpaths)