Land Development Releases Greenhouse Gases

Land use change releases stored carbon and should be counted under Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting.  

Example of a wildflower meadow (left) that was bulldozed to create a parking lot (right). This land use change results in direct emissions of stored soil carbon and plant biomass, as well as continuing opportunity costs: the meadow can no longer accumulate sequestered carbon. If this land is owned by the developing company, this would count as Scope 1 Emissions under GHG reporting requirements.

New GHG reporting standards for land use change are due to be finalized in 2024. According to these new standards,

"Companies shall:

-Account for land use change emissions from land carbon stock decreases across all carbon pools (biomass, soil organic carbon and dead organic matter).

-Account for and report direct land use change (dLUC) emissions or statistical land use change (sLUC) emissions in scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3."

This is important because, according to the IPCC AR6 (2023), land use change accounts for approximately 15% of anthropogenic emissions.  Interestingly, the parts of the land and ocean that have not been developed by humans still absorb 30% of our emissions.  As we degrade more and more land and water, the Earth loses this buffering capacity, in addition to the extra emissions created from land use change.

Climate Change, by U.S. State

The climate is always changing, and here are the last 30 year averaged trends.



You can also see how the seasons are changing.

Revenge of the Lawn

Imagine, if instead of growing grass, Americans grew food... the "Food Not Lawns" movement is trying to help do just that.
The definitive anti-lawn essay: Turf War. Elizabteh Kolbert. The New Yorker. p.82 July 21, 2008.

"The insecticide carbaryl, which is marketed under the trade name Sevin, is still broadly applied to lawns. A likely human carcinogen, it has been shown to cause developmental damage in lab animals, and is toxic to—among many other organisms—tadpoles, salamanders, and honeybees. In “American Green” (2006), Ted Steinberg, a professor of history at Case Western Reserve University, compares the lawn to “a nationwide chemical experiment with homeowners as the guinea pigs.”

Meanwhile, the risks of the chemical lawn are not confined to the people who own the lawns, or to the creatures that try to live in them. Rain and irrigation carry synthetic fertilizers into streams and lakes, where the excess nutrients contribute to algae blooms that, in turn, produce aquatic “dead zones.” Manhattanites may not keep lawns, but they drink the chemicals that run off them. A 2002 report found traces of thirty-seven pesticides in streams feeding into the Croton River Watershed. A few years ago, Toronto banned the use of virtually all lawn pesticides and herbicides, including 2,4-D and carbaryl, on the ground that they pose a health risk, especially to children."

More quotes:

"In his anti-lawn essay "Why Mow?," Michael Pollan puts it this way: "Lawns are nature purged of sex and death. No wonder Americans like them so much."

See also "the nation's first grassroots anti-grass movement, which dubbed itself Wild Ones." SALT: Smaller American Lawns Today