Stuff I found14h ago
...and our rooftops. But let plants get sunlight, they need it for photosynthesis

#photosynthesis #plants #nature #solar #solarpower #sun #infrastructure #UrbanPlanning #urban #UrbanLife #CityPlanning #activism #environment #climate #ClimateChange #ClimateChangeIsReal #electricity
Show threadnotsoloud13h ago

@stuffifound
Probably unintentionally, your message echoes the anti-climate Danish Democrat party.

Our car parks are not enough, and I don't want more. We can use some roofs, but it's way more expensive than in fields.

The best climate value in Denmark is large parks on low productivity land screened by a ring of trees. If we run low on land, we can take it from the 30'000 hectares used to grow canola for biodiesel (spectacularly inefficient compared to solar). Or breed slightly fewer pigs.

Show threadBenjamin Lyng Jørgensen
@notsoloud @stuffifound actually, please do cover some of our fields too! All the excessive fertilizing is running of to our fjords and killing marine life. And seeping into our drinking water...
8:41amWeb
Show threadnotsoloud12h ago

@benjaminlj
Yes, solar fields would replace monoculture crops. There would be less photosynthesis, but probably more biodiversity.

With a bit of tuning (grazing, insect hotels, mixed wet and dry areas) there would likely be a LOT more biodiversity. We should require the owners to cooperate with universities to research how.

I'm not really concerned about losing that photosynthesis, actually.
@stuffifound