Where trees are growing — and who has access to their shade — affects health and well-being, especially in one of the hottest states in the country.

Neighborhoods with more trees and green space stay cooler, while those coated with layers of asphalt swelter. Lower-income neighborhoods tend to be hottest, a city report found, and they have the least tree canopy.

The same is true in cities across the country, where poor and minority neighborhoods disproportionately suffer the consequences of rising temperatures. Research shows the temperatures in a single city, from Portland, Oregon, to Baltimore, can vary by up to 20 degrees. For a resident in a leafy suburb, a steamy summer day may feel uncomfortable. But for their friend a few neighborhoods over, it’s more than uncomfortable — it’s dangerous.

  • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
    1·
    10 months ago

    My wording was hasty. I only envision that new structures should be expected to come with solar tiles or panels. Like, you spent half a mil on a new house, do an extra 10-20k to have a useful roof instead of a ridiculous summer passive heater.

    And yes, you’re right, trees should be #1, and the main point of the article was really the disappearance of green spaces and coverage. This brief spot is what was on my mind in my take on it:

    Quicker actions could include erecting better shade structures at bus stops or implementing rules for construction to encourage the use of materials that generate less heat in the sun. For example, some cities in the Northeast — including Philadelphia and New York — provide financial incentives for “green roofs,” in which the top of a building is covered with plants.

    So I guess I had an “old man yells at clouds” moment.