“Cities that have a lot of water within their borders often don’t do well because where there is water there is no green.”
That is in all fairness a load of cherry picking BS. That is like claiming a mountainous nation can not include those areas in national parks/nature reserves because parks must come from land that could be used for human wealth creating like agriculture or cities.
Do they really think water is just useless there space without recreational purposes and life?
What is next? Will they claim cities are green if they paint the rooftops green? Will Copenhagen become “greener” if it kills life in the waters by dumping nutrition’s in it and let algae growth go nuts.
2 comments
‘European and U.K cities……’ *confusion ensues*
Source : Bloomberg, NY; confusion settled
“Cities that have a lot of water within their borders often don’t do well because where there is water there is no green.”
That is in all fairness a load of cherry picking BS. That is like claiming a mountainous nation can not include those areas in national parks/nature reserves because parks must come from land that could be used for human wealth creating like agriculture or cities.
Do they really think water is just useless there space without recreational purposes and life?
What is next? Will they claim cities are green if they paint the rooftops green? Will Copenhagen become “greener” if it kills life in the waters by dumping nutrition’s in it and let algae growth go nuts.