A city planner told me our urban tree canopy goals are pointless

We were at a public meeting in Springfield about replacing some storm-damaged maples. She said, 'Planting for canopy cover percentage is just greenwashing if you don't specify native species that support local ecology.' It hit different because she framed it as a choice between looking good on paper and actually helping wildlife. Made me question if our standard municipal planting lists are doing enough. Are we just creating green deserts with non-native ornamentals?

3 comments

3 Comments

clark.alex25d ago

That planner has a point about native species, but calling canopy goals pointless goes too far. Even non-native trees clean the air, cool streets, and manage stormwater. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. We can push for more natives in the list while still valuing every tree we get in the ground.

the_emery23d ago

Yeah, and @clark.alex is right about the cooling and water stuff. From my own yard, I've found you can mix in some tough native oaks or maples that do the same jobs without spreading where they shouldn't.

jennifer20425d ago

So @clark.alex, what's the actual harm when non-natives crowd out local plants and animals?