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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Build covers with solar panels on their roofs. Provide shade and generate money in the long run. Most brick-and-mortar shoppers would be more attracted to covered parking, too.

    It blows my mind that an article about shade deserts doesn’t mention covering with solar collection systems. We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.

    • Toast@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      An increase in the number of solar cells in an area can be useful, but shade cover from trees would have a greater cooling effect on most areas. Trees both shade and provide transpiration cooling. The water evaporating from leaves cools the surrounding air as the water goes from a liquid to gas phase.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        And just like solar panels, trees harvest a part of the energy in sunlight, giving additional cooling to just a shade. And trees are cheaper to set up, even if they may not provide a return on electricity.

        Ideally you would have trees on the ground and solar panels on the roofs, to further increase cooling.

    • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I really hope Biden pushes something next term that allows promotes solar like the current ev push.

      Even better, ban HoAs from banning solar. Fuck that noise.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Trees should be the first priority, with solar cell shade a distant second. Trees only need water and minor maintenance, are far cooler to be under than a simple shade barrier, provide a lot of benefits like wind breaking and homes for nature to live in that are better for people than artificial structures.

    • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Solar panels are significant infrastructure investments. Because you don’t just need the panels. You need wiring (possibly cooling) to connect them up and, generally, some form of a bigass battery to store the excess power (or the considerably more complex infrastructure to feed that back into the grid).

      We SHOULD be working toward this with basically any decent sized office building having panels and storage. But, short term, we need awnings and trees. Trees especially as they do a LOT more than just provide shade.

      As for residential homes? Solar panels are expensive and the batteries are too. But, if people can afford it, it is something to consider.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Pv is now around $30/m^2 wholesale and $60/m^2 retail.

        Not much more expensive than a sheet metal roof (far cheaper than a mature tree after all the water and tending), but a sheet metal roof doesn’t produce $100/yr worth of electricity.

        Tree good. If can’t afford tree, then pv obvious choice.

        • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It helps that solar panels (done well) very much add to the value of the house and there are a lot of state and federal programs to offset the costs. And, if you live in an even somewhat sunny area, they help to offset their own cost over a LONG time.

          But yeah. Regardless of what the tech youtubers with giant mansions say, they are not some magic panacea. And I very much align with Technology Connections in terms of being wary of their impact on society as a whole when the rich can pay even less of an energy bill.

          But, if you can afford them and they make sense, they are awesome.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not a bad idea per se but it’s a very expensive solution. We probably won’t be able build enough panels for all of the shade we’ll need for future heat.

      Trees are usually the best and easiest solution in most areas, but many municipalities including Tampa don’t take them very seriously. They need space for roots if they’re to provide adequate shade in urban areas.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Most brick-and-mortar shoppers

      This whole article is about residential areas, not commercial / retail ones.

      We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.

      How do you manage that in neighborhood with preexisting homes?

      • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 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.