Las Vegas is embracing a simple climate solution: More trees
85 comments
·June 10, 2025vouaobrasil
brandensilva
60k trees in 25 years also seems woefully insufficient.
ciberado
In Spain, a private company has planted almost 1 million trees in one year as what I guess is in part a marketing effort[1]. Barcelona itself counts with 1.5 million of exemplars.
So yes, you are probably right. 60K in 25 years is a PR note.
[1] https://www.iberdrola.com/press-room/news/detail/iberdrola-h...
[2] https://www.lavanguardia.com/participacion/las-fotos-de-los-... (Spanish)
vouaobrasil
A good start but there needs to be more...a lot more.
tjwebbnorfolk
Neither labor nor capital are free. If you want to donate yours, I'm sure they could plant a few extra trees. But those resources need to come from somewhere, and they aren't unlimited.
renewiltord
Fair enough, I will also write them to tell them to cancel the project.
petesergeant
> making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways
It's going to make them use less aircon, which seems like a good start
vouaobrasil
True. Not a bad start indeed.
sandspar
Lol. If Las Vegas city planners can't single handedly solve climate change then they shouldn't beautify their tourist district.
You seem to dislike the article's framing, which is fine, but then you start on a crusade.
It's ok to plant trees so that hot people will feel slightly less hot. It doesn't need to fix every problem, just the small problem that there's too little shade in their tourist district.
The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. It's just so annoying to see this smugness from online commenters. "Their solution isn't Pure enough [therefore I'm smarter/purer than them]."
Maybe the Las Vegas city planners have good reasons for doing what they did. I mean that's possible right? Could it even be possible that there's more to this story than you understand?
danans
Unless I missed it, the article doesn't say anything about a tourist district. If anything, it's focused on the neighborhoods that are not in the tourist district.
That said, we need to start qualifying the phrases we use to describe climate change issues. This one (if it works) is a "climate change adaptation solution".
vouaobrasil
> The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs.
Wrong. The unstated premise of my post is that I'm sick of articles pointing out "solutions" to the climate change problem which contributes to people believing that recycling and planting trees in their yard of their big house will help. This has to do with the person who wrote the title, not the city planners. The city planners didn't claim it was a solution. I'm not commenting on the city planners at all –– and I understand the situation perfectly.
tshaddox
This framing of climate change (as a problem which can meaningfully be addressed by private individuals changing their habits) must be loved by people who stand to benefit from climate change.
turnsout
You’re right—based on everything I’ve heard about the development of Las Vegas by mobsters in the 1950s, it sounds like they started with a very intentional multi-decade plan focused on ecological impact and sustainability.
roland35
[flagged]
aboardRat4
There is nothing bad in CO₂ . When all of the now buried alive CO₂ was in the atmosphere, the planet was a tropical paradise and could support tall heavy cold-blooded reptiles.
We need to burn more coal and return more land nowadays covered by permafrost into the agricultural circulation.
toephu2
Are you talking about dinosaurs?
The scientific consensus is that most dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
null
vouaobrasil
Whoa are you serious? During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt. Though, I think tall, cold-blooded reptiles would be preferable to the current state...
roflchoppa
I was in Vegas for the first time this weekend and also noticed that it’s mostly a concrete jungle. There were some small olive trees planted near Park MGM, but everything else we saw was concrete.
Vegas is depressing man, I don’t think I wanna go back.
zzlk
The strip is depressing, but the actual city outside of the strip is pretty cool. It's rapidly growing with very affordable housing. The food scene is excellent because of a diverse population. The nature scene is excellent. Electricity is very cheap, no income tax, low property taxes. Extremely well maintained and overbuilt infrastructure, very little traffic. A very nice airport (my favorite in the US) that is very near the population center and also with reasonably priced parking.
Vegas has a lot to offer and the strip really dominates the perception of it which is unfortunate.
pinkmuffinere
Its PR is also made more difficult by the fact that some people _love_ the strip, so this is often the only thing people know about. The most iconic part of Vegas is the strip, so it's the only thing people know to try, and then we get really polar opposite opinions on the city in general depending on who you ask.
anonymousiam
I'll agree with everything you've said except the part about low property taxes. I pay about 20% more in property tax on my Vegas house than I do for my LA one, and the LA one is worth about 40% more. The main reason for this is the lack of a Nevada state income tax.
I get creamed by the SALT cap, but I'm not in favor of repealing it, because it rightfully punishes states that aren't fiscally responsible.
gamblor956
The "fiscally irresponsible" states provide more tax dollars to the federal government than the "fiscally responsible" states, all of whom would be completely insolvent without the extra tax dollars they receive from the federal government.
The fair alternative to not eliminating the SALT cap would be to allocate federal dollars spent by the amount of tax dollars paid by the citizens of that state. But then every GOP state would be insolvent, so obviously that's not going to happen.
DrPhish
Trees are pure carbon. I have heard a number of weak “yeah, but…” arguments that try to diminish the fact, but a central, common sense thesis remains.
If we are truly worried about climate change and are unable to curb our consumption, then we should plant as many trees as we can and aggressively shift as much of our long-lived infrastructure to using wood products as possible.
Grow it, use it, maintain it.
Terr_
There are good reasons to green-up our cities, but [edit: capturing] global CO2 levels isn't one of them.
Living things typically don't store carbon long-term, unless you take extra steps like burying them in bogs. Even if we were to collectively invest in sequestration, it'd be more effective with trees that are lower-maintenance, more densely/conveniently situated, and where residents don't complain that a tree needs to be kept-longer/removed-sooner. Perhaps we'd choose something else entirely like algae.
__MatrixMan__
Even if it's not typical, when circumstances are right they can store a lot of carbon in a hurry.
My garage is on the same level as my basement, so there's a 5' retaining wall on either side of it. Leaves blow around and get trapped in the corners. Once I didn't bother cleaning it up for several years and when I did I had to move several hundred pounds of new soil into my back yard because of how many leaves had decayed there. Small trees were growing in it.
Similar story with the drainage on the side of my house. Not long after I moved in a heavy rain filled my basement with water. I had to rent a machine to dig a trench on either side so that the back yard would stop becoming a pond when it rained. I'm sure this wasn't a problem in the 60's when it was built, but over time the decaying leaves from my neighbor's tree raised the ground level by something like 1.5 ft and spoiled the original slope (I eventually found the original grade, there was a whole brick patio down there).
We may have to be a bit more intentional than "plant a bunch of trees" to get this effect, but I think it's worth exploiting.
lysp
> There are good reasons to green-up our cities, but global CO2 levels isn't one of them.
I believe they can to a point. Trees, parks and greenery lower the average temperature for an area. Less heat being absorbed.
This would likely leads to less of a need for cooling and energy use.
That being said, I don't remember reading about how much of an effect it does have, just that it's not zero.
nitwit005
I'm totally on board with planting trees, but as a climate solution, the accounting doesn't make sense. We're burning a hundred million barrels of oil a day or so. If you tried to compensate with forests, you'll quickly start to wonder where you're going to fit them all, and where the water is coming from.
It's almost always going to be vastly easier to reduce emissions than to try to re-absorb it.
ahmedbaracat
Couldn’t agree more. Wrote this few years back:
https://barac.at/essays/we-only-need-to-plant-1-trillion-tre...
selcuka
Are you sure? There are currently 3 trillion trees on earth and they only absorb about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions (~9.5 GT of CO2) per year [1]. Apparently not all trees absorb the same amount of CO2 as in your assumption. Adding 1 more trillion trees would have a negligible effect.
somenameforme
It's not just the absorption as any stroll anywhere near a forest should tell you. They somehow cool areas dramatically, not just through shade, and change local systems substantially. Anyhow, if you want papers, there was one just recently discussed here. [1]
It's expected that planting a trillion trees (amounting to global land coverage of ~8%) which is analogous to pre-industrial times, would reduce overall heating by some 25% (!!) by itself. This also opens the door to yet another not poorly understand feedback system - CO2 increases greenery which increases trees which decreases temperatures far more than previously expected.
bolster8505
I've lived in the Las Vegas area my entire life. I'm so glad they're doing this. Some areas of town have very little green space, especially since grass has been outlawed. Trees are a net positive, even if it isn't a silver bullet solution. I do miss the grass though, everyone in the neighborhood watering their grass at night really cooled things down but the cost is too high considering how much water is used. Trees can keep the asphalt and concrete from becoming frying pans.
ziofill
> since grass has been outlawed
why?? (because it takes water to maintain?)
AdamN
It really should be outlawed almost everywhere. It's the biggest crop in America and iirc the largest consumer of water and insecticides and other chemicals. Natural lawns can be beautiful and more positive for the local environment.
rascul
Grass grows naturally with little to no maintenance in lots of areas. It doesn't have to be a manicured lawn.
toephu2
because Las Vegas is in the desert and lawns are a waste of precious water.
jmugan
In Texas, local governments plant trees all the time. The problem is that they don't water them and they die.
mingus88
> Daseler is bringing in mostly nonnative plants that provide shade and are drought tolerant, like oak trees from northern Mexico and eucalyptus trees from Australia.
Choice of tree matters. These areas are deserts and it just seems wrong minded to plant trees if the land can’t support them.
Then again building a city like Las Vegas in the first place was a mistake imo. Seems a little late to try and make it sustainable and livable for humans. All that water could be used for much better things
crawsome
This is the best point. Creating a city in the middle of a desert that requires you to spend extra resources just for it to exist is an affront to nature. Not-only do we need to destroy nature to exist up until now, but places like Vegas and Qatar are exponentially more expensive for the environment because the earth already naturally abandoned those places.
Our engineering, at every turn destroys nature by default. We have the ability to stop this if we try hard enough.
manquer
Doha isn't a shining example of sustainable city development but it still better positioned than Vegas, there are few key differences between the two.
The population is roughly the same ~ 2.2 Million each[1], however Doha proper is very small at only 50 sq miles, compared to Las Vegas metro area of 1600 sq miles , even all of Qatar is only 4700 sq miles and most of that is empty desert.
Doha is right next to the sea, desalination plants supply 99% of its water supply reliably. Vegas on the other hands gets bulk of its water from Colarado river(via Lake Mead) and rest from ground water, both come with its own set of problems. Colarado river water is weather variable and also sharing the water is complicated by the pact between the 7 states that share the water.
Qatar is very gas rich and can run those desalination plants pretty cheaply, plus they have no choice but to live where they are i.e. there aren't other alternative locations they can live at, Vegas residents have freedom of movement to rest of the U.S. and with tougher climate may find those cheaper/ attractive.
[1] Out of the 2,000,000 only 300,000 or so are citizens/permanent residents, rest are immigrant workers without permanent residency rights, meaning they would leave when there is less work or visa is not renewed if the government desires to reduce the population of the city, they wouldn't need to convince/pay and provide alternative location foreign workers - who rarely are allowed or bring their family with them and would leave if there is no money to be made without a movement's regret.
GauntletWizard
Everything humans do to make our environment better for us is an "Affront to Nature". That's what makes it worthwhile. Nature is a petty, vicious bitch. The more we tame her the better.
90s_dev
Isn't that what rain and rivers are for? I mean, the trees you cut down were alive somehow, right? Or, are they planting them in places there never were trees?
ac29
I live in a climate with a 6 month dry season. Established trees are fine with only rain, but new trees need 10-15 gallons a week of watering when its dry.
Las Vegas only gets 4 inches of rain a year, so I imagine supplemental water is likely needed nearly every week for several years.
defrost
In some parts of the world clearing trees results in conditions that make it very hard to grow trees again for a considerable length of time.
Large established trees with deep roots draw up large volumes of water from deep down. Once those trees go the water table rises, bringing salts from deeper down up to near ground leavel, the increased salt near surface inhabits young tree growth.
eg: https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2024/march/even-far-from...
bell-cot
Trees vary considerably in their water needs. And even if you're planting species which fairly recently grew in the area - it's easy for a year or few of drought to kill off young trees, if those are not watered correctly and encouraged to establish large, deep root systems.
moralestapia
With that said ... it's completely possible to have trees within a city, even in arid places.
I've seen it with my eyes!
null
egberts1
Should have done that 40 years ago.
Sacramento planted 2.2M trees since 1975 and cooler than historical data (still reaches 90s and 100s)
plemer
Second best time is now
roland35
Second best time would've been 39 years ago!
apt-apt-apt-apt
Nah, it would actually have been 39.9 years ago
BurningFrog
Best A/C I've ever had was a huge tree that put our house in Mountain View in permanent shade!
It's always better - if possible - to stop something from happening than to try to counteract it afterwards.
SoftTalker
It’s all good until the tree falls on the house.
otterley
That part of the world doesn't get the sort of weather that causes that to happen often.
soulofmischief
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
atleastoptimal
Walking in a treeless locale always gives me dread and leaves me fatigued. A treeless suburb feels artificial and depressing, one filled with trees feels comforting and has much more of a sense of "place"
viburnum
Trees are great but Las Vegas is in a desert. It would better to also build for shade, like old hilltop towns in Italy or Spain, or various urban designs in the Middle East.
instagib
They are giving away free trees which will cool by shading and the evapotranspiration effect.
It’s a local climate solution for high heat and little shade.
null
null
Read the article. This isn't a climate solution, it's a solution to mitigate the effects of climate change on people, making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways.
Don't get me wrong: planting trees is a good thing. But the word "solution" implies a reduced rate of increase of CO2 over time, which this will not do. We have to use far less energy and far less fossil fuels to actually do that, and shift away from consumeristic innovation, which no one will do. Instead, they'll just plant trees to keep them cooler.