While reading this article, I appreciated Rowe’s realistic attitude, weighing out the costs and benefits of green roofs. It is clear that green roofs can provide many services, but they are costly. Also, for example, a garden with high levels of fertilizer could cause water pollution. When addressing one problem, it is important not to lose sight of others or the potential consequences that could occur. We do not live in a vacuum and therefore almost everything has a chain reaction. Kosareo and Ries’s cost benefit analysis took into account “environmental impacts of the fabrication, transportation, installation, operation, maintenance, and disposal of a conventional ballasted roof, an extensive roof, and an intensive roof” (2108). There is clearly a lot to consider on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, Rowe suggests that an interdisciplinary team work together to address the entire picture from different lenses.
I believe what really stands in our way is humans short-term perspective, or lack of long-term projections. We may come to the conclusion that green roofs are our best bet, yet we will fail to implement them because the benefits are not immediate. Green roofs could have a lifespan of over 45 years compared to conventional roofs 20 years, but we stop ourselves since green roofs require more money upfront. This is similar to people’s attitude towards solar panels. However, unlike solar panels that are considered an eye soar, green roofs can actually be aesthetically pleasing and make use of wasted space!
