This article supports the group of anti-development Upstate stakeholders by discussing the effects of the natural gas drilling occurring in Pennsylvania on the countryside. The Marcellus shale is a rock formation of 95,000 square-miles that extends from West Virginia to New York. This formation contains large amounts of natural gas which can be obtained by a hydraulic fracturing process. Since the affected areas in Pennsylvania are located on the same rock formation as Upstate New York, similar conclusions can be drawn from the effects of the hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. The natural gas drilling has caused a decrease in property values and in the beauty of the surrounding natural environment.

The Hallowich family, who own 10 acres of farmland in a drilling area of Pennsylvania have witnessed the degradation of their surrounding environment and a decrease in their property value due to the fracking in their area. The onset of drilling near their home brought “a gas processing plant, a compressor station, buried pipelines, a three-acre plastic-lined holding pond, and a gravel road with heavy truck traffic,” clearly ruining the natural surrounding landscape they once enjoyed. Along with the eyesore of industrial equipment, loud noises from the traffic and operations interrupted the Hallowich’s lives. Also, since many residents extract their drinking water from shallow pumps, there is a danger of water contamination from the fracking fluids. While these fluids are usually contained, “at least 130 cases documented since 2008 by the DEP, drilling waste-water has spilled into creeks and tributaries due to holding pond overflows, pump failures, and other errors,” proving that there is a chance for dangerous fluids to enter nearby waterways and contaminate resident drinking water pumps. The Hallowich family also complained about a bad smell and dangerous gasses coming to their house through the air and causing burning throats and eyes. All of these disturbances have lowered the property value of their land, with a real estate agent pricing it at $200,000, though the Hallowichs are looking to sell for $500,000.

The problems faces by residents in Pennsylvania on the same Marcellus shale formation can be viewed as a cautionary tale to what could happen to residents of Upstate New York. For these reasons natural gas hydraulic fracking should not be developed in Upstate New York. The industrial compounds will ruin the beauty of the surrounding nature by taking up a lot of space and introducing new roads with high traffic. The danger of the fluids polluting the air and waterways is also an issue which would contribute to the decrease in property value and would have a very adverse effect on property owners in the area.

Works Cited:

Lavelle, Marianne. “A Dream Dashed by the Rush on Gas.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 17 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 Dec. 2012. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-environment/>.

1. How do you think conservationism is changing? Do you think ecologists are still focused on the “pristine wilderness” idea?

2. How well do you think NYC represents a rambunctious garden?

3. How do you think the conservation of state parks should be run?

4. What are some effective ways to conserve nature?

5. Do you find that the definition of nature is changing?

Emma Marris concludes Rambunctious Garden by weighing in on some of the goals that could be strived for. Throughout the book, Marris talked about how nature is not only a “pristine” ideal and it cannot be put back into its original form, or to a certain baseline. Thus there are other goals to focus on when thinking about nature, yet she points out that all these goals cannot be accomplished together, so it is up to people to decide what goal would work best for each area.

I don’t quite agree with the first goal Marris presents, which includes protecting the rights of other species. While it makes sense to try and protect the rights of animals on a certain level, deep ecologists believe that “all living things have intrinsic value and deserve to be protected for their own sake” (154). Many deep ecologists put the rights of the earth on the same level as human rights and claim that humans have a moral obligation to reduce their population and tap into nature less. I don’t believe it is correct to place humans on the same level as non-sentient parts of nature or even other animals and it seems more morally correct that humans should place their own interests above any other aspects of nature.

The second goal Marris mentions is to protect charismatic megafauna. This may be a good idea because people will tend to support and donate to conservation and protection funds if they like the animals that the fund says they are trying to protect. If the fund just mentioned plants that could go extinct or a species of insect, very small amounts of people would actually care about such matters since others might view them as miniscule. On the other hand, discussing the dangers posed to popular species would get more people interested in conserving ecosystems.

Marris talks about several other potential goals, including the idea that nature should be protected just for the aesthetic experience of nature. I agree with this goal because nature is something that many just enjoy watching and spending time in nature. I also agree with Marris’s statements about the beauty found in both artificially and natural created landscapes. Examples such as Niagara Falls and the Sandhill cranes display how the combination of human and natural activity creates an amazing display. Marris sums up the collaboration very well with the line, “This conscious and responsible and joyful cohabitation is the future of our planet, our vibrant, thriving, and rambunctious garden” (170). As Marris sums up her book, I find that I agree with a few of her ideas, such as how nature has been altered and it is very dynamic. I agree that nature should not be forcibly kept static to resemble an arbitrary baseline and there should be different goals that apply to the variety of nature in the world, whether its the small garden in a city or a rural area.

In chapters 8 and 9 of Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, Marris once again points out how ecologists shouldn’t just be concerned with restoring and taking care of a “pristine” nature, but they should embrace change and develop he nature in urban areas as well. Marris begins chapter 8 with a discussion on how ecologists have tried to restore streams. Margaret Palmer, a stream restoration expert, says “new picture of pre-European streams will just replace one arbitrary baseline with another-neither of which takes into account the changing nature of the landscape” (124). This supports Marris’ point of the arbitrary goal of many ecologists, to continue to conserve nature by restoring it to a certain baseline.

The streams are actually designed rather than restored since “no restoration reproduces exactly the ecosystem of hundreds of years ago” (125). It is the goal of restoring an ecosystem to it’s “proper” baseline that many ecologists chase. They want to restore an ecosystem to a historic baseline that is “morally better” as well as “maximally efficient” at certain ecological functions (126). In doing so they are creating new, designer ecosystems, “even if they are inspired by the past” (126). But just because an ecosystem looks as it used to, Marris points out, doesn’t mean it will behave in the same manner. She also points out that often the historic ecosystem isn’t always performing better at certain functions that novel ecosystems and often a well constructed designer ecosystem will be better than a “recreation of a historical ecosystem” (127).

Because the ecology and nature of an area is constantly changing and adapting, there is no point in establishing a baseline and striving to obtain it since the baseline is not an ideal scenario since nature is always dynamic. Often it is even impossible to restore the original ecosystem, such as in the eucalyptus woodlands in Australia, where the soil became to salty for the historical plants to live. Instead, other species that thrive with salt could grow there. Richard Hobbs states, “You are not going to get the previous ecosystem back, but you can still aim for something that is valuable” (129).

I agree with Marris’ statement that ecologists should try to stop using the word “restore” and instead just design high functioning and useful ecosystems, as well as leave some land unmanaged, “just to see what it does” (131). Marris sums up her main points in the end of chapter 9, discussing the importance to preserve and enhance nature that is all around us. She brings up an interesting point of how nature shows portray nature as pristine and untouched, yet this is very rarely the case, and they convince viewers that the “pristine” idea of nature is the only true nature that there is. Marris points out many examples of how nature is all around us and I agree with her view of nature, which includes all of the animals and ecosystems that are directly around humans. Just because nature isn’t untouched, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be regarded as nature.

Ecologists are very often opposed to a new species entering an environment. They believe that the new species will only destroy the original ecosystem and become an invasive species. A common story that many ecologists tell about the effects of an invasive species, Marris relates, is how “a species invades, and the ecosystem collapses, species go extinct, and complexity and diversity are replaced with a monotonous and weedy landscape dominated by invaders” (97). Marris argues that this is not always the case and discusses the idea of a “novel ecosystem,” one that represents “the future of our planet” (122). I agree with Marris that these ecosystems should be studied since they are dominant in the world and they are not as harmful as many ecologists believe them to be.

Though many ecologists do not believe that exotic species would ever be able to help increase diversity, often exotic species can actually end up helping the ecosystem and allowing the other species to continue to survive. Marris points out once again that humans have introducing new species to areas for many centuries. While sometimes the new species can bring about a lot of harm like diseases they can carry with them or if they become predators and eat an entire population of native species, “extinctions that are directly attributable to introduced species are quite rare” (104). Though such damage is very rare, “these emerging, exotic-dominated ecosystems still look like trash to most ecologists,” Marris writes, “but a brave few have embraced them and given them a more positive name: novel ecosystems” (109).

Marris defines a novel ecosystem as ones where there was “anthropogenic change” at one point but are currently not under management by humans (114). This applies to most ecosystems in nature because they almost all have been affected by humans in some way. In a novel ecosystem, new species may be introduced into the area, something that ecologists fear due to the risk of the new species becoming invasive and “ruining” the ecosystem. In some cases, novel ecosystems can cause “homogenization and extinction” but they can also foster “increased diversity and brand new species” (122). For example, in Puerto Rico, the exotic -dominated ecosystem actually was “functioning better than nearby native forest” (113). Novel ecosystems are often very beneficial. They can can provide a habitat for the native species if their habitat is gone and they can sometimes even help restore the native species. Rather than a decrease in diversity, as ecologists assume will happen in a novel ecosystem, diversity may instead be on the rise. One hypothesis for the increased diversity is that the exotic or introduced species may initially run rampant but will eventually calm down due a built up resistance by the surrounding species. Thus the new species may become integrated into the ecosystem and form the potentially diverse novel ecosystem. Ecologists need to stop trying to keep nature in a static position and embrace studying the many new forms of nature that evolves.