The debate continues on today, as residents and companies fight for against hydraulic fracturing. This article in the New York Times reports about the E.P.A. weighing the cost and effects of hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing is the act of drilling wells into Marcellus Shale to extract large amounts of natural gas. If done correctly, the amount of natural gas that is to be extracted is great and if fracking was to be adopted everywhere, the United States would be able to obtain energy independence. They will be able to spend less money on importing fuel and it will cause less pollution as it does not burn as greatly as fossil fuels. However, despite these pros, have we ever thought about what this could potentially do to our land? Our country is urban, but this does not mean that we must lose all of the nature we have left today.

Landowners are lining up to gas prospectors to lease their land for the price of them drilling holes into the ground to find natural gases. What will happen to this land? Countless wells will be constructed to extract the gases from the ground, and if they are not constructed properly, great amounts of chemicals will seep into our air. The integrity and the process of which the wells are built lead to chance of spilling chemicals into the ground and water as well. Many chemicals are used in this process and most of them do not have to be disclose by the companies so we do not know the exact relationship between the two. But do we really want to take this risk? The fact that the water absorbed and used through this process will not be received back does not help this situation too.

The risks does not stop here. Hydraulic fracturing is also have said to be linked to increasing the cause of earthquakes that we experience. This is merely a theory but if there’s a possibility where this can be true, once again, why risk it? Should we gain all of these possible threats and risks to our environment for natural gases, while killing the beautiful nature we have left today? Should we really kill off the rest of the land that we have so scarcely of?

The NYTimes article posts, “Corporations have no conscience… The E.P.A. must give them that conscience.” This is completely true. Businesses are started and built for the mere objective of profit. It is up to us, the people, to stop this and show them that nature and our environment does really matter. Money is not everything. There are things that you cannot put a price on. In this case, the harms do outweigh the pros that this can do for our environment. Not merely because of the lack of information we have on this, but because of the fact that we need to realize what we are destroying. Nature can be destroyed within a few minutes. But rebuilding it will take a lot longer than that. We need to learn to appreciate what we have now, rather than trying to change everything for the “better.”

Jr., Tom Zeller. “Far From Gulf, Due Diligence.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 July 2010. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/energy-environment/24gas.html?pagewanted=all>

1. How do you think New York City is doing in terms of creating its own rambunctious garden? And are you participating in your own version of a rambunctious garden?
2. Out of the seven goals that you have listed in the last chapter of your book, which would you consider the most important? How would you order them, one being the most important, and seven being the least?
3. You have listed many great advantages of creating a rambunctious garden. Let’s say you were on the side of the traditional conservationists. What would your arguments against the rambunctious garden be?
4. Do you see New York City to be slowly evolving its methods of conservation to the rambunctious garden method? Or do you see it stay in its own views of traditional conservation?

In the final chapter of the Rambunctious Garden, Marris lists alternative goals of conservation. These goals are not meant to be used all together, but to be used in different situations and events.

The first goal is to preserve and protect the rights of other species. Just as humans have rights, so do other species and ecosystems. This goal, however, leads to contradictions and disagreements. There are some species that are placed over others and some disagree that nonliving things, such as mountains, do not have rights.

The second goal is to protect the megafauna. The megafauna are those that can have great impact on the ecosystems, and they can become extinct the fastest. These species will leave a lasting effect on the ecosystems, whether for the greater or worse. And because these megafauna are more attractive at the human eye, people will be more likely to comprehend in conserving these species rather than other smaller faunas.

The third goal is to slow down the rate of extinction. This goal, like the first two, revolves around human bias. To slow down the rate of extinction, each and every species must be seen and protected equally. However, this is impossible because people have their biases as to which species is more important, and it would be nearly impossible to protect species in the same amount.

The fourth goal to protect genetic diversity. Protecting genetic diversity will protect species. As selections of species increase, it will increase the survival of that particular species. Having a more diverse population is more desirable than a homogeny population.

Like the fourth goal, the fifth goal is to protect biodiversity. The evolution and creation of new species will create a better ecosystem for all. The web of species that are created is favorable.

The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services. The problem with this goal is that negative effects will follow the positive effects. People use ecosystems for selfish desires and resources, which killed off a lot of our ecosystems. This might decrease the biodiversity that we are trying to protect from the fifth goal.

The seventh goal is to protect the beauty of nature itself. Everyone at one point needs a bit of nature in their system to get away from the urban life. It’s the change that is needed to provide change in the everyday schedule that we follow.

These goals show many things. One, that dealing with nature is not easy. Two, that these goals itself are not perfect because they are to be used in different occasions. And three, that these goals are possible. Because these goals are possible, the future with a better environment and ecosystems are possible as well. Marris, throughout this book, explains that we must be open-minded when it comes to nature and to not follow a single function.  Although nature is hard to deal with because it is ever changing, we should always be ready to adapt our methods to nature.

In chapters eight and nine of the Rambunctious Garden, Marris talks about designer ecosystems and conservation on less than ideal lands. Throughout what we have read, Marris discourages the way environmentalists and conservationists think about how nature should be. Many think that nature should be returned to their baselines, before mankind has altered it in any way. However, Marris introduces the designer ecosystems in chapter eight, which is an ecosystem to be altered for the better by humans, and how advantageous they can be. Marris quotes that, “… a designer ecosystem may be better than a recreation of a historical ecosystem.”

Marris gives an example of the Galápagos penguins as a successful result of the designer ecosystems. Because of the rats preying on the baby penguins, the penguins were at risk of extinction. Exterminating the rats to lessen the risk of the penguins is a long and difficult process. Instead, scientists drilled more nesting holes into the rocks for these birds. According to Marris, “This manipulation doesn’t return penguin habitat to any particular baseline; it makes the habitat better than “normal” for the birds.” There were instances when it has had negative effects, which led to a new domination of the area by a kind of grass. Despite its successes and failures, Marris points out that designer ecosystems are better than conserving areas the traditional way because designer ecosystems work with the growth of the environment, rather than against it. They are also cheaper and more efficient compared to the conventional method. This ties in with chapter nine. Marris writes how unexpected places can provide to be great habitats. She gives an example of a sunken ship housing coral reefs. And so, just like the Galápagos penguins, it would be like making an environment “normal.” “Nature”, such as trees and grass, would be added to urban areas, like the rambuctious garden.

As I read furthermore in the Rambunctious Garden, I see Marris’ idea of this whole rambunctious garden as more and more plausible. I feel like designer ecosystems will be of greater efficiency and cost. Although the idea of the “pristine wilderness” is still in the back of my head, reaching the baseline of an area is nearly impossible. While the possibility of that idea is almost zero, the idea of the rambunctious garden is completely possible and right in front of our noses. Many people do not like change, so it is rather better making small adjustments than to completely alter everything. I think this will be a great way to bring a small piece of nature to everyone’s front steps to admire.

In chapters six and seven of Rambunctious Garden, Marris expresses her thoughts on invasive species. Many environmentalists perceive invasive species as harmful and dangerous to the environment such as, “In 1999 Bill Clinton signed an executive order declaring war against invasive species, defined as “alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.”” And as written in the book, the current conception of invasive species is, “they out compete and eat up complex native systems, replacing them with few dull weeds.”Through these two chapters, Marris aims to reject those beliefs and prove that invasive species can beneficial to nature.

Marris included, “In 1998 a scientific paper declared alien species to be the second gravest threat to vulnerable U.S. flora and fauna, after habitat destruction.” This just shows how highly people held the threat level of invasive species. However, this is only taking into account the negative aspects of invasive species. A research named Dov Sax reported the advantages of invasive species in 2002. He reported that Easter Island, which once had 50 native species, now has a greater diversity of species present on the island. Although seven species have gone extinct after the arrival of alien species, the total number of species has increased to 111. The advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages. Another scientist named Mark Davis also disagreed with the fact that alien species will immediately compete with native species. They will sometimes help the native species flourish better than before. He uses the example of the Pyura praeputialis, which is “a squidgy brown sea-squirt-like creature from Australia.” This creature increased biodiversity on Chilean rocky tidal shores, creating a landscape for invertebrates and algae. Invasive species are also known to save the native species inhabiting the area. In Rodrigues Island, the songbirds and the fruit bats were almost close to extinction until the invasive species overtook the area, and “almost by accident” saved the species from extinction. Marris uses chapter six to convince the readers that invasive species are not completely harmful, and that they can be beneficial.

In chapter seven, Marris talks about her idea of a novel ecosystem. A novel ecosystem should not be compared with an ecosystem similar to that of a baseline. A novel ecosystem has been touched and altered by humans, but is left alone afterwards to thrive and change on its own. Contrary to what scientists believe, the novel ecosystem can be an area of greater diversity than those environments which have not been touched. With the prospective hybrids in place, as well as the native and invasive species, there is no limit for growth.

Through these two chapters, I can say that I was convinced in believing that invasive species are indeed helpful to our ecosystem, to an extent. Such as the example given before, if the benefits outweigh the harms, I feel that invasive species should not be exterminated or completely be unwanted. Invasive species offer more than just biodiversity, as they can help the environment grow and advance, as well as save our endangered species. I believe the scientists and environmentalists should gain a stronger interest in these invasive species and provide methods of supporting them.

Before the High Line became the well known park it is today, it was a track that ran between 34th Street and St. John’s Park. However, after it was long abandoned, on 2005, the city agreed to preserve and reconstruct the area into a park. Today, it lies as a great strip in the Meatpacking District. Being at the High Line brought Marris’ idea of the rambunctious garden into perspective and made it more realistic than I thought it would be.

The High Line was a great example of what a rambunctious garden is, and to think that one was so close to us. While reading Marris’ book, I had a difficult time trying to completely picture a rambunctious garden. But I realized through my visit at the High Line what a possible and rational idea the rambunctious garden was. The park itself was created using the abandoned railway as the base. With pathways, benches, and stairs added, the High Line quickly became a popular site. Despite the High Line being a site of nature, it is still surrounded by the harsh conditions of the skyscrapers, noise, and constant human interaction. However it still thrives with no problem, meaning that nature isn’t as fragile as we thought it was. Pollinators in the park such as, honey bees, bumble bees, flies, and butterflies, help pollinate the area and keep it alive. The High Line was created for increase the interactions between humans and nature.

Stalter’s idea is also portrayed through the High Line. Stalter examined that the variety of species present in the High Line exceeded those of four other areas in New York City. The species present were not all brought in due to a plan. A lot of the species present were brought in through interactions, no matter how significant it was. Before the High Line became a park, people still entered the abandoned railway, affecting the environment as a whole. Stalter’s article gave me a better understanding of the High Line, and I was able to mesh together Stalter’s and Marris’ ideas.

This was my second visit to the High Line, but this time around I had a better understand and a larger viewpoint of what to look at. Although constant changes to the High Line is being made, the High Line is still a great example of what a rambunctious garden is. Such a “garden” in our own backyard of great skyscrapers and speedy cars would be unthinkable to many. I believe that with such a great example as the High Line, the idea of the rambunctious garden becomes more feasible and rational for many.