Author Archives: Keith Stegner

Posts by Keith Stegner

Pro-Development Upstate Stakeholder

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Keith Stegner

Upstate New Yorkers should have the right to use the natural resources they have for economic development. Hydraulic fracturing is one way they can do this.

Hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking, is a process that extracts natural gas from shale formations. Water mixed with sand and a small amount of chemicals is pumped into the shale formation. The pressure from pumping this mixture into the shale formation creates fractures. These fractures allow for the release of natural gas from the shale formation. This natural gas can provide an economic boost to the regions where it can be obtained through this process.

In regions with shale formations, hydraulic fracturing can be extremely beneficial to the economy. Natural gas is very valuable and our country currently imports much of its gas from other countries. Utilizing the natural gas that exists in our own shale formations would allow the communities of Upstate New York and other regions with shale formations to grow and develop. These regions could profit from fulfilling the country’s energy needs instead of allowing those profits to go to another country.

Upstate New York is located on the Marcellus Shale, which could boost the economy of the region, creating jobs and making it a valuable source of energy for the country. It has been estimated that the value of the natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could be up to two trillion dollars. That would greatly help development of this region that needs it.

There are environmental concerns regarding hydraulic fracturing. The chemicals used in the process may be harmful and there is a risk that they may contaminate the water supply. However, these risks can be minimized and the benefits are so great that a large number of people support hydraulic fracturing. One of the biggest problems with hydraulic fracturing in the past was a lack of regulation. Hydraulic fracturing companies failed to follow regulations such as Safe Drinking Water Act and they were able to get away with it. As a result, in certain places where hydraulic fracturing was taking place, the water was contaminated and it was unsafe for people living there to drink water from their sinks.

These types of environmental issues have given hydraulic fracturing a bad reputation. This has led many people to support a ban on hydraulic fracturing. Banning hydraulic fracturing would mean missing out on an economic opportunity that could greatly benefit region Upstate New York. Of course, allowing hydraulic fracturing to harm the region in an attempt to improve the economy would be counterproductive and would hurt development of the region. Therefore, the best solution is to allow hydraulic fracturing with proper regulation.

With proper regulation, hydraulic fracturing could help development without being as harmful to the environment. Technology has advanced so there are now greener fracking fluids. Proper design and management of hydraulic fracturing methods could minimize the risks while allowing the benefits.

 

Jenkins, H. W., & Jr. (2010, Oct 06). Americans (sort of) fracking. Wall Street Journal, pp. A.19.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Keith Stegner
  1. Is there one goal that you would say is most important for New York City or do you think that all of the goals should be represented in different natural spaces throughout the city?
  2. How would you feel if people were to completely abandon the idea of conservation and begin building in previously preserved areas, only allowing nature to exist in the form of a rambunctious garden?
  3. You pointed out the flaws in many conservation efforts. Is there one example of a conservation effort that you most agreed with?
  4. Since publishing your book, have you learned about any new efforts relating to conservation everywhere that you consider noteworthy?

Potential Poster Questions

Posted on October 9, 2012 by Keith Stegner

1. Is proximity to parks related to healthy behavior? If so, what healthy behaviors have such a relationship and what are the relationships?

2. How is housing quality related to the prevalence of pests and health issues?

3. Is there a relationship between biodiversity and prevalence of pests and, if so, what is the relationship?

Marris Chapter 10

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Keith Stegner

In the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris lists seven goals for conserving nature. Throughout the novel, she presented new methods of attempting to save nature because older conservation methods are flawed and impractical. In order to understand how to best preserve nature in an area, we need know what our goals are. She explains that “no single goal will work in all situations” so people will need to come up with a common set of goals for each project. She then explains the seven goals, describing what the idea behind each one and why it might not work in certain cases.

The first goal is to protect the rights of other species. The idea behind this goal is that every species has an intrinsic value and should therefore be protected. Two problems that this goal faces involve determining what the intrinsic value of a species is and conflicts between the rights of individual plants or animals and the protection of a population or species. As an example of the first problem, this goal is sometimes only applied to animals when plants and landscapes deserve rights too. Marris exemplifies the second problem by suggesting a case in which cats are killing all the albatross nestlings on an island and the cats may have to be killed.

The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna. The idea behind this goal is humans like certain large animals and don’t want to see them go extinct. In many cases, these charismatic megafauna are keystone species, which greatly impact an ecosystem, and protecting them will benefit the entire ecosystem. A problem with this goal is that protecting charismatic megafauna may not always be beneficial for other species in the ecosystem. The example Marris provides for this is an elephant park in Africa that has become overcrowded with elephants and plants species are suffering as a result.

The third goal is to slow the rate of extinctions. The idea behind this goal is that we should treat all species as equally and return the rate of extinctions to its state before humans interfered. The problems with this goal are that it can be too costly and it doesn’t necessarily save ecosystems.

The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. The idea behind this goal is to focus on saving species that are weird because they contain genes that have come from millions of years of evolution and aren’t present anywhere else. One problem with this goal is that a simple solution to it would be to simply save genetic samples of these species. This would mean that, although the genetic material would be safe, the organisms themselves might not exist alive in the real world.

The fifth goal is to define and defend biodiversity. The idea behind this goal is to protect variety of species, genes, and ecosystems. Two problems with this goal are that it is extremely complex and it may put more value on keystone species than redundant species.

The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services. The idea behind this goal is to focus on ecosystems and species that help humanity. The problem with this goal is that doesn’t necessarily protect species or ecosystems that do not provide a service but simply have an existence value, or a value that comes from just knowing that it exists.

The seventh goal is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. The basic idea behind this goal is to preserve natural environments because people like them. The problem with this is that people have the tendency to put less value on environments that are not pristine.

I believe that these are good goals to have for conservation and agree with Marris that we need a variety of goals so that we can protect the many different types of ecosystems that have different types of values for humans. Marris has presented many solutions to ecological problems but almost every one has drawbacks. In order to determine which solutions are viable for a particular problem, we need to know goals and which drawbacks ae acceptable given those goals.

Marris Chapters 8 and 9

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Keith Stegner

In chapters 8 and 9 of “Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World,” Emma Marris discusses the ideas of designer ecosystems and conservation everywhere. According to Marris, a designer ecosystem is one that has been planned by humans. Conservation everywhere is about trying to bring nature to as many places as possible.

Marris begins her chapter about designer ecosystems by once again pointing out a flaw with conservation baselines. She explains that the stream ecosystems that many humans today believe to be natural were in fact a result of Europeans settlers. They built dams that were then breached when steam power displaced hydropower. This created new streams that were vastly different from those that existed naturally before they were dammed. Marris uses this example to explain that, because humans have been interacting with and altering nature for so long, it is very difficult to know what the natural state of a region truly is. Therefore, it is difficult for conservationists to know what kind of state they should be restoring the area to.

Marris then introduces the idea of designer ecosystems. She does this with a quote from a stream restoration expert named Margaret Palmer, who states that “if our goal is to decrease sediment load, we should focus on that and not worry about making the stream look the way it did at presettlement time, because nothing else is the same as it was presettlement.” The idea is that, rather than trying to reverse the changes humans have made to an ecosystem, we should design a new ecosystem by solving the problems caused by those changes made by humans.

The idea of designer ecosystems is flawed but it is a step in the right direction. As Marris points out, ecosystems are too complex for people to understand them well enough to predict the results of a designed ecosystem. This means that there is much more for people to learn about nature before we can design an ecosystem from scratch and it also means that even smaller-scale attempts to make positive changes to ecosystems today may not always be successful.

Conservation everywhere deals with the idea that Marris has been stressing throughout the book, which is the idea that nature can exist anywhere. In this chapter, Marris first uses locations in Seattle, Washington as examples. She describes an old Boeing plant that will be torn down and cleaned up along with the river it is adjacent to. She states that, while this specific location will be cleaned up, others will stay the same. This would allow nature to be added to the region without disrupting the economy. Throughout the chapter, Marris describes other examples of human developments and nature coexisting. Some National Parks in Western Europe are even run “a bit like farms.” This allows for humans to farm but with less of an impact on the environment than farms run with the goal of efficiency would have. Marris also gives points out that there are many places where people could just let nature grow rather than working so hard to control it. She explains that plant populations are able to exist as a metapopulation even if they are separate due to pollinators. Therefore, even in a place like New York City, if we allow plants to grow naturally small locations, pollinators will allow the plants to form a metapopulation.

I support the ideas Marris suggests regarding conservation everywhere and the rambunctious garden. I think we should continue to devote more research and resources to more local, smaller-scale natural spaces.

Marris Chapters 6 and 7

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Keith Stegner

In Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post Modern World, Emma Marris turns her focus to the benefits of introduced species. She explains that, although there has been a historical view that all species that were introduced to an area by humans are a threat to their new environment, this is not always the case.

Chapter 6 of the book opens with an example of an introduced species that harmed its new ecosystem but Marris goes on to provide many examples of cases in which the opposite has occurred. In many, if not most cases, introduced species do not do as much harm as people expect.

In Chapter 7, Marris discusses Novel ecosystems, which thrive with both introduced and native species. In some cases, biodiversity can increase with introduced species. In fact, introduced species may evolve in a new environment, thus increasing biodiversity.

I believe that, given the information from these chapters, an ecosystem that includes species which are not native is not necessarily a bad ecosystem and it may not be so bad to introduce a species to an ecosystem if it is done carefully. Although an ecosystem may be able to survive and even thrive after a species has been introduced, this is not always the case. For this reason, I believe that it is important that people continue to be extremely careful about introducing a nonnative species to an area. The information provided in these chapters does not justify an idea like rewilding in my opinion. It may, however, justify certain cases of introducing species, such as assisted migration of an endangered species that has almost no chance of surviving any other way, as long as it is done extremely carefully.

The High Line

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Keith Stegner

The High Line is an elevated railway that was abandoned and, years later, was converted into a park. In Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post Modern World, Emma Marris explains new ideas about nature with a focus on the ways that nature can exist in a urban setting. The High Line is a rambunctious garden because it was a manmade creation that was taken over by nature when it was abandoned then humans stepped in once again so that this nature could be preserved but also experienced by the people of the city.

Stalter’s paper gives some background information about the High Line and tells a bit about the plant species that grew on it. The High Line was built in 1934 to separate the rail and pedestrian traffic along 10th Avenue. The High Line was then abandoned 1980. In the decades that followed, wild plants began growing on the elevated rail line. The High line became a highly diverse natural habitat with limited human interaction even though it was located within Manhattan.

Recently, the High line has been developed into a park and the natural plants now share the space with pathways and recreational areas. This allows the people of New York City to experience that natural environment that has managed to grow in such an unlikely setting.

The interaction between humans and nature is perhaps one of the most important parts of nature in an urban setting. Therefore, although the development of the High Line as a park made the area less pristine, I believe it made the space even more of a rambunctious garden

I had been to the High Line a few times before I went for this assignments but I had never paid much attention to the pollinators before. Most of them are small and easy to miss if you aren’t looking for them. This time, though, I got to really see them up close as I took the time to try to snap clear pictures of them while high winds were blowing the plants that they were on.

     

Rambunctious Garden Chapter 5

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Keith Stegner

In chapter 5 of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris discusses the idea of assisted migration. Assisted migration involves helping move a species that is struggling to survive in its current environment to a new location with more suitable conditions. Solutions such as this have become necessary due to the issue of climate change caused by humans. It has both advantages and disadvantages but, in my opinion, it is ultimately a useful tool that should be used in certain situations.

The advantage of assisted migration is that it can reverse many of the problems humans caused through climate change. Because climates have changed around the world due to the influence of mankind, for many species, the locations where they have historically existed are no longer suitable. Due to the changing climate, the conditions in these locations are no longer those that the species adapted to. However, because climate change is occurring everywhere, there may be locations that now have similar conditions to those the species adapted even though these locations were unsuitable for the species in the past. This means that we can move a species from its historic location that no longer supports it to a new location that can now support it, thus allowing the species to survive.

The disadvantages of assisted migration are that it requires a great amount of human influence and there are risks associated with it. Many conservationists are against the idea of so much human interaction because it is unnatural. Assisted migration can be very risky because it is impossible to know exactly how a species will react to a new environment. It may be detrimental to the species that already exist in the environment. This effect could be so great that the introduction of a species from a different environment may lead to the extinction of one or more species that are native to the region. This can happen because the native species and the introduced species did not evolve together. This can work in the opposite manner as well. The introduced species may not be able to compete with the native species and may not survive in its new environment, thus leading to the failure of the assisted migration attempt. In addition, although the new climate of a region may make it appear suitable for a species, there may be certain other resources or conditions the species needs that the region does not provide. This would also lead to the failure of the assisted migration attempt.

I believe that assisted migration is a useful scientific tool but should be used carefully and only as necessary. If a species is in extreme danger of becoming extinct in the near future and there is a very high chance that it will be able to survive in a different location, assisted migration is worth the risks as long as scientists do everything they can to minimize those risks.

In my opinion, assisted migration would be most useful in an urban setting. This is because urban settings have had greater human influences than almost any other areas. This means that these areas are much less likely to be suitable habitats for the species that originated there and there has been such a great impact by humans already that introducing a species wouldn’t seem as harmful simply because we have already caused so much more harm to the area. In addition, humans have far greater control of urban settings than rural settings, which would aid in minimizing the risks of assisted migration.

Rewilding

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Keith Stegner

In the third and fourth chapters of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the concept of Pleistocene rewilding. Pleistocene rewilding attempts to restore an area to its natural state before humans invaded it. Pleistocene rewilding does this by introducing species similar to those that lived in the area at that point in history. While Pleistocene rewilding does have its advantages, it also has many faults and risks.

One of the biggest reasons for Pleistocene rewilding is the protection of species and biodiversity. For as long as we have existed, humans have greatly influenced the ecosystems of our planet. We have caused the extinction of numerous species either directly by killing them or indirectly by impacting the ecosystem they adapted to so that they could no longer survive within it. Relatively recently, we have realized our impact and are now more careful about what animals we directly kill to avoid wiping out an entire species. However, we are still working on how to solve the problem of species at risk for extinction due to changes in their ecosystems. Rewilding attempts to solve this problem by restoring these ecosystems as much as possible.

In order to restore these ecosystems that have been drastically harmed by humans, rewilding involves introducing species to an area that are similar to those that once lived in that area but have since gone extinct. The idea is that these introduced species will take the roles of the similar species that they are replacing and the ecosystem will regain balance, allowing all species within the ecosystem to survive.

There are two major problems that I see with Pleistocene rewilding. The first is that the ecosystems have evolved since they were originally disrupted by humans and attempting to restore them to their pre-human state is not a viable solution as a result. The second is that the species that are being introduced, while similar, are not the same as those that were originally a part of the ecosystem and introducing a new species to an ecosystem can be very dangerous, even if precautions are taken.

Since humans first disrupted these ecosystems, they have been evolving to deal with the changes. Attempts to restore these ecosystems by reintroducing species similar to those that went extinct may not work well because the ecosystems may have evolved past their state in which that species was supported and needed. Even if it were possible to fully restore these ecosystems to their pre-human states, doing so may reverse any positive changes that have occurred as these ecosystems evolved.

The risks associated with introducing species are high, especially considering the evolution of the ecosystems. One of the ways humans harmed many ecosystems in the first place was by introducing invasive species. When a new species is introduced to an ecosystem, it may not be able to survive its new ecosystem or its new ecosystem may not be able to survive it. The species in a natural ecosystem evolved together and are therefore able to exist together. When a new species is introduced, this concept no longer applies. Although rewilding involves introducing species similar to those that were originally part of the ecosystem, they are not the same as those that went extinct and the ecosystems have evolved since those species went extinct. No one can know for certain exactly what impact the introduction of these species will have on the ecosystems today and it could actually lead to the extinction of some of the species we want to preserve through rewilding.

I believe that the downsides of rewilding are not worth the possible benefits and we should continue to look for better solutions to the problems Pleistocene rewilding attampts to solve.

Rambunctious Garden: Chapters 1-2

Posted on September 4, 2012 by Keith Stegner

Emma Marris begins her book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World by informing the reader exactly what her main points throughout the book will be. She suggests that the previous ideas of conservation are flawed and states that the book “is about a new way of seeing nature.”

Marris explains that humans have previously thought of nature as something pristine and far away. This concept comes from the earlier ideas of conservation, which involved setting aside wild spaces as parks that would be left alone by humans. One of the major flaws in this idea is the fact that humans have had such a great impact on the environment that it is impossible for any part of the world to be pristine and untouched by humans.

As Marris describes, scientific studies of the environment use a baseline. She defines a baseline as a reference state and “a zero before all negative changes.” She lists the many flaws with baselines. For one, it is nearly impossible, if not impossible, to properly return an ecosystem to a point before human interference. Marris uses Scotia Sanctuary as an example of a park attempting to restore an ecosystem to a baseline. Clearing the animals that had been introduced to that region of Australia out of the sanctuary was an extremely difficult task that involved “incredible patience and commitment.” While some of the introduced species in the sanctuary, such as goats, were easy to get rid of, others, including cats, were not. One cat took one hundred eighty seven nights to catch. This proves just how much it takes to make an ecosystem pristine. It takes a significant amount of human intervention to create and maintain a sanctuary such as the Scotia Sanctuary. As Marris points out, considering the amount of human intervention required, it is difficult to say that a place like the Scotia Sanctuary could be considered wild.

A second flaw with the use of baselines is that, even if they can be achieved, we would only be returning these areas to their state before humans arrived. This would be wrong because, even without human intervention, nature goes through changes.

Baselines definitely have benefits for conservation. They give us an idea of what we need to do in order to preserve nature and biodiversity. However, it is important to understand that the goal doesn’t need to be for an ecosystem to perfectly match its historical state. To do so would be unrealistic and incorrect.

Another flaw in the previous view of nature is that it seems to ignore the parts of nature that actually are close to us. Marris argues that nature exists in even the most developed areas. She points out that, when we stop only considering the pristine to be nature, we begin to see it all around us. Even in heavily developed areas, nature exists in yards, on streets, along rivers, and in more places than we realize. Even introduced species are a part of nature.

Marris argues that, because humans have such a great impact on the world, we need to “admit our role and even embrace it.” I agree with many of the points she made and I believe we need to look at nature in the bigger picture and, instead of focusing so much on conservation, we should also be putting more effort into researching and implementing ideas to improve what nature we have locally.

The Anthropocene and Urban Ecology

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Keith Stegner

The Anthropocene, as described in Kareiva’s article in the Breakthrough Journal, is the geological era in which the world’s ecology and geochemistry are dominated by humans. It is the era that humankind has created in its strive to improve the lifestyle of all humans.

Urban ecology is the mix of the urban world that humankind has created and preservation of elements of the natural world. It studies how these two can and do interact with each other.

Because the biogeochemical cycles in nature are vast and interrelated, it is impossible for humans to avoid affecting the entire world with their actions. For example, as explained in Vitousek’s article, many of the biogeochemical cycles are driven by water so when a dam was built on the Danube River, the silica chemistry of the Black Sea was altered. This shows us that, when the water cycle is interrupted, other biogeochemical cycles are also interrupted and these effects reach different parts of the world.

Although nature is easily influenced by humankind, Kareiva’s article explains that this is not as bad as people once believed it was. The article explains that nature has proven that it is not as fragile as people thought. Conservationists had once believed that, if one species were to become extinct, it would greatly impact the entire ecosystem, putting it at risk of collapse. As the article explains, however, this is not true. There are many examples of species that became extinct without even having noticeable effects on the ecosystem. The article even points out that nature has responded surprisingly well to major disasters caused by humans, such as the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear facility and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

I believe that the articles are correct in supporting the anthropocene and urban ecology over conservation. While I support the preservation of nature, conservation’s solution, choosing sections of the world to leave untouched, is not good enough. The influence of humankind on our planet is so great that we need to do more. We need to play an active role in the preservation of nature and also put more focus on more local locations. As nature has proved itself to be resilient, we should put more focus on the nature that is around us than the nature that has been designated as a park. There is a balance between the natural world and the one created by mankind. We just need to continue studying the ways that they can coexist.

Comments by Keith Stegner