Author Archives: Raymond Wang

Posts by Raymond Wang

NYC Water Supply: Natural Gas Companies

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Raymond Wang

New York City’s water is known for being safe to drink from the tap. The quality of the water is also better than many other locations around the area. However, hydraulic fracturing has caused concerns with the contamination of the water supply. Natural gas is necessary in many things in our everyday lives. Some may say that the benefits received from hydraulic fracturing overweigh the potential risk of tainting the water supply.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of extracting natural gases from shale formations underground. It involves injecting large amounts of water with chemicals to release the gases to be captured. Many benefits of hydraulic fracturing includes extracting large amounts of gas not normally unavailable and it allows us to extract natural gas from within the country rather than importing gas from other countries. Hydraulic fracturing also creates many jobs for people that are unemployed. Natural gas is also more “eco-friendly” than other forms of fuel.

The argument for all these benefits include the numerous amounts of undisclosed chemicals that are injected along with the water. These chemicals are not required to be revealed but are known to be toxic. The Marcellus shale formation is known to be a drilling site for natural gas. The problem that occurs with this location is that the clean water reservoirs for New York City is located in this region. The contaminated water by hydraulic fracturing can release chemicals into the air when combined with exhaust fumes can be detrimental and harmful to the environment. Ever since fracturing began, research for solar and wind power has significantly declined.

With the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing, the benefits that are provided still seem to outweigh the potential disadvantages. Natural gas is imperative as an energy source. Therefore, hydraulic fracturing is necessary to help benefit the use of energy by the country. FAD (Filtration Avoidance Determination) is a policy that claims that hydraulic fracturing affects drinking water for New York City. Therefore, hydraulic fracturing should be used to help benefit the need of energy in the US. Even though the drinking water can be contaminated, there can be potential methods to filter or clean the water in the future. Since natural gases are in high demand, FAD should not be implemented to help meet the energy consumption needs of the country.

Source:
Arthur, J.D., M. Uretsky, and P. Wilson (ALL Consulting). ―Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic
Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region.‖ Prepared in conjunction with Co-Researchers including
the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission, and the Delaware River Basin Commission under U.S. Department of Energy Research
Project DE-FE0000797. Presented at the International Petroleum and Biofuels Environmental
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, August 30 – September 2, 2010.

The Questions to ask Emma Marris

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Raymond Wang

1. You stated that “Rambunctious Gardens” are your goals for urban areas. How likely do you feel that this particular goal can be achieved even if the residents are not helpful? Do you believe that such an idea is possible in this time and age?

2. Which method mentioned in your book do you think would be the best way to go about restoring ecosystem?

3. How well do you think New York City is at conserving the environment? Do you think that further efforts would drastically improve the ecosystem?

4. Has writing your book impacted your perspective of the ecosystem? Did writing your book help you understand our environment to a better degree?

Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Raymond Wang

1. How is New York City’s environment affected by the use of pesticides to kill insects?

2. Does the pollution present in New York City’s atmosphere have any detrimental affects on children?

3. How do bed bugs affect New York City and how do they represent the cleanliness of the area?

The Last of the Chapters

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Marris talks about more practical approaches to saving nature. She listed seven goals that we should take to help protect this world. First goal is to protect the rights other other species. All the species on this planet needs to coexist. Therefore, we have to learn how to live with each other without disturbing each other’s livelihood. Even though it is important for species to live together, species do become extinct if they aren’t meant to be.

Her second goal is to protect a species of animals that are called charisma megafauna. These animals are ones who are liked more by humans. Therefore, humans tend to care for these animals much more than they do for others.

The third goal is to decrease the rate of extinction. Certain species die off extremely fast and people should put in the effort to slow it down. Such goals are hard to achieve when humans don’t have complete control over what is causing them to die.

Marris’ fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. Greater diversity in species will greatly help the ecosystem as a whole. Having more types of species is a good thing in general.

The fifth is to protect biodiversity. This goal can easily be the hardest to accomplish. Like the fourth goal, it is important for society to keep species different.

Number six is to have better ecosystem services. Many of these services are taken for granted. Marris’ idea is to make it better so that humans realize how important these resources are to us.

The last goal is about how people should embrace nature. In a way, humans are pulled toward nature. Every human enjoys the majestic sights that appear across the world. Humans are naturally inclined to preserve these locations.

These goals are what Marris believes is the best idea for conserving nature. Even though it sounds nice on paper, a lot of these goals require money and effort. Sometimes, humans are selfish and worry about themselves rather than trying to preserve the ecosystem they live in. Even though these goals are more realistic, I believe that humans will never be able to preserve nature the way it is. Like humans, nature constantly changes and adapts to the environment. Why bother forcing it to change one way when it will on its own? Many people want to protect these animals and locations. Maybe these locations were not meant to be filled with this type of plant or animal. I believe that humans are taking this “conserving nature” idea too seriously. If nature does end up disappearing, humans will suffer the consequences for what they’ve done.

8 and 9 Chapters

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Designer ecosystems are ecosystems that have a goal for its existence. This usually involves helping the environment in some way or preventing species from dying out. These designer ecosystems usually include a lot of planning which help identify a problem that needs to be fixed. Designer ecosystems are also more possible than “pristine ecosystems” that have been discussed throughout the book. Such projects would help during the present and continue to benefit the environment in the future. Therefore, designer ecosystems seem like a worthy investment of one’s time and effort.

Conservation is extremely important because it helps keep nature preserved. Marris points out that conservation should take place every where. This would be her model of a rambunctious garden and would greatly help the preservation of nature. People are encouraged to plant plants around their home. She greatly believes that people should not think that nature is a designated area, rather a place that exists everywhere. If everyone changes their mindset, it would greatly help the preservation of nature. If people are well informed, they will help contribute to the ecosystem.

The ideas that Marris presents are much more plausible than the ones mentioned before. A designer ecosystem is going to provide benefits almost immediately after completion. Designer ecosystems are much easier to finish as a project since it has a clear stated goal rather than restoring it to “baseline.” Marris also says that if everyone contributes to conservation, it would be much more successful. This begins when the people realize that every person can contribute to this effort. Even though these ideas may seem extremely well thought out, there are some drawbacks. Not everyone can be motivated to do something especially where it takes effort. Also, even though designer ecosystems do provide benefits, it may be some time before people see visual changes. This can discourage people in using more money and effort to creating more of these ecosystems.

I honestly believe that the ideas discussed in these two chapters are much more reasonable. The chances of these projects happening are higher than any of the others so far. Even though these are good ideas, I still think it may be a long time before any major changes will occur. Nature isn’t something that changes overnight and commitment to these projects are crucial to its success.

Chapter 6 and 7

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Exotic species are species that were introduced by humans rather than appearing naturally. Most of these exotic species are believed to be invasive. They disturb the ecosystem since they wouldn’t have been there if it wasn’t for humans. A novel ecosystem is one where many exotic species are present. Sometimes, a novel ecosystem may even thrive better than one formed naturally. Even though invasive species are thought to be detrimental to an ecosystem, they can sometimes help native species. With such benefits, both species continue to survive with each other’s support. Most people believe that these exotic species only cause harm and try to prevent them from living in an area.

One benefit exotic species provide is diversity in ecosystems. With the addition of new species ecosystems include many more species. Sometimes, these invasive species can help provide a more balanced ecosystem. In order to create more of these novel ecosystems, we have to remove the harmful invasive species and introduce ones that will help it. In many ways, a novel ecosystem is easier to maintain. Since human interaction is allowed, there wouldn’t be a need to prevent humans from interacting with it.

Marris says that many species are considered to be exotic when first introduced to the environment. However, after some time the species will learn to adapt itself to the environment and fit in. Eventually, these exotic species become part of the ecosystem. Most of the time, these species help better that particular ecosystem. In many ways, letting an ecosystem grow on its own is much better. This way, exotic species can be included along with the native ones.

I think the notion of novel ecosystems may be a successful one. It allows for human interaction with these areas so there doesn’t have to be restrictions. Also these exotic species help to make the ecosystems better. It also seems that such a project wouldn’t need an absurd amount of effort or money to complete. Therefore, it would be a wise choice for us to develop ecosystems in this fashion. I honestly believe that novel ecosystems are the way to go if we were to preserve nature. Nature is always constantly changing. If this is so, we might as well allow these ecosystems to develop to their fullest potential.

High Line

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Like Central Park, the High Line is a well known location of nature that is preserved. Even though I’ve been there before, I didn’t take the time to appreciate the plant and animal species. However, this time i was able to take my time and observe. I went during noon and surprisingly there weren’t many birds and pollinators around. After wandering around, I begin to stop pollinators and butterflies. It was nice to observe the High Line for its purpose. The plant life in the area seemed very well preserved. One interesting thing was that I was unable to find any trash or litter on the High Line. It seems that other people realize the importance of the High Line and refrain from littering.

Marris believes that “rambunctious gardens” are the way to preserve ecosystems. The High Line fits into her concept very well. The High Line is an area where people can interact with the nature while preserving it at the same time. An example of this can be when people refrain from throwing trash on the High Line. Every one is aware that the High Line needs effort in order to be protected. Even though humans have interacted with the nature present and may have brought non-native species, its that which makes the High Line special and an example of a “rambunctious garden.”

Stalter’s paper does not change how I view the High Line. I still believe this type of nature can be considered a “rambunctious garden.” Even though the article doesn’t provide any visual guides, it does state a lot of the species that reside there. It also gives a lot of statistics about the area that one would not know from visiting. Stalter’s article complimented my visit by making me more knowledgeable of the area and what things I could expect.




Chapter 5 and Puth Burns

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Assisted migration is the moving of one species to another environment to ensure their survival as a species. Unlike rewilding, assisted migration saves the species rather than the location. Both of these methods have very different objectives. However, like any solution, there are always complications with executing these projects.

The goal of many of these projects involve saving something that was harmed by human interaction. In assisted migration, humans “guide” these animals to a better location to thrive. Migration is when a specie move to a different location due to climate changes. Sometimes species may not necessarily know when or where to migrate to because of all the damage that humans have caused. Many other problems can arise from assisted migration. Animals are not guaranteed survival at the location they are “guided” to. Since they are almost brought there, the environment may not contain all the necessities for this particular species to live. Some people believe that if a species were supposed to die out, then they should have rather than preserving them. The problem can also arise that the new species will alter the current environment that they are brought to.

Therefore, assisted migration is an extremely complicated issue. Ecologists believe that they should only help animals that are extremely close to extinction. Time, money, and effort is always an issue. Trying to save many species can result in a lot of time and money used. Most of these times, these projects are not always successful. Assisted migration can provide benefits. It would allow a particular species to survival when they would have otherwise perished. I still believe that such an idea is not going to be successful. Moving many animals at once may cause them to be confused. They may not recognize the environment introduced to them since they aren’t used being around species that may have not been there before. It is also difficult to decide and choose where to move these animals.

Many people believe that since humans have caused many changes in nature, that we should be the ones to try and save it. Assisted migration may not be the best idea for this. A lot of species would need to be migrated if they were drastic climate changes in an area. I believe that all animals should continue to live the way they do. Humans will always be changing the Earth. There can be no guarantees that the time, money and effort put into such a project would come out beneficial. Therefore, I think that there is no use in trying something that will only affect such a small part of nature.

Rambunctious Garden: Chapter 3 and 4

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Rewilding as described by Emma Marris is the idea to restore nature to the point before human interference. Rewilding is another method along with conservation to help restore the ecosystem to its pristine state. It is understood that nature constantly changes regardless of human interaction. The only problem with such a perfect sounding plan is that humans will always change the land. Therefore, it is almost impossible to change nature without any human contact.

Many species that lived during the “pristine” times are now gone. Ecologists decided that they would use these proxy animals which are in some ways related to their extinct relatives. Also, humans would have the choice in choosing which animals are introduced into this environment. I do not think humans have the right to choose which species are allowed to live. In a sense, how can this pristine ecosystem be “pristine” if humans are affecting it in some way?

Another issue is that it is almost impossible to create. The likeliness of creating an environment that is the same as one thirteen thousand years ago seems very unlikely. Like many other conservation methods, I believe that rewilding would be unsuccessful. I believe that trying to preserve nature is extremely important. However, such methods are very inefficient and would not produce the desired results. With such obstacles, I believe that rewilding would be a waste of time.

The selection of species is also detrimental to the “pristine-ness” of the area. Since the area is supposed to represent an area that lacks human interaction, how can the the introduction of certain animals allow the native animals to thrive? With such interference, native and original species may or may not be able to live in the area.

What is the purpose of protecting these areas? Aren’t humans a specie as well? Every specie harms the environment in some way. I think that instead of trying to change areas, humans should just alter their behavior to be more mindful of nature.

It would be useless to change nature now to have it affected by something else in the future. What is there to say that nothing else we do in the future can change these ecosystems that we tried so hard to protect? The effort and money required to complete these projects are just unreasonable. I think humans should continue to live as they have always and forget about what has been done. There is no use in crying over spilled milk my mother used to say.

Rambunctious Gardens Chapter 1 and 2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Rambunctious Gardens by Emma Marris talks about how the conservation of nature is unsuccessful using current methods. Marris believes that restoring effected areas to “baseline” is ineffective. She states that there isn’t a place on the Earth that hasn’t been affected by humans. “We have stirred the global pot,” she says (Marris 10).

Since nature is always changing and being affected by everything around it, it is almost impossible to restore it to its “baseline.” Also, nature has its own way of changing nature. Volcanic activity in Hawaii affects the ecosystems present there. Like Hawaii, ecosystems need a fresh start to allow the species to grow without interference from other factors. Usually, the removal of certain existing species can be lengthy. There just isn’t enough participation from people in order for this restoration to be a quick process.

Marris visited many restoration projects such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and the Scotia Sanctuary. Such projects require a lot of effort to begin and complete. For many of these projects, invasive species are first removed so that the original species have an opportunity to grow. Human beings were included in the species that were removed. This is an extremely difficult endeavor to partake especially with all the obstacles. This proves how ineffective current conservation methods are. Even though some results can be observed, it just isn’t strong enough to bring about dramatic changes.

Marris believes that nature should be preserved through this idea of a rambunctious garden. The rambunctious garden includes nature everywhere. This includes places in the city such as trees on the sidewalk and the backyard of a suburban home. If everyone took the effort to help protect nature, they should start with the nature that surrounds them already. This project will require less effort from people. This only holds true if everyone participates to protect the nature around them. The money and time spent on restoring areas to their previous “forms” is a tedious and ineffective strategy.

Even though Marris believes that the idea of a rambunctious garden will help us preserve nature, I still believe that it will be futile. The rate at which humans are affecting the ecosystem is too drastic for such small changes to make an impact. I do agree that it is a good step to begin with and can set the foundation for environmental protection projects in the future. Most people have accepted the fact that restoring nature is a lost cause. I also believe that protecting nature is far fetched due to the selfish nature of mankind. It’s a pity that nature cannot be appreciated as it was. However, trying to protect the very little nature around us isn’t going to change the majority of the ecosystems throughout the world.

Weekly Reading: Vitousek and Kareiva

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Raymond Wang

Anthropocene is defined as human activities that have made an impact on the Earth. Both these articles clearly state how the Earth’s ecosystem is declining due to human beings. Vitousek goes on to say how the majority of the resources that the Earth provides is being used by humans. He says that we live on a “human-dominated planet.” The Earth has greatly changed due to humans. Urban ecology is essentially the interactions between the ecosystem in an urban area. Pollution greatly affects many parts of the environment in a city. Therefore, it is important to understand how humans affect the wildlife present in an urban community.

Vitousek explains that when humans use land, they change and alter the structure of the ecosystem. A large portion of land is being occupied by farm land or industrial factories. The large increase of carbon dioxide due to humans is also a contributing factor to the changing atmosphere. Humans have also altered the oceans. Many marine ecosystems have been destroyed by humans who live near the coast. Carbon dioxide has also played a large part in changing the Earth. Many things that humans do contribute to additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Not only do we lose access to natural resources, humans are also increasing the rate at which extinction occurs.

Similarly, Kareiva also explains how humans have been harming the Earth. He also says how people believe that they should only save certain natural causes. Kareiva believes that conservation is a solution to the effects of human beings. However, even with conservation, the ecosystem can never be restored to its prehuman form. One method they used to conserve these places was to restrict the amount of people that were allowed to enter. Conservation also helps prevent threatened places. The problem is that the effects of human activity is all over the Earth. There is not enough resources to be able to protect all these locations. Kareiva stated that we entered “the Anthropocene” where humans dominate the entire planet’s ecosystem. The flaw with conservation is that it is occurring slower than the deterioration of these locations.

Both these articles agree that human activity is not going to make anything better. However, they both believe that solutions should be implemented to help slow the process. Vitousek believes that human dominance will continue and get worse. Kareiva wants to use conservation at a larger scale with many more people involved. Even though both of these articles state how serious an issue athropocene is, they provide solutions to the problem. The effect of humans on this planet has been devastating. It will take everyone’s effort in order to help remedy the problem. A lot of effort needs to be put in to make this successful, which begs the question, “will it ever be solved?”

Comments by Raymond Wang