In recent years, hydro-fracking has become an extremely important issue amongst leading conservationists, especially in the Northeastern United States, also known as the Marcellus Shale. In deciding whether or not to lease their land for hydro-fracking, stakeholders must consider the benefits associated with this method. When it comes to producing domestic energy sources, the potential for hydro-fracking in the U.S is astronomical; the amount of energy produced domestically currently pales in comparison to the potential output of hydro-fracking. The future of hydro-fracking is looking bright, as current resources seem to be diminishing each day. To meet the growing demand for energy, safer and green-er methods of fracking seem to be paving the way the future. However, fracking has a bad reputation amongst most conservationists, and furthermore, in order to change their opinions regarding hydro-fracking, authorities must look for ways to make it safer and more regulated.
As contemporary society continues to create and innovate, the need for energy resources gros exponentially every day. Most of the natural gas that could potentially be accessed by hydro-fracking is largely un-tapped and in great abundance. Numerous reports have come out noting that the amount of recoverable oil and natural gas have soared over the years; the EPA reported that from 2010-2011, global natural gas supplies rose by 40%. And, if the government allows fracking on a federal level, the number of recoverable oil will grow dramatically. Coupled with the benefits of harvesting the oil itself, are the economic benefits. Thousands upon thousands of potential high-paying jobs could be created, at a time when gas prices continue to rise.
An over-zealous campaign against hydro-fracking is taking a serious toll on fracking’s credibility and popularity. Films such as HBO’s Gasland depict hydro-fracking as life threatening and ecologically detrimental. The narrator frightens viewers with tales of flammable faucet water and over exaggerated claims of water and chemicals being shot 8,000 feet into the ground. In reality, hydro-fracking creates small fissures in the ground (roughly 1mm thick) as a result of carefully engineered electric pulses. The film also claims that a mixture of 596 harmful chemicals is mixed with water, when truthfully 99.5% of the mixture itself is water and sand. That .05% largely consists of commonly used chemicals such as guar gum, an emulsifier used in ice cream. Generally, opposition to hydro-fracking stems from the notion that hydro-fracking can lead to contaminated drinking water, groundwater depletion, toxic air pollution, radiation, etc. However, with the exception of groundwater depletion, many of these findings have not been demonstrated and no correlation exists.

Fracking currently takes place in much of the American South, Midwest, and parts of the Northeast; however, states like New York have barred hydro-fracking, for now. The benefits of hydraulic fracturing certainly outweigh the cons as our society continues to grow. Kathleen White’s article sheds light on a highly debated topic and offers the truths about a potential booming industry.

Source: “The Fracas about Fracking.” National Review; 6/20/2011, Vol. 63 Issue 11, p38-41.

1. Now that your book has been released, in your opinion, have topics mentioned in your book such as “rewilding” and “assisted migration” seen an increase in popularity and acceptance?

2. Given the hurricane that just basically destroyed lower Manhattan, New Jersey, and Long Island, do you think humans or natural disasters have more of an impact on urban ecology?

3. Where would you rank New York City on a scale of the greenest cities in the world?

4. If New York City isn’t high on the list of the most greenest cities, how would you get it there?

In chapter 10 of Emma Marris’ “Rambunctious Garden,” the author summarizes all of the goals that conservationists hope to achieve in the near future. Different conservationists value nature differently, therefore, they all want to achieve different goals. Some want to protect the rights of other species, namely megafauna, slow extinction rates, utilize ecosystem services, and most importantly protect nature as a whole. The first goal Marris points out, protecting the rights of species, is somewhat biased. It is rather hard to give rights to certain species such as plants, mountains, etc; yet giving rights to other species is definitely something that I am unopposed too. I realize that this is a touchy topic, yet I believe that animals deserve rights as well. Just because their intelligence is arguably lower than man, does not give any reason to lessen their “rights.” Maximizing our ecosystem services is of utmost importance as we have a finite amount of resources provided to us by our planet, and one day, it just might run out. Moreover, we must find ways to protect our resources, something that most conservationists would agree upon. While protecting megafauna has its proverbial pro’s and con’s, it is closely related to protecting biodiversity which is obviously a positive plan. Slowing extinction rates is really common sense. The extinction of various species on Earth is obviously detrimental to our ecosystem in more ways than one. Perhaps most notably the food chain will be inevitably disrupted permanently. I thought this was a good way to end the book as Marris took various points from a number of the chapters throughout the book, and brought them together to form a cohesive argument and solution. However, given the size and spectrum of certain conservationist efforts proposed by Marris, there is definitely room for criticism and controversy. Many ethical arguments arise when debating conservationism; who has rights to what? Can we sacrifice something in order to benefit something else? Marris points out that advocating for an individual species is a touchy topic as it often becomes a political and somewhat emotional topic. In terms of protecting biodiversity, there are numerous laws that enforce vague policies that are hard to get around.
I genuinely enjoyed reading Marris’ book. As a typical teenage college student, I did not know much about conservationist efforts before reading her book. While there are certain issues where our ideologies differ, it’s safe to say that after reading this book, my views toward conservationism have changed and bear some similarities to Marris’. The last line of chapter 10 basically sums up how my own views toward conservationism have changed, “In different places, in different chunks, we can manage nature for different ends–for historical restoration, for species preservation, for self-willed wilderness, for ecosystem services, for food and fiber and fish and flame trees and frogs. We’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate” (171)

Chapters 8 and 9 of Marris’ “Rambunctious Garden” differ largely from traditional conservationist efforts discussed in previous chapters. Marris introduces us to a new term in chapter 8, “designer ecosystems.” Rather than striving to achieve a specific baseline, Marris suggests focusing on “building to achieve a specific goal,” whether it be reducing nitrogen levels or performing maintenance on small ecological areas. In a nutshell, “designer ecosystems” are created to make the area better than it normally would be; efficient and effective. Restoring ecosystems back to a specific baseline is a stick issue. It’s a lot of money, and even more work. While “designer ecosystems” can be just as time consuming as well as cost inefficient, it seems to be the more practical option. Certain goals may be easier to achieve than restoring an entire piece of land or an entire ecosystem to its pristine condition. Noted expert Margaret Palmer is cited, saying that baselines are of an arbitrary nature and do not take in to account the change of the ecosystem over time. Also, human interference must be taken into account when discussing baselines.It is extremely difficult to restore a specific baseline given the thousands of years of change, thus a “designer ecosystem” is likely the more plausible option. Marris evaluates this process based on a few certain criteria: the goal, the size of the project, the budget, and how much of the ecosystem has already changed.
Chapter 9 of “Rambunctious Garden” discusses various viewpoints of conservationist from around the world and that conservation should exist everywhere, not only in parks designed to conserve. Marris’ primary foci, North America and Europe, both contrast one another in a number of ways. The North American conservationist philosophy presented in the book is focused largely on Yellowstone National Park. The goal, according to Marris is to create more space, or “corridors”, for migration purposes. In Europe, national parks and reserves are often riddled with cattle and sheep that graze the land while other inhabitants, such as the birds mentioned in the book, live off the land. The birds are also used to this open-field type of ecosystem where mostly herbivores live. Marris wants us (mostly Americans) to stop thinking that nature should only be found in national parks or reserves that eventually become a tourist attraction. Rather, humans should make an effort to conserve on a global scale; even if it means planting more trees and plants in your backyard at home. It may not look pretty, but at least the environment will last for that much longer.

In chapters 6 and 7 of Marris’ “Rambunctious Garden,” the author focuses on finding a plausible solution to “invasive species” and the conservation of “novel ecosystems.” Invasive species are typically viewed as detrimental and harmful to the ecosystems they are introduced too; such as the case of the flightless wren, zebra muscles, and the Asian tiger mosquito. All of these species have harmed their respective un-natural ecosystems, thus rendering them “invasive” or “exotic.” Marris firmly believes that humans should not interfere or fight invasive species, because the underlying problem rests with humans, not the animals. Although Marris does provide several examples in Chapter 6 of the harm that invasive species can cause, Marris herself is somewhat of a proponent of invasive species. Contemporary conservationists may call her crazy; however, Marris identifies several benefits that come along with invasive species, and the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. As suggested by the title and Marris, humans should embrace invasive species. Rather than the generic view of invasive species as harmful, many are, according to Marris, “well behaved” and “innocuous.” In various cases, invasive species might actually end up furthering the state of the ecosystem. Marris points out that invasive species increase biodiversity and sometimes, the invasive species may benefit from that specific ecosystem because they are well-suited to live in that environment. Marris goes on to criticize the overuse of a variety of resources in order to combat invasive species because of the cost, but mostly for their ineffectiveness.
Chapter 7 focuses largely on the concept of “novel ecosystems.” Marris cites two ecologists, Lugo and Mascaro, as two other supporters of this concept. The concept of a novel ecosystem stems from the idea that introduced and native species can co-exist and flourish. Despite a shroud of criticism and skepticism surrounding this idea, Marris sees it as the future of conservationism. I certainly won’t be so quick to judge as Marris is, because she seems to brush off a lot of criticism regarding invasive species. I do believe that there is a reason for certain species being referred to as “invasive.” If every ecosystem benefited from “invasive” species, then they would not be invasive. When any new species is introduced into a new ecosystem, it must have some detrimental effect on the natural environment because those species are not in their natural environment.

What comes to mind when you hear “New York City?” Most people would say skyscrapers, yellow taxis, and a (for lack of a better word) loudmouthed group of people. You’d be hard pressed to hear a native New-Yorker say “a beautiful oasis where people can relax and enjoy sitting by the water.” However, upon further inspection of Manhattan’s west side along 10th avenue between Gansevoort Street and West 34th street, New Yorkers and tourists alike are exposed to a beautiful landscape. An elevated commercial rail line once used in the 1930s now houses the gorgeous Highline Park. The Highline Park provides us city-goers with a safe haven from the bustling concrete jungle just beyond 9th avenue. Benches and greenery span the abandoned railway, not only providing people with a pretty picture, but providing the city with various ecological benefits. Now, I’ve been to the Highline once before last year for IDC, and as I walked around the Highline for the second time, I still found myself forgetting that I was actually in New York City. The cacophony from the streets below vanishes almost immediately as you start walking. But once the awe dissipated, I started to think about the reading from Marris’ Rambunctious Garden and how this park is a prime example of the conservationist efforts outline in the book.
Marris suggests the idea of a “Rambunctious Garden” – in the title nonetheless – quite a bit throughout the book. The idea of a “Rambunctious Garden” stems from the notion that humans should somewhat abandon old conservationist efforts, and instead embrace the impact that humans have had on the Earth’s ecosystems, and restore it to a specific baseline. The Highline most definitely fits into Marris’ concept of a “Rambunctious Garden” as after the railway was abandoned in the 1980s, humans converted it into a park, thus attracting many new species to the area. According to Stalter, over 161 species are currently present at the Highline; mostly consisting of plant species and their respective pollinators (birds, bees, etc.) Simply by walking through the park, a number of species can be found if you look closely enough. And once you look closely enough, you’re already buying into Stalter’s idea that the main purpose for the Highline is for nature and man to interact with one another.

Chapter 5 of Marris’ “Rambunctious Garden” and the Puth & Burns article focus primarily on the concept of assisted migration. In a nutshell, assisted migration is taking species that are on the brink of extinction from the natural habitat, and moving those species to a new habitat in hopes that they will thrive there. Right off the bat, Marris discusses the hardships of the American pika, a “small flower-nibbling mammal” native to the North American West. As the global climate gets warmer and warmer, the pika “curls up” and dies. Their natural habitat, high peaks on mountains, is getting smaller and smaller by the day and the pikas’ have nowhere else to go. They can’t make it down the mountain by themselves, nor can they make it to the safe haven of a close-by mountain. But, Marris says, what if someone came along and provided the pikas’ with a refrigerated crate as their new home? It’s possible that they might just save a life or two. (73) For the pikas’ sake, assisted migration could be a potential life saver, much like the American beeches native to the North American east coast; spanning from southern Canada all the way to northern Florida. Like the pikas’, the beeches are victims of climate change. As the planet gets warmer, the beeches can no longer grow as quickly, nor can they reproduce as well. However, as colder areas of Canada subsequently heat up, beech seeds may be planted, and this small degree of human intervention might just give the trees a new home, and save the species in the process. Similarly, the Puth & Burns article discusses how increased urbanization has been severely detrimental to species native to areas such as New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Their findings have noted a dramatically decreasing trend in amphibian, reptilian, fish, bird, lichen, and plant life in the New York metro area. Now, assisted migration sounds like the savior conservationists have been waiting for, but will it really work?
Perhaps the most obvious question that arises when conservationist efforts are being pitches is, will it really work? Much like the idea of Rewilding, assisted migration has a dark cloud looming above it due to the lack of real testing in the field. Its virtually impossible to predict how certain species will react to being exposed to new habitats. Marris herself even validates this point by stating that there might be some sort of difference in the soil of the species’ old habitat. For these reasons, I’m not sure just how supportive I would be of assisted migration or rewilding as scientific tools; however, given the choice between the two, I believe assisted migration is superior. Conservation is an unpredictable field, so I’m sure the expert scientists are on the fence about this issue just as much as I am.