Author Archives: Johnny Wang

Posts by Johnny Wang

Government Agencies and NYC Water Supply

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Johnny Wang

Government agencies such as USEPA, New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), NYS Department of Health, and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation are concerned about the quality of both filtered and unfiltered water that flows to the homes of millions living in the area. They have two options. The agencies can spend a large sum of money to focus on maintaining unfiltered water. Officials would have to continually test for decreases in water quality. Once the water quality dips, they will have to build filtration systems to filter the lower quality water. The other option is to save money and allow water to be unfiltered and distributed to the masses of New York. The latter is what most wish to achieve. According to The Earth Institute at the Columbia University, despite New York being the largest unfiltered system in the United States, New York is also known for its “clean and delicious” drinking water. They explain that the NYC watershed consists of 19 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes. 90% of the water is provided by the Catskill and Delaware watersheds. 10% of NYC’s drinking water is provided by the Croton water system. It is understandable that New York City’s water must be clean. However, filtering water may not be the way to go. New York’s water is treated with chlorine to kill germs, fluoride to prevent cavities, orthophosphate to inhibit lead contamination from pipes, and sodium hydroxide to lessen acidity. This occurs on top of the necessary requirements that must be fulfilled according to the STWR. The DEP conducts over 900 daily and 330,000 annual tests on drinking water throughout the city. In addition they run 230,000 test in the watershed. This is all for the sake of guaranteeing that NYC water meets the quality standards. There was some controversy regarding the Croton water’s purity as far as 1908. It is also true that Croton watershed had to be shut down for various points in time. However, as a result of this lower quality water, in 2007, the Croton water filtration plant had undergone construction estimating a cost of 2.8 billion dollars. The water in New York is clean. We have spent large sums of money to clean the mere 10% of lower quality water. 90% of our water is considered world-renown for its positive cleanliness and taste. However, the cost for the filtration of Catskill and Delaware watersheds is huge, estimating 8 to 12 billion dollars to construct the plant and a further 350 million dollars to operate it. Government agencies stand by their view to relie on unfiltered water in NYC.

Cho, Renee. “Maintaining the Superiority of NYC’s Drinking Water.” State of the Planet. The Earth Institute Columbia University, 29 July 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/07/29/maintaining-the-superiority-of-nyc%E2%80%99s-drinking-water/>.

 

Emma Marris Questions

Posted on October 27, 2012 by Johnny Wang

1. In your last chapter, you provide the reader with 7 different possibilities for saving the ecosystem. Which do you consider the most effective and efficient?

2. It’s clear from the novel that you are extremely passionate about ecology. What sparked this passion?

3. The views you’ve exposed the readers in your novel are highly controversial topics. How have you responded to those on the other side of the debate?

4. How have you personally changed or adapted your lifestyle to revolve around the rambunctious garden?

Topics

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Johnny Wang

1.  How did bed bugs contaminate NYC and what are its effects on the NYC public?
2.  What effect does the NYC environment play on children’s birth defects?
3. How does the use of pesticide affect the NYC environment?

Chapter 10

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Johnny Wang

In Chapter 10, A Menu of New Goals, Marris talks about her list of goals for our world. A list that is combined with all the realistic circumstances that are packaged together for our present to nature. In  goal one “Protect the Rights of Other Species”, she discusses land ethic, the recognition of the inherent value of an ecosystem extending to soil, water, plants, and animals. We should love and respect the land that we live on. Deep ecology builds on this notion by describing how deep of a love people have for this earth. We have moral obligations to the planet and we should adjust our lifestyles to save it. Just because we are humans does not mean we own everything. Her second goal is titled “Protect Charismatic Megafauna.” In it, she states the power of charismatic megafauna or large animals that humans like and do not want to go extinct, such as whales, tigers, pandas, or, as she puts it, animals with large eyes. Many of these species are also keystone species. These species have an impact on how an ecosystem looks, works, and whether it can create an umbrella conservation for surrounding species. However, problems erupt when deciding between whether to save these animals or the environment that they live in. Goal number three is called “Slow the Rate of Extinctions.” Marris goes into species classification where some scientists believe that every species, form fly to jaguar should be equally treated. Possingham, a mathmatical ecologist, shares some realistic views. If saving a land area requires an investment no one is willing to make, the land should not be saved at all. Saving species does not mean that you are saving their environment. Her fourth goal is to “Protect Genetic Diversity.” Here, she discusses the possibilities that some species are not in fact species. Marris believes that despite the importance of very diverse genetic makeups, it turns out pointless if the body holding the genes is disregarded. In her fifth goal, “Define and Defend Biodiversity”, Marris redirects the unmotivated reader from genes to biodiversity, or simply complexity. She reveals that it may be the most problematic conservation goal. Despite it being the main factor most people value from nature, it tries to hard to cover too much. Goal six, “Maximize Ecosystem Services” starts off by stating how much we do not realize the help that the planet’s resources provide. We only have a finite amount left and conservationists are trying to get the government’s attention. Species have an existence value and that is why lands such as Alaska are so highly favored by the masses. It seems more like a way to get people to be interested in saving nature as apposed to their true natural value. In her seventh goal, “Protect the Spiritual and Aesthetic Experience of Nature”, the existence of nature also creates close ties to us humans through family and culture. It is our duty to promote the lands where these natural spiritual bonds live. Marris’s solution is the rambunctious garden. Finally, Marris goes into her subchapter, “Juggling Goals.” She tells us that there is no best goal. But it is our duty, despite the cost or effort, to do our best to preserve nature in creating a rambunctious garden.

Chapters 8 & 9

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Johnny Wang

Marris’ starts off chapter 8, Designer Ecosystems with the image of a stream. We all picture a stream to be clear flowing water, but that seems to be a thing of the past. Today, these streams have gone extinct and what remains are muddy streams branching off into several pools. Because of this, the rise of stream restoration communities have emerged. Some scientists argue on what the streams should look like. They have cleared trees and dramatically altered water levels for the sake of returning the streams to the pristine image they once held. Now scientists are worried and believe that efforts should be focused on solely reducing sediment load. Some even think that restoring the complex ecosystems will be too difficult. However, there is an alternative – to design the ecosystem for specific measurable goals such as “nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species” (Marris Page 125).  Restoration ecologists are faced with the difficulty of not being able to reproduce the exact same ecosystem we once had, but instead, use “shortcuts” in an attempt to get close. Ecologists have changed their way of thinking, “Implicit in many restoration projects is the notion that a historical baseline is not just somehow morally better but ideal for restoring any number of features that a system might have lost over time, including biodiversity, ecosystem services, and recreational value” (Marris Page 126). The problem is that even if streams are restored to what they once appeared in historical times, it may seem restored to the naked eye, but it may not be performing to its natural historical level. Hence, a designer ecosystem may be better than this before mentioned restoration. Richard Hobbs, advocate of designer ecosystems, describes some terms, “Biotic changes are changes in the living components of an ecosystem … Abiotic changes are changes in the nonliving environment … when a site only shows one type of change, a hybrid ecosystem often results” (Marris Page 128). Despite the change, if the resulting environment has a use, it’s not the end of the world. We can take advantage of the new land and reap its benefits. Marris ends the chapter by declaring her wish to see nature run wild without human interference. Marris then goes into her next chapter titled Conservation Everywhere. She starts the chapter with a description of her visit to the Duwamish River. The river’s supporters are hoping to see a hybrid ecosystem where the river is part habitat and part industrial waterway. She explains that the value of conservation is to add more types of land to the list of hopefuls that can one day become of use. Some problems conservations are facing are due to the concept of species area relationship. The smaller the fragment becomes, the fewer species will remain. However, with corridors, species can migrate from one fragment to another. Conservationists are trying to create corridors however land ownership becomes an issue. The answer lies with agricultural and ranch lands which keep steams, lakes, and forested areas natural. Another problem is the fact that yield will decrease, so scientists are trying to come up with alternatives to using farm land for crop growth such as growing within skyscrapers. One idea is to introduce nature into city life, turning into a metapopulation. It involves a lot of compromise on part of the garden owners. Seemingly, this does not seem practical for most city dwellers.

Chapter 6 – 7

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Johnny Wang

Marris’s Rambunctious Garden, Saving Nature in a Post-Modern World delves into the topic of invasive species, or rather “exotic species” in her next two chapters. In chapter 6, Marris begins by providing examples of previously native specie inhabited lands that have undergone a “take over” of sorts by an invasive species. However, the label of an invasive species seems to be based on prejudice. This label was originally attached to those exotic species that inhabited foreign lands. Now the label is predominately circling around those species which cause harm towards humans. Studies have shown that most invasive species in fact do not cause as much harm as we may believe. One example of this new approach towards invasive species came under great debate amongst scientists. The example mentioned how islands that were consumed by invasive species did have problems where several isolated species suffered extinction. However, the fact remains that the number of species on these islands more than doubled. Some argue that the number of species was a result of many common species found on other foreign lands. Another example brings to light the question, “If newly arrived species have an advantage because natives have not evolved resistance to them, isn’t it also true that they will have no evolved resistance to the wiles of the natives?” (Marris Page 105). The chapter goes even further to discuss the possibility of hybridization between an invasive species and a native one. The hybrid product of the two species could be either invasive or native, creating confusion in identification. The problem is not because of the species that happen to move to a new land. The problem lies within ourselves. We are the ones drawing lines between species. If a species can freely mate with one another, who are we to keep them from doing so, or to eradicate the parent species? The problem returns to the introduction of the chapter – the problem is us: our prejudice towards invasive species. It seems that we, human beings, do not fear the imminent result of an extinct species, but more likely that we, ourselves do not like any change. What purpose do we have for naming a species invasive if we were the ones who introduced it to its new lands several thousand years ago? Are they no longer invasive? Even if we go back in time and find which species lived where, the process seems futile to return species to where they once belonged. Why not let species live and dwell as they choose naturally? The answer to this lies within humans, not nature. The second chapter discusses “novel ecosystems”. These novel ecosystems are the results of an invasive species that has gone and rampaged throughout the specified land. The name provides a lighter and more positive description to some, but to others, the positivity holds true. One example provided explained how, despite what studies have taught scientists throughout the ages about how theses “novel ecosystems” would suffer and die out, the actual result shows that the ecosystem is faring much better than any normal one. Novel ecosystems are now more common than native ones. Generations of human beings will begin to see a new land dominated by a new species again become dominated by another new species. Ecosystems will grow more complex and fuse. Studies have even showed how invasive species “calm down” over time. They become less harmful as more species are introduced that hinder their booming growth. The natives will also, one day, gain resistance. It is not a losing battle, but rather a new perspective of the winner.

HighLine

Posted on September 25, 2012 by Johnny Wang

 

The High Line, rail line turned park, is situated on New York City’s West Side running along downtown Manhattan. It is home to vegetation and tourists. Both come from various corners of the world, but they all end up on a beautiful walkway. Plant species of all shape, sizes, and colors can be found on a great view of the city. The expansive plant life here at the High Line has flourished due to the help of supportive non-profit organizations such as the Friends of High Line and nature’s natural helpers. These natural helpers consist of several pollinators, including species such as bees, flies, and birds.

I have visited the high line several times before and the park still amazes me. The architectural design turns the park into a cultural tourist attraction for many. The park includes benches, several eateries, and even a glass overview of the traffic below. There is always music playing by the bands and musicians who come to play every time I visit. Some people even come to spend their time reading and sunbathing. The true beauty of the High Line is even further proven by the wedding couple and their photographer going around the park probably adding to their wedding album.

On my most recent visit to the High Line, the wind was quite strong. Nevertheless, I happened to come across the previously mentioned natural supporters. The bees flew from flower to flower, plant to plant, sometimes flowing with the current of the wind. After a quickly collecting some nectar, they would seamlessly float to the next plant. Once the temperature rose, more insects appeared. It was strange to see several areas lacked some pollinators. This is probably due to the different species or the interaction of human beings. I came across this one plant species where all three species of pollinators cohabited. Bees and flies flew from flower to flower without any disturbance. As I passed by, I noticed something inside the bussel of leaves. Birds were inside, sitting on the branches. Oddly enough, one of the birds didn’t seem to mind my photo taking. It is thanks to these pollinators that pollen and sometimes even seeds get passed on from plant to plant from all over the city.

Stalter’s paper, The Flora of the High Line describes the High Line in a way I find it very different from my own experiences. The High Line, according to Stalter, has several environmental variables including tall buildings that shade some plant life and human beings transporting seeds and cutting vegetation. However, the paper goes on to say that human beings leave tires, bottles and additional trash. On my experiences, I have not even noticed a single piece of trash among the plants or even on the board walks. The park seems quite clean and it retains its natural beauty amongst the jungle of the city. I do agree with the fact that since the park is present in an urban setting, it provides an example of Marris’ goal for a “rambunctious garden.” Numerous species of plant life dwell in the confides of a single park. Species of animals and insects live here and provide natural support to the well-being of the High Line. Human beings themselves seem to be quite respectful to their surroundings nowadays and any deliberate harmful interference is left at the lower street levels of Chelsea.

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Johnny Wang

Most scientists consider “the biggest single thumbprint humans have put on this planet” (Marris Page 74) to be the resultants of global warming. The planet as we know it is changing dramatically. Species around the world are hazardously affected by it. Climate patterns become unpredictable and temperatures and precipitation vary. Because of this, many species have been forced or at least try to migrate to a more suitable environment. Scientists have thought of the concept of assisted migration. Assisted migration or assisted colonization is basically the notion of humans physically helping organisms on their path to a more suitable climate. Migration in this sense is to be read as species that slowly move in geological timescales based on climate changes. Many argue that this is the only way that human beings can save these species. Since humans were the ones to cause this dramatic climate change, we should be the ones to be held responsible of the consequences. However, there are scientists who gravely opposed this idea. Some problems of assisted migration include whether the organisms will possibly survive in these new areas or if they will flourish so immensely well that they become invasive species, pushing out the native species. Scientists are left with a ethical decision and a choice for the greater good. Assisted migration should only be performed when there is a high risk of extinction due to climate change, the possibility for transporting these species, and if the benefits outweigh cost and constraints. For example, performing assisted migration on seeds is one thing. To perform assisted migration on beetles is another story. The time, cost, and effort it would take to move an entire species of just solely beetles will take up much too many resources, with not much foreseeable success nor benefit. Some scientists also argue that putting different species that have never before have interacted with each could cause unprecedented extremities that could possibly wipe out all the species in the area. There are a great number of possible limitations and advantages to assisted migration. Most would imagine the movement of butterflies, however, if one were to imagine such in an urban context, the migration of trees can greatly benefit certain populations. Moving trees further north or south can benefit population growth in terms of building human architectural landscape. With population growth, more land must be consumed to house human beings. As species and in some cases, entire forests migrate to different more unpopulated areas, we may see more land for humans to live on. In addition, assisted migration can be very helpful in terms of utilization in ecosystems. Species that are near the verge of extinction can be possibly saved and possibly beneficial to the surrounding organisms. The problem again remains that we do not know of the outcomes that will arise from doing so. Also, the time, effort, and money it will take is quite large. Despite all these limitations, assisted migration has its benefits. We can start in our own homes and scientists can progress from there.

Rewilding

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Johnny Wang

The term “rewilding” found in Chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden, Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World by Emma Marris is an expression coined by Dave Foreman. The word “rewilding” explains “the main factors necessary to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse are the regulation provided by large, top – of – the – food – chain predators; the room for these predators to do their work; and connections between predator ranges so they can meet, mate, and maintain a healthily diverse gene pool” (Marris Page 60). This basically means that in order to save nature at it’s finest, we, the ecologically aware citizens of the planet must introduce predators into areas that lack them. Also, these predators must live in a peaceful land, at least for them, where they can properly meet, mate, and reproduce – a predator’s dream world. The ecosystem would only remain in balance due to competition over a food supply without these predators. Then, the ecosystems would falter as the dominant species overtakes the other inferior species and ravages the rest of the plant life that they most favor. Smaller predators will rise to the top – of – the  – food  – chain. This entire process results in a planet composed of fewer and fewer species. Another take on rewilding is the concept of taking species that have been moved from their historic homes and returning them to the lands their ancestors had once thrived. Also, rewilding can be used to relocate certain species that are very similar to historic species that lived in a certain area, and use them to act as proxies.

There are a few problems with the process of rewilidng. Rewilding seems like a great way of reintroducing predators into an ecosystem. This does not seem to be the best idea however. Josh Dolan’s counter argument against the possibility of Pleistocene rewilding’s carnivores to become invasive species is that ‘we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again’ (Marris Page 65) doesn’t seem very comforting. Dolan believes it is best to bring elephants and cheetahs into the United States and keep them within reserves. I believe this may help the ecology of the land and preserve the historic nature of the planet several thousands of years back. The problem is that the world is constantly changing and so are its species – mainly human beings. Human population has been growing immensely over time. The expected lifetime of a human being has tripled over the past hundred years. With the introduction of new medicine and health studies, the lives of humans will only be prolonged. This can easily be seen in the population overgrowth in China with over a billion people living in one country. How can we dedicate such a large portion of land to several hundred animals when we have an over growth of humans in the billions to house and shelter? This plan would surely help nature, but what is the priority? There is always room for failure and it is not guaranteed that the introduced species will be able to co-exist in these new lands. Just because a mammoth may have thrived here does not mean that its descendant, the elephant, will enjoy its new home.

NYC DOH Environmental Health Tracking Portal

Posted on September 8, 2012 by Johnny Wang

This is a graph of the Overweight or Obesity of youths by Borough in 2009. According to the survey, an observation that can be made is that the percentage of overweight youth is only 27.3%. This is not to say that this is a low number, but I personally thought it would be a larger percentage. Another observation is that, strangely enough, all the boroughs do not have a large difference in the percentage rates of overweight or obese youths.

This is a graph that shows the obesity of adults based on neighborhoods. Its strange that the median of obese adults tend to rise as poverty increases. Also, observation shows that  as time progressed, obesity generally increased as well.

This is a graph about the Neighborhood Obesity of Adults by Physical Activity of Adults. Observation tells us that physical activity has increased as obesity has decreased based on the scattered dots of each borough. Majority of the dots are focused around the 60-70% although the percentage of obesity ranges from 10-40%.

This is a graph of Trends in Obesity of adults based on years. Observation tells us that Brooklyn maintains the highest amount of obese adults. It can also be noted that none of the lines show an immense increase or decrease in trends in obesity at first glance, however the variable of interest over time doesn’t reflect much change in a graphical form. Instead, small rise or falls show great increase or decrease in numbers of obesity.

This is a graph showing the obesity of adults by neighborhood. The graph provides a sectioned off view of each individual area in the five boroughs. Despite Queens being a large geographical area, the maroon colored areas are rare in the borough. Also, Manhattan being a smaller area generally also has a lower percentage. The Bronx tends to have more of this maroon colored percentage including Brooklyn and Staten Island.

Weeding the Jungle & The Yellowstone Model

Posted on September 1, 2012 by Johnny Wang

Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden – Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World is a novel of various arguments and debates about the growing controversy of the “pristine wilderness.” Marris openly states in her first chapter, “Until recently, it lurked behind conservation organizations’ mission statements, … where the wild is always better than the tame. But it wasn’t always so. The cult of pristine wilderness is a cultural construction, and a relatively new one” (Marris Page 15). As many have been led to believe, the “pristine wilderness” is the goal. We seek to return to the previous state of ecology, before man had any involvement, and even before man had existed. However, this is only a ruse. Although it may be true that, today there is no piece of earth that has been left untouched and unaltered by man, historical ecology is not necessarily the superior model. We should change our own views as a society before we change our planet. Ecosystems are always changing regardless of human involvement. In the end, it is also becoming increasingly impossible to revert our world into the state that it once was. The amount of money and time that will be spent is unfathomable, let alone the resources spent on a single island. Rather than build fences around attempts at nature preservations, such as the Yellowstone Park, we should adapt to the notion of the rambunctious garden. The rambunctious garden is omnipresent. We should fuse the idea of our current world and embrace the natural world. We can preserve nature in the form of backyard gardens or farms. Recover natural processes that can also benefit our own specie’s survival. The first chapter is an introduction to the idea that will be proven and tested in the novel and the second chapter is a first look into the debates that will be discussed for the reader to examine and determine his take on the crucial idea of a mindset removed from the cultural cult.

I agree with Marris’s case and I believe that it is a successful one. Marris provides the reader with several arguments detailing opposing views on the growing rambunctious garden vs. the “pristine wilderness.” Several debaters of notable backgrounds argue that the previous and on-going attempts at conservation are futile. One man described his work of removing multiple species from Australia. He trapped and slaughtered hundreds and if not, thousands of rabbits, foxes, and cats for the sake of preserving the original Australian habitat. The problem is that the species that were being suppressed by these now dead or captured animals will have to either adapt to their newfound environments which may take possibly thousands of years or live in a fenced world where their prior predators must remain captive spending human resources. Another argument particularly about the creation of Yellowstone National Park describes the increased unreasonableness regarding the conservation of the park. The park once had several plains or flatlands where many would settle down or live in. With the creation and establishment of the park, inhabitants were forced to evacuate the lands where they once thrived. This was all for the purpose of maintaining an unhampered spot on the earth. Again, this is shown to be futile with the results of scientific research stating that, despite human interference, climates will radically change on their own. Some say that the ecology will remain in equilibrium and some say that it will be in a constant moving flux of irreversibility. The question remains is a philosophical one. If there is no noticeable change, is there really any reason to force a change at all?

Vitousek and Kareiva

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Johnny Wang

The term anthropocene is clearly defined in Kareiva’s article Breakthrough Journal, Conservation in the Anthropocene. The article states that anthropocene is a term used to describe the current era in which humans control the planet’s ecology. Anthropocene’s ideology can also be found within Vitousek’s article Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. The articles focus on the idea that humans directly affect nature. Human beings dominate the planet and further human growth is on-going. This same increased human growth will only lead to more human dominance over the world. This dominance gave way to the notion of urban ecology.

Urban ecology can be described as the newfound relation between the urban human society and nature. Human society has blended industrial and technological innovations within the confines of the planet, hence nature. This mixture of two forces result in a struggle to prevent annilation. Human growth depends on the enhanced future of urban ecology, but nature requires the opposite. In some cases, urban ecology prevents the survival of nature. In order to create new highways and fuel our cars, nature must be sacrificed. In this sense, urban ecology presents itself in a negative tone. Species become endangered or, as many already have, extinct. Species, including humans, suffer from the harmful by-products of urbanization. These can be found in the ozone layer, oceans, forests, and the very air that we all breathe. They come in various forms, namely pollution and poison.

Ecologists have attempted to prevent the negativity caused by the urbanized anthropocene society. Many blame the human society for seeking wealth by cutting down trees, mining ores, or harvesting natural gases. However, the two articles claim otherwise. Vitousek claims that the rate of human growth is increasing and in order to save nature, we must stunt human population growth, increase the understanding of the planet’s ecology, and for humans to take more responsibilities. I disagree with this solution. I believe that the increase of the human population cannot be feasibly controlled. The understanding of ecology may create more devotion towards saving the planet, however it will not necessarily prevent human society from wanting to progress themselves in an urban ecology. As time has shown, we have not downgraded in industry. We have only found more ways to pollute the environment, with the basis of survival in mind. I agree that more responsibility should be taken, but it is impractical. Humans generally would not consider taking on more responsibility, especially when it does not directly help them. I agree when Kareiva states that nature’s destruction is not entirely due to human destruction of ecosystems. Many examples are given to prove otherwise: a species of orangutan is near extinction due to humans hunting opposed to humans cutting down trees, the destruction of one species does not leave the entire food chain in disrepair, and studies that show the human attempt to create wildlife reserves and conservations fail to produce results and, as a matter of fact, show negative results where species tend to dwindle. The article goes even further and argues that it may seem as if conservation is of the utmost importance, but it hides several crucial elements from the debate. The creation of conservations has cost human lives due to the enforced evictions from selected areas. Another element is that a poor human class cannot help themselves survive without access to their only resource – nature. I believe that the solution to this problem lies in the way we view nature and urban ecology. We should not view the problem as if there were only one solution. Instead, we should focus on finding a solution to save both portions of urban ecology.

Comments by Johnny Wang