Author Archives: Simon

Posts by Simon

Upstate New York pro development

Posted on December 1, 2012 by Simon

Upstate New York residents should be allowed to do what they want with the land they own. Because upstate New York does not have the strongest economy, landowners should be able to lease their land for companies to perform fracking operations. Upstate New Yorkers will benefit from fracking.

Fracking will improve the United States economy. Fracking will provide the United States with so much natural gas that the U.S. will be the largest natural gas producer by 2017, which it can then export to other countries. In addition, President Obama said in his state of the union speech that fracking would provide 600,000 jobs nationwide. Some of these jobs will come in Upstate New York, a region that is economically depressed and could use this stimulus.

Fracking will replace coal as an energy source, which will benefit the environment. Replacing coal with natural gas will cut down greenhouse gases emissions from electric generation by 45 percent according to the International Energy Agency.

Finally, fracking will cut down the US reliance on the Middle East for sources of energy. Since the U.S. will have so much natural gas, it will not need as much oil from Middle Eastern countries. This could prove crucial if tensions between the U.S. and the Middle East escalate.

The benefits for Upstate New Yorkers from fracking are clear. The fracking industry will bring economic stimulus to a region that desperately needs it. In addition, fracking will help the environment as well as the whole country in economic and political terms. Upstate New Yorkers should be allowed to develop their land as they want.

Pierce, Richard J., Natural Gas Fracking Addresses All of Our Major Problems (2012). Journal of Energy and Environmental Law, May 2013; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-128; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-128. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2172441

Emma Marris questions

Posted on November 4, 2012 by Simon

1. What inspired you to go into the conservation field?

2. What would you say is your greatest professional accomplishment or experience?

3. What do you think is the best way to go about informing and educating people about conservation and climate change?

4. What do you think would be a good indicator that the new style of conservation is taking over?

Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Simon

How polluted are the rivers in New York City and how have they affected the marine population?

How much biodiversity do New York City parks have and how has it been affected by invasive species?

Does New York City have a lot of air pollution?

Rambunctious Garden ch 10

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Simon

Chapter 10 of Rambunctious Garden was the last chapter of the book and discussed some of the difficulties that come with conservation. Conservation often comes with a very high cost and limited resources so people have to choose which projects are worth taking on. Marris summarized several goals of conservation, which include protecting the rights of other species, protecting charismatic megafauna, slowing the rate of extinctions, protecting genetic diversity, defining and defending biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services, and protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature.

An example of conflict between these goals can be seen in protecting the rights of other species and slowing the rates of extinctions. If Galapagos Penguins are endangered due to rats eating baby penguins, it makes sense to kill the rats and/or move the rats out of the ecosystem. However, this strategy can conflict with the rights of the rats. Some people would argue that it is not fair to the rats to kill them off or move them out of the ecosystem. Tough choices have to be made.

A very interesting theory is the protection of characteristic megafauna. The theory behind this is that people love animals like tigers, pandas, gorillas, and polar bears and are willing to donate money to save these animals. Its turns out however, that protecting these animals can also help smaller animals that live in the same ecosystems as those animals. These large animals roam long distances so conservationists can argue to have larger areas of land protected, which would in turn help smaller animals as well.

Protecting characteristic megafauna seems like a very good idea. People are willing to contribute to this cause because megafauna are very beautiful and exotic. This plan will also help smaller species. In addition, protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience nature is a very important cause. While we should strive to take conservation tactics in cities, it is important to protect national parks. These provide wonderful recreational activities and are very peaceful. Spending time in these areas eases the mind and soul. Environmental experts have some tough decisions to make in the near future which will change the world. It is of utmost importance for people to get educated in the issues and help experts make the best decisions.

Rambunctious Garden ch 8, 9

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Simon

Chapter Eight of Rambunctious Garden is focused on designer ecosystems. The main point of the chapter was that conservationists should manage ecosystems to achieve a certain goal rather than recreate a pristine ecosystem. Marris gave the example of the Galapagos penguin. The Galapagos penguin is endangered because rats that were introduced into its natural habitat eat the chicks before they can grow up. Conservationists with outdated views of conservation would try to solve this problem by trying to exterminate all the rats on the island, which is a very time consuming and costly method. Instead, conservationists started drilling holes into the rocks on the island so that the penguins can use them to nest. These holes keep the chicks safe and can allow the penguin population to recover.

Chapter Nine of Rambunctious Garden is titled “Conservation Everywhere.” The main point of the chapter is that conservation should take place everywhere, not only in secluded natural parks. Marris argues that conservation can take place in cities. She also argues that individuals can help with the process by planting native species in their backyard. While this is not as pretty as a professionally designed landscape, it is better for the environment because it increases the biodiversity in the area. Marris wants Americans to move away from the notion that nature is a pristine secluded area. She wants people to appreciate nature everywhere, even in cities, which will lead to more conservation happening in cities.

I agree with Marris’ view that conservationists should manage for a goal rather than restoring and ecosystem to the way it was in the past. This method will save a lot of money and time and will have better results than stubbornly fighting natural progression and trying to bring back the past. Marris’ view on conservation happening in cities is also an admirable one, but it will be hard to achieve. People like having backyards that look nice so it would be hard to convince them to plant native species that will bring in many insects, causing the yard to not look as pretty. A modern view of conservation is better for the world and can work if everyone is willing to participate.

High Line

Posted on September 23, 2012 by Simon

On Thursday September 20, I went to visit the High Line with a few of my classmates. The High Line is an elevated railroad that was used to carry freight between buildings up until the 1980s. It is located between 10th and 11th avenue and runs from Gansevoort Street to West 34th street. The High Line was in threat of being demolished in the early 2000s but a group called Friends of the High Line decided that it needed to be saved. They vouched for the High Line to be transformed into a public park and construction on this project began in June 2006, with the first section of the park opening in 2009.

A fly sitting on a flower

The High Line is a very interesting and beautiful place. It is so unusual to see so much nature not only in an urban environment, but also living and thriving on something that had an industrial use. What makes the High Line even more interesting are the findings of the study called “The Flora of the High Line” by Richard Statler. This study found that the High Line actually has a very high amount of species diversity. In fact, the High Line had more species per hectare than Ellis Island, Liberty Island, Hoffman Island, and Bayswater State Park. These findings are hard to believe because one would think that there would be not that many species in such an urban environment. The species diversity at the High Line really makes me appreciate it more.

A red bug

A bee pollinating a flower

The High Line fits Emma Marris’ concept of a “Rambunctious Garden.” Marris’ main point is that we should not isolate nature is a so-called pristine state, but let nature adapt to its modern surroundings. Marris argues that nature is very resilient and can survive in urban environments and that it is better to practice this kind of conservation rather than isolating nature. The High Line proves Marris’ point that nature is resilient and can adapt. Even though it is located in a very urban area, the High Line has species diversity and hosts many pollinators.

The High Line is one of the finer points in New York City. It provides a nice retreat to a quiet area that is still in the city. It is home to a variety of species that would not have been in that area of the city if not for the High Line. The High Line is a marvel of nature that adds a lot of value to New York City.

sources:

http://www.thehighline.org/about/high-line-history

Statler, Richard. “The Flora of the High Line.” The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 131.4 (2004): 387-393. Print.

Rambunctious Garden Ch 5

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Simon

Chapter 5 of “Rambunctious Garden” looks into the topic of assisted migration. Assisted migration is when humans move a species that is close to extinction in its current environment to a new environment, in hopes that it will thrive there. The book uses the example of the pika and the Florida torreya to illustrate how beneficial assisted migration can be.

The pika is a small mammal that lives on mountains. Pikas live on mountains because they can only survive in cold climates. Spending just a short amount of time in warm weather can kill a pika. Human use of fossil fuels has increased climate change, which has made many environments hotter than they usually are. As the pikas climate gets hotter, it has to move higher up the mountain to live in a cool environment. However, the top of a mountain has less space than the bottom so there might not be enough room for the pika to survive on the mountaintop. In addition, a pika cannot survive a trip down the mountain and up a higher mountain nearby.

Marris also discusses how assisted migration can benefit the Florida torreya tree. This tree is found on the east coast of the Unite States, starting if Florida. However as Florida gets warmer and drier, it is harder and harder for this tree to survive there. To prevent the species from going extinct, conservationists want to spread its seeds further up North, to places like North Carolina. In the northern part of the Unite States, the tree can grow and thrive in the climate.

Not everyone agrees that assisted migration is a good thing. The ones that support it argue that since humans are responsible for the climate change that is threating many species, it is their duty to assist them and find them better places to live. Opponents argue that introducing species to new environments is a recipe for disaster as they can become invasive and dramatically alter the environment that they are introduced into.

Assisted migration should be an option that conservationists use, but not often. While the move will hopefully help the species, conservationists are taking a huge risk when they move the species to a new place. In addition, if people want to create a pristine wilderness area, this tactic defeats the whole purpose as it involves a lot of human intervention. The best strategy would be to focus on finding alternative sources of energy for humans to use. That way we would reduce our burning of fossil fuels and slow the heating of the earth, which would allow many species to survive in their native environment, without the need for being transported to a new one.

Rewilding

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Simon

The idea of rewilding is one that is getting a lot of attention in the scientific and conservational community. Supporters of the theory believe that large predators were they key species of ecosystems. Large predators were they key because they kept the ecosystem in balance by eating smaller animals, which prevented the smaller animals from growing to too large a number and overeating plants. Since this was how ecosystems worked before humans intervened, rewilding suggests bringing large predators and other native animals back to ecosystems so they can restore the balance and bring the ecosystem back to its pristine state.

Many of the animals that lived in the pristine ecosystems are now extinct. Since conservationists cannot inhabit the land with the exact animals that lived in the past, they try inhabiting it with their evolutionary and sometimes domesticated counterparts. Instead of extinct wild horses, conservationists use modern domesticated horses. Instead of wild versions of cattle, conservationists use domesticated modern day cattle. The idea is that even though the animals are not exactly the same, they will hopefully play the same role in the ecosystem as their ancestors did.

There are a few problems with this theory. The first is that no scientist is sure what the ecosystem was exactly like before humans. In chapter 4 of Rambunctious Garden, there is a debate whether Europe used to be mostly forest or grassland, and if it was both, how often did natural forces cause the land to cycle between these two types of ecosystems. Conservationists may be forcing an ecosystem onto an area that never existed there before.

Another problem with rewilding is that introducing foreign species can have severe consequences. While conservationists would try to only introduce animals that are similar to animals have lived in the area before, the environment is not the same now as it was then. The animals in modern day may react differently to the ecosystem and can either die out quickly or become a huge invasive specie. While conservationists try to keep the change minimal, it is extremely hard to predict what exactly will happen when new animals are introduced into an area because there are so many different factors in play.

The last problem with rewilding is all the manpower that is put into the process. Humans have to pick out the animals to introduce into the ecosystem and monitor them to make sure they get off to a healthy start. Conservationists try very hard to create a part of nature that is like the way it was when it was human free. While rewilding might yield these results, the amount of human involvement in the process might defeat the whole purpose.

 

Rambunctious Garden Ch.1 and 2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Simon

In the first two chapters of her book “Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World,” Emma Marris argues that the idea of nature that most conservationists have is an inaccurate one. Marris argues that creating protected areas that resemble a time when man had not dominated that landscape is impractical and unrealistic. Instead, Marris favors a system of conservation where nature and man live together and conservation takes place everywhere.

Up until recently most conservationists have been following the “Yellowstone Model” (Marris, 18). This is the idea that wilderness areas should be set aside in conditions that the areas had before humans came to the area, an idea that was made popular thanks to John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt who were natural park advocates. Yellowstone was one of the first national parks in the world and lead to the creation of national parks in other countries. In the 1960s, A. Starker Leopold and other scientists visited national parks in the United States and published the Leopold Report which stated: “as a primary goal, we would recommend that the biotic associations within each park be maintained… as nearly as possible in the condition that prevailed when the area was first visited by the white man” (Marris, 24). The Leopold Report had a huge influence in the conservation community and conservationists strived to meet its standards.

Marris argues that conservationists that follow this standard fail to take natural change into account. Ecosystems often experience natural disturbance such as fires or droughts. In addition, ecosystems have to deal with secular climate change. The climate has shifted between cold and icy periods called glaciations and warmer periods called inter-glacials. Because of all these natural disturbances, ecosystems do not have a natural equilibrium, or balance of nature, on which conservationists should base their visions for natural parks. Instead, ecosystems follow stochasticity, or randomness. Professor Hu from the University of Illinois even stated, “There really isn’t one unique state of natural conditions for any given landscape. What is more realistic is to set a range of natural conditions” (Marris, 31).

Scientists are slowly starting to realize that they should manage natural parks in a way that builds resiliency rather than creating an ecosystem from the past. Marris and like-minded scientists realize that the ecosystems that man has created will still serve the same functions, such as storing carbon and harboring species, that the old ecosystems played. The ideas of Marris and the new conservationists can be summarized by a quote from Marris: “Layering goals and managing landscapes with an eye to the future, rather than the past, is the cutting edge of conservation, but some ecologists, conservationists, and citizen environmentalists just aren’t there yet” (Marris, 14).

Anthropocene

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Simon

The anthropocene is the time period in which humans have an influence on all of nature. Peter Vitousek and other scientists describe the human impact on nature in “Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystems.” The most substantial and evident impact that humans have had on nature is the alteration of land. Humans often alter land to use its resources and provide services. For example, we cut down forests to create cropland and drill mountains to make highways. Activities like often destroys the habitats of many species, which leads them to die off in significant numbers.

Vitousek argues states that humans destroy biodiversity in the ocean. Humans often overfish to the point that a whole community of fish is on the verge of collapsing. Techniques like trawling the ocean floor for fish destroys the habitat in which they live in and leads to more fish dying. In addition, human activity has caused increased algal blooms, which create dead zones without oxygen that kill fish.

“Human Domination of the Earth’s Ecosystems” also provides evidence that human activity has altered many chemical cycles. The burning of fossil fuels for energy release C02 into the air. Since 1957, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 315 ppm to 362 ppm. The burning of CO2 increase the greenhouse effect, which raised the temperature on earth which in turn leads to the loss of biodiversity because several habitats depend on lower temperatures. In addition, the human use of nitrogen increases the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, which then comes down as acid rain or smog.

Michelle Marvier Peter in her article “Conservation in the Anthropocene” argues that the way many scientist try to preserve the environment is ineffective. Conservationists aim to create protected areas of land where no human development can take place. They try to get rid of non-native species and bring the area back to the way it was before humans dominated the area. However these actions do more harm than good. Setting up protected areas takes a lot of money and energy. In addition, native people are often forced to move out of their homes. Peter even says that the created parks are “no less human constructions than Disneyland.”

“Conservation in the Anthropocene” argues that we should embrace the resiliency of nature. Humans have made too many changes in nature to change it back to the way it was in the past. There is also evidence of nature adopting to live in big cities. The article argues that we should stop trying to create created parks and instead focus on making our cities more nature friendly.

I think that we should aim to make our cities more nature friendly but at the same time also create more protected areas. Building gardens in the city, using public transportation and alternative sources of energy will do wonders for our impact on the environment. However, protected areas like state parks provide beautiful recreational areas for humans to visit and are a safe environment for many wild animals. The best course of action is to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle while also creating more protected areas for animals to live in.

Comments by Simon