All posts by Philip Durlik

Footprint

December 16, 2014 Philip Durlik Leave a comment

I require 4.9 Earths while the national average is 5. I am very close to average. It’s disappointing because I always thought my life style was fairly sustainable, as it turns out it isn’t.
I chose to maximize Transportation, Food and Shelter. Transportation had by far the biggest impact; it pushed the Earths I required to 14.7. Food and Shelter seemed fairly close, food was 6.9 Earths and shelter was 6.6 Earths. I found these statistics surprising, I assumed that the resources that go into building a large house where more ecologically expensive, also I’m not sure if the calculator takes home heating and cooling into account, the average home takes about 500-600 gallons of oil to heat during winter, a house several times bigger than average have a much larger impact. In the future I can make an effort to live closer to where I work, living within walking distance of most of my needs should bring transportation costs near zero. I expect that lowering the heating and dressing warmer while at home should have make a sizable impact.
To make a sustainable society we’d need to live closer to work, there are too many people especially in America who commute from suburbs everyday, driving a total of 60 miles. I even know a couple who drive 200 miles a day. Car-pooling and public transportation can minimize those cost but they are unnecessary if we all live within walking distance or even biking distance. If a commute doesn’t include highways a bicycle is just about as fast as a car but not many people choose to use this form of transportation. As a society we should decide how much shelter we really need, small apartment takes much less energy to heat then a house with no adjacent structures. As a world we can also put an emphasis on making longer lasting products. Most electronics are useless within a few years, cars breakdown after 10 or 15 years, even homes start to fall apart after 40 years. Obtaining the resources to construct all these things is very costly, life would be much more sustainable if we didn’t have to replace our belongings every few years.

AMNH

December 12, 2014 Philip Durlik 1 Comment

I chose to examine “Diving for Pearls” and “Dolphin and Tuna.” “Diving for Pearls” was trying to give people a general overview of reef ecosystems and how people rely on the ocean for resource and luxury goods like pearls. Twenty-eight people visited the exhibit during the fifteen minutes I was there. Most of the patrons walk by with blank looks on their faces and spent less then 30 seconds looking at the exhibit, those people also avoided looking at the reading material at all costs. The only people who stopped to read the exhibit for more than a minute where men age 40+. Patrons rarely discuss the exhibits but many mothers will try to get their children interested by saying “Look the boys are diving for pearls” or pointing out other details. I personally found the information in the exhibit very interesting, and was disappointed that so many people just walked by without learning anything. Pearl Diving is a large industry in the Indian Ocean and often employs children to work in hazardous conditions as deep-sea free divers, based on that alone the exhibit deserved more attention. The exhibit was well designed but during the 15 minutes I was standing there it occurred to me that most people don’t want to read especially during their leisure time. A possible way of getting their attention is by installing headphone jacks, most people have headphones and listening is a more passive process.

“Dolphins and Tuna” educates people on how dolphins and tuna interact in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Both species hunt together, which puts dolphins at risk of being killed by tuna fishermen. 23 people visited the exhibit, and patrons reacted in more or less the same way. People occasionally took pictures of the exhibit, the reading seldom received attention, a child touched a dolphin skeleton hand although I doubt she knew that it was to illustrate that dolphins evolved form land mammals and nobody was there to tell her. This exhibit can also be improved by installing headphone jacks and audio recordings.

I felt that both exhibits placed the right amount of focus on conservation and biodiversity. Each exhibit educated patrons about various aspects of its environment and then briefly described the ways humans threaten it. If more focus were placed on conservation it would take away from the learning experience. The hall of biodiversity is well designed and engaging, maybe even a little too engaging; in the hall of ocean life I heard one mother say to another “Bobby (a little boy) is scared by the noises and darkness, lets go upstairs.” Overall I had a great time at the museum and wish I’d arrived earlier, it was a nice to break out of my routine and observing people was an interesting experience.

What is Science?

Fracking is Poltics

October 17, 2014 Philip Durlik 1 Comment

Up until a few weeks ago I was very unaware of what fracking is so I decided that for “Is this Science” I’d research this topic. I found an article on Science Daily that was written by Stanford University, it synthesis various academic studies to reach a conclusion on the impact of natural gas drilling. The writer tries to reason that fracking is an eco friendly alternative to coal but it may pose a threat to people living near by.

The argument is that fracking will definitely provide society more energy then conventional forms of energy production, all we have to do is ensure that it is done in a safe manner. I find this unlikely since 1-10% of wells fracture and leak chemicals, unfortunately there is very little concrete evidence: “we still don’t know whether methane losses from well pads and pipelines outweigh the lower carbon dioxide emissions.” While reading the article I began to notice the frequent use of “unknown” and “don’t know” in association with possible effects on human health, the article quotes an expert saying, “Almost no comprehensive research has been done on health effects.” I find this lack of knowledge severely disturbing, it’s proof that there is almost no government regulation regarding fracking and people are exposed to potentially dangerous chemicals.

The author doesn’t fully analyze the environmental impact of fracking; it’s academically accepted that it leaves a smaller footprint than coal, but what are the consequences if all of Washington gets on the fracking bandwagon? Funding and subsidies may end up being diverted from more ecofriendly energy sources like wind, solar, or hydro. Its important to keep in mind that fracking is a step up from coal but if we allow it to replace other forms of renewable energy then globally progress towards preventing climate change will be lost. This viewpoint was expressed in another article regarding fracking in England, they seems to be taking a much more cautious and regulated approach towards the natural gas industry.

So finally is this science? Yes and no. Yes because any complex issue these days can be tied science, but no because it is primarily a political issue. Fracking is a viable form of energy production when subjected to proper regulation but currently very little research is being done, corporations have the power to steamroll municipal opposition and a large portion of the research seems to be funded by energy corporations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140912112522.htm

Bioblitz

Bioblitz-birds

September 12, 2014 Philip Durlik Leave a comment

I went into bioblitz expecting to not enjoy it. My reluctance caused me to sign up late and as a result I was placed in the 6am slot. Upon arrival I was put in the bird group and informed that I was lucky because birds are most active at this ungodly hour, I guess the early bird really does get the worm. My group’s guide Ricky handed us binoculars and we began our nature walk. Surprisingly the further we walked the more I became open to the idea of bird watching, maybe Ricky’s enthusiasm began to rub off on the group.

As it turns out NYC has quite a few birds. We saw sixteen different species and shockingly not one of them was a pigeon. Some of the species we saw were: Blue Robin, Catbird, Mourning Dove, Flicker, Pewee, and most exciting of them all the red tailed hawk. Growing up in Jamaica Bay, I knew that NYC had biodiversity, especially my neighborhood. I attributed this biodiversity to the sheer size of Jamaica Bay and the relatively low human population density. My trip to the New York Botanical garden made me realize the value of maintaining smaller green space.

The type of science we conducted at Botanical Garden was very unfamiliar to me. As a physics major, I’m used to precise calculations and the data we collected seemed far from precise. Understandably it’s the best that can be done in such an open and complex system. I was surprised to learn that taking a thorough census of a relatively small ecosystem like a park was such a large-scale effort. I’ll probably never end up being as enthusiastic about bird watching as Ricky, none the less I ended up having fun. Bioblitz was a pleasant and informative way to spend a Sunday morning. Thank you for the fun event Macaulay.