Author Archives: Yana Manevich

Posts by Yana Manevich

Memo 3: Annotated Bibliography

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Yana Manevich

To: Professor MacBride

From: Yana Manevich

RE: PlaNYC Solid Waste Management Organics Recovery Initiative

Date: April 15, 2013

1.    The City of New York, “PlaNYC Solid Waste Chapter.” Last modified April 2011. Accessed April 13, 2013. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_solid_waste.pdf.

Summary: PlaNYC’s chapter on Solid Waste details New York City’s comprehensive sustainability plan regarding solid waste management in the city. It lists a total of 13 initiatives that the city plans to undertake with the goals of reducing waste, increasing resource recovery from the city’s waste stream, and overall improving the efficiency of New York City’s waste management system. My focus for my research paper is on PlaNYC’s initiative to “create additional opportunities to recover organic material”, which ties into it’s goals of increasing the city’s resource recovery. The report begins by stating that 30% of residential and 18% of commercial wastes are organic – largely comprised of food waste, but also from things such as textiles and leaf and yard wastes.  Transporting this material to landfills, the report claims, is not only costly but also a big source of GHG emissions, and properly treating and separating these organics would be cost-effective and provide a valuable resource for energy generation and other applications. The plan then goes on to outline specific actions it plans to take in addressing these issues and meeting its goals. These include expanding outreach and launch grants for community and city-wide compost projects and evaluating pilot programs of on-site dewatering units throughout the city.

Rationale: This source will serve as an introductory jumping off point for my paper and subsequent research. The report provides a great overview of where New York City is at currently in their solid waste management, what they want to do to improve their efficiency, how they plan to do so, and why it is important.  I will use all of this in setting up my paper’s introduction, and also in developing my research about the specific actions the plan proposes – what progress has been made, the pros and cons of the city’s action plan, and any new technologies the city may want to consider in helping it reach it’s sustainability goals. Going off of the information presented here, I will look into how exactly recovered organics could be valuable resources to New York City, research more about on-site dewatering units and aerobic and anaerobic digestion and how that my benefit New York City and whether other sustainable cities have found success in similar technologies, and look into various community outreach programs New York City has initiated and the response they have been met with.

2.     O’Connell, Kim A. “Sorting out solid waste budgets.” American City & County. no. 5 (2003): 28-38.

Summary: This article about how faltering economies and budget cuts have serious effects on municipal solid waste departments and budgets, although published in May 2003, has regained relevance in light of the recent economic downturn and budget cuts that have effected and are still effecting various government programs, including those in New York City. The article mentions that when faced with budget cuts, cities usually protect the core parts of their operations, such as garbage pickup and disposal, because of their necessity, and the programs that are usually left on the cutting room floor are secondary operations, such as recycling and special waste pick-ups and management – both of which are important to a city’s sustainability. Recycling budgets are often the first to go, the article mentions, because of the difficulties associated with being able to forecast long-term revenues from recycling – even though we all know that both the revenue and environmental benefits are there. The article also mentions, however, that some municipalities’ departments have managed to stay relatively unaffected by budget cuts as a result of either being supported by dedicated funds, locked into long-term contracts, or operate as free-standing economic entities which instead of being dependent on government revenues, charge user fees to people who use their services. New York City, however, was mentioned at one of the cities whose waste departments are affected by budget cuts. One expert quoted in the article suggested that New York is particularly vulnerable to economic fluctuations because we export our wastes rather than dealing with them internally. The article goes on to list a number of cities that have had successes in managing their solid waste management departments even in the face of economic turmoil and outlines the various ways they have been able to do so. Those cities include Dover, Delaware, Palm Beach County, Florida, and San Francisco, California. Unfortunately, New York City was not on that list, and could perhaps stand to learn a thing or two from how the other cities listed have budgeted their spending on solid waste management.

Rationale: I think that the economics behind any initiative or program are very important factors to considering when evaluating its feasibility. This article is very relevant to New York City today, in lieu of the recent recession and budget cuts the city is facing. I will use this source to point out the possible difficulties and setbacks that PlaNYC’s solid waste management initiatives, including organic waste recovery – which is dependent on new and costly technologies – may face. Using this article’s points will help me elaborate on what other cities have successfully done to combat budget cuts and point out areas where New York City is possibly flawed in its conceptions. I agree with a lot of the article’s points about what type of departments are more economically stable and think that New York City should definitely consider restructuring the financials of their waste and sanitation departments if it wants the initiatives it outlined in PlaNYC to be practical and timely.

3.     Environmental Protection Agency, “WasteWise Update: Recovering Organic Wastes-Giving Back to Mother Nature.” Last modified September 1999. Accessed April 13, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/smm/wastewise/pubs/wwupda12.pdf.

Summary: This report by the Environmental Protection Agency outlines why organic waste diversion is important and the type of benefits it provides. It states that composting organic materials can reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides, while also helping soil retain water better and talks about how it can help to both prevent and mitigate pollution. The report focuses on a lot of the materials that PlaNYC mentions in its organic recovery initiative, such as yard trimmings and food wastes. It describes in detail popular composting methods such as Static Pile Composting, Aerated Windrow Composting, In-Vessel Composting, and Vermicomposting as well as breaking down the entire composting process. It also goes on to provide a number of examples of how various cities or facilities have been successful in their organic recovery efforts and the methods they used. Kalamazoo County, Michigan, for example, initiated grasscycling – which not only cut costs but also helped to return vital nutrients to the area’s soil. The report also mentions a Cherokee Casino’s successes in food waste composting, and how Tennessee Correctional Facility, when faced with the challenge of cutting costs and reducing its solid waste by 75%, it has turned to composting to organic waste to meet its goals.

Rationale: This report provides helpful additional background into why it is important to recover organic wastes and how they can be useful in preventing and mitigating pollution. In addition, it provides a lot of information and detail about the specifics of common composting methods and processes, which would provide useful background information to both myself and the reader of my paper. The specific examples of successful organic composting that the report lists also serve as good benchmarks and ideas that I will list as potential possibilities for New York City to look into and how the city can adopt the practices the report mentions.

4.     NYC Department of Sanitation: Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling, “Composting in NYC.” Accessed April 13, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/compost/composting_nyc.shtml.

Summary: This NYC government webpage talks about the community programs that NYC has created in order to encourage organics recovery and composting such as the NYC Local Organics Recovery Program, the NYC Department of Sanitation & GrowNYC Food Waste Drop-Off Program, and a School Food Waste Composting Pilot Program. These are all examples of the community outreach programs PlaNYC has promised to initiate, showing that they have indeed moved forward with these plans. The site also gives a basic overview of what exactly compost is, the decomposition process, and the differences between anaerobic decomposition and resulting methane production and managed decomposition such as composting. The page also links to sections that talk about New York City’s composting site at Riker’s Island and its composting process as well as information about community-based compost sites.

Rationale: This website and its related links are an essential resource to my paper as it describes all the local city initiatives the city has taken on specifically in the area of composting and recovering organic materials from its waste. This page not only gives basic overview of what composting is and how it differs from anaerobic decomposition, but it does so in the context of New York City, which in the end is the main focus of my paper. The programs described here are all examples that I will reference when speaking about PlaNYC’s accomplishments so far and how the city has been going about its proposed initiatives.

5.     Bernstad, A., L. Malmquist, C. Truedsson, and J. la Cour Jansen. “Need for improvements in physical pretreatment of source-separated household food waste.” Waste Management. no. 3 (2013): 746-754.

Summary: The study described in this report was based in Sweden with the goal of investigating whether or not more efficient pretreatment of separated solid organic household waste would increase the efficiency of anaerobic digestion and the waste’s overall treatment. Seventeen pretreatment facilities in Sweden were investigated and it was found that the biomass produced in these facilities was of low quality and the maintenance of these facilities was very costly. Four plants, using two different technologies were then tested in relation to resource efficiency. It was found that the plants using dispergator technology, as opposed to screwpress technology, were much more efficient and yielded higher nutrient recovery. This pointed to the conclusion that with improved pretreatment processes, the overall benefits of anaerobic digestion as an alternative for treating organic household waste could improve.

Rationale: While PlaNYC did advocate for the use of on-site dewatering plants and aerobic digestion rather than anaerobic, this study shows an interesting alternative to solid waste management that New York City could perhaps consider. If pretreatment of recovered organics were to improve, then perhaps anaerobic digestion would be a viable alternative for New York City’s treatment of organic waste.

6.     Yoshida, Hiroko, Joshua J. Gable, and Jae K. Park. “Evaluation of organic waste diversion alternatives for greenhouse gas reduction.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling. (2012): 1-9.

Summary: This study, from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the University of Wisconsin, evaluated and analyzed current and proposed organic waste management practices in Madison, Wisconsin, with the eventual goal of achieving zero waste and diverting all its organic wastes from Madison’ s landfill to curb methane and GHG emissions – something PlaNYC is currently trying to do as well. The study assessed four alternatives: windrow composting, high-solids anaerobic digestion, co-digestion at a large-scale industrial waste digester facility and co-digestion at a local wastewater treatment plant, along side the city’s current practice of composting yard waste but disposing the rest of the organic waste into its landfill. Each of these practices seem to be viable options for New York City, since Newton Creek is a wastewater treatment plant that has digester eggs that can potentially be used for anaerobic digestion of organics.  Costs were also a factor in this study, as they are in New York City, and the results showed that co-digestion practices were most favored, as they resulted in the highest GHG emission reductions while saving the most costs. According to the study, these results were also dependent on other factors, however, such as public participation, which New York City has been trying to promote as well. The study concluded by suggesting that the best practice for Madison would be to seek partnership opportunities with regional anaerobic digestion projects while also continuing to promote community awareness and outreach – an option that seems very viable for New York City as well.

Rationale: This study is one of the most relevant ones in relation to New York City and PlaNYC that I have found. Madison, Michigan, the location of this study, has the same goals in mind for its organic waste management as New York City seems to have – reducing GHG emissions while staying as cost-effective as possible. In addition, the alternatives tested in this study also all seem to be viable and practical for New York City to undertake. In addition, the recent time frame during which this study was conducted (March 2012) also contributes to this study’s comparable relevance, since the technologies considered and evaluated are all modern and up-to-date. I will be using the results of this study as a point of suggestion for New York City, comparing what New York City is doing to what has been suggested here. I will be pointing out that just as this study suggests, New York City has increased its community outreach efforts, and also looking at how New York City could put its digester facilities to use for organics recovery.

7.     Pires, Ana, Graca Martinho, and Ni-Bin Chang. “Solid Waste Management in European Countries: A review of systems analysis techniques.” Journal of Environmental Management. no. 4 (2011): 1033-1050.

Summary: This report focuses on current solid waste management practices and principles in the European Union. It outlines a number of the countries’ waste management practices, including those dealing with organics recovery. Policy changes such as the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste promote GHG emission reductions through diversion from landfills and organic compost as a source of fertilizer for soil as instead of mineral fertilizers. The report also mentions some economic incentives EU countries have created such as pay-as-you-throw plans and an organic waste tax to incentivize residents to divert organics from regular waste streams, which I found to be an interesting idea.

Rationale: This report provides an insight into how other countries have dealt with issues of waste management, and gave a few fresh and interesting perspectives and ideas that could perhaps be applied to New York City. I liked the idea of economic incentives that the EU has been using and will reference this report when proposing some possible alternatives for New York City. Some cities in Europe are just as urban and congested as New York City, so I think their solid waste management practices are a fair and relevant comparison to New York, and it is always interesting to have a new perspective on worldwide issues such as this one.

Who’s city is it, anyway?

Posted on April 7, 2013 by Yana Manevich

Both Anderson and Frug agree that ‘right to the city’ and ability to foster change is in the hands of a city’s inhabitants. Both articles provide their own suggestions and ideas for how city dwellers can take back their cities (utilizing previously empty spaces for example, as Anderson points out). To a degree, it seems that New York City in recent years has tried revive itself and give more of itself back to its inhabitants – with projects such as the Highline, for example. Do you think New York City is doing a good job at giving the “right of the city” back to it’s citizens? As a New York City inhabitant, is there anything you would like to be done to enhance your own right to the city? And finally, who’s “right” should New York City focus on? The city has a very diverse population, with different needs and wants. Who’s “right” should New York City give in to? Students? Minority Groups? 9-5 urbanites? Can there be a happy medium?

A Timeline of Solid Waste Management in New York City

Posted on March 17, 2013 by Yana Manevich

1881 – The New York City Department of Street Cleaning (now called the Department of Sanitation) is formed. This department was tasked with taking over the responsibility of waste collection and street cleaning previously held by the Police Department. (NYCWasteless – History)

1885 – America’s first incinerator is built on Governor’s Island. Throughout the next century, incinerators would be the main source of waste management in New York City, burning almost 1/3 of the city’s trash. (Martin)

1895 – George Waring became the Commissioner of the Department of Street Cleaning (now Dept. of Sanitation) and put into action a waste management plan that made ocean dumping illegal and mandated recycling efforts. Prior to Waring, 75% of New York City’s waste was dumped into the Atlantic Ocean.  As part of Waring’s initiative, household waste was separated into three distinct categories and dealt with accordingly: (a) Food Waste was steamed and compressed to produce grease and fertilizer; (b) Rubbish from which paper and other materials were recovered; and (c) Ash, which was landfilled along with nonmarketable rubbish. This becomes New York City’s first recycling program. (NYCWasteless – History)

1905 – In a revolutionary step in waste-to-energy, New York City began using a garbage incinerator to generate electricity and light the Williamsburg Bridge. (History)

1918 – Labor and materials shortages as a result of World War I led to a halt in New York’s recycling programs, as the Federal Government started the Waste Reclamation Service. During the next couple decades, the Department of Sanitation built and operated 22 incinerators and 89 landfills. (NYCWasteless – History)

Early 1930’s – The first mass-production trash collection trucks with built-in compactors are introduced, increasing vehicle capacity and efficiency while also allowing for easier waste transportation to more distant areas. (Rotten)

1934 – After communities in New Jersey obtain a court order to stop New York from dumping waste into the Atlantic Ocean, the Supreme Court upholds this action, but only as it applies to municipal (public) waste, not commercial or industrial. (Rotten)

1947 – The Fresh Kills Landfill is opened in Staten Island. Originally meant to be a temporary solution, it covered over 2000 acres of land and at one point was the largest landfill in the world. (Miller)

1965 – The Solid Waste Disposal Act is enacted, becoming the first federal solid waste management law. The act’s focus is to promote and provide assistance in research and development for improved waste management techniques. (Rotten)

1970 – The Federal Resource Recovery Act amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act, shifting its focus from disposal to recycling and reuse of recoverable and organic materials in solid waste and the conversion of waste to energy. (History)

1970 – The Federal Clean Air act is enacted, leading to incinerator shutdowns because they did not meet new emission guidelines. (Rotten)

1970  – The United States Environmental Protection Agency is established by President Nixon, with a goal to “protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment”. National waste management issues fall under their responsibility. (EPA)

1978 – After it’s review of the Philadelphia vs. New Jersey case, in which New Jersey refused to accept waste from Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled that waste is protected by the Interstate Commerce Clause and therefore one state cannot ban shipments of waste from another. This was an important ruling for New York City’s waste management policies, considering that to this day we still ship our waste across state lines. (Rotten)

1979 – The EPA issued guidelines making open dumping in landfills illegal. (History)

1987 – The Mobro 4000, a barge from Long Island carrying 6,000 tons of garbage is rejected by six different states and 3 countries (US, Belize and Mexico). After 173 days, it is incinerated in Brooklyn, New York and the ash brought to a landfill in Long Island, but extensive media coverage of this incident made it a symbol for limited landfill capacity, especially in the New York area. (History)

1989 – Archaeologist William Rathje discovers 18-year old corn on the cob that is still intact in an Arizona landfill, confirming the lack of biodegradation in some types of landfills (History)

1994 – New York City’s last municipal incinerator closes amid EPA emission standards and growing pollution concerns. (Rotten)

Late 1990’s – Only remaining New York City landfill in operation was Fresh Kills, where all of the city’s disposable waste went via barges from a network of marine transfer stations run by the city (PlaNYC)

1999 – New York City’s last waste incinerator is torn down, marking the end of an era of incineration as a way of managing waste in New York City (Martin)

2001 ­– Fresh Kills, the last remaining landfill in New York City was closed. This was the first time that New York City had no place within the five boroughs to bury or burn it’s garbage. The city began sending most of its waste to private transfer stations in neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens the Bronx to be exported, and recycling or composting the rest. (Martin)

2006 – New York City adopts the long-term Solid Waste Management Plan aimed at developing less hazardous, cheaper approaches to exporting New York City’s garbage. The SWMP also hopes to minimize the impacts of this waste management system on over-burdened outer-borough neighborhoods by establishing transfer stations for residential wastesheds in every borough and reduce traffic congestion and air pollution by increasing the use of rail and barge transport as a means of exporting the city’s waste instead of trucking it thousands of miles. (PlaNYC)

2007 – Mayor Bloomberg releases the comprehensive PlaNYC, a sustainability effort looking ahead to 2030 and aimed at preparing New York City for future population growth, climate change, etc. The plan includes a detailed section on solid waste managements with a number of initiatives that include targeting recycling incentives, creating opportunities to recover organic materials from waste, with goals of increasing diversion from landfills by 75%, reducing GHG emissions by 1 million metric tons, and improve the overall efficiency of New York City’s waste management system. (PlaNYC)

2010  – New York City, in partnership with Sims Metal Management announced the inception of a new recycling facility to be built at the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal in Sunset Park, Brooklyn that will include processing and storing buildings and reduce our reliance on vehicle waste transportation by using barges at the Marine Terminal. The city has invested over $48 million into the project. (PlaNYC)

2012 – As of January 2012, 32% of New York City’s waste is transported out of the city via rail, 23% by Department of Sanitation collection truck, and 45% by long-haul truck. Once the 2006 SWMP takes effect, New York City estimates that 41% of garbage will be exported by rail, 12% by collection truck and 47% by barge. (Cohen)

2013 – Construction on the recycling facility in South Brooklyn is expected to be completed and the facility operational by June 2013. (NYCWasteless – Material)

2017 – By this year, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he hopes to have doubled residential and institutional waste diversion from landfills from 15% to 30%. (Cohen)

Works Cited:

Cohen, Steven. “NYC Takes the Garbage Out.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

“EPA History.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

“History of Solid Waste Management.” Environmentalistseveryday.org. Environmental Industry Associations: NSWMA & WASTEC, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

Martin, Douglas. “City’s Last Waste Incinerator Is Torn Down.” The New York Times [New York] 8 May 1999: n. pag. Web.

Miller, Benjamin. Fat of the Land: Garbage in New York : The Last Two Hundred Years. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2000. 233. Print.

“NYCWasteLess: A Material Recovery Facility Grows in Brooklyn.” NYC.gov. City of New York, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

“NYCWasteLess: History of NYC Recycling.” NYC.gov. City of New York, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

PlaNYC 2030 – The Plan – Solid Waste Management. Rep. City of New York, 2011. Web.

“Rotten Truth (About Garbage): Garbage Timeline.” ASTC.org. Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated & Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

Engage: Best Waste Conservation Route for NYC?

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Yana Manevich

In “Incinerators in Disguise”, a number of proposals and case studies for new waste conservation technologies are mentioned from around the world – each with their own pros and cons. However, none of the technologies mentioned have to do with the New York City area. After reading the New York City Department of Sanitation’s Request for New and Emerging Solid Waste Management Technology, based on some of the technical, NYC-specific information mentioned in the request and the examples of existing new technologies mentioned in “Incinerators in Disguise”, which, if any, of these technologies do you think would be a good fit for New York City? What characteristics should a NYC-specific solid waste management technology proposal have?

Memo 1: PlaNYC’s initiatives on solid waste management

Posted on February 13, 2013 by Yana Manevich

To: Professor MacBride

From: Yana Manevich, Michelle Guo, Sean Proctor

Date: February 13, 2013

RE: Research Proposal – PlaNYC on solid waste management

For our research project, our group is interested in delving deeper into PlaNYC’s sustainability initiatives, specifically in the area of solid waste management. Since there are three of us in the group, each of us will tackle one or two of the specific initiatives regarding solid waste management mentioned in the plan, and then work together to see how these initiatives come together to meet the city’s sustainability goals. We will learn about what the city plans to do to deal with this growing issue, track what the city’s progress thus far has been, and what setbacks it has experienced or can potentially experience. Our multi-part research question, therefore, is “Under PlaNYC – what specific initiatives has the city undertaken to address issues of solid waste management? Has there been any progress in this area since the conception of this plan? Has the city run into any economic, legal, or social setbacks (i.e. public resistance) in trying to carry out these initiatives?”

In conducting our research, we initially plan to consult the PlaNYC official government page – http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml – where we will read through the solid waste section of the report that the city has published and try to narrow our research down by selecting a specific initiative or two for each person to focus on. From there, we will do background research on the proposals of each specific initiative to learn more about it. We will also consult the various progress reports that the city has periodically published regarding their efforts to see whether they have been on track with their goals, what sort of problems they have run into, and their plans for dealing with those setbacks. We also plan to look through scientific journals and Baruch’s scientific databases to find outside professional opinions on either the particular methods of solid waste management mentioned in the initiatives or on the initiative as a whole to get a well-rounded view of the issues.

Comments by Yana Manevich

"I think the "greening of the MTA" is a great example and step towards what New York City as a whole should be doing in order to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. The MTA is a huge part of our city's transportation and infrastructure and it is definitely in need of some "greening". The MTA sustainability report outlines a number of initiatives they are planning to take on that will help mitigate their emissions, become more energy-efficient, and increase carbon avoidance, which are all steps in the right direction. In fact, I think that through these initiatives, we may see our city grow technologically and make use of AI in an environmentally conscious context - perhaps using these technologies to somehow help us mitigate and adapt to climate change. I definitely think that Hurricane Sandy was a wake up call for many New Yorkers in regards to the realities of climate change and that now more than ever, we need to take action and I definitely think that all this talk about new technologies and artificial intelligence can be put to great use in this area."
--( posted on Mar 16, 2013, commenting on the post How Green Technology/Infrastructure Can Combat Climate Changes )
 
"I completely agree with your notion that a proper foundation is key in any structure or system, especially one as significant as the MTA. Unfortunately, the MTA had failed initially to create a sustainable foundation and is paying the price for it now. I do think that the comprehensive sustainability report issued by the MTA is a step in the right direction regarding necessary changes and upgrades to their dated systems. However, it does feel that they may be "getting ahead of themselves" a bit, as you put it, with most of their concerns and plans focusing on emission reductions, carbon reductions, renewable energy integration, and more 'green' projects, which although very important, may not be the most pressing issue they are facing at the moment. I think this dilemma once again goes back to the mitigation vs. adaptation question, and while the MTA should be applauded for introducing a number of mitigation efforts in this report, I do think they are overlooking a strong need for the adaptation of their underlying structures, especially in the wake of the damage done by Sandy. It is obvious that New York's subway system is outdated, susceptible to flooding and in need of an overhaul. Sandy caused major damage when it hit and resulted in almost a week-long recovery process, which a city so dependent on public transportation simply cannot afford. I think the MTA's best bet would be to hold off on mitigation efforts until they have adaptation covered, and until they have a strong enough foundation to sustain themselves in case another storm hits sometime in the near future. Regarding Artificial Intelligence, the article points out a major difference between an uncontrolled intelligence explosion and a controlled intelligence explosion, and I think that is a key factor in whether AI is a good idea. If 'controlled' from the start - built with a strong foundation, backups, etc. - I think that AI could only benefit our way of life. However, like you said, it is important not to rush into things, as the MTA unfortunately did when they were first creating our subway systems. It is scary to think what could result from an uncontrolled AI failure similar to one of the MTA during Sandy but on a larger scale, but just like a proper foundation could have prevented so much damage to the MTA, a proper foundation and structure for our AI systems could do the same."
--( posted on Mar 16, 2013, commenting on the post Oops it’s not my week to post a question :( )
 
"Hi Professor. I will be focusing on Initiative #6 in the Solid Waste section of PlaNYC, which focuses on creating additional opportunities to recover organic materials from our waste. I will be focusing on residential organics, commercial foodwastes and biosolids, just as PlaNYC does. I plan to research the various techniques New York City, among other cities, has been using to separate and filter waste and tracking the city's progress since the conception of the initiative."
--( posted on Feb 19, 2013, commenting on the post Memo 1: PlaNYC’s initiatives on solid waste management )
 
"I think that Yohe and Leichenko's risk management approach - which consists of a mix of risk mitigation and adaptation - is a reasonable response to the facts and figures about the reality of New York City as a result of climate change that Hortong's report illustrates. Hortong gives a number of daunting projections about the future of New York City - with examples of increased rain storms, temperature fluctuations, and much more. He writes, "future climate change for the New York City region is projected for mean annual temperature and precipitation, heat waves, intense downpours and droughts, sea level rise, and coastal flooding events" and goes on to warn that long-term measures should be taken now to prepare for these extreme events. Yohe & Leichenko's risk management approaches seem to outline those long-term measures and plans that Hortong calling upon us to take. I think that Yohe & Leichenko's strongest argument is their argument that any long-term sustainability measures should be a mix of adaptation and mitigation. We cannot undo what's been done, and as Hortong points out, extreme climates changes are imminent, which means that we need to create contingency plans to deal with them before we can even think about mitigation strategies. Before the next Hurricane Sandy hits, we should have more generators, more barricades, more resources on hand ready to deal with something of this magnitude, and only once we have such measures in place can we move forward with efforts to prevent future events down the line."
--( posted on Feb 10, 2013, commenting on the post Risk Management in New York City )
 
"The message in Horton's report is clear - climate change is real, it's happening, and there is evidence of it all around us. Specifically focusing on New York City, he sites examples of severe temperature fluctuations, sea level rises and drastic changes in precipitation (the latter two of which have been clearly exemplified during the recent Hurricane Sandy). His analysis gives off a pressing sense of urgency, yet as Norgaard points out, that urgency is often either not felt or not acted upon by the general public. I can strongly relate to the psychological sentiments that Norgaard attributes to our apathy regarding this issue; particularly fear and hopelessness. After the recent Hurriane Sandy, I (along with a number of friends I spoke to) couldn't help but wonder if extreme natural disasters such as this and Hurricane Katrina would soon become the norm and what that would mean for our society as a whole. What would happen if every year or so, before we had the chance to rebuild from the last one, another huge storm hit - disrupting our lives, our markets, our schooling? The fear Norgaard talks about is definitely there, but it is also coupled with the sense of helplessness he mentions. It's hard to imagine that my carrying a reusable shopping bag or using a 'green' product would do even the tiniest bit to alleviate our problem, and as one of the student's in Norgaard's work pointed out - since corporations and big industries are the ones contributing most to our carbon footprint, it seems like they are the only ones who can do something to help erase it. While I don't know much about the issue to propose any meaningful solutions, I do think there are a few things that can be done to help push climate change into the forefronts of our minds. For example, going back to Hortong's report - there is so much information there about the reality of the situation and what it could mean for the future of New York City and other cities like it, but it is buried under confusing facts and figures about GHG emissions or GCM simulations - something which the average American (myself included) has a hard time grasping. Chances are that most Americans will never see Hortong's report, and even if they do, will not understand it. If we make literature about the effects of climate change more user-friendly and accessible, perhaps more people would understand the urgency of the situation. Of course, there are a number of other things the government, for example, can do to encourage our participation. Incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies to businesses who make an effort to be "greener" would definitely make a difference, for example. But first and foremost, in my opinion, is education the public. The more we know, the more we can do."
--( posted on Feb 10, 2013, commenting on the post Climate Change: Why Do American’s Ignore it? )