Author: Dana Frenkel

Masdar City is environmentalists’ utopia. Except everything is not perfect. One looming critique is that city’s funding comes from oil and gas exports revenue that are responsible for fueling greenhouse gas emissions across the world. They are ironically building a city supported by other environmental hazards. This reminded me of our class discussion the other day on whether it is reasonable to fund decomposable bags research with money earned from plastic fines.

I appreciate that the project attempts to control and incorporate so many environmental features at once. However, at the same time, the fact that an entirely new city has to be constructed does not make it a feasible role model, as it is an unattainable feat for most cities. It would almost be better if they were to incorporate adjustments that other places around the world could emulate. The article admits that even a whole new city will only have a marginal affect on the damage. This concept is also defeating, because it minimizes the impact each person can have.

One thing I really appreciated that Masdar Institute of Science and Technology (MIST) is one of the focal points of this project. Building is not enough; education and innovation must be part of the process. In this way Masdar can be a leading player in sustainability. The city itself will provide 800 full time students with hands on learning, by participating in the Masdar City’s construction.

Jut today, an interview was published with the Dr Belhoul, the CEO of Masdar. He explained that that those before him, including his grandmother, lived sustainable lifestyles, however, as the place became wealthy from oil they no longer emphasized sustainable living. This is a similar reality in places all over the world. The more resources we have, the more we abuse them and get caught up in luxury. With all its downfalls, let’s appreciate that sustainability is still on the public agenda…

Once again, this article shows the gap between the public’s thoughts and actions. In theory, 57% of consumers are in favor of Plastic-bag ban,” but continue to use them out of sheer practicality. While I understand and support the law, I believe it is naive in underestimating consumers’ value of convenience. Especially in New York, time is money and people do not wish to be thrown off schedule or inconvenienced. Although plastic bags may seem petty, they play a functional role in everyday grocery shopping. In my family, groceries are bought in bulk and carrying the bags from the supermarket to the car to the house is already a tedious job. More so, people who stop by the grocery store on their way home from work or school are most probably not carrying spare bags on them. If the law ought to be effective, it must provide official and accessible alternatives. This study focuses more on ways to decrease usage and overlooks replacement options. At the end, it briefly mentions that government should subsidize and reduce or remit taxes on research for degradable shopping bag made out of suitable substitutes material; however, this will take time and is therefore not a concrete option at this point.

On another note, I agreed with the article that “Plastic-bag ban” success is dependent on effective publicity by policy-makers. Like everything these days, the law must be properly marketed. The public must not view it as a repressive policy meant to interfere with their every day lives, but a movement towards healthier lives for all. As of then, many were unaware of the ban’s purpose. Some mistakenly assume it is meant to cut merchant’s packaging costs. The first step is to educate consumers and assist them in gaining environmental literacy, so that they begin to see the large impact the overall policy and even their personal contributions would have on the environment.

I was proud to learn that NYC is at the forefront of green infrastructure and climate change adaption. However, we are not all in yet. This article centers on the fact that New York has failed to implement community gardens in its plans. Without any prior knowledge, I would assume that gardens have aesthetic and lifestyle benefits and are a clever way to bring community members together. Also, based off of our class discussions, community gardens seem like an effective way to expose more people to nature on the daily. After learning  the sewage benefits in this article, I really wondered why NYC failed to implement them thus far. Although land is scarce, rooftop farms are viable options. My only initial concern is how these gardens survive during the winter, which in New York is a big portion of the year. Is the storm water management still as effective?

In reality, NYC does mention community farms, but in relation to food production, youth employment, and environmental education, not storm water managements. If the city opens its eyes to the benefits and categorizes community gardens as green infrastructures, it would merit as well as all those who look towards the city as a beacon. But first, NYC must take notes from other countries and even cities in the United States. In particular, I appreciated California’s hands on approach. The state passed a law that permits cities to provide tax breaks in exchange for urban agriculture, as an incentive to private property owners. After studying environmental issues in NYC, it has become clear that the general public and even the government are often unaware of all things related to the environment. And even after being told of benefits and hazards they still seem to ignore the matter altogether. Therefore, incentivizing is the best strategy until people come to realize and appreciate the benefits on their own.

Once again, the authors point to the fact that people constantly focus on ways to treat problems, often with costly methods, rather than preventing them altogether. This is the case particularly with stress related illnesses. Anxious people are quick to pop pills to relieve their tension, rather than taking the time to stop the anxiety from even coming into existence. While at this point in my life it is difficult for me to move to the suburbs, the article had me project myself into the future and really question where I would consider living hereon after. The thought that living in the suburbs could decrease stress is enticing. However, it is important to remember that it does not come automatically. While looking at greenery from your window can be helpful, the study showed that is necessary to stay outside for a minimum of 15 minutes in order to achieve vitality. I actually find that it is more effortless to spend time outside in Manhattan. Without a car, I am constantly walking everywhere, compared to the suburbs where the mentality is mainly to drive. Just like a dog needs to go for its daily walk, we do too. Yet for some reason, we are not as insistent on it. Perhaps owning a dog is a clever way to encourage oneself to spend time outdoors.

A major preventive factor in New York is the cold weather. During the summer and even spring, Central Park, Union Square, Washington Square Park etc. are overwhelmingly packed. It is often difficult to find a place to sit down. People clearly appreciate the outdoors, just in warm and pleasant weather. The need for indoor green spaces became obvious to me. After some research, I discovered the Ford Foundation Building, which is an office space built in 1968 located in Midtown Manhattan. It was the first large tree-filled atrium in New York City and set the precedent. From my limited knowledge, it does not seem the trend has picked up, although with the winter approaching, I plan on checking it out soon…

Hey everyone!

Here’s the link:

World Trade Center- Preliminary Observations on EPA’s Second Program to Address Indoor Contamination

You can skip the section on the first page titled “What GAO Found.”

Looking forward!

Dana

Through analyzing New York City’s waste, this article encompasses many issues we’ve discussed in class. The so called “garbage problem” has led to noise pollution, sound pollution, air pollution, and highlights New Yorkers’ carelessness and the governments incompetence in addressing the situation.

A natural first step to address the problem is to recycle. The article points fingers at the government for sending mixed signals, as for example there are much more public wastebaskets than recycling bins. I believe the government could take more serious measures to enforce recycling rather than simply encouraging it. In my house, we recycled bottles and after they failed to consistently be picked up, we stopped separating the trash out of frustration and inconvenience.

What I found most interesting is the fact that we focus so much on dealing with the garbage, as oppose to stopping it from even coming into existence. To begin with, New Yorkers could attempt to be less wasteful. Walshe argues that a lot of waste comes from NYC take out. While I do not think that the concept of taking out food is within itself wasteful, I believe Walshe is pointing to all the excess wrapping, plastic etc. that is generated through take out. If only restaurants were more conscious of their material use, the problem could be lessened. Even using dishes over disposable utensils and plates could go a long way in relieving garbage.

I appreciated Walshe’s closing remarks, “instead of having a sigh of relief that our backyard was not chosen as the site for the latest garbage processing facility, we should start recognizing that when we throw something away, it does not go away, it just ends up in somebody else’s backyard.” New Yorkers generally have the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. When the garbage is taken away, out of their hands they are oblivious to its impact. However, Walshe touches on the fact that even when people perceive the waste as a threat, they still tend to be passive and act in oblivion.

This initiative is really spot-on! The playground project accomplishes many objectives in one. In the past, the park would always get flooded by storms and create severe water pollution and disabling children from playing in it. There was also no trees or greenery. And like most New Yorkers, the students were uneducated and or disengaged with nature.

The Trust for Public Land and the city’s Department of Environmental Protection’s joint effort addressed all these issues in one shot. A few days after the playground opened, there was a two-inch rainstorm completely absorbed into the ground. New trees provide shade and along with plants absorb carbon dioxide. Also, as we mentioned on Monday, greenery has proven to ease levels of anxiety and stress and perhaps even improve ones memory. With those results in mind, schools would be an important place to plant in. I especially appreciated the project’s educational factor. Students experienced hands on learning, understanding which plants and materials are most effective against sewage overflow. After learning about a playground, students gained a deeper understanding of their surroundings and perhaps began to associate education with fun. I also believe the students were empowered by making environmental and even financial decisions on their very own park.

While further researching the topic, I stumbled upon a POV article that agrees with many classmates’ call for more “free” and less structured outdoor playtime. The author brings in two examples, the first a documentary The Land, where Welsh children freely play with hammers, and other sharp tools, creating their own rules and gaining control over their environment. The children are happy and at one with nature. Similarly,

In Amy Fusselman’s book Savage Park, she reflects on her positive memories of playing in the junk playgrounds in Tokyo. She argues that Americans sacrifice impactful experiences out of risk avoidance (http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/September-2015/New-City-Playgrounds-Explore-Undirected-Play/). While allowing for more independent play may be beneficial, New York’s playground initiative is a great step towards bringing education outdoors.

As a stressed and anxious person, this study really caught my attention. New Yorkers are not just all coincidentally more uptight and faster paced than calmer agricultural states; New Yorkers are conditioned by their urban environment. There is more to just a pretty view. Natural landscapes have a restorative effect. Most people recognize that they are calmer by the ocean or in outdoor environments, yet they fail to see it is a daily necessity. Many pay extra money for a room with a view, but refuse to invest more money into greenery that can more valuably enhance their everyday life. Nature does not have to only be associated with vacation. It is something that can be easily implemented into urban lifestyles.

Baruch, among other colleges, should invest in indoor greenery, such as plants. It might seem silly at first, but the effects appear to be so apparent that its almost more silly not to. It then occurred to me that I’ve been to a few doctors’ offices that had plants in the waiting room. I wonder if they are placed there with any intention of soothing anxious patients. I was specially intrigued by the fact that a photograph of a natural landscape even activates the parasympathetic nervous system and lessens stress. However, this in a way disappointed me, because it is an easy out of investing in urban greenery.

This study brought me to consider other research questions. I am curious to as how New York college students stress levels differ to those on campus colleges with beautiful lawns and walkways. Although, the study did mention that these impacts have a greater affect on older people, which is perhaps why they generally tend to appreciate views more. Also, can certain types of businesses, like the stock exchange, only thrive in uptight urban environments? Do such atmospheres prove beneficial at all?

I really appreciate Adams mesh of the science and social science worlds. Using his psychological expertise, Adams attempts to resolve environmental issues, calling for a change of attitude in mindset. Our actions reflect our inner-attitudes. We are the ones who created the problem, and so we are the ones who can alter it through a change of consciousness.

One of the major problems is human egoism. However it is important to realize that this has great effect on all human interactions, not just nature. We seek dominance over everything- people, nations, and animals and vegetation. Instead of looking out for the weak, we view them as an opportunity to conquer. Just as Adams mentions that we know about extinction, but do not actually comprehend its full meaning, because of lack of contact, this is also the case with how humans react to the death of someone they never knew. In both instances, people can go about their day without actually internalizing the tragic impact. This is clearly a deep and prevalent issue. Its time we give just a little more thought to our actions, try to take in the situation at hand and its consequence, and then maybe just maybe we can act better towards our fellow humans and nature.

An additional problem is that humans see themselves apart from nature, asking questions like why should we spend money on conserving species when people are suffering, when in reality we are interconnected. We must come to realize that the well being of one results in the wellbeing of others.

Another psychological issue, which Adams did not really touch on, is a short-term mentality. America and Spain both rank low on a their ability to think in the long term and not coincidentally their environmental efforts.

This first step to making progress clearly does not require financial resources. We are all capable of it, if we really put our minds to it.

When I read that solar thermal technology provides renewable, emissions-free, cost-efficient alternative, can create jobs, and have positive economic impacts, I was sold on the proposal. Of course, I later found out and honestly assumed that there was a financial factor holding people back from installing these systems. There is also lack of awareness and knowledge on them. While we students may be incapable of fixing the financial issue, if we educate ourselves on the topic, spreading the word can go a long way in the installation of more solar thermals.

This study provides building owners with valuable information on the subject. Some things to keep in mind are that it’s important to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and alter the plan depending on various factors if necessary. This is clear based on site #2 16 years payback period (comparing to others five or six years and even one month), which could have been easily shortened if only more research was done and thought through beforehand. Low buildings, roof space with unobstructed southern-facing exposure, and large consistent hot water loads have proven most effective.

After reading this article, I was curious to how exactly these solar thermals operate. So I decided to share what I found:

How a Solar Water-Heating System Works

• 1) Solar thermal collectors (panels) on a roof, shade structure or other location absorb solar energy.
• 2) Solar fluid circulated through the collectors by a low-energy pump delivers heat to a water storage tank.
• 3) When users need hot water, the solar-heated water in the storage tank pre-feeds the primary water-heating system.

4) When pre-fed with the solar hot water, the boiler or water heater is either not activated, or activated for less time than if there were no solar hot water system.(http://sunwatersolar.com/solar-thermal/what-is-solar-thermal)

The process seems natural and easy. This reminded me of McCully’s rant against technology. Sometimes we use technology to overcomplicate things and in fact destruct our environment, when a much more plausible solution, on many accounts, exists right before us. I say, simple should be the new new.