Author: Dana Frenkel

Connecticut Valley is home to thousands of fossils bearing dinosaur impressions left in the sediments. Dinosaurs left their footprints in mud, which filled with sand or small pebbles and eventually hardened into rock. Millions of years later, erosion brought them to surface level and made them accessible to us.

Unfortunately, fossil bones are difficult to interpret and only provide a vague idea of what once existed. However, these fossils capture what certain dinosaurs were doing at a given time, an immediacy that is unparalleled with fossil bones. Paleontologists were able to deduce dinosaurs’ speed, which dinosaurs traveled in herds, that some herds kept their youth in the middle of migrating packs, or that when dinosaurs walked their tails did not drag on the floor. Foots prints close together indicate that the dinosaur was running and the opposite for when a dinosaur was walking. Even so, Dr. Donald Baird points to ecological limitations and mistakes in preservation that he believes falsely attribute tracks to prosauropods because of their abundance of fossil bones in the area, and dismissing other dinosaur possibilities just because their fossil bones are not found there.

When scientists discover fossils they record all of its features, including the track orientation, shape, geological setting, especially while the fossil is still in the ground. This process reminded me of how plants are documented in the Botanical Gardens. Seeing how much can be learnt from million year old dinosaur fossils, made me really recognize and appreciate all of the plant documentation efforts.

Lithology: (a) The study of rocks

(b) The character of a rock formation; also :  a rock form having a particular set of characteristics

Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating):

Technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they formed. Radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.

Last class, we questioned the U.S. or specifically the New York and New Jersey governments, wondering how they allow people to build and reside in high-risk areas? Shouldn’t they practice eminent domain or retreat development in coastal areas? However, Botzen and Aerts shed light on the fact that there are 252 “vital infrastructures, ” including schools, police stations, and power plants in 1/100 flood zone and even NYC subways are vulnerable to serious flood damage. With that being said, how can we expect the government to exert control over residents when their own infrastructures are in irresponsible locations? A city has never preemptively retreated in such a highly populated and developed area such as New York City. Such an act would angrily displace so many homeowners, and interfere with the economy and transportation. Also, sewer and transit systems would remain below ground regardless.

However, this does not call for stagnation. There are other measures that could be taken to minimize environmental hazards. While I agree that everyone should protect themselves with insurance, it is less of a preventive measure and more of a superficial measure. Yes, it will prevent individuals from spending less money, but the same damage will still occur. The problem must be addressed more deeply.

I was surprised to learn that NFIP buildings standards or FEMA flood maps do not address climate change, leaving people unprepared for future floods. Therefore, building code and insurance regulations should apply to buildings based on future projections of flood zones that could potentially affect them in their lifetime. This policy change would perhaps serve as a warning to owners that their building is in danger. Fear accompanied by action could go a long way in mending the problem. If society begins to fear potential floods enough to sell or not to purchase a building in vulnerable flood zones, real estate would eventually become less desirable and valuable, and new projects deterred. Unfortunately, humans do this odd thing where they prioritize luxury, materialism, or short-term pleasures before their own wellbeing. That is why people smoke, visit tanning salons, cheat, and live near vulnerable waterfronts.

When I first started reading this chapter, I immediately thought, “finally humans- Europeans, Indians etc.- aren’t the ones to blame. It’s all natures fault!” Sure enough, McCully opened the debate as to whether these weather shifts are natural or a result global warming, which humans are in part responsible for. Change is an inevitable aspect of nature, however, human activity has been escalating the rate of change. It is not just human activity that is the problem, but our very existence that is throwing off nature. Now that we’ve come to this realization, where do we go from here? After all, “Unfortunately, a change in thinking [does] not [necessarily] translate into effective actions” (158). Just because we recognize there is a problem, and have identified ourselves as the source of the problem, it is not enough to stop there. Further action must be taken.

McCully suggests reflecting back on the past – what worked and more so what did not work. Even with all its changes, weather by “nature” (pun intended) has somewhat natural patterns for its “exceptions.” Although McCully criticizes humans’ attachment to technology, as some sort of god that can heal all, it is important to thoughtfully take advantage of technology and all the data it provides us with. With technology, we can efficiently project the past onto the future. For example, this book was published in 2007, five years prior to Hurricane Sandy. Yet at the time the book was written, McCully was able to predict such a storm would badly hit Long Island, based on calculations of the tidal surge and analysis of past storms.

However, one of the downfalls to technology is that when we depend too much on it is easy to overlook simple conclusions. This proved true, for example, in West Hampton Beach, where residents insisted on building homes and groins, even after they told it was bound to fail them. As expected, the Halloween northeaster 1991 and three northeasters of 1992-1993 destroyed their beaches and blew 32 million government dollars. Science or technology was not needed to avoid such chaos, just some common sense.

While reading this article, I appreciated Rowe’s realistic attitude, weighing out the costs and benefits of green roofs. It is clear that green roofs can provide many services, but they are costly. Also, for example, a garden with high levels of fertilizer could cause water pollution. When addressing one problem, it is important not to lose sight of others or the potential consequences that could occur. We do not live in a vacuum and therefore almost everything has a chain reaction. Kosareo and Ries’s cost benefit analysis took into account “environmental impacts of the fabrication, transportation, installation, operation, maintenance, and disposal of a conventional ballasted roof, an extensive roof, and an intensive roof” (2108). There is clearly a lot to consider on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, Rowe suggests that an interdisciplinary team work together to address the entire picture from different lenses.

I believe what really stands in our way is humans short-term perspective, or lack of long-term projections. We may come to the conclusion that green roofs are our best bet, yet we will fail to implement them because the benefits are not immediate. Green roofs could have a lifespan of over 45 years compared to conventional roofs 20 years, but we stop ourselves since green roofs require more money upfront. This is similar to people’s attitude towards solar panels. However, unlike solar panels that are considered an eye soar, green roofs can actually be aesthetically pleasing and make use of wasted space!

McCully presents two contrasting views on technology’s presence in chapters 6 and 7. In chapter 7, she criticizes “European’s invasive technology (that) changed the face of land” (103). Putting aside the word invasive negative connotation, technology has the potential to change the land…for good or bad and unfortunately in this case for bad, as technology welcomed alien species and destroyed entire ecosystems. However in chapter 6, technology is applauded for its restoration of the region’s waterway through modern sewage systems. With such technology comes significant responsibility and high expectations.

During Hurricane Sandy, Long Island had the largest sewage release in its the history. It was one of the most expensive effects of Hurricane Sandy, costing billions of dollars. The sewage plants are supposed to remove solid wastes, toxins, and bacteria before it is dumped into the ocean. If not for these plants, the raw sewage goes directly into the waterways. Unfortunately, during the storm over 6 New York sewage plants were shut down. Millions of gallons of raw sewage flowed into waterways and some of my friends had sewage backup in their homes.

The counties were much to blame. Nassau County constituents had long complained about the sewage systems, before the hurricane when there was already an apparent need for renovation. Almost all facilities in New York are by sea level, which make them vulnerable to surges. Also, these plants were built many years ago to serve a smaller population. Even the sewage system struggled to keep up with the people’s high demand. With all the being said, the local government still had a responsibility to its people to update the sewage equipment. Nassau County was in fact fined $1.5 million for illegally pumping around 3.5 million gallons of sewage into East Rockaway Channel and for other violations as well.

A few major lessons can be learnt from this particular event. Technology can be our biggest ally, but like a friend we cannot neglect it. It is not enough to put the system in place and fail to maintain it. A downside to technology is that it is often very expensive. However, officials must recognize it as worthwhile investment, considering the direct impact the environment has on its people. In the early twentieth century, fecal matter polluted the water and as a result many died of typhoid and dysentery from exposure to the water or from eating the contaminated fish. Unfortunately, incidences like this often reoccur.

People are clearly affected by the environments deterioration. They are also even aware of the adverse consequences, however, they are almost helpless without the government’s assistance. The government must not only keep up with its equipment, but it must also enact necessary laws. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Clean Air act of 1972 are good examples of such. These acts raised the nation’s environmental standards and started to reverse the pollution in regional waters.

A third take away is that, as already mentioned in class, we are overpopulated! It is not enough that we take up a lot of space, but even our garbage takes up a lot of space. More so, as technology progresses, we produce durable and easy to use materials like plastic, tin, synthetics that are not biodegradable and only add to the waste. At the same time, technology allows us to consume less with things such as digitization. Nowadays, we prefer the instant digital versions of things to their physical items. By also consolidating, for example all our music and or books on a single gadget or smartphone, we lessen our environmental footprint. Unfortunately, the impact will not be felt if we continue to over consume and constantly update our phones and other devices. Let’s stop blaming technology for the earth’s deterioration- with or without technology, it is regardless up to us to act responsibly.

 

 

Aristotle famously distinguished humans from animals and plants based on our ability to rationalize. In this chapter, McCully equates us to nature and animals. She explains that things like fire and climate change are responsible for evolving ecosystems, as are birds and animals who dispose seeds and make nature their homes. So too, “humans may be viewed as just another species that has migrated across the earth” (109). We should not let the fact that we aren’t the only organism or force to alter the land be an excuse to carelessly adjust nature. By living, we are inevitably changing the land and using its resources. However, we should use our precious minds to decipher what actions are and aren’t necessary. Like almost everything in life, there are two sides-two extremes. Just as we have the ability to destroy nature, we have an opportunity to revive the earth.

Another point I found interesting is that women of the seventeenth century were the herbalists, “capable of making for herself everything needful to support life” (101). This is because medicine was natural and part of the household chores. Once medicine became a more popular career, the duty was removed from the home and handed over to men.

I became excited as McCully described Samuel Mitchill, Major J. Le Conte, and John Torrey’s collection of plants. During BioBlitz a botanist showed my group the process of cataloging plants for the Botanical Gardens. I appreciated having this knowledge while reading about its history. McCully also points out that the seventeenth century Europeans viewed the world scientifically, which placed a great emphasis on the mind. With this mindset, as I mentioned earlier, there was great opportunity to methodically take care of nature. Unfortunately, it was a missed opportunity….

 

“When humanity is considered a part of nature, cities themselves can be regarded as a global network of ecosystems” (294).

This one statement altered my perception on the way I have viewed biodiversity and ecosystems up until now. During our class discussions, we distinguish ourselves from nature, and perhaps in the process raise ourselves on a platform. We want to believe that we are the ones in control- and so we manipulate species and exploit everything we can get our hands on. When the Europeans came to North America, they felt extremely powerful after making such a discovery. This sense of empowerment directly led to nature’s demise.

On a more subtle level, ordinary people also view themselves superior to nature. While I am not arguing against that, this attitude makes us think, “We don’t need anyone’s (nature) help. We can do it all on our own,” when in reality we can’t. We need nature. As “organisms” we are a part of the (city) ecosystems and heavily dependent on its resources. Even the medicines that are made by scientists in laboratories are based off plants. Let’s not trick ourselves into believing otherwise.

Yet, the article mentions, “Society is prepared to pay large sums for lowered noise levels… (with) technical solutions” (297).  We are proud of our scientists and engineers’ inventions, when all this time nature is right in front of our eyes, and the cheaper solution. But for some reason we prefer to take the credit and satisfaction of fixing problems we carelessly cause.

More so, it is a negative character trait to take advantage of the “weak” and defenseless. I touched on this in my past post, but the way we treat our environment is indicative of the people we are. The article understands humans’ selfish nature and informs us of ecosystem services, in hopes that we’ll protect the environment at least for our sake. One ecosystem service is that vegetation and trees reduce air pollution. The authors point out, however, that coniferous trees are also sensitive to air pollution. Its important to recognize that it is not just ourselves that we are destroying, but the world around us.

With all that being said, I appreciated the authors’ honesty in pointing out some negative aspects of nature. For example, they did not cover up that animals could cause disturbing noises or smells. Hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis also came to mind. I found out the ever since Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security considers hurricanes to be national security threats. Nature, however, can be dangerous even on the daily. The other day, I met a girl who went to a college in upstate New York. She mentioned that unlike in New York where people or cars are our biggest enemies, in her college she feared deer the most. The deer population eventually became so out of hand that the university called in men with bows and arrows to decrease the numbers. Once again, this response empowers us humans, the fact that we can just kill deer at will, and we are caught in a power struggle.

If cities are a “global network of ecosystems,” perhaps we should treat our environment or “neighboring ecosystems” as if they are a neighboring country. We depend on each other for resources and even enjoy each other’s presence. Sometimes the relationship turns ugly, but we only resort to war as a defensive tactic. While unfortunately this isn’t always the reality with other countries, it doesn’t mean we should stop trying with them, or with nature either.

Learning about NYC ecology has reminded me not to take anything at face value. I remember how amazed I was during biology class, learning about our bodies’ intricate process and how all the systems work together to maintain homeostasis. Up until now, I have failed to recognize that the same applies to our environment. Just as we wouldn’t want to remove a kidney or play around with any other part of our body out of fear of disrupting our health, we should not destroy parts of the environment out of fear of disrupting our world. We live in a beautiful world, where we all depend on each other! We exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide with trees and even seemingly annoying bird feces fertilizes our yard. Everything has a purpose or mission and we are all meant to help each other out. The ecological system provides us with a powerful outlook on life and a way to conduct society.

In fact, the environment provided me with even another beneficial type of exchange. While I was reading this book on the train, the man sitting on my right interrupted me to ask what I thought of the book. He began to explain to me that he is an engineer and recently read a book for pleasure called Liquid Assets, which he highly recommended.  I seized the opportunity to learn as much as I could and he shared some incredible facts about NY’s water system. First off, NY uses more than 8.9 billion gallons of water a day! Once again, I realized that I have been taking water at face value. There is an extensive process from upstate NY water source till my bathroom sink that I never gave thought to. The city would collapse if we were not to have water! In the 1800s, a large portion of lower Manhattan was burned down because of lack of water (the hydrants and East River were frozen) to extinguish the fire. Also, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a dispute over the city’s water system. Just by studying water one can learn a ton of history. This friendly stranger also mentioned that this book is written in a way an average person can understand, without too many technical terms, because it is written by a journalist. I chuckled and told him our class book is written by an English professor-where are the scientists? This recognition made me realize that science is accessible to all. It is our essence and everything that surrounds us. We all do not need to be scientists to appreciate, learn, and protect our environment.

Just a little thought can go a long way. I have seen women wearing feather hats, and even my grandmother owns a couple. I started thinking about the statement that makes. By society deeming that the norm, we are saying that bird lives don’t matter. Even if they are artificial feathers, it still seems like a strange practice. They are meant to be ornaments and are only as good as the benefits they provide us with. This seems to be a popular trend with nature in general. We care about water, trees, flowers, and birds…for our own use, as evident by our exploitation of them.

It was encouraging to hear in this chapter that individual efforts by people such as Carson and Grinnell, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation have gone a long way in improving our environment. Some of the birds like the bald eagle and red tailed hawk adaptive abilities have also helped the cause. I thought McCully ‘s dramatic ending, “What has been destroyed can never be created again,” is unproductive. Such a statement does not call for any action. Clearly, we cannot return to past, but we have the power to create a healthier future, despite imperfections. I was, therefore, happy to discover that Governor Cuomo announced at the end of April that together with Audubon Society state-owned buildings will turn off their non-essential outdoor lighting, which disorients birds, from 11:00 p.m. to dawn during peak migration periods. The Governor also created I Love NY Birding website that will inform visitors about NY bird watching and provide more information on this Lights Out initiative. Such programs created at government or corporate levels are a great start, but it is up to us constituents and consumers to carry through with them and show our support!

 

 

We spent a lot of time in class focusing on the biodiversity that once was, deciding that we cannot undue urbanization, and we were left with the question of what do we now? The Biodiversity Assessment Handbook for New York City implicitly provides us with an answer. While buildings have replaced much of New York City’s rich ecological diversity, there remains a surprising amount of rare species. NYC’s landscape is actually important to many organisms’ survival because of its convergence of three ecological habitats. Most people are unaware of the variety of animals that live amongst us New Yorkers, such as the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), little bluet damselfly (Enallagma laterale), beavers (Castor canadensis), river otters (Lontra canadensis), the dwarf centipede (Nannarrup hoffmani), or the Gotham bee (Lasioglossum gotham) (1)! Also who knew that 3.8 million bird and other wildlife watchers visit New York annually (6)? NYC’s urban biodiversity is especially important to preserve, because according to the article it is the only the biodiversity that most people ever come into contact with. Therefore, appreciation for general, global biodiversity is dependent on people’s relationship with urban environments (3).

With that being said, we should not let past wrongs (or even present ones) make us feel helpless or oblivious to our surroundings and perpetuate the situation. It’s time to focus our attention on what exists! Much is right in front of eyes, but we do not bother to look in their direction. “As just one example, Glassberg (1999) related the following: ‘On one September day I observed about 6,000 Monarchs, 4,000 Red Admirals, 4,000 Question Marks, and 2,000 Mourning Cloaks flying south through a 10-foot wide path adjacent to a beach in New York City’”(9). It’s September now, only 16 years later, and does the general public ever notice birds? Perhaps NYC tourism should brand biodiversity as a more popular tourist activity, which could generate real excitement. Not to mention, it would be profitable, as in 2006 bird and other wildlife watchers contributed “an estimated $1.6 billion to the state economy, including $250 million in state sales tax revenue, and support thousands of jobs across the state, including New York City” (6).

However, it seems that giving “too much” attention to nature can also be detrimental. NYC’s 52,000 acres of greenspace is at risk because of park visitors’ overuse. When many people step on sensitive soil sites, “seeds of certain plants cannot germinate and become established, and insects and other animals are unable to burrow into the soil for nesting or winter protection” (19). Additionally, humans and dogs’ noise and movement can disturb animals that require tranquil habitats. There is clearly a thin line between being the environment’s lover, protector, and enemy!

I have to admit I chuckled when Betsy McCully writes, “Once he mentioned the trees, I became excited” (111). “Seriously, trees can trigger that much excitement?” I thought. However, to be honest, I have a secret attachment to trees. Growing up in the suburbs, I have always been surrounded by them. I watch the trees grow over the years, changing from season to season, reminding me the time of year. Their constant presence makes it seem as if they are watching over me too. Not to mention, I always appreciate the shade they provide on a sunny day. I was devastated when many trees fell during Hurricane Sandy or were chopped down immediately after, out of fear they would fall on someone or something. The streets looked bare.

Ironically, the European explorers also had a great appreciation for trees-but for the riches they could provide. For example, they used timber among many others types for shipbuilding and hickory for firewood, cogs and rounds in mills, farming purposes etc. They liked trees for all that they could become, but not for what they were. They were greedy, wasteful, and disillusioned in thinking that these resources were infinite. This assumption was probably a result of discovering this very land. Up until recently, America was unknown to them. After such a discovery, imagine what else they assumed existed in the vast world.

However, it did not start with the Europeans. I was surprised to learn that civilized man has been responsible for ecological devastation even in the ancient Roman era. I always assumed that the situation was becoming progressively worse, especially as a result of development and technology. But if anything technology has the power to combat the problem! We have so much information at the tip of our hands and the tools to address it. The first step is acknowledging why we, including the average person who does not necessarily have any relationship to trees, should even bother working towards the goal. Naturally, I typed into Google “benefits of trees” and found some really interesting fun facts on treepeople.org, so I thought I would share some with you:

• Average temperatures in Los Angeles have risen 6°F in the last 50 years as tree coverage has declined and the number of heat-absorbing roads and buildings has increased.
• Three trees placed strategically around a single-family home can cut summer air conditioning needs by up to 50 percent. By reducing the energy demand for cooling our houses, we reduce carbon dioxide and other pollution emissions from power plants.
• In one year an acre of mature trees can provide enough oxygen for 18 people.
• Studies have shown that patients with views of trees out their windows heal faster and with fewer complications. Children with ADHD show fewer symptoms when they have access to nature. Exposure to trees and nature aids concentration by reducing mental fatigue.
• Neighborhoods and homes that are barren have shown to have a greater incidence of violence in and out of the home than their greener counterparts. Trees and landscaping help to reduce the level of fear.