Author: iamsamin

What was particularly interesting about this article about a potential new city in the United Arab Emirates is how relevant the proposal is. Just a month ago, scientists in the United States determined that if things do not change significantly, the Persian Gulf will be inhabitable by humans by 2090. Their research showed that cities such as Abu Dhabi could potentially reach temperatures of 145 fahrenheit on a consistent basis during the summer (rather than on extreme cases of heat wave)  if things do not change. Clearly, while global warming will cause my coastal countries to submerge further under the ocean, landlocked desert countries will get much hotter.

That is what makes this proposal for Masdar so interesting. It shows that there is a clear understanding amongst the people who are most affected by global warming that things need to change. However, the concern might be that something like Masdar might be too ambitious and that there might be more efficient, faster ways to reduce carbon emissions in that part of the world. Furthermore, something like Masdar has very little affect on stopping negative environmental practices in the countries that actions need to actually take place in.

Looking up other potential cities that might adopt large scale environmentally green practices, you also find the city of Baoding in China. The city happens to be one of the most polluted in the country, but China is currently investing billions into the city to alleviate problems as well have the city serve as a potential template for how other cities might deal or reverse climate change. Personally, the idea of implementing green practices into an existing city seems much more appealing and efficient than creating a new city from scratch, especially in a country that does not need a new city. Given the context of Masdar potentially being in a desert and requiring an incredible amount of resources, this proposal seems more like a ridiculous publicity stunt than a realistic way to deal with climate change.

Hey everybody,

Here is the link to my article for the class discussion. You should download the full PDF to read it. Here is a second link in case the first one does not work. It is a pretty short and easy read analyzing the effectiveness of China’s current laws targeting plastic bags.

Thank you and looking forward to having a lengthy discussion.

The article spends a lot of time talking about the extent at which community gardens can serve as an effective alternative to current green infrastructure that is already promoted by New York City. While the article does give an solid case for why the city should have more incentives, financial or not, for municipalities to start growing community gardens. The biggest issue however with community gardens is that fact that there are several existing environmental conditions that require fixing before community gardens can become an effective and widespread thing in the city. We have spent plenty of time in class talking about how to address the different that come up with dealing with storm water runoff and full sewage systems.

We have talked about green infrastructure that treats grey water before releasing onto green roofs. Furthermore, the idea of permeable concrete on both sidewalks and roads has been an issue of discussion. It is clear that there are several benefits to community gardens. However, for us to address that issues that prevent those gardens from coming into fruition in New York City, it would probably be more beneficial in the short term to give government designed incentives to programs that promote conditions that would allow for these gardens to succeed in the city.

Despite the problems with trying to promote community gardens as a form of green infrastructure in the city, that does not mean the public cannot continue to utilize gardens. It would probably be a useful learning experience for kids especially to learn how to deal with community gardens in schools. This would obviously allow for kids to have more contact with nature as well as give the abilities to perhaps participate community gardens in the future. After all, even if the city decides to promote these gardens as a form of infrastructure, it would pointless if potential financial incentives for gardens would go to people and municipalities that were already planning for community gardens.

This article talks about an experiment in which a sample of mostly female workers were put through different environments and tested for several stress related parameters. The results of the experiment was not particularly surprising as two of the three stress related statistics that were tested showed that people were more likely to be stressed out in an urban environment, in comparison to nature parks or nature woodlands. The results of the experiment showed that the positive effects of being in a natural environments lasts longer if that environment is a woodland rather than a park, though the different is not significant.

The reason this point is relevant has to do with building more parks in urban cities. There is often the question when building new parks on whether to make the park be natural and untouched by humans or completely control the look and feel of the park. Some have argued in the past that the more wild nature of woodlands are better for humans, though this experiment says otherwise. This shows that even parks in the city can be effective tools in helping people with stress.

Another major point that was brought up by the results of the experiment was the fact that the results showed that humans are positively affected by nature, even in short bursts. This is significant because it could help change urban planning. In the past, urban planning often relegated parks in most cities as being incredibly large and full of possible natural amenity. This is problematic for urban residents, however, as most New Yorkers do not have the time in the morning to go through Central Park to get to work or even go in their free time. If parks in a city like ours were more spaced out and more concerned with walking spaces for people, it is likely that more urban citizens would be able to experience the positive effects that come out of going to green environments.

One of the first things I noticed after reading the article was the similarity in community reaction to this proposed waste facility and the waste water management facility that we are doing a poster on. That facility is near Williamsburg and several studies of shown direct negative effects on the air in the area and in the East river next to the facility. This proposed facility is garnering negative reaction from the community and that reaction is quite understandable. As the article points out, why is the city spending so much time and money in trying to find new locations to put the city’s trash instead of trying to reduce our trash.

The article noted that amongst large urban cities in the United States, New York City is one that is on the lower end with regards to recycling and composting. While you could argue that this is due to the public’s lack of interest in environmental issues, it is pointed that the businesses that are exempt from recycling regulations are responsible for 70% of the city’s trash. This is very problematic because it is unrealistic to think that the city government is going to try and put environmental regulations on business, large or not, given the amount of influence they have in the city.

The other problem with recycling in the city is that while recycling is enforced in homes, street trash is not properly regulated by the city or thrown out properly by New Yorkers. Ideally you would like to see street trash be recycled as well but because street trash is not properly divided, both due to lack of different recycling trash cans and enforcement by city officials, street trash is not recycled. It is noted that small public initiatives such as increasing the exchange amount for recycling bottles can help convince more to recycle. However, I cannot see any large public initiatives that would improve the increasingly problematic trash overflow issue in New York City.

 

What this article makes very clear is the potential that urban areas and cities such as New York City have with regards to incorporating environmentally friendly infrastructure. With the amount of large buildings and public spaces in a city like hours, it would clearly beneficial in the long terms to utilize new technologies to deal with the current environmental problems that the city faces. What is interesting about this new playground is the way that it uses environmental planning in a way that also involves children in the process. Specifically in this case, children were allowed choose what type of things were in there new playground, such as trees and grass.

This is particularly important because not only does these conversation efforts help deal with sewage and waste water, more importantly, it serves as an educational opportunity for children with regards to environmental issues. While this is just conjecture, one can assume that children that benefit from environmental urban planning when they are young are more likely to look at green movements in a positive light.

However, while individual green efforts like this are beneficial even in the smallest amount, the biggest issue with green infrastructure in urban areas at the problem is the movement towards aesthetics rather than pragmatism. There are plenty of types of green infrastructure that have definite benefits for the environment or for people, but are less accepted by the populace because those benefits are not apparent simply by appearance. Something like this playground shows clear benefits in clearing out storm water but other types of green solutions have less solutions and as a result, might not be accepted by the people from the get-go.

The focus of this article was to determine the psychological as well as the medical affects of experiencing nature versus experience urban environments. The results for the experiment showed human clearly were better off experiencing nature, in multiple aspects. They felt more comfortable in nature because they had to spent less time focusing on multiple actions and objects and as a result, nature experiences were simply more relaxing. This relaxation also affected physiological changes in the humans tested, with many having lower heart rates and other beneficial health factors. However, experiments are not just about the results that you get but what you do after you get the results.

The evidence presented by the experiment makes it clear that humans prefer having experiences in nature, on a psychological and physiological level. However, how can you transfer those experiences into the modern urban environments. As the article notes, the majority of Americans already live in cities and more will migrate there as time passes. It would be unrealistic to expect this trend to change. There are potentially two different ways to address the fact that urban areas are so detached from nature. One would be to incorporate more parks and natural environment inside cities or at the very least, in areas that are very accessible. This locations would give individuals opportunities to go out and experience nature and detox themselves from urban fatigue.

The problem with that is that people very rarely voluntarily do such things. Most people are very aware, on some vague level, of the benefits of going to parks and experiencing nature. Yet, people often don’t whether it be because they lack time or they are still uninterested. The reality is that the only way to realistically put people in positions to experience nature is to bring nature to them. This means not only having more infrastructure that is incorporated with nature but also simple things such as an abundant amount of trees, flowers, and plants. The study noted that people often feel more comfortable in the houses, when they can see greenery outside rather than urban objects. This shows the clear need to bring nature to the city, not people to nature.

This article explores the negative relationship that exists between nature and humans, particularly in how humans continue to hurt nature while completely ignoring this fact in the process. There was a particular quote that stood in near the beginning of the piece. “With over 30 of our kindred species killed every day, something like this tragedy occurs hour after hour.” What is interesting to note about this quote is the sheer numbness that people have towards nature, much of which is due to our ignorance or separation from nature, or our complete denial in our involvement in its demise. The author notes that much of research and psychology is anthropocentric, with very little interest with outside concerns. One problem with the author’s claim is the idea that humans are purposely making decisions to hurt the environment, with him noting our desire to dominate and annihilate the environment. This however is giving too much credit to our intelligence with regards to nature. Most of our actions that end up damaging nature is a result of complete apathy towards it, not as a result of our desire to dominate or control it.

The author notes that there have been positives steps in society to ensure that future generations will not have this sense of apathy towards the environment. Passing of bills that ensure further education of children of nature is a necessary step in making sure people will make better decisions with relation to the environment. However, it is very clear that these steps have not been enough. Not only does there need to be more ways to educate children about the environment, but there also needs to be ways to incorporate nature into the daily lives of kids, which is becoming increasingly more difficult as more and more people move to cities in search of better lives. On some level, we just have to accept that the future in which people make decisions in relation to the environment is a long way off and that in the meantime, many species will continue to die off.

What arose from reading the Colbert piece was a quick understanding of the amount of information we lack with regards to dinosaurs. We are given several pieces of evidence of prehistoric object; dinosaur tracks and fossilized remains being the most prominent examples. Yet despite this information, there is much missing with regards to context, as pointed out by the paper. One such example would be the remains of a dinosaur print that is not replicated by any of the dinosaur fossils in the area. Why would this prints not have matching fossils. Did these dinosaurs perhaps migrate through the area to another location, thus leaving the tracks. Perhaps we are incorrectly labeling the fossils and some of the fossils to match up with the footprints. This lack of context in the prehistoric evidence that pops up is quite disconcerting. It is like putting a puzzle together, but not even having all the pieces available to you.

It is almost if nature is trying to mislead you about your findings. In a lot of ways, scientific evidence is often not intuitive as a result of barren amount of information. This very thought is repeated in the Bedrock article. It is mentioned that the sedimentary rocks in the locations are difficult to study with certainty because of our weathering has affected them through time. As a result, scientists have to resort to using basalt samples instead because they are less susceptible to weathering conditions. Perhaps there is evidence that was only accessible to the sedimentary rocks rather than the basalt, but was removed due to weathering. Scientists would never be able to tell. It is difficulties like this that make studying prehistoric evidence such as limited process.

This was an article that focused heavily on ways to make the city more sustainable long-term, given limited resources. In particular, living space was an important topic. In this country specifically, there is this mentality that you must have a house with a lawn and backyard to have achieved your goals later in life. Given the space available in New York City, that is clearly not sustainable. The article mentions that a way in which population density could be better managed if there was a shift towards moving families into apartments. However, there are several problems with this idea. Clearly, rent is skyrocketing and people would much rather own their property than share it with other. In addition, the social stigma of living in an apartment after a certain age would turn many away from such an idea. While it is obviously clear that apartments that are much larger than the ones that exist in the city today and much more abundant in quantity, would be a great help in making use of limited space, there are several social issues that would block such an idea from getting popular and gaining support from real estate companies.

That is not so say that all of the potential plans that the authors of the article came up with are unfeasible. As quoted by the paper and written by Rees, “Urban planning in the 21st Century should evolve towards an ecologically-oriented macro-architecture, fully integrating the design and location of energy-and material-efficient buildings and urban infrastructure with overall spatial planning further to minimize material throughput. (1999, p. 216)” It is clear that many of the buildings in Manhattan, especially high-rises and business towers that will eventually inhabit rich families and wealthy businesses are increasingly adopting ‘energy-and-material-efficient’ architecture and that being environmentally friendly with regards to new buildings is gaining steam. The concern however is that such as moving in real estate seems to: (1) be limited to the real-estate that will serve as buildings for rich individuals and businesses, rather than become the norm in building your average apartments for your average New Yorker, (2) such a change in building infrastructure will increase prices in a city where many already cannot afford to live in. There needs to be ways to incorporate such efficient building techniques into the city’s infrastructure that also remains cost-effective enough to not serve as too big of a burden for the pocket’s of average New Yorkers.