Author: iamsamin

Before talking about Hurricane Irene, one must acknowledge that for all the short-term devastation something like a tropical storm can cause to New York City, the rising of the oceans long-term due to global warming would be even more disastrous for a city surrounded by water. In a way, the effects of Irene can serve as a short glimpse into the future and the problems that will become increasingly more common for the city. As a result of Irene, the article came up with several ways that the city can adapt to an ever changing world.

One of the first things mentioned in the article was property prices and flood insurance. The authors determined that it was very cost-effective to have flood insurance, even if you aren’t in a direct flood zone, which is very problematic because this is very counter-intuitive and difficult to explain to the public. Irene made this point very clear because much of the areas hit hardest by the storm were areas not in flood zones. Another thing noted by the authors was that the monetary damage to property could have doubled if the storm had potentially stayed as a hurricane, rather than go back to a tropical storm.

When it comes down to it, the logical step forward for New York City isn’t to attempt to rebuild the areas that were heavily damaged by Irene but instead to convince its residents to move because of the likelihood of such an event happening again. Even if new construction methods are used to make houses safer, with storms predicted to get worse, the counter-measures are not guaranteed to be successful. I imagine it would be more worth it to develop from sea walls along the coast as well invest money into making the public aware of the potential dangers of the areas they live in with regards to flood zones than to rebuild old infrastructure damaged by Irene.

Right from get-go of the report, you are handed out some positive in finding out that New York City already has several initiatives designed to deal with air pollution as well collect more information on it. This is promising given how often in other types of pollution, you often do not see any active attempts in changes from the government or the public until things go off the cliff. It seems that in recent years, air pollution has been one of the few environmental problems that government and people have been quick to decry and call for changes to alleviate.

The report itself shows several statistical positives with regards to changes in air pollution in New York City. Both sulfur and nickel content in New York air has decreased from critical levels to more moderate levels in the last half a decade. The other statistical positive that has shown by graphs with regards to pollution in New York City has been decreased particulate matter. Since the late 1990’s, particulate matter content in the city has decreased significantly, with the city going from above-average among other cities to joining the pack. What is more positive than New York joining the pack is more the trend that the data shows, which indicate that the city has decreased its particulate matter content in its air practically every year and it shows no signs of slowing down.

While these positives shows that air pollution initiatives have had some results in the city, there are still some ways to go. Four of the five boroughs that are measured for ozone levels still continue to get F ratings and that is significant. One thing that struck out that the fact that air pollution kills seven times more people than homicide does in the city. Given how hard the city has worked to reduce murder, you would think such as huge level of mortality would open some eyebrows. However, it seems that most people are unaware, which shows how large of a cultural shift there needs to be for long-term change in air pollution to occur.

What really stood out about this chapter was the way in which the timeline of weather was described. In previous chapters, usually you heard comparisons of the particular topic from the time of the Europeans coming to the New World to modern day New York City. However, this chapter focused mostly on showing comparisons of weathering with regards to the last century. This was particular effective in displaying the enormous shifts that global warming has caused in our environment.

The use of statistics was especially important in displaying these shifts and changes. The most striking statistic was the notion that the ocean around New York City would rise about 21 inches in the 21st century given current rates of glacial melting. Even the fact that in the past century, the sea has risen 10 inches around the city seems incredibly striking. While changes of sea level in inches is often derided by critics as being an extremely small measure, as someone who has seen Lake Mead in southern Nevada go down several inches with a span of 6 years living in the state, the idea that the ocean will would more than a feet around the city is quite frightening.

The worst thing about these potentially and already massive changes to the environment is our response to it all. The author noted that increased natural disasters have encouraged humans to look at preventative measures. Specifically with regards to coastal cities, governments have built seawalls and other structures to protect homes from hurricanes and floods. However, this clearly ignores the underlying problems of climate change and instead of trying to stop contributing to climate changes, we seem to trying to find ways to deal with its consequences.

 

One of the striking things about this article was the author’s decision to directly mention all the positives of utilizing green roofs from the get-go. He mentioned that they helped lower temperatures in urban areas, which is already abnormally high, and as a result, have the secondary effect of reducing electricity usage due to the use of air conditioners decreasing. Furthermore, he also mentions early on in the paper that a quarter of the American population live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution and then notes that green roofs can help assist in reducing those levels.

The author, however, also notes that there are difficulties in installing green roofs in urban areas. While most modest green roofs can serve as replacements for medium sized trees and it is noted that up to 20% of most major cities are capable of utilizing green roofs, the price of these roofs are mentioned as a deterrent. This is extremely important because of the difficulties associated with trying to convince people or businesses to participate in green practices that might end up hurting them monetarily. Furthermore, while green roofs can be useful in pollution abatement, they should not be considered replacements for full-grown forests or green areas. Many of these negatives, in my opinion, pretty much make it impossible to utilize green roofs in urban areas.

There are also other secondary benefits mentioned by the author with regards to green roofs. Not only do these roofs serve as direct replacements for trees that would have otherwise been planted, but in the future, they can potentially serve as credits in an international cap-and-trade system. Furthermore, the added benefits of green roofs with regards to noise reduction, cleaner water quality with regards to run-off, and less waste in landfills are enticing perhaps to urban planners who might seek to create greener urban spaces. However, despite all the statistics utilized by the author to show the benefits of green roofs as an effective means of pollution abatement along with its secondary positives, I cannot foresee average citizens or small businesses approving of such infrastructure changes due to the short-term costs currently associated with it.

While the water surrounding New York City continues, to this day, to have a negative reputation as being a dirty, sewage infested waterway, the historical information presented by this chapter makes it very clear how much the rivers and ponds in and around the city have improved, with the improvement starting in the 1920’s and gaining power after the 1970’s. Perhaps the most difficult thing to think about is the idea is that the Harlem river in the past suffered from anoxia and had absolutely no ability to serve as a proper habitat for fish or life. It is obvious, given the numerous examples of legislation in the chapter, that laws and regulation passed by the government have been the main reason behind these improvements. It is noted that despite many laws being passed, it was not really until after the 1970’s that legislation started to get enforced, mostly because it was only after numerous environmental disasters caused in New York waters by corporations that the public became aware of the true causes behind the pollution of the city water.

This perhaps can serve as an important case study in how public awareness can affect the rigidity and enforcement of laws. The reality is that while the environmental damages that corporations are causing today are not nearly as overt and as a result, companies can often skirt laws with a problem, history shows that eventually the public catches up to these methods and changes are made. It is similar to how it was only after the public became awareness of the negatives associated with pesticides with the release of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that legislation was not only passed but actually enforced by the government. This shows the importance of journalism and education with regards to the public and environmental issues. What is really worrying is that it was often decades after the passing of laws that they were enforced and corporations paid the consequences in court. However, the damages had already been done by then. In the future, steps have to be taken to make sure that regulation can somehow become a realistic goal from the moment that laws are passed.

While the immediate reaction to reading to chapter would be to just simply think that weeds plants that need to be treated with respect. The reality that the chapter exposes goes beyond that. Weeds and other plants that are perhaps not liked by your average urban residents are just as huge a part of the ecosystems of cities are any other organism or plant. McCully refers to the city as being an “urban ecosystem” in which the death of one plant can have a huge butterfly effect on the rest of the system, affecting not just other organisms and plants, but us as well.

That is not to say that everything the author brings up in the chapter is completely agreeable. The reality that is civilization as we know is today would not have come to be if it were not for the ‘exploitation’ of nature by European colonists. Furthermore, as we discussed in class, Native Americans did not abuse their surrounding environments not because of their cultures (which is not to say they did not have more respect for nature than Europeans did) but simply the fact that they did not have the sheer numbers to significantly damage or exploit nature.

What we have to understand now is that our capabilities have changed. We no longer have to exploit the environment to improve our livelihoods. There are alternatives; ways to incorporate nature into our lives. Unlike the past, we are not stuck in the position of: if we do not exploit nature, we will not survive. Perhaps I’m being idealistic, but in most situations, we have moved significantly beyond the age of survival. The reality is that we often undervalue the less obvious benefits that come from nature and even in cases such as medicine, we still continue to disrupt nature in the way that can potentially lead to the extinction of many plants. Society as a whole has to reach a new point of equilibrium for both our survival and nature’s.

A major point that is bought up early in this article is the fact that city ecosystems often extend farther out than just the city limits. It is said that for most cities, the support systems for cities extend out 500-1000 times the distance of the city limits (293). The point is obviously here in New York City. Even the more outskirts of the five boroughs are heavily affected by the conditions in Manhattan and rely on the same levels of resources though not in as dense a location. As a result of the huge level of resources usage in such a large area (despite being a city), very significant environment conditions that are unique to cities are created. The authors poses several interesting ways to address some of these problems by using Stockholm as a study of how to mitigate these conditions.

In a city that is so heavily affected by air pollution, much of which is due to traffic, solutions to this problem are welcome. The article points out a mixture of different types of trees at street level can be very helpful in decreasing air pollution; at a rate potentially as high as 70%-85% such as in Stockholm (295-296). However, Stockholm can do this because 10% of the city streets in covered in trees. In comparison, New York City as a whole, according to MillionTreesNYC is covered by 24% in trees. However, that percentage is incredibly misleading and problematic. Most of the trees that are located within the city and it’s surrounding areas are located in parks, green spaces, and forests. The articles however that the most effective way for trees to reduce air pollution is to have trees at street. This leads to a problem with people because people often think of building parks and green spaces when thinking of bring nature back to the city when in reality, they could potentially improve their living conditions further by having more trees located near their houses rather than at parks.

A huge reason why Stockholm has embraced nature in a way that New York City should look at with envy is due to the cultural values that it’s citizens have. The article notes that citizens of Stockholm are willing to pay more to have better access to green spaces and there are already plenty of opportunities for exposure because of a stream full of fish located right within the city (a stream that is considered one of the best in the country). It is a lot easier to have citizens that have closer ties with nature when they have recreation green spaces that their kids can have exposure to things that city residents often do not have access to. The problem with doing something similar to New York City is the lack of space. However, Manhattan itself is surrounded by two rivers. Yet neither are utilized often as recreational areas due to the filth and pollution associated with both. If there was more of an effort to the clean the rivers up, there would potentially be more ways to expose city residents to nature. In general, New York City could benefit from some of the ways that Stockholm has set itself up as an urban area.

It is almost impossible to picture the current New York City to be full of the incredible assortment of birds that previously existed here. The chapter talks about a particular anecdote about how one hunter could kill eighty ducks in a pond in one day, which just shows how abundant birds were in the city. This previous abundance makes the current lack of birds here even more shocking. With the exception of pigeons, on average, you very rarely see any bird life. Even out in Queens Village, where I like, different variety of birds are not often seen. What is strange to consider is that not all of these species of birds were hunted down. Not all died out or migrated because those that came to the new world hunted them. Many probably died out because of the simple fact that their habitats were destroyed.

This is particularly troubling because it means it is nearly impossible to restore bird life back to its previous state (or even a better state) here in New York City. As the author notes, “What has been destroyed can never be created again.” Considering this idea, you have to wonder what New York City can do to improve bird life or at the very least, protect the remaining birds that remain within the city. Hunting is obviously not a modern concern for bird life and even in the few locations around the city that has hunting areas, most people are not looking for birds to kill.

The problem with recreating the bird population and bird biodiversity within the city is the destruction of the previous natural habitats. One potential solution for that would be to recreate these habitats in different locations within Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs. These recreated habitats do not even have to be forest areas but simply green areas with open roofs. We previously talked about how falcons have found their new homes in the city by relocating to the top of skyscrapers. While this is not replicable for all birds, there are surely alternative habitats in the city that the remaining birds of New York can adapt to.

When it comes down to it, it is for the most part impossible to undo the destruction of New York City bird life. However, the consequences of these actions can serve as a warning to the future with regards to how humans interact with nature. It seemed that in the past, destroying the environment was not just about necessity but simple human pleasure and apathy. People did it simply because they could. While the decline of bird life in the city has not resulted in monumental consequences for humanity, even our continued destruction of nature will lead to severe problems for us.

A huge problem that people ignore with regards to biodiversity is the enormous long-term benefits that it provides to society. Now a days, too often, if there is an environmental problem that must be readily fixed, society’s answer is not to restore the old environment that existed to stop these problems, but to come up with alternatives to fix them. For example, with regards to storm water, so much money is pored into sewage when money could instead be invested in plant life that would absorb the water while also providing secondary benefits to society. Furthermore, often times, society either tackles the problems of the loss of biodiversity when it is too late or they simply move on, thinking that the time for fixing the problem is over.

It is for the most part impossible to get back any of the previous environments in which the many organisms of New York City resided in. However, one way to be build up further infrastructure without destroying the biodiversity of the city is to perhaps incorporate for nature friendly architecture into new endeavors. The handbook notes that new infrastructure, such as skyscrapers, have naturally be converted into niche locations in which organisms reside in. If more research was done to determine which types of buildings can exist without getting rid of the biodiversity of the city, then future buildings will be build to allow for these organisms to not have their environments be interfered with.

One potential way to get businesses and corporations to get more interested in providing spaces that increase the biodiversity of New York City is the idea of green spaces. Recently, there has been a real estate boom around the High Line park, which was built on unused elevated railways. It is with creatives innovations like this the biodiversity can be promoted in the city while also getting the support of real estate companies that benefits from the value of properties going up due to the green spaces, as also noted by the handbook.

When you start this reading this chapter, Betsy McCully makes it very clear that deforestation is not a new phenomena in human civilization. Whole forests in Europe were completely depleted prior to the discovery of the New World. Even the virgin forests in the North-East of the American colonies lost many of their trees quickly as neither colonizers nor royal agents followed laws that were passed to prevent the deforestation that occurred in Europe and England to happen again in America.

However, what surprised me was not that deforestation has been around for a long period of time or that even continued to destroy forests around them even though they knew that deforestation was a real long term problem. What was really mind boggling was the rate at which deforestation occurred. You might not be shocked at modern statistics with regards to deforestation, especially given the amount of technology that is available to us now a days. However, McCully mentions that the Duffield Forrest in England lost over 57,000 large oak trees and 29,000 small oak trees in a span of twenty-seven years. With the technology available, that rate has skyrocketed yet even the old rate of deforestation was mind boggling. It seems that humans almost mindlessly destroy nature around them without any thought of the consequences.

It is not even the case of people not knowing the consequences of deforestation. As early as 1587, there were books available that talked about the long-term negatives of destroying forests. Forests might just be natural evolution of the land around us, but they have a lot of secondary benefits to humans that are almost never considered such as: “controlling avalanches, mountain torrents, shifting sands, erosion, and silation.” Forests especially benefit nearby farmland and subsequent overgrazing of deforested land often prevents that land from being usable in the long-term. The reality is that people throughout history have often been aware of the negative consequences of their actions with regards to nature and yet have done nothing about it. Human interaction with nature and deforestation in particular has gotten worse with time.