Author: Kharene Gittens

We are quickly approaching a place where scarcity is going to be a major problem. The use of our natural resources to depletion and the destruction of our environment is very quickly catching up to us. I really liked this article because it gave an exquisite timeline of how we have had poor resource management.

A few different concepts stood out to me as I was reading this paper. For one thing, over the years, our human population developed a solar energy dependent community, which has been replaced by our fossil fuel dependent communities. Even more alarming to me, was that even our food production, which is one of the most organic processes we need for survival has become dependent on fossil fuel consumption. Our need to consume our resources had grown so much that we ended up destroying the resources we had (clean, drinkable water) to use other resources in greater numbers.Eventually this will come back to haunt us because then water will become scarce, which is something that is vital to our (and every other organism on the planet’s) survival.

I really liked the way this article shows the importance of integrating resource management and urban planning. Since cities hold such large populations and has been growing choice of place to live world wide, it is imperative that we acknowledge this in the most efficient ways possible. I thought it was very interesting that urban planning and resource management had developed separately. I thought this was interesting because it seems like common sense. (Granted, I may be biased because of hindsight.) Urban planning should have been working in harmony with resource management, which would have bred sustainable development. Now we find ourselves in a place where all of these things are working against each other.

I think a common theme that we are seeing in recent papers is innovation. One of the most important things that can help us change our situation is a change of mindset in he way we think about our existence (socially, structurally, physically, etc.).

Ever since the movie Day after tomorrow came out, I was terrified of what might happen to New York City if a particularly hard natural disaster came. In high school, this topic came up in one of my classes. As we discussed it, it became more and more obvious that NYC is left on our knees to Mother nature. Our infrastructure is weak and doesn’t take very much to be damaged. There is a HUGE population size, which makes it even more difficult to evacuate quickly if needed. They billions of dollars worth of property in such small spaces leave little room for error and precaution.

This article points out these weaknesses of our city in terms of Hurricane Irene. It talks about the flood damages that were expected to be brought on by Irene. One statistic I thought was interesting was that 300,000 people live in flood zones. This was interesting to me because i can only imagine how many people would either have no where to evacuate to or simply may not have the resources to evacuate. Also, when the author discusses the National Flood Insurance Program, he talks about the minimum amounts of precautions being taken. There are a lot of new construction and developments being built in these high risk areas. This means that we need stricter laws (that are properly enforced) that either stops these developments or have greater than minimum precautions.

Our flood risk areas are only increasing and we need the population to be well informed along with the innovation mentioned. If we had buildings that stood a better chance against flooding and hurricane damage, we would be much better off. For example, we could have buildings that can shut off incoming water by having a specific waterproof closing area. There also should be a place to put people so that they are also protected. This way, even if they are unable to evacuate, it wouldn’t be such a problem.

Our weather patterns are becoming increasingly dramatic and I don’t think that means less hurricane scares. We were lucky Irene just became a tropical storm. Next time we may not be so lucky.

This chapter is my favorite reading we have had thus far. With every sentence, I was more and more shocked while simultaneously being less shocked. it doesn’t come as a surprise to me that these types of environmental change is occurring, but I did underestimate the extent of how quickly this change is coming. On pg. 149, McCully says that within this century, ocean water levels in New York are expected to rise an additional 22 inches to the 10 it rose last year. This is quite alarming to me, seeing that I am only 62 inches tall. 

 A lot of people and corporations in our society downplay the effects of global warming leaving us at the mercy of mother nature. The greenhouse gas levels are causing our ice caps and glaciers to melt even quicker than originally predicted. This means that we are doing this at a rate faster than we are calculating. Furthermore, McCully mentions that we believe that these quick fixes such as building levees and walls are going to help protect us. There needs to be an understanding that technology can only get us so  far. Putting a band aid on a leg amputation is still going to cause you to bleed out and our society is preparing to do just that.  After the Dutch thought they were successful against the Earth, their sad reality was realized when the North Sea took 1800 lives in 1953. Much like the dutch, we our quick fixes will fail and the result of lives lost will be catastrophic.

Unlike other chapters, this is problem of the earth changing is directly our problem. With other chapters, we were able to point fingers at the early European settlers for disrupting our biodiversity. In problem of global warming, though it may have started in the past, we have accelerated the process to unforeseen levels. Just like the dutch, we are the engineers of our own problems. 

This is all extremely frightening to me. This book was published in the year 2006, and the destruction has only increased since then.I believe this all goes back to how consumed our society is with instant gratification (as we have discussed in class). The idea that the environmental crisis will happen later than we feel we need to concern ourselves with is setting our species up for failure. It is shameful that we live in a society willing to bring everyone down for the sake of wealth or ignorance. 

This article was very interesting. I liked the way it was written because it successfully pointed out both the pros and cons of green roof development. I thought the way the research was presented made for a more well-rounded paper. Personally, I had a very idealized view of green roofs before reading this paper. However, after reading the information and statistics about the green roof development, i understand that there are improvements to be made. Nonetheless, the idea of green roofs still intrigue me.

In thinking about green roofs, I never truly accounted for the costs it may have. To create green roofs in all of Chicago was estimated at $35.2 billion dollars. That is a large amount of money, but some of the benefits may be worth the while. One benefit he discussed was there would be less of a need to replace roofs as quickly as we do. They even had some green roofs last for 91 years. This was extremely interesting to me, as it was a benefit I never considered. One benefit he mentions that I think is worth considering in New York is the stormwater runoff. Our sewage system needs a lot of improvement and these green roofs can help by absorbing a lot of the water we get from storms. This can help with a more controlled water flow as well as a decrease in contaminants since the plants can absorb them.

One downfall that did cross my mind, was that no amount of green roofs will substantially replace the original forestry and vegetation that was in place of the building before. There is no way the trees can have a wide enough network and ecosystem that it would’ve created on the ground. I believe green roofs are a great attempt at introducing more vegetation to urban environments, but there will ultimately be a lack of biodiversity in the animals and plant species it would’ve housed on the ground.

All in all, I think the implantation of green roofs is a good idea, but can use some more research done in the area. If there are ways to make it more economically plausible, that would help a great deal.

P.S. I regret that it uploaded late. I didn’t realize it was having trouble uploading.

I thought this chapter started out kind of slow. However, the chapter picked up quite quickly after McCully says “Human-caused changes, on the other hand, may render the ecosystem lifeless” (79). I thought this was a really strong statement seeing that marine life is so vast and much of it is a mystery to us. This statement held even more power once she described how adaptive marine life is in a few sentences before it. McCully discusses how drastically the water environment can change and how the organisms that live there have created defenses/adaptations to help themselves. Therefore, if humans are changing it to the point where these resilient organisms can no longer live, that says a lot about humanity.

The birds chapter described similar natural events as this chapter. McCully speaks of how the early settlers described the fish as “super-sized.” This natural enigma of fish so large is lost to our world today, much like the myriad of birds that when they flocked it could cover the sun. (Similarly, this loss in nature is like the change in dragonfly size we discussed in class.) The settlers damaged the waters with large amounts of sewage pollution, draining, and making them stagnant. Within as little time as 12 years,they reduced oxygen content in waters by 68% by dumping over a billion gallons of sewage in it (85).The mindset of the European settlers was truly their downfall. Their lack of appreciation for what was unfamiliar to them and the importance it may hold is what led to such destruction of the environment. They either destroyed marine life by pollution and reducing oxygen, or over harvesting the animals available (like oysters, and clams).

Throughout this entire book, we have learned about the different practices man-kind instilled that simultaneously destroyed the natural world. However, even with this knowledge available to us, most of these practices are continued today. My curiosity is now focused on what we can do with this information. Looking back and knowing this knowledge now, I can not say that they were immoral for doing these things because of the ignorance they had. Today however, these practices are recognized as immoral and are still done. I believe we need to look for, invest and promote the growth of technology that works in sync with the development of nature. Reading this book just stresses the importance of mindful innovation ( meaning that we are mindful of the consequences and costs these things may have presently and in the future).

The following movie is a documentary called Urbanized. The people who had Professor Bellamy for IDC 3001 saw this documentary already. I wanted to post it because I thought it was interesting and really relevant to our discussion on urban planning on Monday.

I really liked reading about the weed populations and their resilience to the environment they grow in. Furthermore, I appreciated the title of the chapter because it was quite clever. This chapter was very telling on the importance of weeds as well as the effects the europeans had on the ecosystems in America.

Prior to this reading, I thought weeds were just harmful. Fertilizers that destroy weeds are widely encourage in this nation, which in turn shaped my perspective of them. This made it all the more surprising to find out that many of the weeds found in our soils have medicinal and nourishment purposes. I really appreciated the author’s revision of Emerson’s description of the weed as “a plant whose virtues we have forgotten” (pg. 99). His statement is very appropriate to our culture today. As harmful as weeds may be, they also have features worth appreciating and learning about.Weeds are interesting plants that thrive in disturbed environments. European farmers thought of them as a nuisance to their farms. Ironically enough, it was their farming practices that encouraged their growth.

The effects the Europeans had on American ecosystems were substantial. The European farmers destroyed land fertility by tree cutting, water pollution, single-cropping, draining marshes, allowing herds to graze everywhere and destroying habitats. Their practices wore out the land and exhausted the soils (103). McCully says “The European’s invasive technology changed the face of the land, not only letting in alien species but destroying whole ecosystems”(103). This quote struck my attention because it sounds very similar to what America does today. America enters other countries that have natural and sustainable ecosystems. We then deplete the natural resources available that country and move on to another. These practices will lead to global depletion of natural resources at a rate quicker than the earth can replenish said resources.

We have been told it is importance to learn history so that we do not repeat it, from what I see, we are following in the footsteps of the Europeans. Learning about how easy it is to change an environment so much so that natives confuse alien species with native ones are important when thinking about the future. The power the human population has in our large global population is underestimated. Changing an environment doesn’t take so much effort, however, it is important to consider whether this change is positive or negative before it is too late.

-Kharene Gittens

I understood that nature played a big role in keeping our environments healthy and leveled, however, it never occurred to me the different levels it can effect us on. This article opened my eyes to just how much one tree or one lawn can make a difference. The two subheadings that stood out to me were micro-climate regulation and noise reduction.

Micro-climate regulation has been a prevalent topic in the past week. I first learned about it in my Environmental Science class last week. I understood the concept, but this article really set the ideas in motion for me. Trees and other plants can change the environment quite drastically in a small area. They can change the solar radiation, temperature, and wind speed. One statistic the article mentioned that i thought was important was reducing energy for heating and cooling by $50 -$90. This change can happen with a mere 10% increase of tree cover. This kind of information makes you wonder just how much we can save with 20% or more tree cover.

Noise pollution was a topic that stood out to me because compared to other areas, New York is quite loud. When I am in suburban or rural areas, the quietness is strange to me. Nonetheless, it makes me wonder how much worse my hearing and health is than the people who live in those areas. I thought it was extremely interesting to find out that by simply replacing concrete with a soft lawn, can decrease the noise level by a whole 3 decibels.

I really enjoyed reading this article because it really put things in perspective for me statistically.  The architectural things discussed in the article can make a huge difference in our quality of life and should be taken much more into consideration in future developments. Much of the research discussed in this paper is not far-fetched. It is very plausible to apply this research to urban planning to improve our lifestyle. The value of the ecosystem services in urban areas are taken for granted and should be expanded to better our cities.

I thought this chapter was well written and extremely interesting. Learning about the bird population we once had is really something marvelous. It especially intrigued me because it is completely different than what we have now. Now, I wouldn’t be able to picture having so many of the around.
The loss of birds in the area completely took me by surprise. It was sad reading about the passenger pigeons and their decline. Kali’s description of the Euro-American’s excessive hunting was eye-opening. To learn that they hunted them by the hundreds for leisure is particularly barbaric in my opinion. On page 132, the author wrote “As late as the 1870s, hundreds could still be shot in a day; but by the 1880s, the passenger pigeon had become rare.” This statement really put the extent that the Europeans hunted in perspective. Within a decade, they had completely changed the environmental dynamics. Furthermore, it makes me regretful that we wouldn’t be able to see the large flocks of birds circling the air and covering the sun. Those kinds of enigmatic sights are lost to us, because of their excessive hunting.
After reading about the Europeans holding the last passenger pigeon captive in the Cinncinati Zoo, I got a better understanding of how our society and economy was formed. The idea that humanity removed their population from the area only to put one of them in containment to be marveled at disgusts me. It is a common in our society to deplete what we are given and the mourn our loss after instead of appreciating what we have, when we have it. Throughout our readings, we continue to see the lack of respect for nature the settlers and how much that outlook has changed the gift of nature given to us.
The settler’s used the birds for materialistic and monetary purposes. If the settler’s used them primarily for meat, killing so many of them wouldn’t have been necessary. However, it is also important to recognize that those practices are continued today. As long as we continue using animals as a commodity, we will continue to kill them off.
This is a picture of one. I looked it up out of curiosity.