Author: michael woyevodsky

I was quite interested to read this article as I myself am a constant victim of flooding during storms. I live very close to the great south bay so when there is a heavy storm, there is a high chance that there will be 1. inches of water in my basement that just continuously replenishes for days and 2. flooding in the streets up to a few feet.

Something mentioned in this article that was interesting was how humans do things to solve problems that are happening now to protect themselves in the near future rather than seek long term safety. They mentioned how sea walls are built, dams are constructed and dunes are built on beaches, only to be destroyed by another storm and cause even more disaster in the near future. This is a great overview of the way things work near where I live. Each and every year, there are tropical storms and if we are unlucky enough, hurricanes. There are homes that are destroyed and rebuilt a little higher up than before to protect against ground flooding in the future. However, another storm comes and destroys the same house. When i drive by these houses and see them being rebuilt AGAIN, I wonder to myself, “why don’t then invest in something that will protect the house from any storm or disaster rather than just rebuilding every time?”. It seems like such a waste of time, money, and aggravation. The reality is that people don’t think that it is ever going to happen again so they think about the NOW rather than the far future because lets face it, we all think that “this cant happen again, right?” or that we can just deal with it when it happens. But why not create something that will protect us forever, forgetting aesthetics?

I would love to say that in the near future we will all ban together and fix the environmental degradation we have caused, slowing down the catastrophic fate of our ecosystem, but that will just be a lie. Human nature is to live in the NOW and to be happy for their current wellbeing. To bring light to this, I think that the small steps that activists and other people take are in the right direction, it will just be very hard to convince everyone to change the lifestyle they are used to to protect people hundreds of years from now that they wont be alive to meet.

Right off the bat, my attention was caught by the introduction. I was reading lots of enticing things about green roofs that made me wonder why they are not on every building in the city. Things such as lower pollution, lower overall heat, better water filtration, and higher return on investment are things that I believe everyone wants. One thing that is so great about the idea of green roofs is that there are so many empty rooftops in the city that are not used for anything. As opposed to ground level where nearly 95% of it is covered in impervious material and there is zero room to plant large scale vegetation plots. With the high availability of open rooftops, this green roof idea can actually make a huge difference. Ideally, if every roof was covered in plants, the air and water quality in NYC would be astronomically better than it is today. New York City and all other metropolis’s in present day are sanctuaries for high levels of carbon dioxide due to all the fossil fuels being burned. A green roof would filter a lot of this out, increasing oxygen levels and overall air quality, as well as helping the ozone layer stay strong.

Another thing that I found interesting to learn about was that an increasing amount of green roofs would cause a decrease of the amount of roofing being thrown in waste dumps. Rather than removing and adding roofing when needed, one can just service the green plots with more natural beings. Another benefit is that a green roof does not increase in temperature as much as regular roofing does during direct exposure to sunlight which inhibits the roof from becoming brittle after long periods of contracting and expanding, saving money for the owner.

Green roofs seem to be one solution to a bigger problem. Yes, they do help air pollution and lower costs of maintenance and save waste, but it seems that this is only a step to fixing our problems. For example, if the air above is filtered, the air on the ground is still highly polluted because vehicles are continuously spewing bad things into the air that is not filtered by gardens 1000 feet above ground. I like the idea of green roofing, but i don’t think it is the only answer. It also seems to me that people don’t like to do things that aren’t the perfect answer. If something only partially fixes a problem, it does not sound very enticing to them. I believe that an entire movement is necessary, with green roofing being only a small fraction of it, to fix our environmental crises.

I am still waiting for that perfect answer to appear.

I was delighted to read something about a topic other than trees and plants. Although they aren’t a bad thing to read about, its refreshing for something new. It was interesting to learn how many different types of organisms live in the marsh and waters surrounding Manhattan. It is a habitat for fish, shellfish, insects, plants, and others. There is so much diversity in the landscape (water, sand, marsh) that this is possible to sustain. Living very close to the Atlantic Ocean and the Great South Bay, I can relate to what I am reading as I encounter a lot of these organisms on a daily basis when I’m at the beach or exploring other wetlands nearby.

It seems to be a self sustaining ecosystem as there is a seemingly never ending chain on the food pyramid. From raccoons digging up sand creatures to large fish eating smaller ones, it seems almost self sustaining. However, human intrusion has ruined the peaceful cycle that once was. Human interaction creates random die offs of species because of changes of pH in the waters, fishing and hunting practices, as well as sewage dumping. One example of this is the sewage can cause a rapid decrease in oxygen levels in the water. A decrease in oxygen will inhibit the necessity respiration and cause a mass die off of organisms within the ecosystem.

Reading about all different issues that humans cause by interacting with once 100% natural land makes me wonder if we are really doing a bad thing for the big picture. I agree with the point that we have done harm to places that were once fruitful, but what I question is are we only doing what is necessary for our own survival as well. We are using all the bodies of water surrounding us to harbor ships, get food, and dispose of wastes that would otherwise cause great harm to our livelihood.  All these things are being done to be able to sustain human life in its current state. If we didn’t use these bodies of water, the advancement of our species would be much farther behind. This all bears the questions of “is what we are doing worth it in the long run as much as it is in the short?” and “is harming one body of water not a problem if we are preserving another?”.

I thought it was quite bothersome to read about another thing that the Europeans did that negatively effected the natural environment of the United States. Previously read, the Europeans destroyed a large percentage of out forests and and make a negative impact on both the land and the organisms that lived in those trees or other plants.

In this chapter, we learn about how the Europeans “intentionally and unintentionally” brought over over lots of alien plant species. What bothers me about this is that not only did they tarnish the lands purity, but they also did it somewhat unintentionally which means that they were very careless about the land and the potential damage they may have been causing when they came over. It makes me wonder that if they never came over with all those species, what would the united states look like today in terms of plant and animal population diversity.

One additional thing I found interesting about this chapter was how differently weeds effect different lifestyles. In the hunting and gathering communities, weeds were a good source of nutrients and helped keep people alive in a time of need. However, farmers were bothered by these weeds because they would spread like wildfire all over their farms, sucking nutrients from the the plants they are trying to grow. I found the different uses of plants for medicinal purposes quite fascinating. The ability for one to make an “antidote” for sore eyes by soaking plantain leaves in water as well as smoking mullein leaves to treat asthma gave me insight on the earliest forms of medicine and how they were used by the people of the new world.

While reading, I found it quite interesting to learn that ecological services are coming from humans but also other organisms in nature that form a collaborative maintenance on the environment.  An example would be pollination by bees and gasoline regulation by humans to protect air quality. One city mentioned in the article was Stockholm. It was described to have lots of ecological services by humans running as well as a higher percentage of vegetation  coverage (10%) compared to other parts of Europe. Because of this they have a much higher quality of air and lower usages of energy for climate control.

Another thing I found interesting was how much nature effects sound pollution. According to the article, a soft ground, such as grass, reduces sound levels by 3db, when converted from a concrete ground. Dense shrubs can also lower sound by 2db along with a 50m wide plantation lowering it down by another 3-6db. It is unbelievable how much a little extra vegetation can effect sound levels for the better.

I enjoyed about reading this because it was a lot different than the other works we have read. Rather than talking about how the people of the world are destroying the environment and nobody is educated to fix it/do the right thing, it talks about the positives in nature and good things humans are doing right now. It is the happy side of the huge issue that mankind faces and is part of.

While I was reading chapter 9 of City at the Water’s Edge, I was shocked to read that there are over 25 different warbler species and 100 different total bird species in Central Park during May. Prior to reading, I would have guessed maybe 30 total and would even consider that guess liberal. It was also fascinating to know how important birds were for native americans, using them for tools, food, and jewelry as well as burying them with the dead.

One thing I found interesting was the story about the eagle and the hunter. After the eagle and the hunter both won over each other, they made a pact, no man would be allowed to kill an eagle again. This made me think of it being a potential reason for the bald eagle to be the United States national bird.

Something about this read that I was relieved about was that there are no longer billions of pigeons flying around before the mass slaughter of them by farmers and other hunters. I don’t think it would be pleasant to live somewhere that the sun would be blocked by a black mass of birds flying overhead.

This chapter seemed to connect with the rest of our previous readings in a sense that humans didn’t seem to show remorse about killing off a species of birds until it was too late. They were acting very short sighted and greedy as they would kill one species non-stop and then just move on to the next one to simply benefit themselves in that moment.

Based on that, it seems that it is human nature to follow the rule “survival of the fittest”. If they can benefit themselves with a particular action, they will do it for the short term benefit. Relating this to past readings, the killing of the birds is similar to cutting down trees and getting rid of natural habitats and wildlife to simply benefit the popular opinion of humans.

-Michael Woyevodsky

After reading the Biodiversity Handbook, I was very surprised at the fact that so many endangered species lived in our city using skyscrapers and other landmarks as their sanctuary. For example, the peregrine falcon have successfully used steeples of churches for nesting locations for their young to grow safely. Another species that I was familiar with being endangered was the piping plover that nests on beaches. Living close to Robert Moses beach on long island, I was constantly exposed to the presence of these birds. A lot of our beaches were fenced off and marked as nesting grounds for these birds. I never understood why they blocked it off but now learning that they are endangered it is nice to know that our parks department is taking a step to protect them.

I also found it quite interesting that the global value of natural landscape production is valued at $33 trillion, which is twice the global GNP of $18 trillion of 1997 dollars. Natural landscapes provide things such as aspirin from the willow tree. Another things I thought was interesting was how much money the trees in New York City save the city. By catching falling rain, trees save the city $35 million in storm surge maintenance costs and also $6.9 million is saved by the shade that trees provide.

One thing that I felt made an impact on me was when they showed the two pictures of soil and the layers that there were going down 40+ inches.  The soil in corporate parks woods in Staten Island was clean and naturally layered. However, the soil in La Guardia, which has been affected by human interaction was littered with fragments and garbage and was not naturally layered at all. These pictures shows a true affect of what humans have done rather than just words on paper.

-Michael Woyevodsky

After reading “Mannahatta” by Sanderson, I was very shocked to see how much of our island was once rivers, streams, and other naturally occurring landscapes. Along with that, I was amazed at how quickly the transformation was from 99% natural in 1609 to 84% natural in 1782 and the to 99% human dedicated/industrial in 2004. This is eye opening for two different reasons. One of these is because it is an example of the true power of the human being and the productivity potential that we have. The other reason is that is shows how we destroyed what was once a pure natural and beautiful island that the majority of the people who live here today don’t even know existed.

Now one could think react to this two different ways. One would be to believe that we are advancing in technology and its a cycle that must take place from once natural to now a metropolis. Also that it is a good thing that we have done this because without all that Manhattan is today, our lives would all be significantly less advanced and our lifestyles would be different that the ones we appreciate today. The other side would believe that we should try and recover what we destroyed and try and bring back a percentage of what we had and now destroyed. That there should be regulations put in place to conserve.

I believe a little of both of those options. I believe that the city today is great and wouldn’t want it any other way but I also think that we need to make sure that parks and all other natural land that still remains in the city should be properly maintained as well as even upgraded to make it more natural to give more benefit to the earth as well as small animals for homes.

 

After reading “Biodiversity Conservation and the Extinction of Experience” by James Miller, I have come to a few conclusions. While I do agree on the fact that nature does create a positive and stress free ambiance for humans, I don’t know if I necessarily agree with the fact the it is necessary for all humans to learn more about conserving land and to plant trees and what not. Along with that I am very doubtful that because human nature is to be short minded and selfish, that there will not be much advancement on the action of conservation no matter how much knowledge is out there.

One reason for this is because there is not actually a reason for us to start heavily conserving right this second. To my belief, humans wont act until it is absolutely necessary for their own self benefit and survival. With all these things that “will happen in the future if no changes are made”, there is nothing that appears to be happening now or in the lifetime of the humans alive today who can make a change.

Another reason is that people are used to things they are doing now and as beings of habit, we don’t like to change our lifestyles quickly as we are comfortable.

I believe that if conservationists want people to be more knowledgeable and to take action, there must be something specifically enticing to each individual rather than a broad statement about our world depleting.