Hello all, below is the list of who’s bringing what to our upcoming holiday party spectacular.
| Professor McClelland | Cookies |
| Neha & Janice | Munchkins |
| Donna | 2 bags of chips |
| Ann | Donuts |
| Paulina | 2 bottles of soda |
| Holden | Plates |
| Dzvinka | Napkins |
| Chris | Cups |
| Lauren | 2 bags of chips |
| Janice | Party Mix |
| Kiran | Cookies & brownies |
| Milyza | An awesome holiday music playlist |
Thanks to all who volunteered to bring something. Please don’t forget to do so! It’s gonna be great!
I thought this was a very interesting project and initiative. One aspect that I enjoyed was that people from all backgrounds can benefit from the City and participate in its development. For example, graduate students would partner with businesses and participate in the construction of the city, and small business owners would be able to start up their own businesses. I wondered, though, how the country was convincing people to relocate into this city. The issue of income inequality in the city that came up was interesting. Although the city is sustainably amazing, it appeared that the same could not be said for it socially. Perhaps this issue could be tackled once the city is further developed. Another paradoxical-type issue brought up is that the funds for the city came from oil and gas export revenues, which is very ironic as these resources produce greenhouse emissions yet fund such a sustainable project. Personally, I thought this was not okay and that there should be an alternate source of funding.
The initial statistics on the success of the City were overwhelming, specifically with regards to the change in net demand for various resources and the $25 billion in fuel costs saved. I was waiting for a part that depicted the effectiveness of the city, so this part was really satisfying to read. Then, when they went into how they exactly went about creating these achievements was really awesome as well. For example, they used mirrors to focus sunlight in order to create steam. That’s just awesome and innovative, yet so simple that it makes me wonder why we wouldn’t normally use something like that in the first place. Then there were steps that were just mind-blowingly creative, like orienting the city a certain way in order to optimize sun & shade. It was really cool to see how such small details that the architects carefully thought out were able to impact the mechanisms of the city so greatly. Many social effects came about from the structure of the city as well. For example, the shaded streets would encourage further human interaction. This was another example of such a small detail that is so effective yet simple. I also thought it was impressive how not only the products were sustainable, but the processes, as well. For example, in achieving sustainable water, the city would get its water from a desalinization plant outside the city. However, transporting this water would be conducted via solar power, which goes to show that the process of achieving sustainability in this city is wholesome. Overall, I thought this was a very interesting city with numerous amazing processes and achievable goals. However, some aspects of it are questionable, and we have to wait and see how these concerns will play out as the city becomes more and more developed.
I thought this was a very interesting article because it explored the idea of banning plastic bags that we previously discussed in class. I did not know that China had taken such an initiative, and I applauded them for doing so. I know that China has a particularly bad pollution problem, so it was good that they enacted this law. However, my excitement soon disappointed once I read the results of this article. They were very different from my expectations, as I thought this initiative would have had wild success.
I thought it was ridiculous that 33.3% of people still bought plastic bags. This completely defeated the purpose of the whole ban, and simply thinking from the consumer perspective, that’s such an unsustainable, money-wasting practice. I also thought it was ridiculous that there was a black market for these plastic bags. I don’t see why it would be so hard to simply not use plastic bags. Perhaps an initiative China can take is banning plastic bags altogether, or making sure that consumers have their reusable bags with them before going shopping in farmers markets or supermarkets. It seems like there’s too many loopholes in this law that people keep using to make their way around it.
I don’t know how accurate this article was, though, since it was mainly based off 163 results from questionnaires and a 30-minute observation. I thought this would have been much more effective as a study analyzing the impact this law actually had on pollution and white pollution to be specific, as that what this law is trying to take a stand against. Although looking at the issue from a consumer point of view was very revealing and definitely provided some insight, I think what could make this study be even more revealing would be the short-term and long-term effects of the ban.
Hello friends, hope you’re enjoying the long weekend!
For Monday, please read Estimating Stormwater Runoff for Community Gardens in New York City. If this link doesn’t work, you can find it here (I hope).
Please read Introduction (8-9), Ecosystem Services of Community Gardens (21-22), & Discussion & Conclusions (71-80). It’s student-written and spaced out nicely so should be a nice read.
Thank you, and looking forward to discussing the article with you all on Monday!
I thought this was a very well-rounded article, considering it compared 3 different spaces (as opposed to the expected, standard 2) of 1 urban area and 2 areas that were green to different extents. It was also well-rounded in terms of variables they were looking at, including psychological vs. physiological. I thought it was also very smart that they chose to conduct the experiment on people who were just coming back from work, as this is when the results of the study would be most applicable and relevant. This was a good article to reinforce one of the articles we previously looked at, which looked at the effects of talking a walk in an urban space versus walking in a park. After reading this, I was more inclined to take more walks in the park. I’ve been pretty stressed these days, and when this happens I tend to live in the library or lock myself up in my room and watch Friends. But now I’ll definitely consider taking walks in the park to take on a scientifically-proven, more natural way of destressing myself. My only problem is that I don’t even know of any nearby parks in my current neighborhood. Luckily, I’m moving to a new area in two weeks that will allow me this opportunity. I was sort of relieved to read that there wasn’t a big difference between the 2 green spaces. There’s not really any opportunity to explore woodlands in NYC, so I’m glad the option of walking through an urban park is still valid.The gender difference in nature perception would definitely be something interesting to explore. The results of a study like that would be very revealing, and would be able to strengthen the results and findings of this already well-developed study. Overall, I thought this was a very well-thought out, revealing study that definitely would make one more inclined to taking walks in urban green spaces when stressed.
While reading this article, I just kept questioning humanity, specifically within New York City. Although it’s hard for me to imagine the size of the problem discussed in the article, as it’s hard for me to envision things unless I see it with my own eyes, this article was able to present the problem very blatantly so that even someone like me could understand it. The first instance when I questioned humanity was towards the beginning of the article, when the author talked about how the city just moved all the waste from one place (Freshkills) to another (neighboring states). I questioned the point of this, as I thought all it was doing was spending precious time, fuel & money to move something from one place to another, having no impact on solving the actual problem. The idea that they wanted to do this to the Upper East Side was even more ridiculous, especially when considering the immediately surrounding places listed in the article, like a public housing project for low income minorities and a sport and fitness center for children. When the testimony by Lorraine Johnson, I was surprised that something like this would even be legal and an option purposefully taken up by the city.
Going into the problem of throwaway culture introduced in the middle of the article, I agreed that there is a culture specific to NYC of eating out for breakfast and lunch and ordering in again for dinner that you cannot find in any other city. However, I did think that the mindset New Yorkers have when approaching the waste that is generated from these actions can be changed. The article goes on to list several different small changes that can be done to do this, and I questioned why New York has not taken up these measurements in the first place instead of trying to simply move their trash. For example, I was questioning why recycling is still optional for commercial entities, especially when considering how much waste they produce. In that section, I was also curious as to why the levels of recycling decreased from their peak of 23% in 2001. Also, things as simple as offering more recycling bins would be a good way to combat this problem, and I believe this would also change citizens’ attitude towards recycling in general. It also makes no sense that within the home, recycling plastic bottles is required, yet outside of it it isn’t. Contradictory moves by NYC like these really undermine the importance of recycling. And the 5c rule made to incentivize people to recycle is definitely not effective, considering I did not even know about it until I read this article. There are so many little things the city can do to create an actual solution for the problem of waste, instead of doing stupid things like just move the trash from place to place (which is reminiscent of the coastal erosion discussion we had before). I definitely think that with regulation by the city that is strict and small actions, people in NYC will be more conscious of their waste production.
seI loved the project this article was about. I thought it was ingenious, as it served dual purposes of contributing to resolving the overflow problem and provided a place for NYC kids to play. There was a place for them to play before, but as the child at the end remarked, it used to be an asphalt playground. Going more into the involvement of the children, I thought it was great how much they got involved. For example, the picture depicted the children actually creating the park and planting, which seemed like a great activity for them. I’m sure they had a blast doing this, and it was also great exposure to the outdoors. I hope that through this, they became more inclined to take advantage of the playground and of the great outdoors in general. Another aspect I enjoyed was the input they had into the process, with the elements they suggested going into the playground being actually incorporated into it. This only made sense, as they would be the primary ones to use it, but it was also great because since they had autonomy over what went into their park would make them even more inclined to use it.
As for how this park contributes to solving the problem of stormwater overflow, I definitely think this is a great system in comparison to the gray infrastructure that was mentioned just because of how versatile it is. I definitely approve of the $2.4 billion plan to create more of these parks, and I would be interested to see the impact in statistics and data the impact it will have. I would also be interested in actually seeing these parks, and maybe even getting involved with creating them. It definitely does seem like a fun activity, and it would very cool to get involved in creating something so great.
As my term paper and poster is on the subject of water pollution, this article was particularly interesting and relevant to me and I definitely will look more into the project presented in the article. Overall, I think these parks a great, fun idea that I would love to learn more about.
I enjoyed this article, as it was very different from the ones we have read in the past. As a quantitative thinker, I enjoy data and its visualization, so this article was right up my alley. It was interesting to see the different ways the data was presented. It really helped me, as a reader, to understand the different origins and causes of noise pollution. It was also really interesting to see the different underlying patterns of noise pollution, such as how complaints of loud music/partying ends around 6am, where complaints from air-conditioning units and construction equipment begin. I also thought it was funny that there are noise complaints for something as specific as ice cream trucks was its own category.
The article definitely lacked a scientific aspect, but this was to be expected. I think in this lies an opportunity for anyone looking into the topic to take on that aspect and look at it in a less opinionated and more scientific, eloquent manner. Also, seeing the impact this noise pollution has on the environment is definitely an application that would be very useful and important with regards to our class. I also thought the idea of correlation versus causation would another interesting alley to explore further. To what extent are the data presented and the reasons offered actually related? Exploring all these different lines of thought creates opportunity to determine potential solutions and mitigants for the problem of noise pollution.
Overall, I thought this article was a good starting point for investigating noise pollution, seeing as how (according to the article) the City has not started conducting formal research/examination into the problem yet. Now that the data has been presented in an easy-to-understand manner, the next step is to explore its implications.
I thought the introduction to this reading was very, very, VERY dark and depressing. I already understood the sadness of the situation, but when the author put the reader in the woodpecker’s shoes, things got very depressing, very quick. I don’t know if the gravity of the parallel was necessary, but it did help me imagine the sadness and struggles the woodpecker could theoretically experience. I expected the article to go more into the woodpecker, like how the City at the Water’s Edge reading usually goes, but it continued to develop this dark-but-necessary idea.
One idea that the author offered that I found especially interesting was that “We and nature are mutually impoverished,” (113). In class, when we discuss how humans are impacting ecology and the natural landscape of our world, we never think how this is affecting us in terms of our interspecies relationships with the species we affect. Although we have acknowledged the fact that we are worse off as a result of our harmful actions, we never look at it in the light that the article focuses on. This made me think about other species being on the same level as humans, and made me think about the deeper connection that goes beyond the surface between humans and other species. As the author later cites, it is almost spiritual.
I was glad when the article took a positive turn. A part of this that stood out too me was when the author pointed out that the upside to humans being the cause of the extinction of man species is that we are able to, to some extent, revert our wrongdoings and help the species we have negatively affected in the past. It’s sort of like, we are the masters of our own destiny, but instead of our destiny, it’s the destiny of other species on this planet. This goes to show how important it is that we take action and try to fix our mistakes. Although we can’t undo everything, we can try our best to mitigate the situation as much as possible. Overall, I thought that this article was effective in bringing something we have previously discussed into a new light.
Let me start off with a few presumptions I had about solar energy prior to reading this article. I thought that harnessing solar energy for personal use is super expensive, and something reserved for only the wealthier citizens of New York. I had this idea because my affluent friend had solar panels in her home, which I thought was super cool and also unattainable. The second barrier listed on the second page aligned with this assumption, that the sticker shock of a solar thermal system is too real. This made me more interested to read the rest of the article and see if solar thermal systems are actually cost-efficient in the long run, as was stated in the introduction. The findings showed that the buildings that utilized these systems saved tens of thousands of dollars in the long run, which was really great to hear. This made me wish more people would look past the initial sticker shock and recognize the long-term savings they would incur if they were to go with these systems.
As for the part of the paper related to energy, initial statistics cited were scary. New Yorkers use a lot of energy, with most of it coming from the environmentally-harmful sources of fuel oil and natural gas. This reminded me of one of the old articles we read before, which mentioned that a large percentage of CO2 emissions come from buildings. But I think the number in this article that is specific to New York is much greater than the one cited for the general world in the article. As I read more of the article, the energy-related benefits were undeniable, with long-term savings of over 5 million pounds of CO2 in those 4 sites alone. This was very impressive, and showed that there’s so much untapped potential for solar energy in the New York City market.
Overall, this paper educated me on the benefits and feasibility of solar thermal systems in a New York City setting, and made me realize that they are not as impractical as I thought.
