Author: Milly F.

The message the author was trying to drive home was supported by a number of key statistics and comparisons that surprised me. It was almost scary learning how quickly and drastically the environmental problems we have caused snowballed, cited by statistics such as the global mean surface temperature increasing “ten times faster than what has been the average rate of natural sustained global temperature change from the end of the last ice age to the present interglacial.” This part of the essay emphasized and answered the question of why does the change in the environment matter, which I noticed was asked many times throughout all our class discussions.

The part of the article that outlines how people keep looking for short-term solutions such as building seawalls really bothered me. Clearly, these are not solutions at all: they lead to beach erosion, so they pump sand, which is also just a temporary solution. I don’t understand that if it is known that these solutions don’t work, why they keep pursuing them. People are too stubborn and care too much about their own personal desires to give them up and pursue long-term solutions. It just doesn’t make sense to me that people keep running around in circles, chasing solutions they already know are not effective. They don’t solve the solutions, but just push them off to a future time. Then they implement the short-term solution all over again, which costs more money and time. It especially makes no sense to me that people would compromise their safety, wellbeing and shelter in order to have a pretty place to live. Things like this make me angry and confused at the human race.

 

This reading was a nice change from City at the Water’s Edge. It was similar in nature to the services paper we read, but this time it was about green roofs. Before, I didn’t think that green roofs were anything but pretty to look at. I also had the impression that they were hard to maintain, and that the aesthetic pleasure it brought out was not worth the efforts to create them. This article taught me that green roofs are more than just pretty, but beneficial to the environment. The writer of the paper lists many different ways green roofs are like this and backs up his claims with numerous, detailed statistics, which I enjoyed. I also enjoyed how he included some downsides of having greenroofs. For example, in the section about how green roofs reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the author also included how the amount of CO2 that goes into creating green roofs is greater than the amount it reduces . This created a wholesome view on the environmental benefits of green roofs, rather than a one-sided paper that advocates entirely for them.

Nonetheless, there are numerous benefits to green roofs, backed up with numerous statistics. One statistic that caught my eye was that 38% of carbon dioxide emissions come from buildings. This was shocking, because I know that these emissions are so bad for the environment, and living in New York City, big buildings are everywhere. I didn’t think that something so related to my life was such a big perpetrator for a huge problem. Another surprising statistic was the one that stated that if a Michigan State University’s 1.1km roof was green, it would save the equivalent of 661 vehicles in CO2. That is a lot of vehicles. I can’t really envision how big 1.1km is, but I know that 661 vehicles is a lot. And that’s all from a pretty green roof! It was quite shocking seeing the impact green roofs have quantified. The last statistic that really interested me was the one about a green roof that needed repair for the first time in 91 years, as opposed to the typical 15 years for a regular roof. This just shattered all expectations I had of green roofs. I would’ve thought that green roofs would be the high maintenance type, and regular roofs not. But it turned out to be the other way around.

Overall, this was a very interesting article that brought a scientific aspect to what was once just a pretty picture in my eyes. With all the benefits listed in this paper in mind, perhaps I’ll get a green roof one day myself.

This chapter was similar in structure to previous chapters we have read, starting off with the wonderful abundance of natural life, then immediately cutting to the quick decimation of said life. This chapter specifically had to do with water and marine life. Since all the chapters are structured the same, it’s getting hard to feel like I’m learning anything new. But the information the author offers as to how exactly the specific type of nature was destroyed differs, which keeps it interesting. For example, the part about oysters particularly interested me, because I never knew we had oysters in the New York City area before. It made me think of all the possibilities for fresh, cheaper oysters there could have been if they were not overharvested. I’m vegetarian now so I don’t ache for this as much, but the old pescetarian me would have been distraught at this information.

The passage that followed about the polluting of the waters was absolutely disgusting. Hearing in detail what pollutants were in the water really got to me. Moreover, hearing the scientific ways how the disgusting things in the water made it even more disgusting added onto that. It also made me feel bad for any kind of marine life that was in those waters. I wonder why the people continued to pollute the waters, especially the big companies and factories like petroleum refineries. It was frustrating reading about the ignored laws implemented to safeguard this. But eventually they were able to make progress, pursuing action against perpetrators and taking greater measures to deal with waste.

What was hard to imagine was that water in the area now is better than how it was back then. New York City waters already have a reputation of being disgusting and of terrible condition, so I can’t even fathom that it used to be even worse before. It’s pretty gross to think about. But I’m glad that conditions are slowly improving, and it makes me wonder what level of restoration the water will reach as a result of these efforts.

This post was a nice change from hearing about all the destruction mankind has brought upon nature in the Northeast. When I was reading it, I wish it was centered on New York so it could be a little more relevant to our lives and the class, but it was interesting nonetheless. I never really thought about how nature exactly was beneficial to us, aside from the fact that plants allow us to breathe. This article listed all sorts of ways that nature does so, and I never would have knew about these things if I didn’t read the article. I thought one of the most interesting services was how nature works against the urban heat island affect that negatively affects cities. Who would have thought that by simply being present, things like trees and water areas can cool cities down to have a great positive impact?

I think that when people think about being green and preserving the environment, they think it is too expensive of an initiative to partake in. But this article showed that the inclusion of natural ecological systems can cut costs. I wondered what exactly the difference would be, though. Additionally, I wonder if the New York City government is aware of these benefits and is making efforts to increase the presence of ecosystems for their service. From the article, it really seemed like these ecosystems make a huge difference in the cities they are in. But it is also important to note a small comment in the conclusion that although nature can do all these wonderful things, it’s important that we do our part in reducing the problems that are being served.

The introduction of this chapter was constructed like the others: a beautiful depiction of nature in the city, a glimpse of it from the past, and a snowball into its destruction. This chapter was particularly harder to read because it was the first to deal with animals, rather than plants. For example, the author includes a recount of the annual pigeon shoot that once took place and details how “hundreds of twitching pigeons [littered] the fields,” (131). This image was startling to me, and was much more offensive than the thought of hundreds of trees being cut down. When I read this passage, I thought of annoying regular pigeons that crowd the city, but when I looked up passenger pigeons I thought they were pretty. Perhaps I only feel this way because I’m not growing up in a time where these passenger pigeons are everywhere like the pigeons in the city today are. I guess our attitudes towards the different species were the same, but at least us New Yorkers have the decency to not kill these birds no matter how much they are a nuisance to our lives. It was particularly sad that what was once (the passenger pigeon, as well as the other species cited such as the heath hen) so abundant eventually became extinct.

Another part that baffled me was how women used to wear entire dead birds on their hats. I thought that this was so silly and almost barbaric, when I realized that people today still practice this, but in the form of fur coats and scarves. I thought this was bad enough, but the author goes on to detail more horrific slaughtering of birds, which disgusted me. I was glad to read the following parts about how people began to act to preserve these birds. This became more optimistic, as the recovery and comeback of different species were depicted.  It was also interesting to note how improving the conditions of one aspect of nature, water and its cleanliness, improved the state of another aspect, the birds. This is what distinguishes the story of birds in New York from the past histories we have read; many species have been able to make a comeback, ending the chapter on a much more positive note (aside from the last paragraph). It makes me wonder what factors contributed to the divergence between the storylines of birds and trees. However, this is not to say that the state of wild bird-life is great, per se. The dramatic-yet-true ending of this chapter makes an important point that although many species came close to their demise but didn’t, when species do reach that point, there is no turning back. This is why it’s important for us to not let things get to that point.

By the first few sentences, this handbook already intrigued me with its opening about the many interesting species there are in New York, unbeknownst to most of the city’s inhabitants. A little further down, I was very surprised to learn that certain species thrive in the city setting. Once I was reeled in, the author presented reasons why preserving biodiversity is so important. This was something I’ve always known, but never knew the specific reasons why, so this passage was very informational. It became even more informational once the author began speaking about why it’s important in New York City, specifically.

The parts of this handbook that I found the most interesting were parts that cited specific examples of biodiversity and other ecological concepts. For example, the picture of the Manhattan schist was very intriguing to me. On top of it being a specific example, I realized I’ve seen that kind of formation in Central Park and never looked at it in the light of ecology. That part of the handbook made me think of something I’ve encountered countless times in a way I never have before. That whole chapter made me think of regular land that I encounter every day in a new way, considering its diversified composition and its history leading up to its current state.

After reading about how amazing New York City is in terms of ecology and biodiversity, reading about all the things we are doing wrong to harm our city’s nature was saddening. I am glad the author presented efforts to be made and being made after this chapter. I feel like unlike the other readings, which have been focused on looking back and seeing how our actions have caused damage to the environment, this reading was more about moving forward from and correcting our mistakes. The habitat profiles were also very interesting, presenting readers with a plethora of species to discover and learn more about.

The reading started off nicely, with a lighthearted anecdote of the writer’s adventure to Bunker Hill. I foolishly allowed this to let my guard down, and the chapter quickly escalated to practically a horror story entailing the mass murder of the trees of the Northeast. The topic of this chapter was parallel to that of the previous reading, as it focused on the destruction of natural land in the area. However, this chapter focused on the specific species of trees. It also looks at how the trees were decimated over time as a result of human efforts, rather than comparing different snapshots of time.

Due to the detailed and statistic-filled nature of the writing, I was able to learn what human actions led to the great loss of so many trees, and further understand the impact these actions had. For example, there is a part in the passage that details the deforestation of the Atlantic white cedar in the Hackensack Meadowlands. The writer lists a plethora of species that would thrive in the presence of the tree, and reveals that the area was completely degraded and ended up turning into a landfill. The contrast between the previous abundance of life and variety of species, and its presence state as a landfill was too great.

Another part that I particularly liked was towards the beginning of the chapter, which explores why humans are so fascinated with trees. One explanation the writer offers is “that they mark time, living beyond our individual lives, and connect us to [history],” (113). Although this is in stark contrast to the rest of the chapter, which details how humans have degraded the trees in the Northeast for as long as they’ve come in contact with them, I thought it tied in nicely to the end of the chapter. It ends on a hopeful note, discussing the actions we must take to fix our mistakes. The writer reminds us that despite all the devastation we created, it is our duty now to do what we can and reverse the past.

Mannahatta is a research paper that explores pre-Europe Manhattan and compares it to the modern-day concrete jungle. It uses a mix of different resources, such as the British Headquarters Map, in order to construct a picture of what the island once was. In the past, natural areas took up amost 100% of the island, while now, that figure is close to what human-dedicated areas constitutes. Now, natural areas take up only 3% of the island — a small, small fraction of what it used to be. The paper explored this issue in hopes of raising readers’ awareness of the ecological state of the city.

Prior to reading this article, the fact that the city used to be full of nature was something I was aware of, but never really thought about. I also definitely did not know the extent to which it was natural. This is attributed to the fact that when I think of old New York, I think back to the early 1900s, as I’ve seen pictures and depictions of the era. Imagining as far back as the 1600s and the 1700s is beyond the scope of my imagination, so I never was able to envision a New York City covered in forestry. Reading this article definitely gave me a clearer picture of the nature that used to sprawl to every corner of the city. It was mind blowing to think that the sidewalks I walk everyday used to be home to huge, tall trees and other wildlife. This disbelief was deepened by the drastic statistics that were cited by the paper and mentioned previously in this response. Another piece of information that stood out especially to me was the fact that Times Square used to be a huge stream and Five Pointz used to be a significant pond. To me, those two locations couldn’t be further from nature. The difference between now and then is really depicted when you place such two contrasting images against each other. Other contrasts are depicted throughout the paper, such as comparing the old New York to the Midwest. This part really surprised me, as I never would have thought New York could ever be similar to an area such as that.

While I read the paper, I noticed that I could hardly believe the things I was reading, as they were so difficult to imagine. However, the bottom line is, New York’s natural areas now do not even come close to what they once were. The paper definitely achieved its goal in raising awareness to this fact and bringing concern to the state of our city. This topic seems very interesting, and I would definitely like to learn more about it.