Author Archives: Sharon Lin

About Sharon Lin

Hi! My name is Wai-yu Lin, but I go by the name Sharon. I love going to different places, trying different foods, and meeting new people. I like to cook and swim on my free time. I enjoy watching television shows and Asian dramas.

Posts by Sharon Lin

Downstate Stakeholder–Filtration Plant

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Drinking water is essential to everyday life and New York City is facing a critical dilemma of increasing costs in their lifestyle to maintain safe drinking water. New York City has been known for the safety and quality of its drinking water.To maintain this consistency of water, New York City may have to pay a large sum of money totally up to billions of dollars for a filtration plant. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed that New York City plan for a construction of a filtration plant for its Catskill and Delaware water supply, which has been estimated to surpass the city’s annual budget. This would have a large affect on Downtown stakeholders as they are the ones receiving the water supply. There is a large chance that Downtown stakeholders will have to shoulder the costs of the construction of this filtration plant, which is a heavy burden as most of these stakeholders are of low income.

New York City has entered a deal with the Environmental Protection Agency to avoid building a filtration plant. In exchange for not having to building a costly filtration plant, New York City must take measures to safeguard the water supply to ensure its safety and quality. Actions the city had to take involved updating its sewage plants with new equipment and buying land around reservoirs to prevent development that may lead to chemical runoff. So far, “the city bought 20,000 acres around city reservoirs, which includes 5,400 acres around the West Branch Reservoir-a crucial reservoir of the Catskills.” The city also “upgraded six city-owned sewage plants that produce 40 percent of the total discharge into the Catskill reservoirs.”

Although New York City did well in some areas, there were areas that lacked in comparison. To continue avoiding the construction of the filtration plant, New York City must work harder and faster on protecting their upstate reservoirs. These reservoirs are our main source of drinking water supply and by protecting them we are not only ensuring the quality and safety of the city’s water, but also avoiding construction of a filtration plant that would be out of the city’s budget. Upholding their end of the deal, New York City will not have to build a costly plant that Downtown stakeholders will most likely bear the costs of.

Source: Hu, Winnie. “U.S. Says New York City May Have to Spend $6 Billion on Filtration.” New York Times 1 June 2000, sec. B: 1. Print.

Marris Questions

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Sharon Lin

1.  How do you entwine the ideas of a “rambunctious garden” into your daily life?
2. Did any criticisms/critiques change your thoughts about your novel? If not , were there any that stood out to you?
3. Out of the seven goals you listed in the last chapter “A Menu of New Goals,” which do you believe is the most important (why)? Do you think that they are all connected together?
4. What influenced you to write Rambunctious Garden? How did you become interested in urban ecology/ the environment?

poster questions

Posted on October 9, 2012 by Sharon Lin

1. How does the environment affect birth defects? How large of a role does the environment play on birth defects?

2. How do pests(i.e. rodents, bed bugs) affect the environment and humans? Where are they found most in the city/New York? How are they dealt with and are the methods used affecting the environment negatively?

3.  How do pets affect human health and the environment?

Marris Ch 10: New Goals

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Sharon Lin

To give up preserving nature in its “pristine wilderness,” conservationists must come up with  a variety of alternative goals. Making these goals is not as simple as it may seem. The goals must be applied to the real world with budgets and other limitations. Also, unlike conserving nature in its originality, which can applied to all situations, not one single goal can be used for all preservation of nature.

Some people believe that people have a moral obligation to treat land, animals, plants, and water the same we would want to be treated. These people, deep ecologists, claim that if humans fail to protect the environment, then humans are taking away the environment’s “rights.” For example, animals have rights to live as they naturally would, like cats roaming around freely. However, this conflicts with conservation because some animals live by killing/hunting other species, which may be heading to extinction. To prevent animals from causing other species to go extinct, conservationists will have to step in and diminish the predator’s population. This conflict makes it difficult to have biodiversity and to protect animal’s rights. Besides animal’s rights, there are also the rights of nonliving aspects of nature, which cannot be based off animal’s rights, is another difficulty in conservation. I believe that the goal of “protecting the rights of other species” should not be concentrated on too much unless it involves a species going extinct–goal 3. All animals should be able to behave as they would in the wilderness, and humans should only observe and make sure no species will go extinct. I believe that eventually the species food chain will balance out.

Also, this goes hand in hand with goal 2-protecting the megafauna-because we do not want larger species like pandas and elephants to go extinct, but we do want them to be able to live in their natural habitats. To ensure that megafauna do not go extinct, conservationists need to work with others instead of trying to push their ideals onto others. For example, the illegal trade of ivory diminishes the population of elephants in Africa. It was first illegal to cull elephants, but then Africa soon made it legal, which sparked a fiery debate. By focusing on protecting the elephants from illegal ivory trade, other species that would be affected by the elephants disappearance are forgotten. Conservationists should work goal two and goal three together, because protecting the megafauna will also help protect other species connected to it, as well as prevent extinction of the megafauna and other species.

Protecting all species will ensure genetic diversity and biodiversity, goals 4 and 5. Conservationists want to have as much diversity in the environment as possible. However, the complexity of diversity makes it difficult to conserve all. Some species are not as well liked as others, so its disappearance may go unnoticed; however, it is still a part of nature and contributes to diversity. Biodiversity involves so many aspects of nature that to protect it all seems impossible. However, I believe that biodiversity will be protected as long as we protect nature from being completely destroyed. From the looks of it, biodiversity would be the main goal of conservation with all other goals stated beneath it. This is due to the vague term of biodiversity that involves species and landscape.

Marris Ch8-9

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Marris supports the idea of designer ecosystems, as they are similar to her idea of a rambunctious garden. A designer ecosystem is a “restored” ecosystem where ecologists attempt to bring an ecosystem back to the targeted baseline by tempering with aspects of the environment. For example, stream restoration is a type of “restored” ecosystem that ecologists work on in attempt to reduce nitrogen levels. Ecologists aim to restore streams to their previous appearance where they meander down through soil. To restore streams, “wire baskets filled with rocks or the root balls of dead trees are chained in place to slow stream flows.” Marris explains that restoring an ecosystem is not really restoring it as it does not put the ecosystem back to its baseline, but builds a new ecosystem. A designer ecosystem seems similar to a novel ecosystem in that both ecosystems involve tempering with an ecosystem to make it productive and improve nature. However, Marris’ example of a failed prairie restoration job does sound similar to a novel ecosystem. In this failed restoration, mixed species of a variety of prairie ecosystems were planted on an area. This resulted in domination by Sporoboblus airoides, “which doesn’t exist as a dominant anywhere around for hundred of miles.” Although it is not stated that the species are not invasive, they are not stated that they are native species of the area either. This seems to blur the lines of a novel ecosystem and a designer ecosystem.

There are many ways to make the Earth greener without having to give up on human modernization. In the past people aimed to conserve nature and keep it away from human hands. However, more people are beginning to look at nature by infusing it with modern society. Marris mentions a “gestalt switch” where people change their views of the main focus in saving nature. Previously many people believed that “nature is the foreground, human-dominated lands the background…[but now] pavement, houses, malls where nothing can grow—as the foreground and everything else as the background nature.” Instead of sacrificing everything to keep nature in its pristine state, people are coming up with ways to work urbanization with nature. For example, in Banff National Park in Alberta there are wildlife overpasses and underpasses that allow humans and wild animals to travel where they need to go. Marris states that conservationists need to intermix variety of lands to form connected nature like parks. This is seen in Europe’s farm-like conservation system, where “National Parks and nature reserves are often intensely grazed by cattle and sheep.” This system combines humans with nature, as farmers do not have to leave or give up their land to conserve nature. It also gives farmers incentive to help preserve nature. There is debate about using agricultural methods to conserve nature. Agriculture has led to overusing land and possibly using even using more land according to Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer. These two ecologists suggest working with agri-environement schemes so species would be able to use the land as their habitat or as “corridors,” like a stopover during migration. For example, Duwamish Diagonal Avenue is an example of a “corridor” for migrating species, as well as a place for people to get in touch with nature.With so many methods to save nature, it is possible for the environment to fuse with urban society.

Marris Ch6-7

Posted on September 29, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Marris does not seem to think that invasive species are as harmful as people think them to be. She first explains how people currently view invasive species, which is: invasive species will only bring harm to the environment it is introduced. Because majority people believe that foreign species will take over the new environment and destroy the native species of that environment, the positive aspects of invasive species are shaded. For example, on Rodrigues Island, when the forest was being cut down the three species living on that island faced extinction. This was because they depended on the fruits and nectar from trees in the forest, as well as the insects living in the forest. The situation became extremely dire as the number of bird species was declining down to ten birds. So to save the species, the island was reforested with exotic species. “The trees were chosen without regard to conservation and included some notorious pests.” However, the introduction of the exotic species did damage the environment, but had saved it instead. Marris states that prejudice against the exotic species because they were still “invasive species” led to their exile from the Rodrigues Island. This proves that Marris does not really think of foreign species as invasive species if they prove helpful to nature in areas they are introduced to. Also, Marris brings up the Dov Sax’s paper American Naturalist, which spoke of increased “diversity of overall oceanic islands.” Sax’s research showed that invasive species were not illustrating the competition over resources, which would lead to native species extinctions, nor were they displaying a take over of the ecosystem. Marris concludes from Sax’s paper that extinctions did not occur because of “introduced species on continents.” Marris’ standpoint opened my eyes to the positive effects of “invasive” species, but the negative effects from purposely introducing foreign species overpower the positive aspects.

The success of novel ecosystems seems beneficial for nature and people even though some ecologists disapprove of them as they consist of majorly of invasive species. In Puerto Rico, the people treasure some invasive species-such as the flame tree and the mango tree-thriving there. However, some ecologists are so prejudiced against invasive species that they even prevented Puerto Rico from making an invasive specie its’ official plant. This prejudice should be changed. Because invasive species are located in different areas and not creating any harm, they are increasing the chances of that breed’s survival. For example, the flame tree is an invasive specie in Puerto Rico, but if it were not there it may have gone extinct as the flame tree is threatened in its native land-Madagascar. Lugo’s research of how the pine tree-an invasive specie on Puerto Rico’s pine plantations-was more productive than its neighboring natives. Ecologists should not grudge against novel ecosystems just because they do not illustrate the “stereotypes of invasive species…[forming] monocultures.” Novel ecosystems are still a part of nature and they are helping improve nature with their stability and productivity.

Visiting The High Line & Stalter

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Within New York City, a place surrounded by tall buildings and filled with traffic, there is a strip of vegetation along 10th avenue from 13th to 34th street. A railroad abandoned for 46 years was observed to have gone through something similar to primary succession on bare rocks or on islands. The railroad that was used to deliver commercial goods was abandoned from 1934 to 1980. During this time, “lichens, byrophytes, forbs, grasses and woody vegetation” formed along the rail line untouched by humans. (Stalter) For vegetation to grow by itself in a place filled with skyscrapers and little plants produced with human hands is a good example of Marris’ rambunctious garden.

The High Line was once known as the “Death Ave,” because of the “dangerous mix of rail/motor traffic and pedestrians along its path.” (Stalter) After the rail line was abandoned vegeation began to form on its own, providing evidence that it is possible for nature to grow in cities. Marris believes that nature should be adapted to the city environment instead of just protected and preserved. From her observation, nature is able to adapt to the changing environment created by humans, and even if humans went out to protect the environment in its pristine form from human hands, it will still be affected by humans. So with the success of the High Line building nature on its own, Marris is able to show that nature can adapt to urban areas.

After the High Line was abandoned, there was much discussion as to what to do with it. Some wanted the rail line teared down, while others wished to preserve it and transform it to a walkway. The Friends of the High Line wanted to save the rail line and claimed that its transformation would “enhance economic development of the area.” (Stalter) When it was decided that the High Line would be preserved, many species were discovered . The specie richness was observed to be “greater than the specie richness of four nearby New York City  sites” and might just have “one of the highest level of specie richness in any temperate region.” (Stalter) This was clear during my visit to the High Line on September 20. During my visit, there were a variety of plants though most of them seemed similar.

Besides the plants looking similar, the pollinators were as well. I spotted many bees there, a small flying insect, a few moths, and a sparrow. From all the bees I observed, it was visible that they were all different species. Some bees were fat, others were thin, and the shape of their wings were different too. Some bees appeared to have a larger stinger than others as well. Given the different appearances, it was clear that there were different species of bees.  These different breeds of bees coexisted well with one another as some even gathered at the same plants to gather pollen. It seems that some plants attracted bees more than others and some plants attracted only one specific type of bee. From my visit, I. noticed that most of the plants that looked alike were spread out along highline more than others plants that I had only viewed in certain spots.

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Assisted migration is a bit similar rewilding. In rewilding, species are moved to another environment to rebuild the nature that once used to be there. In assisted migration, organisms are moved to another area to ensure they survive and do not become extinct from climate change. The importance of rewilding is to save the environment, whereas the importance of assisted migration is to rescue species from extinction. To say one method is better than the other is difficult, as both methods have different goals. However, the two methods do aim to stop the ecosystem from deteriorating any further. Also, the two methods have similar concerns. For both methods, scientists worry that by moving species to a new area, they will turn into invasive species. If organisms turned into invasive species, then the method at hand would be too risky to implement as it puts the ecosystem in danger of becoming more out of balance. A concern raised in assisted migration, which may apply to rewilding, is that if species are moved to another environment, the new area may not have the necessities -“specific soil microbes or microclimatic conditions”- for the organisms to sruvive. Although research is done on the animals, there are so many variables out there that scientists can only do so much to identify what specific animals need to survive in a new environment.

According to research there are two types of migration. One type is migration towards peaks of mountains. Certain species can only handle certain temperatures, such as the American pika. This animal cannot survive in high temperatures, so as climate changes lean towards the heat the American pika will have to move up the mountain where it is cooler. Increasing heat from climate change means that animals from the bottom of the mountain will have to move up to live in comfort and survive. The more species climb up to the apex of the mountain, the less space there will be. Thus, there is more competition in the mountain, which would lead to extinction for some animals. To protect species from going extinct, some ecologists consider assisted migration because of the second type of migration: pole-wards migration. Pole-ward migration is the action of organisms to move towards the northern poles due to climate change. For example, beech trees are normally from the southern end of Canada to northern Florida; however, beech trees are now moving north into Canada because of the cool temperatures fit for beech trees. An ecologist, Parmesan, estimates that “the average species’s range…moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade.” Pole-ward migration is not as severe as mountain migration because there is a higher chance of extinction for mountain species due to mountain migration. Even if organisms move closer to the poles, mountain organisms are unable to move away from the mountains. For example, the American pika can only move up the mountain since it cannot survive in high temperatures and the temperature at the bottom of the mountain is too high for it to survive. Thus, it is trapped to stay on the mountain and climb up unless someone were help it migrate. Assisted migration does not seem like a bad idea as a method to prevent species from going extinct, even though there are chances of the species to go extinct in a new area or for the species to turn invasive.

Rewilding

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Rewilding paves a new path in preserving nature. In rewilding, animals are introduced to the wild life in America. These animals are taken based on their ancestry or their habits. The point of bringing these animals into America’s wild life is to bring that area back to the baseline of a time before many animal became extinct–a time “before people came to North America.” The organisms are chosen to substitute for animals believed to have been there many years ago but are now lost to the ecosystem of the area. Although rewilding is a way to help rebuild nature, it seems a bit unethical.

Capturing organisms from different countries and bringing them to the United States in hopes of reestablishing the wildlife appears selfish on America’s part. We neglect to consider the consequences of taking these organisms from other countries. Will the animals’ population in its native country decline? Also, just grabbing animals to substitute organisms that used to live in certain ecosystems is inconsiderate of the animal as it will be separated from its family. Even so, this sacrifice is not much compared to how much these animals will help rebuild nature in North America.

Whether rewilding is successful or not is uncertain. Donlan is testing out rewilding with herbivores first to see if they will adapt to the environment and work as he predicted-replacements of animals once living there. For example, he brought Bolson tortoises to the Turner Ranch to take on the role of tortoises that used to live in New Mexico. He chose to start with tortoises because they will not be as harmful to the environment as other animals and can be easily taken away if they turn into invasive species. So, if rewilding does turn out well with the tortoises, that does not mean the same will happen for other animals. There is still a chance that other species will become invasive species in the new environment they are placed in, thus doing more harm than good. Also, there is also concern over species being dangerous and posing as a threat to humans. For example, if cheetahs were let out into the wild, will they escape into human society and attack humans? There are many questions and concerns about rewilding and for them to be answered, it must be tested out. From what is said in Marris’ observation, rewilding seems to be quite resourceful. It is a natural way of saving the environment, unlike conservationists rebuilding the environment themselves by burning forests down and replanting trees.

I think that rewilding would be the better option in saving nature. It allows for a natural ecosystem to occur and to rebuild America’s wildlife. The concept of rewilding does not attempt to start all over from the beginning. It attempts to shape the environment back to the beginning before humans came in contact with North America. Shaping the environment involves less handiwork from humans and less damage to the environment as well. This is because rebuilding nature from the beginning involves more death than shaping nature. This is why I believe rewilding is a better option.

Marris Ch 1-2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Emma Marris presents different views of nature and different methods to protecting nature. She states that nature is lost in current society in two ways. One way is that nature is destroyed from the planet by human hands. For example, where forests once grew, there is a city filled with skyscrapers. The second way nature is lost is that “we have misplaced it…[and] hidden it from ourselves.” (Marris 5) Marris explains how nature is hidden through illustrating the different experiments and ideas for protecting the environment. For example, with conservationist methods to preserve the environment, areas of nature are isolated in attempts to rescue it from human degradation. In this sense, nature is being hidden from humans to prevent them from affecting the “pristine” nature of the area. Marris mentions how we have also “misplaced” nature. She explains this through with the experimentation done on nature to bring it back to its’ original form—when humans did not tamper with nature. Ostertag and Cordell worked on producing a forest in Hawaii that would duplicate the nature of the area before humans interacted with it. To build their ideal forest, Ostertag and Cordell set a baseline for their forest and uprooted all invasive species. Then they began to plant native species in hopes that it would flourish in the clearing. However, the native plants of Hawaii take a long time to grow so the results are not certain if the native species will be able to survive in the area. Also, another way to bring nature back to its past form is by killing all invasive animals like how Tony Cathcart did in attempt to bring out animals who have hidden away from predators. These different methods illustrate how we have misplaced nature by attempting to put bring it back to the past.

Marris mentions how John Muir strongly believed nature should not be ruined by human hands and should be kept in its “pristine” form. He wanted Yosemite to be kept in its original condition to preserve its beauty. Conservation ideas began to spread and more areas began to be preserved, like Yellowstone National Park. This park became a model for conservation. The beauty of nature was the wilderness. Muir and President Roosevelt both had strong passion for the wilderness. This led to spreading the idea of conservation to other people and creating more national parks similar to Yellowstone. Yellowstone became the “breakthrough in conservation” as many policies, such as a ban on hunting, influenced the path of upcoming national parks. The park had also influenced the world in conserving nature. For example, Australia and Canada began to open parks. (Marris 38)

Marris appears to believe that conservation is not the way to save nature. Attempting to bring nature back to the way it was before humans made contact with nature will not save it. In a way it appears to be destroying it. As a method to bring nature back to its past form, one method involves clearing everything that does not belong there, thus destroying the environment. However, they do plant native species back in hopes of its growth, but there is no guarantee that the growth will be successful. I believe that Marris is trying to say that the way to protecting nature is to work with it, so that nature grows along with humans.

Anthropocene

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Sharon Lin

Some people believe that we currently live in a human dominated time period, as many of our surroundings exist with mankind’s contribution. Since the beginning of technology, dating back to the Industrial Revolution, humans have begun to impact the environment. Human affect on the environment indicates their control over nature’s course in the future. For example, the creation of automobiles led to the use of fossil fuels, which contributes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Vitousek, there is “nearly a 30% change relative to the pre-industrial era…and will drive substantial climate change in the next century.” Currently rising CO2 levels are causing climate changes that are melting the polar ice caps and affecting other parts of the biosphere as well. Unless humans work to decrease their impact on the environment, such as decreasing CO2 levels by using more automobiles that do not run on fossil fuels, the rapid changes occurring in the environment will catch up to us just as fast. Vitousek believes that slowing the changing pace will allow the environment to accommodate to the changes with enough resources to uphold change. Although Vitousek is correct that human’s should slow down, it is not possible. People around the world are competing with each other, which forces people to quicken their lifestyle and compete not only with others, but also with time. Companies are always working to create a better innovative product than their rivals and to put them on the market first to meet consumers’ demands. The quick lifestyle is hard to change, but I agree with Vitousek that spreading information about how our lifestyle affects the biosphere will help encourage people to work towards decreasing their impact on the environment.

Similar to Vitousek, Karieva also believes that human impact on the environment should be changed. Karieva does not agree with conservationists that the way to save the Earth is to preserve it. She believes that working together with the environment is a better method as the environment has shown to adapt well from human domination and destruction. For example, she mentions how despite the Chernobyl nuclear facility meltdown spreading radiation in the environment, “wildlife is [still] thriving.” So, to keep the environment from depleting all its’ resources, humans need to work together with it instead of letting the environment work by itself through preservation. I agree with Karieva’s perspective. No matter how securely an area is conserved, it will still be affected by humans and will not be the same as it was before human impact. Even with attempts to maintain as much of its originality as possible, the world will keep moving and continue to affect it. For example, air pollution creates acid rain, which would reach the pristine area. Thus, I agree that the best way to save the environment is to work with it, not treat it like a museum artifact.

Comments by Sharon Lin