Author Archives: Serge Sorokin

Posts by Serge Sorokin

No to FAD

Tiemann, Mary. Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues. Washington,

D.C..UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83959/.

 

The natural gas industry is essential for day-to-day function and is literally what fuels other industries and the world. The implementation of the changes to the Filtration Avoidance Determination would be detrimental to the natural gas industry and will have a great impact on our daily lives.

The number of onshore gas wells in the United States nearly doubled in the past twenty years to about 500,000 wells and according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, more than 90% of new natural gas wells in the United States rely on hydraulic fracturing and together they have accounted for the production of more than 600 trillion cubic feet of gas. Fracturing is similarly applied in the production of US oil and nearly 7 billion barrels of oil have been produced using the same process.

As hydraulic fracturing is one of the primary means of oil and gas extraction, we strongly suggest reevaluating the decision to add changes to the Filtration Avoidance Determination. Though there have been several cases of well-water contamination, the source of the problem mostly remains undetermined. In numerous cases, the contamination incidents have been attributed to poor well construction or surface activities rather than hydraulic fracturing.

Evidence of hydraulic fracturing directly causing water contamination is simply non-existent and the natural gas industry should not have to pay as a result of numerous speculations.

Questions for Emma Marris

What do you think of Hurricane Sandy and what can the city do in terms of the ecosystem in order to prevent such devastation?

In all your travels, where have you seen the most perfect description of a rambunctious garden?

What can we do in our neighborhoods to promote and possibly establish a rambunctious garden?

The final chapter of your book lists seven goals in conservation, which do you think should have priority and which are less important?

Poster Questions

What effects do emissions and pollution have on the biodiversity and life of plants and flora in an urban environment?

Do pests such as cockroaches and mice have any positive effects on the urban ecosystem?

Does the New York City environment have any effects on cancer?

A Menu of New Goals

In the final chapter, “A Menu of New Goals,” Marris lists the various goals conservationists hope to achieve. Since most of them have apposing views of conservation, they tend to have varying opinions on the importance of the goals. The seven goals that she identifies are: protecting the rights of other species, protecting megafauna, slowing the rate of extinctions, protecting genetic diversity, defending biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services and protecting the beauty of nature.

Many of these seem like obvious goals conservationists would want to achieve but the problem is that some of these goals can conflict with one another. The previous system of conservation was attempting to achieve a pristine wilderness by reaching the baseline of an ecosystem but seeing as how this method can be incredibly cost-ineffective and time consuming, narrowing conservation into numerous goals seems like a valid alternative. Nevertheless, several problems with achieving the goals also stream from lack of funding and conflicts between human values of land and the effort willing to be put in.

The first goal, protecting the rights of other species, is an extremely long held debate that has led the emergence of numerous animal rights groups and a ton of legislature. The argument usually stems from humans considering themselves top of the food chain and using animals for their own benefits. What makes it ok for humans to eat other animals? And what makes it ok for humans to use animals for experimentation? Nevertheless, it is still a very difficult goal to achieve because humans tend to favor certain exotic and beautiful species and turn their backs on the less favorable ones.

Protecting megafauna and slowing the rate of extinction have the problem that protecting megafauna may lead to the extinction of numerous smaller species that are prey to the megafauna. Protecting genetic diversity and defending biodiversity are great goals but the sad truth is no matter what, we will never be able to protect every species.

Protecting the beauty of nature, on the other hand, seems the most achievable and the one goal that everyone can agree on. I am fairly certain that everyone enjoys seeing exotic and beautiful nature, which seems to be the sparkle at the end of the story where no matter how many different opinions on nature converge, they can all agree on this final goal.

In the end, I enjoyed reading Rambunctious Garden. Going in, I knew little of conservation efforts around the world besides trying to save endangered tigers donating a small monthly payment of $19.99. While reading the book, my views of conservation definitely changed and now in many ways, I support the arguments of Marris.

 

Rambunctious Garden Chapters 8-9

In chapters 8 and 9, Marris discusses methods of conservation called designer ecosystems and conservation in areas we may not have thought of before. Essentially she tells conservationists to begin looking into the future and creating something that will be valuable instead of aiming for some point in the past. She explains that designer ecosystems will embrace current conditions and work to better the present state. For example, old ships will be sunk to create habitat for coral reefs and numerous fish species. “But the most radical kind of designer ecosystem is not emulating any baseline at all but building de novo to achieve a particular goal.” Such goals include nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, and maintenance of an endangered species. For example, the Galapagos penguins had trouble surviving because an introduced specie of rats ate the chicks. Ecologists argued that removing all the rats would be nearly impossible and incredibly inefficient, so they drilled nesting holes in rocks for the chicks to hide. Finally, instead of returning the penguin habitat to a particular baseline, they simply improved the current conditions.

Along with designer ecosystems, Marris suggests conservation should be broadened to places we have never though of. As the title of the chapter suggests, “Conservation Everywhere,” conservation should essentially spread everywhere beginning with privately owned ranches and farms. Farms and ranches are essential because they cover roughly have of the ice-free land and they supply perfect conditions for various plant and animal species. Marris suggests farmers get paid for letting several bird species fly on their land and live on their plantation. Another are of interest is industrial space, which can be infused with a ton of green. This will allow for water to be absorbed by the plants and reduce the heat island effect by absorbing sunlight. Lastly, she suggests people begin to plant their own private, rambunctious gardens wherever possible. Planting endangered species will allow for a more fruitful existence and pollinators will be able to spread said species.

I believe that both designer ecosystems and conservation everywhere are excellent methods of conservation. People and governments have spent too much money on attempting to bring back the past when they could have simply allowed for a better future such as in the case of the Galapagos penguins. Of course, there are always hidden variables and possible outcomes that have not been accounted for, but the failures and undesired outcomes of restoring ecosystems to their baseline far outweigh those of designer ecosystems. Second I believe that conservation everywhere especially by people planting any chance they get is essential for preserving nature and making aesthetically pleasing environments. Green roofs are probably the best solution in giant urban environments, which could not only have positive effects of conservation but can also introduce numerous economical benefits. One of which is that people can grow produce on roofs and amount to some economical gain.

Rambunctious Garden Chapters 6-7

The word “invasive” in invasive species already suggests that the certain species are unnecessary and intrusive. It has been a long-held belief of ecologists and conservationists that invasive species are generally considered harmful and detrimental to the ecosystems they are introduced to. They usually cause other species to become extinct because they are either new competition for food or they prey on that specie. Such cases of species harming their respective ecosystems are the zebra muscles, flightless wren, and the Asian tiger mosquitos. Nevertheless, Marris suggests that humans not get involved or interfere with invasive species. She states, “the vast majority are not. Science is finding that some are quite well behaved and innocuous, or even helpful.” Numerous times, invasive species have little effect or even positive effects to the ecosystems. In many cases they allow for more biodiversity and they end up furthering the ecosystem. When an invasive specie of tree was brought to Rodrigues Island, it ended up bring back three species of animals that were soon to be extinct. Eventually, environmentalists ended up removing the species because it was invasive and was not part of the original baseline. This resulted in a ton of money and time being spent on cutting down all the trees when the effort could have been put into removing an invasive species that actually had a negative effect on the ecosystem it was introduced to.

In chapter 7, Marris talks about novel ecosystems and the “brave few” who embrace and participate in them. Ecologists have been using the term novel ecosystems to mean, “the more dramatically altered systems.” By that they mean ecosystems that have had their specie composition dramatically changed over the past few centuries. For example, a forest that has remained unchanged for the past thousand years would not qualify even though some non-native species may have been introduced. I am generally not so supportive of this idea because as far as I know, little evidence has shown that the majority of invasive species have had positive effects on ecosystems. Nevertheless, one of the aspects of novel ecosystems seems to flourish in my head, the fact that novel ecosystems sometimes exist even though there has never been any human contact. This shows that somehow species have migrated and for some time they have ben able to live in harmony without disrupting the ecosystem.

The NYC High Line

In Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris criticizes previous practices of conservation of nature that focus on expelling the human element from nature. She presents the idea that humans should not be excluded from nature but rather involved in and intertwined with it. Her concept of a rambunctious garden is essentially nature made and maintained by humans.

The High Line on the west side of Manhattan, I believe, is the perfect description of Marris’ rambunctious garden. It was built in the 1930’s as an “elevated commercial rail line” to reduce the number of trucks and trains traveling along side pedestrians by introducing an alternate route. The highline carried commercial freight from 1934-1980 but the introduction of the interstate highway system in the 1950’s resulted in a decline in freight traffic and the final freight train to ride the High Line was in 1980. Deconstruction was began in the 1960’s of the southernmost section but and organization called Friends of the High Line stepped in and began advocating for the preservation of what was left from 13th to 34th street. Now, the High Line is a walkway above the building servicing as the perfect location for primary succession.

Going to the High Line a few days ago, I had absolutely no idea what to expect especially since the first time I had ever heard of it was when we were assigned to go there. My friends had informed me that it was an abandoned railroad system that has been transformed into a garden. I simply expected railroad tracks and some plants on the side, but BOY, was I surprised!

I was greeted by a beautiful terrace above the buildings, with tons of sunlight and an amazing diversity of plant and animal species. Although I was unable to identify them, I saw an infinite array of plant, shrubs, trees, flowers and several pollinators such as bees and flies. In my opinion, this is the perfect example of Marris’ rambunctious garden, a piece of nature that not only coexists with humans but was actually created and maintained by them. Another example of the way humans coexist with the highline was stated in Richard Slater’s The flora on the High Line, “human visitors to the High Line have probably inadvertently transported seeds to the site, a source of new species,” which contributes to the vast diversity of plants present.

All in all, I greatly enjoyed my visit to the High Line and am grateful that our city maintains projects of this kind that not only protect nature but create a beautiful place for New Yorkers to relax and enjoy it.

Pictures from the High Line, the library was full.

Rambunctious Garden – Rewilding

In chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces the concept of “rewilding.” Rewilding aims to restore ecosystems to a point before human interaction by introducing large predators similar to ones that once dominated the environment. Though rewilding may be a good idea, it does however have numerous faults and risks.

The main goal of rewilding is to restore ecosystems to their once fruitful existence by promoting the protection of species and biodiversity. It has been know that for the last few hundred years, humans have had a great negative effect on the environment. In the process, countless species have gone extinct. In order to restore some order and attempt to reverse the damages done to the environment, governments have implemented laws and programs and conservationists all over the world have been practicing their own methods.

Rewilding is one of the methods aimed at restoring an ecosystem to its pervious state. “Rewilding” is a term coined by Dave Forman and it proposes that, “the main factors necessary to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse are the regulation provided by large, top-of-the-food-chain predators; the room for these predators to do their work; and connections between predator ranges so they can meet, mate, and maintain a healthily diverse gene pool.” Essentially due to the fact that a number of the larger species have died off, there are now few predators to control the population of the middle-sized species, which results in the middle-sized species feasting on the smaller-sized and eventually eliminating in such a manor. Thus, by introducing larger sized predators into ecosystems, the population sizes of the other species can be controlled and all will be well.

One of the prevalent problems with rewilding is that after humans were introduced into the ecosystems thousands of years ago, we were essentially just another species. Ecosystems, since then, have evolved to adapt to us and so they will continue now. I believe that we are essentially no different from the lion or the shark, which dominate over their environments. Wildlife and sea life have adapted to them, so our environments are most likely adapting to us.

Though “rewilding” seems like a great idea and one that is destined to work, I believe there has to be some more studies and research before going forward and taking action. One must really understand what is actually a similar species and be aware of the negative consequences of taking such great risks.

 

Rambunctious Garden 1-2

In Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris examines the incorrect way that people view conservation and presents her own view to the way nature should be treated. She explains that natures is not pristine, it always evolves and constantly changes. Instead of striving to protect and restore a “pristine wilderness,” Marris suggests we follow strive for the “rambunctious garden” that coincides with human existence and interaction.

In the first chapter, Marris presents that her “book is about a new way of seeing nature.” She criticizes the long-held belief that nature should be restores to state of its past. She examines numerous examples of ecologists ridding ecosystems of their invasive species, reintroducing native species, and attempting to bring habitats to their previous positions. Marris proved these attempts flawed by explaining that nature and ecosystems are ever-changing and do not possess a point of static. She quoted Heraclitus, “the only constant in nature is change itself.”

Another flaw in determining what the “pristine wilderness” was like, is that there is little documentation of what species existed at a certain time and the state that the ecosystem was in.

In the second chapter, Marris conveys the conservationists as being stuck in the past “romantics” that are striving for a nature that is pristine and before human presence. This goal of achieving a “pristine wilderness” is proven flawed when ecologists are unable to come to a conclusion as to the baseline of an ecosystem. Some believe it was before the Europeans settled the Americas but this idea is also flawed because before the Europeans arrived, indigenous people have been cultivating, hunting, and changing nature for hundreds of years.

She presents the Yellow Stone model of conservation where millions of indigenous were relocated in order to protect the nature of the region. “The irony is that they were doing the least harm—after all, that is why their land had sufficient nature to interest conservationists in the first place.” She further explains that ecologists are only recently beginning to understand that protected areas do not have to be depopulated in order to work and a link between humans and nature can also result in positive reinforcement.

I agree with the points that Marris brings up in the first two chapters that nature is ever flowing, it is never static, and that human interaction with nature is something that we should not fight but embrace. I believe that removing humans from the equation of nature would mean that we should remove all species from nature because essentially plants and animals also rob resources from nature. Though it is definitely known that humans have done the most harm, I believe that this is just another adaptation that nature will make and as Aho stated, “You can’t become attached to one particular snapshot. Part of the beauty of ecology is its change.”

 

The Second Global Warming

The world is constantly changing due to human involvement. The overall health of our planet has recently been under much speculation due to the exponential increase of population and human economic development. Its is apparent that human interaction with the environment has brought on numerous negative effects causing changes the planet’s biochemistry resulting in phenomena such as global warming and the disappearance of many species.

Scientists have called this geological period as the “Anthropocene” which is literally translated as the human era. Anthropocene is defined by Kareiva et al. as a “new geological era in which humans dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” Similarly, Vitousek et. al see this era as a time of global transformation driven by human involvement. In fact, Vitousek et al state that human influence is so great that “even on the grandest scale, most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity.”

The article “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” by Vitousek et al presents the world as a fragile and sensitive area that is greatly affected by human influence. They explain the affects of land transformation, deforestation, alteration of the marine ecosystems, and many other forms of human influence cause great unbalance to the earth’s biochemistry by providing scientific and statistical analysis. The explained that it is estimated that 39-50% of the land had been transformed or degraded by humanity and that land transformation has gone far beyond affects to the land, it also “contributes about 20% to current anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and more substantially to the increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide.” Although they provide a ton of concrete scientific data, they do little about explaining how it can be fixed or what our possible future might look like.

“Conservation in the Anthropocene” by Kareiva et al, on the other hand, presents the world as a tough ecosystem that is able to “fight back” and adapt to the harms that are brought its way. Right off the back, Kareiva et al state, “By its own measures, conservation is failing.” They explain that over the last 30 years, conservation practices involved evicting indigenous groups of people from their native lands, which often led to human vs. nature resilience from the side of the indigenous. Essentially they are saying that recent efforts of conservation have led to more harm than aid.

“Conservation in the Anthropocene” also gave several example of how, contrary to belief, when a particular specie of an ecosystem becomes extinct, the ecosystem can still continue unaffected. I addition they gave evidence of more resilience from the earth by explaining that after the Chernobyl meltdown, “wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation” and after the hydrogen bomb explosion in Bikini Atoll, which caused the water in the area to boil, the number of coral species have actually increased.

In the end, the question that has to be asked is, “If there is no wilderness, if nature is resilient rather than fragile, and if people are actually part of nature and the original sinners who caused our banishment from Eden, what should be the new vision for conservation?” (Kareiva et al) I believe it is imperative to understand whether we humans are causing the end to the world or we are just one of the many influences causing changed to happen. If wildlife of the world was able to withstand the first global warming after the Ice Age, than they should be able to withstand and adapt to the changes brought on by us.

Comments by Serge Sorokin