Week 14: Water Pollution & Solid and Hazardous Waste May 15, 2013

Chapter 20 covers water pollution, which, as the name implies, is any harmful change in water quality that makes it unfit for human consumption or uses. Pollution normally involves chemical contamination, or heat—thermal pollution. Water pollution is dangerous, as it causes illness and death in humans and other species, and disrupts ecosystems. Water is without doubt essential for human survival, as well as the overall wellbeing of the earth and its ecosystems! We are a watery planet, and it is of the utmost importance that we keep the water as clean as possible to ensure our health and that of the environment. Water pollution is most-often caused by agricultural activities, industrial facilities and mining. Population growth and resource use have exacerbated these problems. Streams and rivers are important water systems, that these days are extensively polluted. Interestingly enough, they can cleanse themselves (the wonder of nature, so much smarter than us, huh!) through a combination of dilution and waste-breakdown. However, this process cannot function when streams become overloaded with pollutants, or when flow is reduced through drought, dams, or water diversion. Also, it is important to note that this process can only remove biodegradable wastes, not nondegradable wastes like plastic. Stream pollution has become a very serious and growing problem in developing nations, especially since many of the populations depend on rivers for drinking, bathing, and the washing of clothing. Regarding groundwater and drinking water, major pollution problems have taken their toll on these essential sources of water. Humans have been really dirty with their water, as chemicals used in agriculture, industry in general, transportation, and in daily life have spilled into ground water and made it undrinkable. Pollutants from underground tanks simply saturate aquifers, and continue spreading from there. There are multiple responses to this problem, attempts to purify groundwater through various methods. However, the most effective way of combating pollution is prevention; it is the least expensive and most efficient strategy. Ocean pollution is a growing and frequently misunderstood problem. The majority of the pollutants at hand originate on land, and include oil, various toxic chemicals, as well as solid waste. These pollutant threaten fish and wildlife, and disrupt marine systems overall.  Natural capital is degraded by pollution from residential areas, factories, and farms. Construction sites wash sediments into waterways. Farms runoff pesticides, manure and fertilizers. Industry creates nitrogen oxides, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals that flow into bays and estuaries. Cities spread toxic metals and oils, as well as sewage that adds nitrogen and phosphorous. Urban sprawl continues the damage, which spreads by way of runoff. The key to protecting oceans is, almost too obviously, to reduce the flow of pollution from land, air and streams that empty into ocean waters. In order to best deal with water pollution, we must prevent it, work with nature to treat sewage, reduce our use of resources, cut down on waste, and address societal issues like poverty and overgrowth of population. There are sustainable answers to the problem of water pollution, like recycling of water, working with natural sewage treatment methods, and the reuse of treated wastewater. All of these work with the principle of sustainability. The most important question of all is simply: how can we avoid polluting in the first place?

 

Chapter 21 covers solid and hazardous waste. Solid waste is perhaps the ultimate culmination of our consumption, it is all the unwanted and discarded material produced by human lifestyles. There are both industrial solid waste, produced by the major industries, like mines and farms, and municipal solid waste, also known as, garbage, which is produced by homes and workplaces. Solid waste really contributes to pollution, as many of these objects are burned in incinerators or buried in landfills. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development projected that by 2030, the world’s output of municipal solid waste will just about double. Another large category of waste is hazardous waste, which is poisonous, chemically reactive, corrosive or flammable. Needless to say, this kind of waste poses a serious threat to human and ecological health. Hazardous waste comes in multiple forms, including: organic compounds, like pesticides and solvents, toxic heavy metals, like lead and arsenic, and radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants and weapons facilities. According to the UN Environment Programme, more-developed countries are the culprits, producing 80-90% of the world’s hazardous waste. And guess what? The United States is the top producer, due to our military, and chemical and mining industries. China follows us closely, due to its continuous industrialization without sufficient pollution controls. So, how can we deal with these scary wastes? To sustainably handle solid waste, first we must reduce it, then reuse or recycle it. Once we’ve got things a bit more under control, we then must safely dispose of whatever is left. There is no single solution to this problem, and most analysts call for the use of integrated waste management, which is a coordinated method of strategies for waste disposal and reduction. Scientists and economists both advocate for reduction of solid waste through methods of reducing, reusing and recycling.  Reusing is important for many reasons; it saves money, decreases the consumption of matter and energy resources, and reduces capital degradation. Recycling, both primary and secondary, does as well, although to a lesser degree than reusing. Recycling reduces energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and solid waste, however it can be more costly than landfills, reduces profit for landfill and incinerator owners, and can be inconvenient for some. As far as the burying or burning of solid waste, there are several advantages and disadvantages. Technologies are well developed, but as a whole, both burning and burying of solid waste contributes to air and water and land pollution, emits greenhouse gases, and degrades land and water resources. In order to transition to a more sustainable, low-waste society, individuals and businesses must reduce their use of key resources, and reuse and recycle wastes, at from local all the way to global levels.

Chris Jordan, a photographer, depicts the massive scale of consumption patterns in contemporary society. His photographs of Midway show the final destination of our plastic products: inside the stomachs of baby albatrosses, whose parents mistakenly feed their babies plastic. The carcasses of the creatures are simply filled with bits of plastic, some of it recognizable and easy to associate with an object, others no. Still, his work really is striking, and definitely a motivator to cut down on plastic consumption, and a reflection upon the ills of consumerism and industry. His work reminded me of another artist, who I discuss below.

These chapters, especially Chapter 21, really rang true with my experiences, and built on concepts previously covered. Chapter 21 made me reconsider a lot of my personal consumption, and instilled a greater sense of awareness in me, especially regarding the thoughtlessness of contemporary consumption. We are raised with the thought that whatever we throw out simply disappears. Perhaps we have a vague image of what a landfill looks like, or that we should throw out our bottles in the recycling been, but our images tend to end with the bin, not with the true ending of all our consumption. I went to a Garbology meeting, and that was a wakeup call for me. True visual representation of what Fordham students consume was crazy! As a Lincoln Center student, it made me wonder how the consumption here compares with that of Rose Hill. We have a smaller student body, but are we more conscious consumers? Hmm…certainly something to think about! The idea of visually representing consumption really is powerful, and can be a way to force people to reconsider their consumption patterns. There is a Brazilian artist, Vik Muniz, who creates these beautiful images on a grand scale out of trash. There is a documentary about his work that I highly recommend called Waste Land, it is available on Netflix! In this documentary, he works with the trash pickers of Rio’s biggest dump, Jardim Gramacho, and has them pose as famous classic images, which he later reconstructs out of the very trash they work with! Talk about a closed cycle system! The resulting images are powerful and strikingly beautiful reminders of the materials we leave behind. The original title in Portuguese was Lixo Extraordinário, which translates to extraordinary garbage. I think this title is perhaps stronger, and reminds us that the whole notion and structure of trash disposal is a strange, strange process. This really speaks for art as a form of social commentary, no?

 

 

 

 

Blog Questions:

How can we inspire younger generations, who are more firmly embedded in “throw-away culture,” to become more thoughtful consumers?

Besides photographic and sculptural art, what is another medium that has really depicted the dark side of consumerism? Any artists that you know of?

 

Week 13: Climate Change

Climate change, along the lines of “sustainable development,” “green tech,” etc, is one of those very hot words these days. Many people, inside and outside of the environmental sector have a lot of strong opinions on climate change. Is it real? Is it a natural process? Are we culpable, and if so, what can we do to repair the damage we have made?

There is a large body of scientific evidence supporting the theory that the earth’s atmosphere is warming, because of natural effects and human activities. There will be a significant climate disruption during this century. First, in order to clarify our perspectives on climate change, it is necessary to make the distinction between weather and climate. Weather is a short-time measurement of the various atmospheric changes, like temperature and precipitation over a given period of time. Climate is measured over a longer period of time, determined by the average weather conditions.  So, in order to truly analyze climate changes, we have to analyze a large amount of data, over a period of at least 30-60 years. Secondly, it is important to understand that climate change is not a new or unusual atmospheric condition. The earth’s climate is very complex, and there have been multiple climate changes, both drastic and milder over past 3 million years.  These changes in the climate have been caused by various factors, including: solar energy output fluctuations, meteorite impacts, global air circulation patterns and slight changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The atmosphere, over the past 900,000 years, has had alternate cycles of global cooling and global warming called glacial and interglacial periods. For the past 100,000 years we have been living in a very suitable, and fairly stable climate, which has allowed the human species to flourish and grow. However, over the past 100 years, the temperature of the atmosphere has begun to rise.

The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the earth’s lower atmosphere and surface, and has a large affect on the earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases, when trapped by heat radiation, warm the lower atmosphere of the earth’s surface and affect the earth’s climate. Both the survival of the human species, as well as all its creations, economy, cities, agricultural systems depend on climate—especially the greenhouse effect. Climate is perhaps the ultimate factor in the earth’s inhabitability for the human species. Human activities have aggregated the release on greenhouse gases, which have played a key role in recent atmospheric warming. These activities may lead to our own mass extinction!  Climate change on a grander geologic scale has been coupled by mass extinctions, yet climate may be the environmental factor that is taken the most for granted. The potential effects of a warmer atmosphere are serious and long-lasting, including increased drought and flooding, rising sea levels, and shifts in habitat and cropland locations. All of these effects are already happening, and are expected to progressively get worse. In order to slow projected climate disruption, serious changes in lifestyle and society are necessary. First, we must sharply increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rely on renewable energy resources, and perhaps most importantly, slow population growth. These are controversial solutions, because they disrupt the comfortable economic and lifestyle situation, as well as the power of oil and coal companies. Regardless, we cannot go on living the way we are and expect to emerge without serious environmental tolls. We must keep reducing and eventually eliminate our use of chemicals that have reduced ozone levels and let strong UV radiation reach the earth’s surface.

The various online readings and videos encourage the analysis of climate change as not simply an ecological but an ethical issue. Climate change is an issue that effects all of us, yet those who in developed countries, who are culpable for the majority of the human impacts, suffer unequally in comparison to those less culpable in developing countries and specifically vulnerable regions, whose very existence is threatened by rising sea levels and various other implications of climate change. Those climate change deniers and misinformation campaigns, like the Heartland Institute are really ethically abhorrent, as their actions denies the suffering of these people, as well as serves to be the epitome of foolish anthropocentrism. Misinformation is really a trend when it comes to climate change, as there are still those who think that climate change is simply warmer weather all the time, or that it doesn’t exist. This misinformation goes all the way to the top, when Newt Gingrich famously was unsure of human impacts causing global warming. When our own political bigwigs wouldn’t know climate change if it hit them on the head, how can we expect to transition to a sustainable energy future? Public knowledge on climate change is really a strong indicator of the lack of environmental literacy in this country, as well as the failure of our policy-makers to properly educate US citizens. Seriously, we are making fools of ourselves!  It is not as if there isn’t sufficient information out there confirming the existence of climate change, take the entire UN IPCC document for example!  The document clearly states the gravity and reality of climate change.

The misinformation campaign really struck me personally, as an example of all that is wrong with the world. Not to be cynical, as I generally try to think on the realistic sight of optimist, but when money is put into spreading misinformation as opposed to actual research on the issues at hand, there is clearly something wrong there. The fact that the Heartland Institute would send you, a university professor, glossy booklets of lies, which I’m sure cost a pretty penny to print and duplicate, is just absolutely frustrating.

So, to cheer things up, please watch this video of cute cats teaching about climate change! It may be gimmicky, but hey, whatever it takes to spread awareness!

Blog Questions:

How can we best combat the misinformation campaign?

Regarding the potential of hydrogen energy, should governments subsidize research of this somewhat controversial technology?

Week 12: Environmental Hazards & Human Health

Chapter 17 elaborates on the many major health hazards that humans face, including biological, physical, cultural factors, and lifestyle choices on an individual level. These are analyzed through risk assessment, which uses statistical methods to estimate how much harm each particular hazard could cause to human health as well as the environment. Biological hazards include diseases, most often spread by pathogens. The most serious biological hazards are diseases like the flu, AIDS, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases and malaria. Although medical technology has given us better tools to combat the spread of these diseases, they are still major health risks, especially in developing nations. Chemical hazards have been a growing concern as of late, especially regarding their cause of cancer, birth defects, and disruption of human systems, like the immune, nervous and endocrine. These can be evaluated in various ways, such as lab animal testing, case studies of poisonings, and overall epidemiological studies, however all toxicological methods have their limitations! Many experts in the health field are placing the blame on pollution for the influx of toxic chemicals, and are calling on pollution prevention to reduce the risk of further harm. So, the major question, now that we have learned all of this is how do we perceive risks and how can we avoid the worst of them? The major and most important thing that we can do is to become more informed. Once we are informed, we can think critically about risks and make careful choices. Risk assessment and management, like I mentioned before can be applied here, on both  a policy and personal level, to further protect our health. Most of us are not very good at evaluating the risks around us, as many voluntarily participate in smoking, motorcycling, driving without seatbelts, the list goes on, fully aware of the risks involved, with an attitude of immortality. However, these same people may have great fears of death by lightning, or the flu, or a shark attack, which all occur much more infrequently than the previously mentioned risks. We can correct this disparity by become better at analyzing our risks, through tools of comparison and careful risk evaluation.

 

Chapter 18 focuses solely on air pollution. Before discussing the pollution itself, it is important to discuss the nature of the atmosphere. It is a blanket of gases surrounding the earth, divided into several spherical levels. The most important ones, for our concerns, are the troposphere, which supports life, and stratosphere, which contains the ozone layer. The troposphere contains 75-80% of the earth’s air mass. The stratosphere contains less matter than the troposphere, but it has a higher concentration of ozone. The ozone layer is our “global sunscreen,” it keeps about 95% of the sun’s harmful UV radiation from the earth’s surface, allowing life to exist. There are major air pollutants that have harmed this protective layer. Air pollutants come from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include dust, as well as chemicals released by certain plants, and pollutants released by volcanoes and wildfires. Human-made pollutants tend to arise from industrialized, urban areas, and are primarily produced by fossil fuel burning.  These pollutants mix in the air, initiated by the burning coal, and form industrial smog. Photochemical smog is another type, and it caused by emissions from vehicles, factories and power plants. The major air pollutants include: carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, nitric acid, sulfur dioxide and its respective acid, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. There are multiple factors that work to reduce, and others that increase outdoor air pollution. Five factors that reduce pollution include: rain and snow’s cleansing capabilities, particle settlement, salty ocean spray, and certain chemical reactions. Six factors that increase air pollution include: reduced wind speed and dilution of pollutants by urban buildings, reduction of air flow by hills and mountains, which aggregate pollutants at ground level, high temperatures catalyzing the formation of photochemical smog, emissions of volatile organic compounds, the grasshopper effect, which pushes tropical winds to the earth’s polar areas, and temperature inversions. Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid rain, is another major air pollution problem, caused by coal-burning power plants and motor vehicle emissions. It has its origins in the Industrial Revolution, and today has become a major regional environmental threat, dangerous for humans, the structures they have constructed, and aquatic and terrestrial life and general ecosystem health.  After discussing outdoor air pollution, the chapter focuses on indoor air pollution, which is in fact the world’s most serious pollution problem, especially for lower-income families. The most threatening indoor air pollutants include smoke and soot, cigarette smoke, and the vast array of chemicals used in cleaning products and the actual construction of buildings. These pollutants have some serious health effects, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, lung cancer, heart attack, and stroke. So, how should we deal with these pollutants? Laws and regulation are one solution. The US actually serves as a great example of this. The Clean Air Acts have been passed by Congress in 1970, 1977, and 1990, establishing air pollution regulation for key urban pollutants. The EPA has set air quality standards for the six biggest outdoor pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particle matter, ozone and lead. There are two limits: primary standard, which is set to protect human health, and the secondary standard, to prevent environmental and property damage. There are also national emission standards, which are very important in realizing one’s place in the global setting, as pollution is not a national issue, but a global, large-scale problem that will continue growing unless real action is taken.  Another approach to reduce emissions has been the introduction of emissions trading, or cap-and-trade-programs, which places emissions in the economic system, where they can be bought and sold. This has had mixed results, as it is cheaper and more efficient than policy alone. On the other hand, others object to the commoditization of responsibility, where big businesses can buy and sell their culpability! Lastly, without strong oversight and regulation, this could easily get out of hand and irresponsible, as it relies on these companies self-reporting their emissions. Other ways to reduce outdoor air pollution include emission control devices on automobiles, increased mass transit/bicycle urban infrastructure, improvement of fuel efficiency, removal of sulfur from coal or overall phasing out of coal, and removing pollutants from smokestack gases. Regarding indoor air pollution, which poses a greater threat to human health in comparison to outdoor air pollution, little effort has been done to reduce and manage it.  However, there are many relatively simple ways to reduce indoor air pollution. Some examples include: the banning of indoor smoking, adjustable air vents, frequent circulation of air, rooftop greenhouses, “green” cleaning agents and products, strict standards, and the use of efficient venting systems for wood-burning stoves. The book also lists many individual actions that can help, like testing the home for these pollutants, installation of carbon monoxide alarms, switching to phthalate-free detergent, boycotting of furniture and other products containing formaldehyde, and the use of baked lemons as natural home fragrance.

 

These chapters were actually really interesting to me. I’ve had a lot of personal discovery this  year that has lead me to focus on health, especially global health, and reading these two chapters was fairly enlightening to me.  Both of these chapters touch on areas that are not frequently discussed, which provides invaluable knowledge for us eco-citizens! For example, I never would have thought that indoor air pollutants were so intense and dangerous. I have always heard of the outdoor pollutants, but only recently have I actually learned about the scary power of indoor air pollutants. It is a scary thought, to imagine that our own living spaces, which we hold dear and assume as safe, are filled to the brim with pollutants.  It’s safe to say that this has become part of my eco-practicum! I bought a book recently about alternative cleaning methods, and I plan on picking up the supplies, and then actually cleaning!  Now that I know the truth about these dangerous items, I will eradicate them from my home!

Blog Questions:

Which global health organizations do the most work in health issues directly related to environmental issues?

Is there a way to overcome the anthropocentrism that naturally comes with any discussion of health related to environmental issues?

Week 11: Nonrenewable Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

“Civilization as we know it will not survive unless we can find a way to live without fossil fuels” David Goldsteib

Chapter 15 opens with a key clarification. Net energy is the amount of available energy minus the amount of energy needed to convert it to usable energy.  Net energy can be likened to economics, where net profit is the actual profit, after the deduction of expenses. In analyzing the usefulness of a resource, we must use net energy and economic logic. An energy resource with a low or negative net energy simply cannot compete with higher energy-yielding resources, unless it is subsidized by the government or outside source of funding. Then begins a discussion of oil and its advantages and disadvantages.  For one thing, it is currently abundant, has a high net energy yield, and is relatively inexpensive. As far as disadvantages, it causes water and air pollution and releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Regarding heavy oils from tar sand and oil shale, they potentially exist in large supply, but the relative energy yield of both sources is fairly low, and has even greater environmental impacts than conventional oil. Natural gas, having the lowest environmental impact of all fossil fuels, is even more plentiful than oil, has a high net energy yield and is relatively low in price. However this only holds true for conventional natural gas, not unconventional, which are more harmful and expensive. Coal, another energy source, is plentiful, high net energy yield and low coast, but is really “dirty,” in that it has a quite high environmental impact. Now, gaseous and liquid fuels that are produced by coal may be plentiful, but the energy yield is lower, and it has higher environmental impacts than conventional coal. The use of nuclear energy has been quite controversial. It has a low environmental impact, and an even lower accident risk, but it has a low net energy yield and high costs. Plus, there is a fear of accidents, a long lifespan for wastes, and the danger of escalating nuclear weapons technology.

 

Chapter 16 was the chapter of my presentation with Natalie and Alexa, about energy efficiency and renewable energy. Energy, harvesting it, using it, sourcing it, and energy itself will prove to be a great issue in this century, as all of human infrastructure relies on consistent energy. Energy efficiency is a resource in itself, and improving efficiency can save the world at least 30% of the energy used, and the United States can save up to 43% of the energy we currently use. Sounds like a good deal to me! We waste huge amounts of energy, and this is not efficient, not economically nor ecologically. Although the United States has improved its energy efficiency since 1980, it doesn’t compare to the energy efficiency found in places like Japan, Germany and France, which are two to three times more energy efficient than the US. For example, the United States wastes up to 84% of all commercial energy; now 41% will be lost inevitably due to the second law of thermodynamics, but the majority left over is lost due to inefficiency. Tut tut tut! Not very intelligent, is it? Most of this is due to the use of inefficient devices, like incandescent lightbulbs, the internal combustion engine, and nuclear and coal-fired power plants. There is a large body of technology out there that addresses these energy disparities, including cogeneration, combined heat and power systems, fluorescent lighting, hybrid cars, design and architectural techniques, and recycling of materials. The book includes a lot of tips for the general reduction of inefficiency within the home, by way of better insulation, energy-efficient windows, energy-efficient appliances, and more efficient heating of water and the home itself. Then the book goes through the various advantages and disadvantages of the major alternative energy sources. Both passive and active solar energy systems heat water and buildings effectively, and the costs are slowly coming down, making this energy more affordable for those who may not necessarily have been able to afford them earlier. However, there is a need of access to the sun, quite obviously, and has high installation and maintenance costs, as well as a backup system for cloudy days. Wind power is actually the least expensive and the least polluting way to produce electricity, as it is widely available, easy to build and expand. But, it needs a backup system, can be visual pollution for some people, and can kill birds if not properly designed and located. Biomass is another potential energy resource that is renewable for most of the world’s population, but burning it faster than it is produced creates greenhouse gases, and the creation of it can degrade soil and biodiversity. So, although we can use liquid biofuels in place of gasoline and diesel fuels, its production is degrading to soil and biodiversity, and increases food prices and greenhouse gas emissions. Geothermal energy, heat stored in soil, is a potential for a great energy resource, that is low-impact and good yield, but the sites that it can bused economically are limited. Hydrogen fuel, another option, does have a good potential in providing vehicle energy and generating electricity, but in order for it to be beneficial to the environment, we would have to produce it without the use of fossil fuels. Lastly, the chapter focuses on the transition to a more sustainable energy future. In order for a smooth and timely transition, we must begin phasing out the bad guys, diesel fuel, gasoline, etc, and use a mix of renewable energy resources, continue researching and improving these resources, and including the environmental costs of energy resources in their market prices.

 

 

I think the most interesting things about these chapters were the way in which they presented both sides of the energy equation, renewable and typical energy sources. I definitely am frustrated with the contemporary energy system, especially when the nastiest, dirtiest energy sources are subsidized like crazy, and there is an insufficient amount of research put into better, more sustainable options, especially within the United States. We are behind, a big bunch of slowpokes in comparison to more energy-efficient nations, like Denmark, and others in Europe.   I had learned about the scientific nitty-gritty of some of these energy resources in my physical science class last semester, and my professor expressed her frustration at the lack of research and development in these technologies! Perhaps I’m jaded, but fighting against the subsidized, all-powerful gas giants seems like an impossible battle, when we can’t even get enough research done to arm ourselves! Another major difficulty that accompanies this is the lack of consumer awareness about alternate energy sources, and the lack of affordability of these resources. I know for sure that my family would definitely switch to solar heating, my house has great southern exposure, and is in the right area for it, but we cannot afford the initial investment. We’ve gotten people to come over and make quotes, but as of yet we have still not been able to find an option that is affordable. Further research and development of technology could really serve to bridge these gaps, as well as more efficient design of cities and suburban spaces.  This is one case where smarter design can really solve a lot of our problems. When buildings and cities are designed without sustainable energy and natural systems in mind, we are basically setting ourselves up for failure and further money down the road. Anyway, rant aside, these two chapters were interesting reads, and definitely informative!

Blog Questions:

Which of the alternative energy sources is the most feasible for lower-income families, in both the US and other nations, developing and developed?

What would it take to derail the big oil companies and their subsidies?

How can policy-makers become more informed of the need for energy efficiency?

Week 10: Water Resources, Geology & Nonrenewable Minerals

Upon discovering the topic for this week, I was actually eager and curious to learn more. I’ve been recently developing more and more of an interest in development, specifically in terms of public health, and the correlations with environmental health. For this reason, water resources are definitely a relevant topic for me. I have discussed this in previous classes, but I was definitely interested in the way it has grown and change these days. Contemporary society is built on the falsehood that water and geological resources grow exponentially and without faltering, but as these chapters made clear, this does not ring true.

Chapter 13 boldly begins with a question that we have all contemplated asking: Will we have enough usable water? The earth is a planet integrally made of water—71% of the earth’s surface! Secondly, human beings themselves are similarly consisted of water. We are using water very unsustainably, by wasting it, polluting it, and like we have already discussed in the class, it is priced lower than its actual worth. Freshwater is an extremely important part of natural capital, and simultaneously, from the planetary management perspective, one that we manage very poorly. From a human perspective, water is a global health issue, and those in developing countries have been suffering the most, especially women and children. Only about half of the world’s people have water piped to their homes, the other half do not, and are responsible for producing and accessing water from distant wells. Secondly, water is a global and national security issue, because of increasing multinational tensions over shared water resources. From a less anthropocentric viewpoint, water is key for the health and wellbeing of all ecosystems, and excessive misuse of water by humans has a severe environmental toll. We actually only have a tiny fraction of the earth’s water supply—about 0.024% available in accessible groundwater deposits and lakes and streams. Groundwater and surface water, for this reason, are critical resources, as well as reliable runoff water.

 

It is clear that water scarcity is becoming a major global issue, and will only continue to exacerbate. The main factors that cause water scarcity include: dry climate, drought, overpopulation, misuse of water supply faster than it can regenerate, and just general water wastefulness. Currently, over 30 countries are dealing with water stress, and it is predicted by 2050 this number will double. So, groundwater extraction has been seen as a potential solution, but is a tech, short-term solution, especially since it is being pumped from aquifers in some areas faster than it is renewed. Water tables are falling all over the world as the pumping rates have skyrocketed, especially due to its uses to supply cities and in agriculture. Overpumping of aquifers has some serious effects, for health and social wellbeing, as it limits future food production and increases the gap between wealthy and impoverished families. Poor farmers cannot keep up with the necessary equipment as the water table gets lower, and end up selling their land and moving to urban areas seeking work. Secondly, overpumping leads to land subsidence, damage of roadways and infrastructural problems. For example, parts of Mexico City and Beijing have been sinking because of groundwater overdrafts. Scientists are currently considering tapping deep aquifers, but there are major concerns that speak against this. They are nonrenewable, little is known about the greater geological impacts, and they flow among multiple countries, and the costs are unknown. Another possible answer is that of transferring water from one place to another, as it has greatly increased water supplies in some areas, but it disrupts ecosystems, and leads to water waste. Lastly, there is the potential of converting salt from seawater. It is possible, but very costly, and as well leaves salty brine as a waste product, that must be disposed without harming terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. Desalination is pretty much solely practical for wealthy countries currently.

 

How can we use water more sustainably? We can cut water waste, raise water prices, slow population growth, and most importantly, protect ecosystems that store and release water. It is integral that we use water sustainably. We can also reduce threats of flooding by natural barriers, like wetlands, vegetation, and avoiding building in areas prone to flooding.

Chapter 14 switches the focus to geology and nonrenewable mineral resources. The earth has major dynamic processes that move matter, both within the earth and on its surfaces. These processes can cause volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, erosion and landslides. Internal geologic processes build up the earth’s surface by pushing up the crusts, which lead to the formation of mountains and volcanoes. Oppositely, external geologic processes are driven by the sun and gravity’s influence, move matter around by wearing the earth’s surface; weathering is an example of this. Volcanoes release molten rock from the earth’s interior through a fissure. Earthquakes occur due to seismic waves created by movement and formation of faults. When on the ocean floor, earthquakes lead to tsunamis.

The earth’s crust is made out of rocks and minerals. Sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic are the three main kinds of rock found in the earth’s crust. They are recycled very slowly by the processes of erosion, melting and metamorphism. The rock cycle is actually the slowest of the earth’s cyclic processes. Minerals have become a source material for many of our products, but the extraction and use of them has disturbed the environment and produced much waste. We use ores, as they are profitable. The human use of minerals in the earth’s crust has caused a great many environmental impacts, including habitat disturbance, soil erosion, waste generation, and pollution of the air, water and soil. The major question to be addressed is simply: how long will supplies of nonrenewable mineral resources last? First, it is important to clarify that nonrenewable mineral resources exist in finite amounts. There will be no more once we have used all that there is, and that is that. Also, as we get closer to fully depleting these resources, the environmental impacts intensify progressively. Some see raising the price of scarce mineral resources as a way to cut consumption, but there are limits to this, and it is certainly not foolproof. We can use mineral resources more sustainably in a variety of ways, but trying to find substitutes, reducing resource waste, and recycling non-renewable materials.

 

After reading this, I felt as if I gained a sense of awareness of the way society hides issues like these under the rug. The whole structure of mineral and water extraction is so flimsy, speaking from basic understandings of sustainability, in that it exhorts and builds itself around the false endless growth of these resources, which is all too false. It is clearly that as this society that is so disconnected with the reality of this, and keeps consuming as if there is no tomorrow, will experience some catastrophic losses in time, and those who are the poorest, and more often than not least culpable will suffer the most.

Blog Questions:

What is a way to further communicate the true ills of the use of plastic water bottles to those who continue using them, fully aware that they are bad for the environment?

As the mineral industry both exploits human workers and environmental resources, especially building our beloved tech products, how can we find alternates to this process, or work to reform it?

Week 9: Films

Symphony of Soil is a powerful documentary. The title alone suggests the beautiful imagery of the film, and how it transforms “dirt” into something wonderful. That’s right, soil is a beautiful thing people!  The film discusses soil through the lense of biology, art, agriculture and ecology. This documentary covers practically everything one could imagine about soil. Compost can really reinvigorate and reactivate soil biology. One example of this is in compost tea, which was made by the Indian farmer to mimic a creek and to enrich his soil. Healthier, more robustly nutritious soil results in better crops. Improved soil also causes less runoff, saving more water in the process. This coupled with other water-saving techniques like drip water systems, in which crops are watered with small drips of water, as opposed to large sprinkler systems, which are more often than not pumped with pesticides and other nasty stuff, are sustainable and intelligent responses to issues of contemporary agriculture.  Major dangers to soil include salinization and loss of productivity, which tends to accompany agribusiness. These are main kinds of soil combinations used in agricultures, arranged in increasing yield: conventional, organic, organic with compost, and organic with compost and cover crop. Mixed soil improvement consists of multiple plants, and the use of animals as an integral part of farming. The metaphor of a balanced diet here applies; well-balanced soil is a well-balanced field! Nitrogen leeching is another major problem, causing deadzones in the ocean, perhaps most famously the Black Sea. Modified rotation of cover crops and cash crops can reduce Nitrogen leeching by 70%. Regarding chemical fertilizers and pesticides, like Roundup, it is important to get behind the curtain and see what’s really there. Although companies, like that of Roundup, claim to test their full product, more often than note, they only test the active ingredient in isolation, not the full product. This is dangerous, especially considering the downward chemical cycle! Massive health problems are stemming from these chemicals, including fertility and birth defects. As the film goes on, we hear from Vandana Shiva, a famous agricultural activist, and from some farm-to-table specialists. All of these people agree that our current food system is seriously flawed. This documentary challenges the idea of “better living through chemistry” with “better living through biology,” systems that respect the natural systems in place. One of the true strengths of this documentary is the way it adequately depicts the interconnectedness of natural systems, specifically soil, and human dependence on these majestic systems. I really did learn so much about soil from this documentary, more so than I ever thought I would know! I was pleased that the film included Vandana Shiva, who is definitely one of my favorite ladies! I recommend her books to anyone interested in food systems and sustainability. Back to the documentary, I really did enjoy it! The way the film presented its arguments were very strong and made for an aesthetically pleasing and enlightening experience overall.

Speaking of food systems and sustainability, on to Food, Inc! Food, Inc. is a film that I have already been acquainted with. I first saw the film as a senior in high school, and it introduced me to the reality of the global food network, and agribusiness, and really inspired me to pursue the path I am pursuing. The documentary is one of the strongest and most coherent depictions of the contemporary agribusiness and the culture that allows for it that I have ever seen. Basically, the film explores the crossroads between consumer “choices,” public health, the ills of agribusiness, and the supermarket. Food preparation has changed drastically, but the pastoral fantasy in advertising and the minds of the consumers has lingered, and is a dramatically false representation of the much uglier reality of agribusiness. There is a curtain between consumers and producers, and as we saw by the refusal of Tyson to show their chicken coops, this curtain is firmly placed very intentionally by these producing giants. They do not want customers to know the reality of where there food is coming from. The ideal customer is blind to this, and gains a false sense of autonomy by the supposed myriad of choices in front of them at the supermarket. The average supermarket has about 47,000 products, but broken down, tend to be made by the same conglomerates of the same dubious ingredients: corn and soy products, high fructose corn syrup, sugars and salts and preservatives. So, this “cornucopia of choices” is really an illusion. The food system is no longer the pastoral fantasy of advertisements, but an industrial factory, run by huge, multinational corporations. This corrupt system began with fast food, and hasn’t stopped since then, feeding their customers bad food while simultaneously abusing their workers and their farmers through oppressive debts.  Sadly, even the regulatory agencies are controlled by the very companies they should be scrutinizing! There is a reliance on self-policy, and subsidies that help these nasty agricultural giants like Monsanto, Tyson, Smithfield, and Perdue continuously succeed. The film really aims to cover the wide scope of the United States’ food system, showing us all steps on the process of making a hamburger, from the slaughterhouse (if one could even call it that), to the delivery processes, as well as the inside of those giant chicken coops. Interlaid with the previous images is narration from Michael Pollan (another one of my favorite people!) and various anecdotes, including a mother-turned lobbyer, who lost her son due to the E.Coli virus because of poor regulation practices. This is perhaps one of the most poignant moments of the film, the loss of the innocent child because of big business misbehavior is an all too common story. The most intelligent part of this documentary, similarly to Symphony of Soil is the compelling way in which it presents its arguments. The combination of narrative, infographics, personal anecdotes, and depiction of farms and supermarkets really makes the argument resonate, even for those who may not have initially agreed with it, or the most diehard fast-foodies. I’ve shown this documentary to my less than eco-conscious friends, and it even made them reconsider some of their food trips, or pledge to be vegetarian for a week or two! From my position, as someone who has a strong interest in nutrition and the entirety of the food industry, this documentary really was one of the things that fostered and bolstered my ideas about food. Further recommended reading/watching to anyone whose interest was peaked by this film include any of Michael Pollan’s works, the documentary Forks Over Knives, and the book Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden  Battle of the World Food System by Raj Patel, as well as any of Vandana Shiva’s publications. The latter of my recommendations both offer a more comprehensive global portrait of the industry in comparison to Food, Inc. Definitely worth checking out!

 

 

Blog Questions:

What is the possibility of changing the balance of power in the food industry within the next century?

How can we become more-educated consumers, and become further aware of our food and agricultural systems when those behind them are so intent on keeping them covered up? What are the best resources to discover the truth?

Week 8: Aquatic Biodiversity, Pest & Soil Management May 14, 2013

Chapter 11 is about aquatic biodiversity. Upon initially hearing the world “biodiversity,” we tend to immediately think of a terrestrial setting, forgetting about the massive diversity of the world’s oceans. We are pretty much duds when it comes to being aware of aquatic ecosystems, as we have only explored about 5% of the earth’s interconnected oceans, and it is estimated that only 1% of aquatic life forms have been correctly identified and studied. There are three general biodiversity patterns that have been observed: that the greatest biodiversity occurs in coral reefs, estuaries, and on the deep-ocean floor, it is higher near the costs than in the open sea, and that it is generally higher in the bottom area of the ocean compared to the surface.  The world’s aquatic ecosystems provide important ecological and economic services, and further research and preservation of these areas is of the essence. It is clear that these ecosystems are currently being degraded by human activities, especially coral reefs, coastal wetlands, and mangrove forests. One major example of this is the introduction of native species, which have displaced or driven to extinction several native species. Consumers, shipment workers, and business owners are all culpable, and sometimes distribute these species unknowingly. Examples of invasive species include: lionfish, the common carp and the Nile perch.  Other major human threats to aquatic ecosystems include overfishing, population growth and pollution, and climate change, at the center of it all. How can we protect and sustain marine biodiversity? Similar to other cases, there are multi-sectored responses to this question. Major possibilities include: laws and economic incentives to protect species, setting aside of marine reserves to create habitat, and using community-based integrated coast management. Another question arises: how should we manage and sustain marine fisheries?  Basically, in order to sustain an aquatic environment, fish and shellfish populations need more upkeep and cooperative management, among communities all the way up to nations. Lastly, there is a request to reduce fishing subsidies, as they have encouraged short as well as smart consumer shopping.  Then the book focuses attention of freshwater. Freshwater ecosystems are very much affected by human activities, and protecting these ecosystems must include watershed protection, as watersheds play a key role in attaining goods. After seeing all of these possibilities for saving them, what should be our priority? The major components necessary to sustain a marine system include:  mapping, protecting hotspots, preserve “living room,” creating large marine reserves, and carrying out important ecological restoration of degraded coastal and inland wetlands.

 

 

Chapter 12 studies food, soil and pest management. To begin, the chapter addresses the issue of food security and insecurity. Food security, simply put, is a condition in a country in which all or most of the population has daily access to enough nutritious food to live active and healthy lives. On the contrary, food insecurity is a state of chronic hunger and poor nutrition, limiting the health and productivity of the population. The root cause of food insecurity is poverty, and other causes include political upheaval, war, drought, and corruption. This is an important contemporary issue. According to a study made in 2007 by climate and food scientists David Battisti and Rosamond Naylor, there is a higher than 90% chance that by the end of this century, half of the global population will struggle with serious food shortages due to climate change. Food security is an issue that faces every one of us, whether we are affluent or impoverished, or from a developed or developing nation. Many people today suffer from chronic malnutrition, frequent deficiencies of protein and key nutrients, which is a major global health issue, as nutrition is the building blocks for overall physical health. Famine is perhaps the worst and most infamous kind of food shortage, and can result in mass starvation, economic chaos and social disruption.  There are problems on the other side of the spectrum as well, like overnutrition, which is when the food energy intake exceeds energy use and causes excess body fat. No matter what side of the spectrum we are on, we rely on the production of food through contemporary agriculture. How do we produce food? There are two main kinds of food production today: high-input industrial agribusiness, and lower-input traditional methods. Contemporary industrial agriculture violates the principle of sustainability, in that it relies on high-input monocultures that degrade the pre-existing environment and capabilities of the land, as well as relies heavily on fossil fuels, and neglects the recycling of nutrients in topsoil.  Traditional agriculture provides about 20% of the world’s food crops. The two main kinds are subsistence agriculture and intensive agriculture. These forms of agriculture use polyculture techniques, which is an example of the principle of sustainability, as it reduces the chance of losing food supply, and promotes crop diversity.  As a whole, this kind of agriculture tends to produce higher yields than the monocultures of high-input agri-industry.

 

There have been several recent trends in industrial agriculture that have been a concern to environmentalists and public health experts: including genetic engineering of crops and livestock animals, aquaculture and meat production techniques, and the energy inputs of industrial agriculture. These trends have caused severe environmental degradation, as well as limiting the potential of future food production, due to soil erosion, desertification, water and air pollution, climate change from greenhouse gas emissions and loss of biodiversity. Topsoil erosion, the movement of soil components from one place to another, has been a very serious problem, as it is necessary for growth of any kinds of plants. From the perspective of water conservation, agribusiness is a big culprit, especially because of irrigation, which accounts for 70% of the water that humanity uses. Also, like I have previously mentioned, the monocultural nature of agribusiness has seriously damaged natural agrobiodiversity, shrinking the world’s “genetic library,” and damaging our future food yields, which has pushed further tech fixes like genetic engineering. Industrialized meat production is another scary process, creating vast greenhouse gas emissions, and polluting water and other crops, which has lead to the spread of infectious diseases, as well as created problems of overgrazing and soil compaction. It is emphasized that livestock production has caused about 55% of all topsoil erosion and sediment production. Aquaculture, although it has been high-yielding and efficient, has a large waste output, uses large amounts of land, feed and water, and has some serious effects on nature. Regarding pest control: it is possible to cut pesticide use without decreasing crop yields, by way of mixed cultivation techniques, biological controls, and integrated pest management techniques.  To improve overall food security, we can create programs that work towards the overall reduction of poverty, rely more on local food systems, and cut down on food waste. To produce food more sustainably requires more efficient usage of resources, a decrease of the harmful effects of industrial food production, and eliminating the government subsidies that sustain harmful, industrial production. Combined, sustainable food production will both reduce the harmful environmental impacts of our current systems while increasing overall food security.

These chapters were both interesting to me for different reasons. First, I never had really studied aquatic biodiversity, but I had actually been working with horseshoe and blue crabs with one of my science professors. It was nice to get a “big picture,” in the sense of the grand scheme of aquatic life that’s out there. I was surprised by the actually small viewpoint we have on aquatic systems…only 5%?! That’s barely anything! However, I did feel like the chapter filled in a lot of my blank spaces and questions that I had about aquatic systems, so overall a positive experience. As for as agriculture and sustainability, I have done a lot of personal research and reading on this, so I didn’t feel like the chapter offered me anything new, but did present what I was already aware of in a clear, concise manner. I could ramble on and on about agriculture (seriously I have on many an occasion, I don’t know how my parents haven’t disowned me at this point), but I was pleased that this chapter also touched on issues of food security and malnutrition, an all-too-important yet often forgotten about issue. I went to a lecture last year on food security, and have really gained some knowledge of the multi-faceted nature of this issue. Previously, I thought malnutrition was more of an issue of lack of food, as opposed to the lack of the ability to buy food, which tends to be the case these days. Above all, this week was a nicely thoughtful week of readings!

Blog Questions:

Regarding the possibility of GMOs as tech –fixes, and the perceived elitist attitudes of “locavores” and the slowfood movement…what are the best ways to bridge this disparity, and introduce these methods and lifestyles to people of lower-income or lack of awareness of nutrition/sustainability?

Which area of the world’s oceans suffers the most abuse due to overfishing or general human misbehavior?

Week 7: Biodiversity-the species & ecological approach March 6, 2013

Biodiversity is one of those hot words that many people like to throw around, regardless of their actual knowledge of the term. It seems that even people working within different disciplines have different senses of what it means—for a geneticist, it all begins with the genome, for an economist , it could be a commodity, a representation of the potential wealth of a country. However it is definitely one of the most important concepts for anyone studying and working in the environmental sector.

                There are two major approaches to biodiversity: the species approach and the ecosystem approach. The species approach focuses on the importance of individual species to the overall wellbeing of human species, as well as the human impacts on biodiversity.  Species are a vital part of natural capital and of earth’s support system. The species approach is fully aware of this, and of the human impacts on these species. Primarily, humans are having a huge effect on the extinction of these species. The rate has increased 100-1000 times faster than it was before the arrival of modern humans, and it is predicted to be 10,000 higher than background rate by the end of this century. The background extinction rate is the normal, low rate of species extinction.  This rate is important, not only because of the ecological and economic services provided by these species, but as well as the right for the species to exist. Biological extinction is forever, irreversible loss of natural capital, can break or weaken connections in the ecosystem in which they had existed, can lead to secondary extinction of species with strong connections to extinct species. Extinction of species is an ecological smoke alarm in a sense, as it tends to signify a greater disruption in the whole ecosystem fabric. And of course, there is always the mass extinction: the extinction of many species in a relatively short period of geologic time. There has been around 5 previous mass extinctions due to major climate change or other similar large scale catastrophes. However, there is a potential of another great extinction caused by human hands. Human activities eat up a massive amount of the earth’s surface, and have threatened and caused the extinction of countless species. The greatest threats to any species, in order are: loss/degradation of habitat, harmful invasive species, human population growth, pollution, climate change, and overexploitation. So, how can we protect wild species from extinction? The book has several answers, including establishing/enforcing national environmental laws and international treaties, creating sanctuaries and taking precautionary measures. Although science may never be able to prove things absolutely certainly, if there is even a shade of danger, precautionary measures must be taken to preserve biodiversity. Once a species is gone, it is gone forever.

                The ecosystem approach focuses on the preservation of the full ecosystem, making the argument that there is no point in preserving a species if its habitat! Ecosystems provide countless goods and services of value to human interests and intrinsically valuable. Forest ecosystems actually provide services that are far greater than the value of raw materials obtained from them, and they are threatened by cutting and burning, climate change and disease. Forests can be sustained by proper management, and recognition of their value beyond the simple commodities they provide. However, emphasizing the economic value of the forest system can be an intelligent way to advocate. Government subsidies that allow for unsustainable use of these forest systems needs to be ended and we must stop harvesting trees faster than they are replenished, especially in old-growth forests. Grasslands are also a valuable system, very productive and rich. They can be sustained by restorative measures as well as controlling the populations of the livestock who graze there. Parks and nature reserves have been an effective response towards preserving ecosystems, but require more effective protection than they have gotten. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that protecting the “real thing” is equally important, and that we cannot make up for ecosystem degradation or loss by simply attempting to recreate it. To sustain terrestrial biodiversity, threatened areas must be identified and protected, damaged ecosystems must be restored, and we must use reconciliation ecology, or in simple terms, acknowledging that we aren’t the only species in need of eco goods and service.

                After reading about both of these approaches, I was struck by the poignant fragility of the ecosystem. Humans really know how to take advantage of what they got, huh? I think one of the most heartbreaking thoughts of the chapter is the potential biodiversity we have lost, that we may not have known existed. I visited the rainforest in Puerto Rico as a child with my family, and I have a distinct memory of our guía being obsessed with the slugs and minute creatures that populated the forest floor. I remember being unimpressed with the slugs in question, hoping to see a more exciting creature, but impressed by the guy’s enthusiasm. However, after all that I’ve learned in my science classes and environmental ones, many of these modest animals are vital to the survival of our ecosystems!

 

Although people place priority on saving the “celebrity” species, the whales and Bengal tigers of the world, more often than not, the small, unassuming little guys are the more valuable to the overall wellbeing of the system. I think the most obvious example is of the honeybee. We would be without many of our favorite foods if it wasn’t for these buzzing worker (check out this infographic) I guess the mantra of don’t judge a book by its cover really does have some truth in it!

Blog questions:

Seeing as biodiversity is an integral provider of ecosystem services, what would be the best way to make biodiversity important for those not well-versed in the sciences nor environmental studies?

Which of the approaches towards biodiversity, the species or the ecological approach, works more coherently within the urban setting?

 

Week 6: Practicum and Local History

In the light of last week’s reading, we narrow our focus to the ecosystems in place and the history of New York’s ecosystem, using Fordham as a case study.

                The short video The Mannahatta Project offers a glimpse as to what New York City was like when Henry Hudson arrived: mostly forests of pine and hickory, wetlands, flowing streams, and a whole lot of wildlife. The project used the tool of georeferencing, working with old maps to create a new depiction of the old landscape. However, the goals of the project were never to return Manhattan to its pure, untouched state, but to change public perceptions of such a familiar, iconic place. It also provides apush for preservation for the future. History has a power to remind people of potential, what has been realized, what could have been, and hopefully what should be in the future–in our case, a sustainable, flourishing urban ecosystem. After seeing this short film, I played around with the map tool, explored 1609 NYC.

                Biophilia is a familiar concept to me, having briefly studied it through the lens of design, for example: using natural patterns, and building design inspired by and part of natural processes and biological capacities. According to this article, biophilia is an innate, universal, and instinctive love of nature, that transcends cultural and socioeconomic boundaries. It is a fundamental part of a healthy, positive lifestyle. It has been proving that people who live in apartments with views of nature tend to be healthier, more productive, and less aggressive than those with views of alleys or simple concrete. What a shame to think that we have built a city over the beautiful ecosystem in place! If people flourish with merely a simple view of some trees, think about what power a more vibrant, grand ecosystem would provide! Other cultures have caught on to this aesthetic service of nature. In Japan, there is a concept called “shinrin-yoku,” or forest bath in English, which, as the name entails, involves simply going to a forest and taking it all in for a good bit of time. This has proved to increase white blood cell count, lower concentrations of cortisol and blood pressure. This research certainly compliments the ideology behind the “no child left inside” view. Nature deficit disorder exists, and children who do get a healthy exposure to the natural world have increased cognitive flexibility, critical thinking, problem-solving skills and creative potential. Would you look at that!

                In the article focusing on Cuomo’s ecosystem service policies, Cuomo will provide 1.8 mil from settlement to seven entities (Bronx River alliance, NYBG, NYC parks department, etc) for green infrastructure to capture/treat stormwater before reaching river from a 7 million settlement with towns in Westchester that had been dumping raw sewage into the Bronx River. This is a good example of the polluter pays principle; polluters have to take responsibility for their actions financially and work to repair their damages. Also, the use of natural systems as pollution control device is an example of intelligent design. It is cheaper to build and maintain than the standard procedure.  Mimicking of natural systems is based on using the existing ecosystems in place, which is extremely important. Destruction of habitats to develop land is a destruction of services provided by that ecosystem. For example, 90% of NYC water is from Delaware-Catskill water system, city extensively filters this supply and natural methods much cheaper than alternative filtration. If this system was destroyed, the entire urban population would lose their access to fresh water, and the measures needed to repair or alternatively filter and obtain water would be outrageously expensive.

PlanYC was proposed by Mayor Bloomberg in 2007 about the making of a greener, greater NYC. The far-reaching, comprehensive plan includes measures to strengthen the economy, green infrastructure and an overall enhancement of the quality of life for New York residents. This plan is very important, as the city grows, so does the need for residents to be vigilant about protecting its resources in the threat of a larger population with diminishing resources. This plan is very efficient, and actually 97% of the 127 initiative within the plan were launched within a year of its release, and about two thirds of the milestones were achieved by 2009. In 2011, the plan had been updated, with December 2013 being the goal date for the new milestones. Some major components of the plan include: OpenYC-population rise preparation, MaintaiNYC-infrastructure repairs, and GreeNYC-resource conservation and a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 30%.

                The Bronx River ecosystem was a pre-glacial stream from upstate NY to the LI sound, which has been greatly reshaped and altered by human impact and industry within the past 200 years.  Originally used by the Mohegan Indians as a source of fishing, it has been used by European traders for its beaver population, mills and manufacturing, and has even given the Bronx borough its name! In 1915, the Kensico Dam was completed, which diverted the river and cut off its water supply by 25%. Soon, due to rapid rates of urbanization, the river degenerated and absorbed many pollutants. During Robert Moses era, the Bronx was in urban decay, with a low quality of life, fragmented by construction of numerous highways. In the 70’s, local residents decided to take matters in their own hands, and created the Bronx River Restoration Project, which culminated in the formulation of the Bronx River Alliance in 2001, which today works to restore and protect this historically and ecologically valuable ecosystem. Also, the Bronx River is famous for one of its literary residents—Edgar Allan Poe, who had a small cottage close by!

 

As for the Rose Hill campus, it was once a country estate on a Dutch farm after the American Revolution, quite idyllic and rural. Once it became the Jesuit university, it still managed to preserve some of its rich rural scenery. It was described as a beautiful campus, a place to live and study away from the hustle and bustle. It functioned simultaneously as a farm for a long time, where vegetables were grown along with a full vineyard. This allowed tuition to remain stable for decades. Coincidentally, contemporary Fordham has still held on to its agricultural history, with St. Rose’s Garden, the CSA program on the Rose Hill campus. Fordham has its own sustainability plan, focusing on energy, waste, recycling and minimization, LEED buildings, transportation, climate change, education, coordination with local institutions.  However Fordham’s sustainability report card is disappointing, frustrating, and, perhaps most unfortunately of all: pretty damn accurate. At a dull C+ we are barely peeping over average. Although there has been a lot of good work in the past and present by students and faculty, there is still much to be achieved. For example, Fordham does not invest in any sort of renewable energy nor community development loan funds, instead prioritizing investment returns.  The food and recycling programs gained a B, which was really surprising to me, because from my personal experience, as a Lincoln Center student proves differently. The dorms produce massive amounts of waste, and although we have the facilities for recycling, there seems to be a lack of knowledge and education as to how to use these facilities (as in, what goes where), and a general apathy about environmental concerns. Student involvement got a C, which I would agree with. I imagine students would be more inspired or likely to get involved in conservation and sustainability efforts if the Environmental Policy/Science majors had more of a presence here, or if we actually had some sort of club. To be honest, as an Environmental Policy student at this campus, I feel as if I was left pretty high and dry when it comes to these things. There was a semblance of a club last year, and a lot of plans that never were realized, and this year, I’ve gotten some emails hoping for an LC club, but nothing really definite. This is a bit frustrating, especially since I would love to get involved with St. Rose’s Garden or really work on greening our campus infrastructure, but there is not really the structure I need here to do that. It is pretty much impossible for me to make it to the Rose Hill events between my job, internship, and research assistance. I hope that something will fall into place as the weather gets warmer and the supposed LC club gets more organized!

Questions:

I have studied the basic history of the area where the LC campus is, but I don’t really know very much before the Robert Moses years. What sources are there for me to check out?

 I have yet to see any major environmental efforts here, like urban farming or a compost area for the waste produced here. What potential projects could feasibly work here?

Week 5: Sustainable Cities

In today’s rapidly moving world, endless emphasis is placed on economic growth, unlimited profits, ceaseless and thoughtless consumption. Very little emphasis seems to be placed on the little things, and even less emphasis on the ecosystem goods & services that have constructed our cities and created our beloved products and support our lifestyles. This week’s readings can be divided into two main concepts: sustainable cities, and alternative lifestyles.

The animated short: The Impossible Hamster Club reminds us that there is no such thing as exponential growth; nature has limits on growth for a reason. The way in which the film depicts the message of reduced consumption is really quite memorable and a striking and visual way to conceptualize the ridiculousness of our consumption. The second short, The Good Life Parable, offers another reminder of the differences between financial wealth vs. well-being, happiness and simplicity. It reminds us that it is not difficult to be content with what one has: the pleasures of not over-working, and spending time with friends and family. It also serves as a representation of the cyclical and silly nature of the way our contemporary society views happiness (pretty different from the way our parents and grandparents viewed it!)—that we must work our bones dry, oversize and get more, and then when we’re all spent and dissatisfied, go live the typical “simple life.” The third short, Visualizing a Plenitude Economy puts the themes of the aforementioned in more economical terms. The 1970s vision of early 21^st century degradation and loss of wealth and resources rang true in the 2008 recession. Indiscriminate growth leads to further environmental stress and further discontent. There is a drastic need for innovation. Technological solutions are only partial, because growth itself wears on ecology, and many of these fail to address the underlying causes of our contemporary economy and ecosystems. The system of a plenitude economy calls for a reduced workweek, fairer distribution of work , increased DIY motives, building social capital to create alternative economy and finally, to simplify, and return to a human scale economy.  This movement, the Degrowth movement is a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics and anti-consumerist/anti-capitalist ideas. Advocates of this movement promote downscaling of production and consumption. I definitely laughed upon seeing “Buy Nothing Day,” or its more common name—Black Friday, one of the biggest shopping days of the year listed on the page. As someone who has worked in retail for a couple years, I have seen the deepest, scariest beasts that people become on this very day, and I am proud to say that I have unintentionally been celebrating Buy Nothing Day for the past couple years. The final source is Chris Jordan’s photographs of consumption, which provide a thoughtful and interesting visual representation of consumption.

Having taken Environmental Design last year, the concepts of the Sustainable Cities chapter were not new to me, but I must say, I think that intelligent design is underrated as a solution to environmental problems. Design surrounds us and touches every aspect of our life—transportation, the items we use and consume, our homes and apartments, the spaces we inhabit. Intelligent design, closed-cycle systems, can both reduce our ecological footprint, our annual spending, and increase our sense of well-being and peace of mind. City planning is an integral part of creating a truly sustainable society.

 

There are many options for us, as residents in the New York metropolitan area, to address the areas where urban planning hasn’t caught up with. We have previously discussed things like raising gas to its true prices. And there are many subcultures whose ways of life tend to fall in line with the agenda of the Degrowth movement and Plentitude economists. There are a lot of contemporary movements, like the Slow Food movement, the DIY movements, urban agriculturalists, localvore culture, that are based on locally encapsulated, closed-loop sustainable ways. I think that the major issue for these small social scenes is, as always with these kinds of things, is to make them desirable and accessible for the majority of people, not just the hipsters. I think it is key to encourage environmental education, tackle food deserts, and encourage urban farming, and most of all, to make lower-income children and families want to find healthier options, at school and at home. I have volunteered with a couple of organizations that educate low-income families in the Bronx and Manhattan of fitness and offer cooking classes in English and Spanish, and give organic produce to the families who would not have able to afford it otherwise. It is clear from my personal experience that it is not that these families necessarily prefer fast food or unhealthy options, but they are potentially unaware of how delicious and simple it is to have healthy, home cooked meals. There have been endless studies on the benefits of eating at home with your loved ones, and I think it’s time for us to reclaim eating in!

The photo below is from one of my volunteer days with the Nourshing USA foundation, supplying families in the Bronx with fresh produce, sharing recipes and cooking classes and discussing healthy eating! 

Questions

What is the feasibility of making things like the degrowth option feasible and attractive to lower-income families, the ones who are already in need?

I am aware of a lot of these things happening on a small-medium level, but what about on the grand stage? What would it take?