Final Connections

As our time blogging comes to an end, I thought it would be a nice refresher to show the connections between urban ecology, energy politics, conservation, and environmental justice.  Energy is clearly a point of contention because money, access, health, and the environment all play a role.  Sometimes the cheapest energy is not the cleanest, and sometimes this energy does not make it to everyone in need.  For example, natural gas is a cleaner energy source than coal, but there are dangers attributed to hydraulic-fracturing.  This impacts people disproportionately; usually the areas intended for piping and "fracking" are poorer areas.  The effects become disparate impacts because the energy harnessed by hydro-fracking is more often than not piped away from the local area.  

Along with the constant search and battle over energy, conservation comes into play.  This ideology is mainly focused on sustainable use of resources, and not over-exploiting.  While it does encourage use of natural resources, it fails to account for the necessity of chaos and change in that ecosystem.  With our current energy sources, we should be conserving as many as possible in order to live more sustainably and environmentally friendly; yet, we should not forget how important change is to a healthy ecosystem and environment.

This brings us to urban ecology.  Urban ecology is the interaction and relationship between organisms in an urban setting.  Through conservationist eyes, we should have more "green" spaces which encourage public health as well as environmental health.  Building more parks, removing LULU's and brown fields, and preventing potential harm caused by energy extraction are all involved in how humans and other organisms interact within the city.  The location for LULU's and brown fields are, as we have discussed countless time, located in poorer areas and in areas predominately with people of color.  This side of urban ecology exacerbates environmental racism and adds to the environmental justice movement. 

Through conserving energy resources, debating the best forms and extraction tools in regards to energy, and examining the urban ecology as a whole creates this complex view of the environment in relation to people.  This relationship and connection is part of the foundation of environmental justice and continues to shape the movement today.

Inspire to be Green

One common ideology that I am observing with the green movement, more specifically, urban ecology and being green in urban settings is, as much as people want to believe that we can live in a sustainable city, they still think that its impossible to do and that it will never happen. So as appose to actually trying to help the environment, they just continue to do what they always been doing. I think if we can change this mindset and make people think that this can really happen, then, I think we will be better off. I just think that it takes some time and also people that give a damn.

I read an article that demonstrated just that. In New York City’s Brooklyn Bridge Park, they have installed several solar-power electric vehicle charging station. It is the first of its kind in New York City. The park also has lush, green grass and will also reduce the carbon emission in the area by a very noticeable amount. I hope that these types of events inspire people and give them the idea that this could actually happen if we really tried hard.

With these types of integrations in urban locations, we can reduce not only our carbon-footprint, but we can make it a better place to live. Being educated is a big part on urban ecology and being aware of these new technologies are major factors in trying to make our environment green. Believe that these types of implementations can work and don’t be miss-lead by insufficient information. 

Local Knowledge In An Urban Environment

After recently learning about local knowledge and the role it can play in risk assessment and in the environmental justice, I see an opportunity for its use in urban ecology. City-dwellers are inhabitants of the urban environment and their relationship to it is as close any other ecological relationship. However, the urban environment brings about many unique risks and hazards due to the close quarters and large population density.

Yet, these massive populations share a common environment and a power in numbers to bring about considerable change for the wellbeing of their city. Introducing their own experiences and local knowledge into the urban ecological debate of their city brings new opportunities for change. The smaller environment and shared space of a city creates solidarity among the city-dwellers for a common goal in consciously benefitting the environment. By voicing their own knowledge and experiences, inhabitants will bring up the most important issues and risks facing their urban environment. The city is their environment and by voicing the concerns created by their local knowledge, the ecological status of their city will only grow because it reflects the minds and personal thoughts of the people who inhabit it.

Gas Fracking

This is a paper I wrote for one of my previous environment classes.  Gas fracking is a "hot topic" for energy politics. 

NATURAL GAS FRACKING: An environmental aspect of drilling for alternative energy

A growing global concern in the hunt for alternative energy is hydraulic-fracturing for natural gas.  Natural gas currently supplies about 25% of the U.S.’s energy, but the goal is 50% by 2035.⁴   This gas resides in shale thousands of feet below the surface, and is a great energy source.  The idea of fracturing is pumping a water mixture down to break up the rock in order for the gas to be released.  It is occurring world-wide, for example in Sydney, Australia, and also locally in the Marcellus Shale located predominately under Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio.  The environmental aspect of this issue is mostly concerned with the possible contamination of ground water.

(Image from Environmental Health Perspectives ⁴)

Hydro-fracturing, in short fracking, is when a pump is drilled down thousands of feet into the ground in these gas pocket areas.  At high pressure, millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals are rushed down which cause the rock to crack or fracture.  This then allows the gas to escape and be susceptible for harvest.  The chemicals in the mixture include benzene, toluene, and xylene along with other harmful chemicals including methane.³   While most is flushed out, and the majority of the mixture is sand and water, about one-third of this chemical-laced mixture stays underground.²   So, these chemicals are below very close to the groundwater supply.  Once an aquifer, or water supply for that matter, is contaminated it is an irreversible act; it cannot be cleaned.²   There is debate, though, about whether the drilling causes groundwater contamination.  Currently in Australia, the coal-seam gas industry wants to drill 40,000 wells by the year 2030 in Queensland.  Already, there have been three definite wells of which carcinogens were found.²

The Marcellus Shale has about 500 tcf of natural gas in its reserves, and the gas companies would be able to extract about 50 tcf.¹   Although relatively small compared to the total, this could supply energy for the entire East coast for fifty years.¹  The Delaware River basin and watershed, of which this shale is below, provides drinking water for approximately seventeen million people stretching from Philadelphia to New York City.¹  This is a dilemma.  Many reports have been made about the negative health effects on people in the drilling areas.  Sicknesses, flammable water, and spontaneous combustion are the majority of the problems.  The gas companies do not believe the drilling is the cause, and maintain it is natural.  The people, however, had tests done before and after the drilling and the results were contaminated water and dangerous flammability.³  The EPA is working to pass an act through Congress which will allow for more research of fracking on water quality and public health, and would make the gas companies reveal their chemicals being used in the mixture to the public.⁴

Natural gas fracking creates jobs,¹ which in this economic climate are much needed.  The gas companies would also pay land holders over the Marcellus Shale approximately $100,000 for the rights to drill.³  More research is needed, but reports are being made about the growing sickness of the people from contaminated water wells after the drilling.  Is the stimulation of the economy worth the health of the people?  Is the benefit of “cleaner” energy larger than the cost of public health?  There is some debate about whether natural gas is actually cleaner than fossil fuels.  While it may burn cleaner, the process of extracting it is as bad as any other fossil fuel, sometimes worse than CO₂.³

Sources:

¹  "Natural Gas "Fracking" Debate Draws Hundreds." CBS News. CBS, 14 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/13/national/main6862186.shtml>.

 

²  Quinn, Karl. "Fracking Hell: Busting the natural gas myth." The Sydney Morning Herald. N.p., 13 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/fracking-hell-busting-the-natural-gas-myth-20101112-17qxw.html>. 

³  "New Film Investigates "Fracking" for Natural Gas." Science Friday. National Public Radio. NPR, 18 June 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127932770>.

⁴  Manuel, John. "EPA Tackles Fracking." Environmental Health Perspectives (2010): 9 pars. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.118-a199>.