Trees in the City

I have a backlog of pieces I've been meaning to write about and a number of them all share a theme: urban trees. Many cities, particularly dense ones like New York (especially Manhattan) or sprawling, concrete filled ones like Los Angeles, have a pronounced lack of greenery and what trees do exist are often sickly, ugly, unkempt, or isolated. Often they are also pollution tolerant species like the honey locust and Norway maple or evolutionary survivors like the ginkgo. This leads to uninteresting monoculture landscapes that can be more depressing than a barren street on its own. It also can lead to the spread of non-native species which can become invasive. Lake of greenery and open spaces generally can also contribute to the heat island effect, in which paved and built up spaces absorb more heat during the day which is then radiated back in the evening leading to higher temperatures (both minimums and maximums) than in surrounding areas that are kept cooler by evapotranspiration, higher albedo, and other effects.

First up is a story from China this summer. China, as we all know, is a rapidly growing nation that is quickly urbanizing and converting any open space in and around its cities into factories, offices, housing, and business uses. The nature of the Communist Party's rule also means that any action is essentially indisputable and impossible to block. That, combined with the fact that China has a weak and nearly non-existent environmental movement, means that if some trees are going to be cut in the name of progress, nothing is going to change that. In the city of Nanjing, however, local activists were able to save at least a few of the cities enormous wutong trees from a proposed subway expansion. While an incomplete victory, the subway will still be built and a large number of the trees will still be removed, it is progress for a notoriously single-minded, authoritarian, and anti-environment nation.

Moving back to the US, there are two pieces I see as companions, of a sort. New York City is trying to plant 1,000,000 trees to green up the city. In doing so it has taken an approach of too many, too soon, too haphazardly, at least in the views of some critics. While I think that the city has a noble purpose that is generally to be applauded, there are some elements of the program that are potentially troubling. Some are mentioned in the article and are trivial (neighbors complaining, seriously people, who doesn't like trees?), others are more serious, at least financially (roots buckling sidewalks). A more substantial criticism is that trees are being planted at the wrong time or year or in the wrong place and are therefore struggling or dying. While I am not a botanist or arborist and the article does little to resolve the he said/she said, from what I know of the Bloomberg administration it would not surprise me if the mayor just decreed that trees be planted and that they be planted by a date certain, details be damned. Two additional problems were not mentioned in the article. One is that as the climate changes, so will the suitability of the urban environment for certain species. Trees live a long time and care should be taken to select trees that are fit to survive in both the present and warmer, wetter city of the future so as to mitigate future losses and replacement costs. This was one element of Chicago's climate change plan (which I hope to write about in the future in more depth). The other is that trees, like most organisms, have a finite lifespan and planting huge numbers of trees at the same time can set up future problems, like those seen in Atlanta where drought and development pressures have combined with age to kill off a huge number of the city's trees.

And finally, a fully positive story about rescue and rediscovery. The Franciscan manzanita was long thought extinct in the wild until it was discovered growing in the middle of a traffic island in San Francisco's Presidio district in the path of a road project. The project was suspended and the plant was moved to a more protected location within the park (click here to see a picture of the process). Now it is eligible for protection as an endangered species and botanists are looking for cuttings in botanical gardens and nurseries to plant near the wild one in the hopes of fostering enough genetic diversity to create a self-sustaining recovery population.

Roadless Rules Upheld

A panel of the Tenth Circuit has upheld (unanimously) the Forest Service's Clinton era roadless rule against a challenge by the state of Wyoming. The decision is here (but be warned that it is 120 pages long). This is a pretty big deal and a big win for conservationists, environmentalists, outdoors enthusiasts, and pretty much anyone who doesn't want to see small roads turn into bigger ones turn into major logging/mining/drilling projects turn into "well, it's already so developed what is the problem with going a little further" slippery slopes. It is also likely to severely limit, in theory if not in practice because many ORV users regularly flout restrictions, damage from off-road vehicles, snow mobiles, and 4x4s. If you would like a more digestible summary of the case you can read it in the NYT though it is only a shadow of the bigger issue.

More Constructions

Not a long post, just a quick follow up on my last post about nature as a social construction. The September issue of National Geographic had a nice piece on New York's Adirondack Park that provides a perfect example of this. With Verlyn Klinkenborg's focus on the park's history and the ways it has grown and healed the landscape while continuing to provide space for myriad uses makes the piece a wonderful focal point for further thought on ideas of nature and wilderness (read through it and the photo captions and maps and think about how and why those words are used). It doesn't hurt that it is accompanied by National Geographic's traditionally excellent photography either.

Ideas of Nature and Social Construction

This is a topic I've been meaning to write on for quite a while and have touched on in the context of other issues repeatedly, but the time has finally come to give it direct attention. I have been fascinated for a long time by changes in conceptions of nature, what is natural, what it means to be wild, and from what source such places and concepts derive their meaning and importance (for their own sake, for the value of goods/services they can sustainably provide to humans, for the value of onetime goods/services they can provide, for their aesthetic value (and it's interesting to see how those ideas change), for their scientific value, etc.). While there is a rich and growing literature in what has come to be called environmental studies (with contributions from engineers and architects/urban planners, biologists, geologists, historians, economists, sociologists, artists, literary critics, philosophers, and theologians), a small blog is hardly the place to even pretend to summarize the field (though if you want a good place to start Donald Worster, William Cronon, and Richard White represent three distinct schools of thought and are leading thinkers in the field, at least among environmental historians).

Now that I've made the task seem overwhelming, it's time to get to actually writing. I'm a bit disappointed that right when I get ready to write on this topic the NYT goes and steals my thunder publishing a thoughtful Op-Ed by Michael Lipsky on regulation and wilderness. While his broader point is that there is nowhere in the nation, even in seemingly remote places that the reassurances of law do not comfort and the protections of regulation do not reach, he also rightly notes that the very idea of Wilderness has been codified in America, defined and protected as a place, to quote the Wilderness Act, "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" that is free of trails, permanent structures, and motors of any kind. He also paraphrases Roderick Nash's observation that wilderness is based on state of mind. This, too, is true. While federally designated (and therefore protected) wilderness has been strictly defined and given a specific set of social values, there are many other "wild" places one may encounter nature as well as ones that are not nearly as natural as they may seem.

A place of the first type can be found in my hometown (indeed my old neighborhood) of Philadelphia. There, a landscape designer has decided to let her yard "go wild," and has been cited by the city for its seemingly weedy and unkempt appearance. Clearly this is a case of social norms as to what constitutes an acceptable yard is coming up against though an alternative thinker. The benefits of a non-monoculture, unfertilized yard that attracts pollinators are clearly high, but they definitely do not mesh with the standard vision of an urban home. (This is not the most egregious case, however, that goes to Oak Park, MI, where a city planner threatened a homeowner using twisted logic for having a vegetable garden in her yard. Fortunately Julie Bass prevailed over the urban planing department). While no one will ever mistake a yard or even a city park for a wilderness, how we think about them is quite revealing of how we view nature and its role in human life and the boundary between them (if there is one). (Another very interesting project that plays on this boundary is NYC's High Line, which I highly recommend walking in its entirety should you get the chance). City parks and how they are designed is also fascinating and revealing, but that is a matter for another post.

Finally we have purportedly wild places that aren't nearly as natural as they would seem. I take as my example in this case Yosemite National Park. One of the Park Service's crown jewels, featuring giant sequoias, stunning views, easy access from the Bay Area (and the attendant crush of people) it is a truly beautiful place. It is also highly managed and while less Disneyfied than it used to be (the 1 hour photo is gone and I think the golf course is as well), it is still largely dominated by roads, parking lots, and paved trails to the best vistas. But that is not what I want to discuss (it's a bit too obvious). What caught my eye for inclusion in this post was an article at the end of July about how the NPS is managing the trees and meadows in the park with the aim of optimizing and restoring the views of the impressive peaks of Half Dome and El Capitan that were seen when the park was founded. The reason this is necessary is because a century of aggressive (and ecologically misguided) fire suppression has caused trees to fill in many of the meadows, blocking off many of the views and trails that once crisscrossed the valley. That such meadows were created and kept open by Native Americans via periodic burnings and then by settlers through grazing is alluded to but the implications for any concept of "restoration" or "natural state" skipped over by the author. While I do not know enough about the logistics of the plan to take a position for or against this logging action, I can say that it is definitely not restoring nature as it was when the park was constructed. What it is doing is restoring the image of the park as it existed when it was popularized and propagated via promotional pamphlets, artwork, movies, and televisions. The iconic image of Half Dome and El Capitan rising over the valley is what visitors expect. Many are consumers of the "postcard vista" idea of parks, best illustrated by Mount Rushmore, and are disappointed when they do not find it. While I find such people misguided, they are at least expecting something that has been protected to a small degree (though the Valley is in pretty poor shape) but has made possible the preservation of a much larger area. </digression>.

What do all of these things have in common? They all challenge ideas of what nature and wilderness are and how we think about the boundaries and interactions between our built environment and the "other" that lies outside our comfort zone. Going back to those historians, I believe it is White who has written how nature has been defined and redefined to constitute the "other" against which we define our culture and civilization. While there are many other "others" that mark boundaries between cultures, there is definite merit behind the idea of a shifting nature/man boundary that has moved as our social, aesthetic,and economic needs have changed. But that boundary is becoming more blurred and it is easy to look behind the label and examine how true or easily made those distinctions remain. What you see when you look can tell you a lot about your frame of reference, state of mind, and cultural values, and sometimes what you see might surprise you.

Update 9/20:
Apparently Memphis, Tennessee, is also under the impression that gardens are essentially stinking, unsightly wastelands that need to be scrubbed from the community. I really do not understand these people and have no idea what this neighbor could possibly be thinking. Only two things come to mind, neither flattering. One is a Stepford Wives dystopia and the other recalls the episode of The X-Files in which a garbage monster kills members of an HOA that do not conform to a ridiculously draconian code. These people need to grow up and start addressing real problems, not attacking people trying to live healthier, be outside, and give back to their community.

Four Quick Things

First a quick update: California's legislature has passed the ban on shark fins that I wrote about a few weeks ago. It is quite likely that Governor Jerry Brown signs it.

Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.

Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.

Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.

Polar Bear News

Two pieces of news about polar bears (Ursus maritimus). The first is some good news in an ongoing saga: Charles Monnett, the scientist who documented cases of drowned polar bears and was subsequently suspended by his agency, BOEMRE (the new acronym, since the Deepwater Horizon proved the final disgrace for a notoriously corrupt agency (discussed here)) has been reinstated from administrative leave. While investigations continue into why he was initially suspended and he will not be returning to the same duties, he has at least been temporarily cleared. This is something to keep watching as it develops though I wouldn't expect it to move with any great speed.

The other is much more unfortunate. A security guard working for BP shot and killed a polar bear with what appears to have been an explosive round when it wandered near a worker camp. While BP claims that the bear was killed by mistake and that the guard believed he was firing a rubber bullet to ward off the bear, it is a positive sign that the Fish and Wildlife Service is taking it seriously enough to do a preliminary investigation. There is nothing in the piece to indicate that anything other than what BP claims is the case, but polar bears are a threatened species and it is important to determine the exact circumstances of the death, whether it was preventable (assuming it was unintentional), and whether it was justified.

Threatened and endangered species receive a large amount of protection from the Endangered Species Act. There is a broadly construed ban on any kind of harm to individuals without a permit, and even then allowances are made only for specific numbers taken in specific ways (for example, a dam might be allowed to "take" 2,000 salmon via turbine action per year or a construction project might be permitted to take a nesting pair of owls via habitat disruption). While there is an exemption for lethal force when necessary to defend human life, that does not appear to be the case here, and scaring it off would have been the appropriate and justified choice for the safety of workers and the bear. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to loss of habitat from climate change and much has been written about that threat to the bear including how best to respond to protect it. However, once listed as threatened, unless specific exemptions have been written into the listing rule, the species is broadly protected from any type of prohibited action. In other words: once listed, it doesn't matter why. Any harm is prohibited harm, even if it isn't the kind that caused the listing. This is another piece that bears (unfortunate pun that wouldn't happen in many other languages) watching though I expect it to disappear into the ether without much closure.

Sharks and Rhinos

Last week I saw two articles that I thought would be interesting to juxtapose. The first is a piece from the NYTimes on the increase in the theft of rhino horns as trade in legal horns has become more difficult (the increased CITES and EU restrictions have also apparently increased poaching, but are on the whole a positive. Rather than loosen restrictions it would be best to increase commitments and support for conservation and anti-poaching forces and economic development to alleviate the poverty that makes poaching and trafficking a desirable way to earn a living). The second was a short piece in the LATimes about the advancement of a ban on the sale of shark fins through a legislative committee in the state senate.

First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.

Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.

Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.

I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?

None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.