Article Link

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/021907.html

Global Warming: Get Use to It

After seeing Al Gore and reading this article I realized Global Warming is a problem with a difficult solution. Global Warming is real but the steps needed to be taken in fixing it are complex. Al Gore thinks that if our government can properly aids and lead the fight against Global Warming by makes people cut CO2 emmissions and change the attitudes then we can stop it. However, in the article “Global Warming: Get Used To It,” Fareed Zakaria explains that “even if we adopt the most far-reaching plans to combat climate change, we would still watch greenhouse gases rise for decades.” Although it does not directly link with the topic of the Hudson River it does interlap with many problems that we look at in class everyday.

Fareed explains that with the increasing population rates throughout the world even the efforts taken to reduce future greenhouse emissions will not stop the irreversible damage that has already been done. Zakaria believes that “in addition to our efforts to prevent and mitigate climate change, we need to employ another strategy—adaptation.” For example, to prevent further damage from global warming in places like New Orleans, we must be prepared for the disasters by strengthening the levies. Although it is very costly to respond to adaptation and prevention, it is necessary for the survival of our dirty planet. The longer we wait to adapt, the more costly it will become. We have entered Biosphere 2. In order to survive we must “stop talking and start acting.” By preparing, adjusting and adapting today to this New World we live in our species will hopefully have a chance to continue to thrive.

The Spirit of the Hudson

It's hard to imagine that the semester is actually coming to a close, and that our study of the Hudson will end in a few days. Along the way we've assumed a number of different roles, holding class discussions as environmentalists, politicians, economists and historians. We've evaluated the environmental state of the Hudson arguing over the proposed effectiveness of dredging plans. We've debated the economic and cultural benefits of new industrial projects in coastal Hudson River cities, and struggled again and again with the question of whether or not direct economic benefit is more important than environmental stability and the preservation of the famous Hudson scenery. In order to better appreciate and understand the current state of the River, we read novels about the Hudson's past outlining the accomplishments of men like Adriaen van der Donck and Peter Stuyvesant, and debated whether or not their actions shaped the region for the better. We studied the spectacular artwork of Thomas Cole and the Hudson River School, gaining a sense of the profound impact the natural beauty of the river had on American society. When the Sophomore Seminar program was instituted at Hamilton, its goal was to provide student's with a chance to explore topics they might not normally study through an interdisciplinary approach, and quite frankly I couldn't imagine learning about the Hudson River in any other way.
The Hudson is a unique body of water. Though other natural phenomena have inspired more awe, few can claim to have had such a powerful economic and cultural impact on the surrounding region. All semester long I've fought with the question of whether or not the Hudson River was special, so to speak. What was it about the scenery that inspired such remarkable artwork? What was it about the river itself that gave hope to settlers in New Amsterdam? Why, when the economic benefits of proposals like the SLC were so promising, would a group of citizens in one of the poorest cities in New York fight to protect the beauty of the Hudson? And I think the answer to all of these questions is that there is in fact something special about the Hudson River. Maybe it exists in it's storied past, or maybe in the hope of a prosperous future, but whatever the reason, I think it's safe to say that the spirit of the river has touched us all in some way as we came to understand that the impact of a place can be felt by those who live close by, and those who live miles away.

Grim Reminder

In the tidal Hudson, it took 30 days for the body to travel about 10 miles.

Floating Farm

400 Year Anniversary

In the year 2009, the Hudson Valey Region will host a large festival for the 400 year anniversary of Henry Hudson's journey up the river. The festival will include a three-day festival in both New York City and in Amsterdam. Among the many events planned for this occasion is a transatlantic sailing race between the two cities. Artist Len Tatillo, who gained local fame for his reconstruction of Hudson's ship the Half Moon in 1989, has proposed a historic re-enactment of the Dutch Corning Preserve, using his model ship. Other cities and groups in the region are planning similar events for the year. Hudson's accomplishments will be celebrated with those of French explorer Champlain, who had settled Quebec the same year. Final decisions for the celebration of Hudson's anniversary, as well as the 200-year anniversary celebration of Robert Fulton's first steamboat trip in 1807, are planned to be discussed this September.
This celebration could mean more than just fireworks and rides for a week in the summer. If the event goes well, it could help spark the cultural revitilization already occuring along the Hudson River. Historic sites in the region such as Olanna and the FDR libary are already gaining popularity. The creation of more historical sites could open up the eyes of entrepeneurs, bring ing successful tourist sites as well as businesses into many River valley cities that are desperate for economic revival.

New New Netherland

Minnewaska State Park

Also look at the accompanying slide show -- it certainly makes me wish that I was hiking in the state park reserve instead of writing papers.

Hidden Tech

Interesting article relevant to our discussion of post-industrialism.

Thomas Cole's Painting of Kaaterskill Falls

Ponder Thomas Cole's painting.

Kaaterskill Falls

Check out our hike.

City of Hudson Website

Browse website, especially comprehensive plan.

Newburgh Website

Browse website, especially master plan and waterfront development.

House passes legislation to increase math and science teachers

This is quite relevant to discussions today, as well as my previous blog post.

The Canal is Free for Everyone!

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=STATE&storyID=582166&BCCode=&newsdate=4/19/2007 The canal will be free for a second straight season. “the Canal Corp., voted to extend last year's toll-lifting experiment for another navigational season in an effort to draw more tourists and vacationers to the 524-mile waterway.” (article) the rational behind this decision for a second year is the 500-year flood of June 2006 caused damage to some of the lock as well as prolonged high water. “’We were really unable to tell whether the toll removal was able to attract more boaters,’ said Canal Corp. Executive Director Carmella Mantello” (article) However the toll removal is not all positive, the state of New York will loose between $200,000 and $245,000 because of free pass on the canal (article) as well as 15 job positions being removed by the new toll free canal. One benefit that the free pass has created is shorter line at the locks, “an unexpected benefit of eliminating the recreational tolls was more efficient operations at the locks and fewer delays because lock staffers no longer needed to issue passes and accept payment.” I agree that the lack of tolls will increase recreational boaters on the canal this summer, but any time that NYS is loosing job I feel that it is no long as beneficial. If the benefit to the towns and cities that are located on the canal can see fiscal increases from the lack of a toll than the state should continue to wave the toll on the canal.

Floating Hospital!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/nyregion/23mbrfs-float.html

Here is an article explaining the hospital barges on the Hudson:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE6DC1739F934A3575BC0A96E948260

Globalization and Post-Industrialism

Interesting piece related to our discussion of the post-industrial Hudson. I wonder what Al Gore would think.

The Stripers are Coming!

Manufacturing Key to Revitalization

The factories that are emerging in East Fishkill and all along the Hudson Valley are a key step in revitalizing the area. This corporate and government effort is helpful to everyone in the area. These factories that produce microprocessor chips are high skilled jobs that will continually boost the local economy. As other large corporations come into the area along with smaller ones, many jobs will be created. There will be an increased demand for construction bringing even more money to the Hudson Valley. The US is still a world leader in this type of microprocessor manufacturing.
One of the best aspects of the government’s role in subsidizing these firms is there payoff in the long run. The state of New York has invested $500 million so far but this is not a loss for the state at all. Along with there investment, they pledged to give tax breaks and other grants to revitalize the research and manufacturing in the area. This is a very wise step for the state of New York because something had to be done to bring the Hudson Valley back to its old thriving ways. The estimated impact over the next ten years is $2 billion. This will come from the workers wages and the other jobs that are created due to the opening of these factories. If there will already be this couple billion dollar increase in the first ten years, imagine what that can turn into as even more and more firms sprout and more jobs are created. This is a crucial step into revitalizing the area and it is nice to see that the United States is capitalizing on its high skilled manufacturing jobs. I think if the plans go as they seem, more people will be moving to the area so others will follow. These people who follow if they do not work in the factories can then come in and open other stores such as local marts or even work at the big chain stores that will come in to provide there service for the increasing working population. The economic impacts behind this revitalization are indisputable.

Smokestack Chasing And The Pitfalls That Come With It

In his article New York Bets on High-Tech to Aid Upstate, Steve Lohr writes “In East Fishkill, the state and local governments pledged tax breaks, grants and incentives of $660 million to ensure that I.B.M. built its factory, which opened in 2002, in the region”. $660 million is a steep price to pay, especially with no guaranteed economic benefits to the area. However, the interests of the people of East Fishkill and those of the I.B.M. Corporation are not the same and that could spell trouble for the future of the Hudson Valley community.

In giving the subsidies to I.B.M. the decision makers in East Fishkill hoped to create jobs and eventually tax revenue to help its citizens. I.B.M’s goals as a corporation are to generate as much product, and thus income, while spending the least, which is one of the reasons they choose East Fishkill in the first place. The belief that the I.B.M. Corporation will continue to build and expand in the Hudson valley region once their subsidies and tax breaks run out is ridiculous and idealistic. Once the subsidy well dries up, I.B.M. will move on and the people of East Fishkill will be stuck footing a $660 million bill instead of the tax revenue they had hoped for.

Similarly, I.B.M. will not have a profound impact on the new jobs market in East Fishkill. The nanotech factories of today’s giant corporations are a far cry from those that once populated the Hudson. The manufacturing positions which formerly populated the Hudson required lots of individual laborers with a relatively low skill level. These factories were the perfect instrument for job creation and many towns were built up around these industries. Today, most of the assembly work is done by machine and the few workers who do work in the factories are highly skilled and well trained. Often times these workers are brought in from different parts of the country or even the world to work there.

Economic growth and expansion is important but it is not worth mortgaging away the future of a community. The nature of capitalism has changed over the years and it is now to the point where the power has shifted from the state to the corporations. The corporations are able to manipulate the towns that are so desperate for the economic boost they believe the corporations will give the community that they cater to every demand of the companies. The deal cut by East Fishkill is symptomatic of this shift in power, serving as a stepping stone in I.B.M.’s climb upward.

HVDEC

The Hudson Valley Economic Development Corporation website explains that the company was established in 2003 to market nine Hudson Valley counties – Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster, and Westchester – as desirable locations for business. The website provides information about existing companies, from IBM to Gap to PepsiCo to Fujifilm, and reasons to move or start a company in the region – with its educated labor force, infrastructure, tax incentives, available buildings and land (there are no available brownfields at the moment), proximity to New York City and other major cities, and high quality of life.

One of the case studies in “Knowledge-Valley Cities in the Digital Age,” by Joel Kotkin and Ross C. DeVol, is Kingston, a town of 23,000 in Ulster County. Kingston is traditionally a blue-collar town, most recently supported by IBM’s 256-acre facility, which the company closed in 1992. While Kingston has a low unemployment rate, people are nonetheless under-employed. The new owner of the IBM facility, TechCity, is trying to attract businesses to its facility, using the same reasons and incentives as HVEDC. TechCity’s President, Alan Ginsberg, explains that the area offers low rent, electricity rates, and housing prices, economic incentives, and an attractive lifestyle. The study report (from 2001) tells that the facility is slowing being filled with smaller companies and the Kingston is restoring its town center. There is perhaps, then, “hope on the Hudson” because of available space and knowledge capital, which my classmates have discussed in previous posts.

Knowledge: Our New Competitive Advantage

The NY Times article “New York Bets on High-Tech to Aid Upstate” explains some interesting ideas about the future of the Hudson Valley’s economy. At one time in our nation’s history, American had a competitive advantage in manufacturing. A competitive advantage is where one country is more efficient, for some reason, than another in producing an item. In our manufacturing heyday, we had better machines, managers, workers, and cheaper raw materials then anyone else. With the rise of globalization, we no longer have the cheapest labor, materials, or are the only ones with the know-how.

America does have a new competitive advantage though; knowledge. Although globalization has also meant the spread of ideas and education, many of these ideas still emanate from American universities and businesses. The growth of technology based industry in the Hudson Valley is indicative of this trend. With the finest higher education system in the world, we have a natural advantage in these industries. As the article articulated, companies from all over the world are moving to the Hudson Valley to conduct business. The economic benefits of this move are obvious but the educational implications are just as important. These companies are the future for the Hudson Valley and for most of America for that matter as globalization continues to flourish.

Improvements in education leads to economic vitality

Mom always told me to study and work hard in school. After reading this article discussing knowledge-value cities and the changes America’s economy, I’m glad she gave me this somewhat clichéd advice. I am also fortunate, as many other Hamilton students are, to have received first tier primary, secondary, and collegiate educations. I also live outside of a first tier city in a first tier suburban area, etc. When all is said and done, I will probably end up very well equipped to navigate the growing knowledge-based American economy.
The majority of American citizens are not so lucky; they do not nearly have the same level of access to education that my piers or I do. The public school system in America is chronically under-funded and plagued with stagnant and declining test scores especially in the sciences and mathematics, which are arguably extremely important disciplines with regard to the move towards a technology-based economy.
More than ever, we need to turn out intelligent, creative, motivated graduates to enter the work force. Higher education is no longer an option; it has essentially become a requirement for success. In order for our economy to continue to thrive, it is of great importance that we focus our attention on our public schools. It has become clear that improvements in the public education system would not only benefit the lower-income bracket; it is essential for the success of the increasingly knowledge-based American economy. Failures in education do not just affect third-graders- all Americans suffer when intellectual stagnation leads to economic stagnation.

Knowledge-Based Cities and the Impact on the Financial Markets

Knowledge based cities are cities that have a highly educated and skilled population and are typically found in a “first-tier” urban area. Most of these knowledge-based cities have become successful through emerging technological advancements, “These cities excel in making products or services based upon an infrastructure and supply network that support high valued-added, cost-effective production.” The digital revolution has changed the way our communities communicate, interact and conduct business. This new economy has allowed business to reformat and change the infrastructure to a more efficiently run system. As a result today unskilled workers are being replaced with skilled programmers and information and technology experts.

This article allowed me to relate to issues close to home. My father, trying to make his way up in the business world, found himself working at the Board of Trade as a broker. After spending several years, he and my uncle decided to try to start their own business, focusing on the emerging technological innovations and advancements. Today his business is entirely based on infrastructure. The risk my father and uncle took in the financial markets paid off because electronic markets have become the only option for trading of the future.

The impacts of this novel trading method in the financial markets have had a dramatic impact on the entire economy as well as job force. The influences of these electronic markets have lead to an increase in skilled workers, trading programs and trade volume. Programs now track specific trades, market relationships and enable operations to be more streamlined and efficient. Products are being developed to aid in stock market speculation decisions. Newly designed software provides traders with quotes to track stock prices. The movement in the volume of “Eurodollar futures” traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is an example of the power and influence of new technologies. Innovative technologies, therefore, produce more efficient operations and functioning resulting in an educated, skilled labor force, access to new on-line products and increased volume in financial markets. This leap in Chicago’s newly knowledge-based city has made a major, significant, lasting impact, which in turn contribute to the US and global economy.

Path to Success, or Highway to the Dangerzone?

After reading the article about "knowledge-value" cities, it would seem that the Hudson Valley area is making many of the right moves in economic advancement. If Tech City and other such projects are built, the Hudson Valley area would once again be on the cutting edge of technological progression. In this way the area would be a leading producer in highly demanded products. These products, which were once horseshoes, are now computer chips and would provide a lucrative source of income for the area.

Although investments in the digital age would be greatly beneficial to the economy of the general area, there are problems with these projects in that they do not provide jobs for the many low skill workers that are jobless today. The solution to this, as mentioned in the Kotkin reading, is to create an education-rich environment. By investing in education and keeping close ties with local universities, overhaul effects would be minimized and the Hudson Valley area would have hope of creating a population of educated citizens capable of participating in the digital age. Assuming that enough high-skill jobs would be available, this in turn would make the area more prosperous as more effective workers means more production.

Through all of the potential benefit, however, I continue to have some reservations to the technological advancement of the Hudson river towns. With these cities once again on top of the production business, what will prevent them from making the same environmental mistakes they made while producing horseshoes or logging? A major variable in the success of revitalization is the preservation of the river and surrounding lands. With the environmental problems we have learned about today, advancement that does not prevent similar problems in the future is hardly worth having. In the construction of new microchip factories and other new developments, I would like to see the environment taken into serious consideration, lest the people of the Hudson Valley repeat their destructive history and become wealthy at the expense of the environment.

Compromise in Yonkers

A good example of the negotiation process between developer, government, and environmental group.

Hoboken

Housing Developments: The Hudson's Best Hope

The construction of condominiums and other housing along the Hudson is beneficial for all parties involved. The housing projects proposed in Sleepy Hollow and other towns will help to bring economic prosperity to the region. The housing will bring new tenants to the area which means more tax revenue, and it will create jobs first for building the structures and then later for helping in their upkeep. Secondly, the construction will help to reinvigorate the aesthetic beauty of the Hudson region by tearing down the old factories that have served as eye soars for so many years.

Many of the environmental groups involved such as Scenic Hudson fail to see the positive outcomes housing developments along will produce. Instead they have a singular view of the Hudson as it once was, devoid of any man made structures. What they should realize is the Housing along the Hudson presents a compromise. The people who move in to the condominiums will share scenic Hudson’s interest in maintaining the beauty of the river. The alternative to the housing are factories and plants that will once again pollute the river and the region.

The Hudson will never be the untouched paradise Henry Hudson discovered. People and commerce are here to stay. Once environmentalists come to this realization they will see that the Housing developments are in the best interests of all parties involved.

I’m Not Lost on the Hudson, the Trout Are

First things first, I would like to thank Prof. Eismeier for providing me with fishing articles to blog about. If it wasn’t for you I don’t know what I would write my blogs about. Now, that is out of the way. The article that was posted by Prof. Eismeier about the effects of the high water on both the trout and the stocking that is occurring on NY streams. (http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070421/NEWS04/704210349/1019/SPECIAL02) I feel that this article is lacking some important information. Yes it is true that some fish will be lost to high water, either from being stranded when the water recedes or from being washed downstream, but this is part of natural selection. All fish will find a way to survive either by hiding behind large boulders in the river or staying out of the main current. "The trout who have been around for a while know how to hide and get out of the currents." (from article). In my personal opinion I feel that any stream that could or would sustain wild fish populations should not be stocked. Hatchery trout cause wild fish great amount of harm such as competing for food as well as taking prime holding locations. The fish that are stocked may get lost but it is equivalent to them being taken home by fisherman. They are replaceable…
Last summer I witnessed a 500-year flood on the Delaware River.

As you can see through the tree that where the river should be…

http://imageevent.com/delawareriverclub/delawareriverclub2007;jsessionid=q3e05ar1x1.buffalo_s

And the wild trout survived.

Condo Craze

The author of the article Riversprawl, before criticizing development along the river, claims, "a riverfront housing boom is clearly preferable to a glut of smokestack industries." While almost anyone would prefer a park in their frontyard than a metal factory, this author, like many people in this country, is underestimating the value of industry in our country. The 31-county NY urban region held 1,109,500 manufacturing jobs in 1990. In 2005, this figure sunk to 606,900. It is projected at just 419,900. (New York Metropolitan Transportation Council)Obviously, more efficient means of production and the deindustrialization of our economy attribute greatly to this deprecration. However, what many environmentalists and every day people fail to realize, is that industry is what brings money in to the economy.
While the development of condominiums has proven to bring middle and upper-middle class people into a town, generate more tax money, and even increase the value of the property around it, developments do not bring many jobs into communities. Theoretically thinking, what would be more beneficial to the poor community of a lower-middle class town? A townhouse development that the residents could not afford, and would offer maybe 10 maintenence jobs, or a large factory that could employ 1,000 workers who were previously unemployed?
Environmentalist groups are currently working WITH industrial companies to produce factories and buildings that are environmentally friendly, while still economically feasible. This is evident in several projects along the river, including a plan to revitalize a large factory in Yonkers. While commercial development is beneficial to cities, we must remember that we need jobs so that the residents can pay their mortgages. We need products to build the companies. The more our American industries move overseas, the harder it will be for our country to sustain itself, especially for poor Americans who rely on blue-collar jobs. Therefore, we must keep industrial development in mind while attempting to revitalize the Hudson Valley Region.

Defining Necessary, in Response to Mike's Post

In Mike's blog "Doing What is Necessary" he brings up the valid point that in order transform a suffering community into a wealthy one, it may be necessary to "overhaul the population" (i.e. the poor population). For the sake of the argument, let's assume that Mike is right, that putting in high-end housing will revitalize the economy while increasing taxes, raising the price of real estate, and forcing the poorest community members out of the city. The decision of whether to implement such a plan would be based on one's values; which is more important, improving crime and income statistics of the community or the improving the quality of life of the people for whom this plan was created in the first place?

The purpose of economic development is to bring new jobs to a region in order to reduce unemployment among the people that live there, thereby increasing their quality of life. This plan does not help those in need. While the town itself may become more wealthy, its original inhabitants (who the plan was supposed to benefit) will not, as they will be forced to move to some other decrepit city where they still won’t be able to find jobs.

Public officials are elected to do what is in the best interest of the people, and supporting a plan that would force out the poorest people is not a way to represent their interests. What good are lower crime, better education, and a cleaner city for the people who have been forced to move elsewhere?

Mike’s point may be correct that a population change might be the best way to make a city become wealthier, but this argument misses the point of public policy. More important then whether or not the city is wealthy is whether or not the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder have an opportunity to move up. Raising taxes and property values to force out the people who already have the highest barriers to overcome will only perpetuate the problem of poverty by moving it elsewhere, and should not be our only solution to the problem of depressed cities.

Change is Good

Reading the articles about housing on the Hudson reminded me of the thoughts of Pete Seeger, who felt that the revitalization of the river was in the common interest of the public. Although this might not have been what Pete had in mind, I think that developments as mentioned in the New Riverfront article would be greatly beneficial to the growth and maintenance of the Hudson. With new housing on the Hudson, I think there will be an incentive to make the Hudson as attractive and clean as the new buildings planned for construction. With more citizens will come more sources of tax revenue with which even more environmental projects could be funded.
In none of the articles we read did I find a particularly strong argument against the so named "megaprojects." I was skeptical of Scenic Hudson in the presidents statement claiming construction would damage natural views and thus tourism in Kingston. First of all much of the building is to be done on barren mining scenes and will actually replace these with "250 acres of open space, a mile-long promenade, trail systems and parks" as stated by the vice president of AVR realty. Second I don't believe the loss of scenery will harm tourism as much as providing luxury condominiums will help. With the Hudson becoming more swimmable by the day, tourists will need a comfortable place from which to enjoy this natural wonder. Some form of progression is necessary in the advancement of the lands bordering the Hudson and I believe that housing is an economic and attractive option.The beauty of the Hudson is preserved in national parks and I think that to oppose the alteration of other lands is only a fear of change.

GE

GE

In our many discussions and blogs about the Hudson and PCBs, we have of course repeatedly talked about GE, the company which brought jobs to (and then away from) the Hudson region, put PCBs in the river, and has been battling about whether or not to clean them up. I have been wondering what, exactly, GE is. Before I looked at GE’s website, I thought GE was just a company that makes household appliances, but GE is apparently much more. GE consists of six businesses: GE Commercial Finance, GE Healthcare, GE Industrial, GE Infrastructure, GE Money, and NBC Universal. I am surprised by the extent of the products and services that GE offers, many of which I do and can use on a daily basis – from refrigerators and alarm systems to credit cards and entertainment.

River Development is Key to the Hudson’s Revitalization

After reading the three articles on the waterfront housing boom on the Hudson River, I understand the arguments of the critics. River development will lead to more pollution, it will hurt the aesthetic value of the river, and we are only replacing one problem (polluting factories) with another (riversprawl).

I think everyone can see that further river development will be good for the surrounding economies. Population growth will spur new spending which in turn will grow established businesses, create new ones, and add jobs across the board. I don’t think many would argue that this could be a bad thing. Still, there are those that would say that these economic benefits don’t outweigh the potential environmental and aesthetic issues.

One of the major things that I will take from this course is the idea that if you want to change something, you can. Don’t rely on the government, don’t rely on a business, and don’t rely on your neighbor. That being said, I believe that this river development boom is vital to the Hudson’s recovery. When and why did the initial recovery of the Hudson start? When people realized that they had a stake in the health of the river. It was when they couldn’t swim, fish, or drink the water from the river any longer. It was when they understood the harmful affects of archaic factories to the surrounding landscape. It was when their economies were suffering.

So here’s what I purpose, if more people move to the river, more people will have a stake in its health, beauty, and prosperity. Houses don’t pollute like old factories do. Citizens have to weigh the economy and the environment, something that wasn’t even comprehensible when the major polluting of the river was happening. We have seen the power of the so called robber barons in polluting and later saving the river. We have also seen the power of ordinary citizens in the formation of Scenic Hudson and the rejection of the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Hudson. All of these people felt that they were joint owners of the river with an obligation to protect and preserve it for future generations. Through the housing boom, the joint owners of the Hudson are adding to their numbers, to their strength, and consequently to the vitality of the river’s future.

Doing what is neccessary

I was thoroughly impressed and somewhat dismayed after reading "The New Riverfront" article, which seems to express a powerful message of hope for a number of communities that have been struggling since industrial powers left the region. The article explains a number of residential renewal plans intended to provide up-scale housing units for residents along coastal Hudson towns like Yonkers, Sleepy Hollow and Kingston. A number of these developments would be constructed on former industrial sites providing an economic boost to areas that could certainly benefit from an influx of real estate business as the housing boom of the last few years declines. Now, I know a number of you are thinking that's a bit of a bold statement. Housing developments are going to revitalize the Hudson region? Yes they are, and I'll tell you how.

As a resident of Westchester County, I've observed, first-hand, the effects of post-industrial decline on towns like Yonkers, Tarrytown and Irvington. Some communities have been more successful than others at handling the effects, finding other ways to support their economies. Irvington built a baseball field on a former industrial site bordering the shores of the Hudson, and one of the nicest restaurants I know sits just down the street from the famous Anaconda Wire and Cable Company. A number of up-scale Westchester communities had little trouble recovering from the loss of big industry through strong community action and the housing boom of the 90's that sent prices sky-rocketing. But the school systems were so strong that residents were willing to pay the higher property taxes. But some cities, namely Yonkers, hasn't been able to recover as easily. Whether it's a lack of a strong education system, close proximity to the Bronx, an extremely diverse demographic profile, or a number of other factors, Yonkers remains a relatively dangerous city. Yet recently developers have taken an interest in restoring the beauty of this Hudson River town by building housing developments near the old Yonkers pier. Now I may be a bit of a heartless realist when I say this, but sometimes in order to economically revitalize a region it's necessary to overhaul the population. Activists are frequently concerned with helping lower-income families, but these housing developments are going to be expensive properties, and will attract a different demographic to the region, namely wealthy New York City families looking to raise their kids in the suburbs. The rest of Westchester County has been experiencing this migration for years now and the rest of Westchester County is thriving. Local business is strong. The real estate market is strong. The school systems are nationally recognized. The communities are safe. So if we have to do away with low-cost housing in favor of attracting a different crowd that's going to revitalize the area, I'm all in favor of it. Hanging on to the past is only going to lead these cities further deeper into the pit of poverty. It's time to try something different, and I'm confident that the real estate market could very well be the solution.

Sleepy Hollow

Flooded Fish

CSO in Jersey City

Sluggish Cities

In the book City: urbanism and its end the author Douglas W. Rae proposes the idea that even the most booming cities can fail, due in part to the city government. I agree, I think many city governments today can become trapped into one idea and one goal while missing the larger picture. An example he uses is of the city of New Haven. Rae tells us that while Ford was producing the Model T, which would drastically change society, New Haven’s major was caught up on the quality of their sideways. If we move this idea to cities along the Hudson we are still seeing city governments like this today. Rae writes, “Cities are among the least agile creatures in America’s system of capitalist democracy—they move slowly, reactively, and awkwardly in response to change initiated by more athletic organizations” (Rae, 24). This is what has and will happen to old factory towns in Upstate New York, especially along the Hudson River. Cities like Troy and Hudson have hosted large factories producing many jobs and economic boosts. When these factories came into the cities the benefits were large, but when they left the results were devastating. Cities like Troy, slow moving to change, could not keep up with new cities with more to offer. However, it not just Troy, some day the cities now booming will fall to new, faster, cheaper cities elsewhere. If they want to keep up, these cities need to let go of the past and look into the future. The future is not an easy concept for people afraid of change.

Urbanism = democratic society?

Douglas Rae’s characterization of Urbanism and its decline is insightful and thought-provoking, however, I found parts of his argument to be tenuous. Towards the end of the reading, Rae argues that urbanism embodies some of the important ideals of democratic society-“one in which people are engaged with one another, where an individual who is a drill press operator by day may be a civic potentate by evening, where trust is earned through lifelong engagement.” He elaborates that the end of urbanism marks the evolution of regional hierarchies and promotes a social homogenizing process. “In such regional hierarchies, or ladders, the bottom rung more often than not lies in the formally working-class neighborhoods of central cities, where opportunity is scarce, danger is commonplace, and democracy in any plausible sense seems out of reach.”

Rae overlooks the fact that these homogenizing mechanisms were present during the era of urbanism to the same degree that they are even with the advent of the automobile and AC electricity. Racism, classism, and all other “-isms” have the same potential to exist in urban environments than in all other environments. New York City is a classic example- if we obtained the demographics of Chinatown, the Upper East Side, Spanish Harlem, and Greenwich Village, we would find a very unequal distribution of people in different social and economic classes. Such “purified communities” can and often do exist in cities, and they did during the period of urbanism that Rae describes. The racialization of space is not historically a new concept, and it is not isolated to any one phenomenon, as he argues in his piece.

Urbanism, the Goods, Bads,and the Furture

As we enter the twenty first century we are loosing our sense of community and place. People are more likely to move often, less likely to know their neighbors, and less likely to attain an attachment to a certain area. At the same time small coffee shops, bars, and general stores are being replaced by larger chains such as Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, and Wal-Mart. Although the loss of community is disheartening we are spoiled to be living in one of the wealthiest time periods in history. The upper economic classes are growing and are excessively privileged with amenities which people could not imagine having 100 years ago.

Before this surge of wealth there was a period of time where ‘urbanism’ controlled the social and economic climate in cities around the country. It brought large groups of people close together. They formed communities where neighbors had unspoken respect for each other. People policed themselves and benefited from a communal trust. There was an abundance of social organizations from fraternal clubs to religious groups which represented the people to the local government. The social aspects of urbanism embodied the ideals of a perfect democratic society.

Unfortunately there were also many negative aspects of urbanism. Society was full of bigotry, extreme hard work, and garbage. The factories were always in production leaving no time for silence. Men worked remarkably long hours for little pay and could not provide unnecessary amenities. And the cities were covered in piles of rubbish.

As we look at these two time periods we can see a lot has changed. The positive characteristics of society today are the negative characteristics of urbanism and the positive aspects of urbanism are the negative aspects of society today. Is it possible in the future to combine the positive elements of urbanism with the positive elements of today’s society?

How to Get More Bass

The striped bass fishery on the Hudson River is something that we have herd about numerous time throughout the semester, but I thought that I would add yet another post about the striped bass fishery. http://www.stripers247.com/phpBB2/showpost.php?p=50957&postcount=2 provides what I assume is a fairly accurate list off all of the guides and charter captain that target stripers in the Hudson River. Most if not all of these people are dependent on the fish to earn a living, so therefore it is important that they maintained. As I have stated in class it may actually be helping the striped bass population that there is a health advisor against the consumption of them. However this may not be the case, http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/commentary/News/2003/2003-0325-NYT-pcbsandstripers.htm, provides a link to a NY times article that talks about the effects of PCB’s to the stripers. The article opened my eyes to what is truly happening. I think that it is amazing that the populations of bass as actually booming the way that they currently are.

I also am including my stripper that I caught beacuse I can, and no its not a Hudson striper

Union Station, the Stanley Theater, and the Capital Theater

After reading Proctor and Matuszeski’s descriptions of the small cities that rose as great centers of industry in centuries past (cities like Paterson, Hoboken, and Trenton in my home state) and Rae’s similar descriptions, I found myself thinking of places closer to Hamilton. Utica, in particular, comes to mind. Utica was a booming city, a metropolis of the north, when mills and factories still dominated the American economy. Although the creative destruction Rae describes certainly took its toll on Utica, many elements of Utica’s golden age remain.
Utica’s Union Station is absolutely incredible inside. Seriously. Incredible. Unfortunately, none of the pictures I could find online do the Station justice, but here are two links (http://www.newyorkrailroads.com/uticaunionstation/ and http://www.trainweb.org/rshs/GRS%20-%20Utica.htm). Union Station is a true gem – a relic from an age of grandiose train stations complete with ornate woodwork, marble, paintings, restaurants, and food stands (Union Station has all five). It’s worth the twenty-minute trek just to check out the station, even if you don’t have a train to catch.
I’ve only driven by Utica’s Stanley Theater, but the exterior is promising enough (again, reminiscent of Utica’s golden age) that I thought I’d check the theater out online. After seeing it online, now I definitely have to make the time to physically walk through it. Here is some information, including a picture, on the Stanley (http://www.cityofutica.com/Entertainment/Attractions/Stanley+Theater.htm).
I have, however, been to Rome’s Capital Theater, which is quite impressive, to say the least. The online pictures of the Stanley remind me of the Capital Theater. The Capital Theater opened in 1928 (see http://www.romecapitol.com/index.html) and, as I recall from a tour of the Theater I took last spring, played silent films accompanied by music played on an in-house organ when it first opened. Here’s a picture of the Theater’s beautiful interior: http://www.romecapitol.com/capinterior.jpg (yes, the interior is every bit as incredible as it looks in the picture).

Consequences

One of the goals presented in the Hudson River Estuary Action Plan is to conserve the scenic beauty of the river. Though an obviously important goal, I think that the question of conservation for human enjoyment brings up many difficult questions. I believe that many staunch environmentalists would argue that conservation of the environment should be primarily for the sake of the environment itself, not for the enjoyment of humans. Though this may be a very liberal (and possibly unrealistic) statement, it does have some important implications. What happens to the environment that we are trying to conserve when we create ‘scenic byways’ that cut across this ‘conserved’ land? Will the pollution from all of the new tourists coming to look at the beauty of the Hudson actually destroy it? There will be run-off from the road that could slide right into the Hudson not to mention the air pollution that could have a significant effect of the animals and plants in the area.
On top of environmental concerns, the Hudson River Estuary Action Plan insists that all of these various improvements will bolster the economy by bringing in tourism and raising real estate prices. Again, this is obviously a positive goal, however, there seem to be some more negative implications that are not addressed. What happens to the people who can no longer afford to live in the area because prices have been jacked up for tourists or because they simply cannot afford housing in an area that their family may have inhabited for decades.
I believe that the Hudson River Estuary Action Plan is a very positive step in the right direction for the preservation of the Hudson and its surrounding environment, but I think it must be taken with a grain of salt. We must also think about the negative implications that arise as the result of change, even when the intentions behind the change are positive. It is also necessary to think about how humans can enjoy nature without destroying it. Is nature only really conserved when humans leave it alone completely?

Promising Future?

The Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda 2005-2009 has an extremely optimistic view of the river in the years to come. Lately we have focused on so many negative aspects of the river from PCB’s to other types of pollution. Therefore after reading this agenda for the Hudson River, I feel that a lot of the expectations look good on paper but are not possibly, especially with their 2020 deadline. Their ideas and view of the future look promising but not to the extent of their lofty goals. Many of the Agenda call for the education of hundreds of people to work with the river. My question to this is why do they need to educate regular citizens on being on charge of cleaning many of the river’s huge problems such as pollution? Why are they not hiring the already educated professionals to fix up the Hudson? Their education of the students in the Hudson Valley schools is a great start to the future of the river. If the younger generations learn at a young age to go to the river on field trips and care about it, then when they are older they will not want to do harm to the Hudson.
My biggest problem with this agenda is their goal to make the water quality good enough for swimming from the Adirondacks all the way to New York City. People are so turned away right now with all the negativity on the Hudson stemming from the PCB’s and the harm GE has done to the water. If the water is not healthy enough to eat the fish out of it, how would one want to swim in the water? I think there is no chance for this to happen by the year 2020; maybe some day down the road when there is newer technology to clean up the river, then it could be a possibility. To get this cleanup done in time for the 400th anniversary, then they will have to really work hard and get all the businesses and organizations to work together and fast. If everyone devotes a lot of time especially on the little things that can be done by households, and let the big corporations spend the big bucks for the major projects like PCB’s then significant progress can be made. The future looks promising but not as promising as the agenda is looking for by 2020.

Anthropocentrism vs. Ecocentrism

Almost all arguments for the environment fall under two categories - anthropocentric or ecocentric. Anthropocentrism is founded on the idea that environmental protection is important because it is in the best interest of people to live in a clean environment with protected wilderness. Ecocentrism argues that wilderness and nature have an inherent right to exist, whether they are of value to people or not.

The Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda is an excellent example of anthropocentrism in action. Almost all of its main areas of interest; such as the landscape, public access, waterfront revitalization, water quality for swimming, and celebrating progress and parternships are promoted for the enjoyment and economic benefit of people. This document promotes the protection of nature because it is in the best interest of people; the main reason to protect the fish, streams and tributaries, and plant and animal life on the Hudson is that people will benefit from this protection. For example, the Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda begins its section on plants and animals with the sentence, "When wildlife habitats are healthy, people are too." The stated goal of protecting shoreline habitats is "to assure that the life cycles of key species are supported for human enjoyment and to sustain a healthy ecosystem."

It is often hard for environmentalists to convince the public that any given environmental issue is worth their attention, worth investing public goods to address. This difficulty arises in showing how environmental protection is good for society. While arguments that trees have an intrinsic right to protection may appeal to a certain crowd, it is a tough sell to say that it is better to invest public money to save these trees when there are children who don't have enough food to eat and infrastructure to invest in. Environmental arguments hold up when people realize that it is in their own best interest to keep our home clean. Health and recreation are two popular and well-supported reasons for environmental protection, and will often hold up when the ecocentric argument will not.

A Nice Idea

In class over the last few weeks, we've outlined a number of major problems associated with the vitality of the Hudson River. From PCB's to a variety of other pollutants, the Hudson has long been contaminated with waste from the factories and plants that once lined its banks. In recent years environmentalists have done their part to protect the Hudson, fighting to keep Con-Ed off Storm King Mountain and St. Lawrence cement from encroaching on the Hudson landscape. GE has even pledged millions of dollars to lead a dredging effort that will hopefully, one day, make a significant dent in PCB contamination that could potentially, restore the Hudson as a major fishery. The Hudson River Estuary Program in its Action Agenda outlines a long-term plan to "cleanse" the Hudson River and restore it, as much as possible, to its previous state. I couldn't help but feel invigorated by the proposal; the message of hope, so confidently expressed by the government and its partners, seems to be extremely viable.

I have mixed feelings about this proposal. I anticipate that there will be a sharp divide in the feelings of my classmates over whether or not the goals outlined in the plan are actually attainable or whether it's simply wishful thinking. I fall somewhere in between both camps. There are a number of goals that seem extremely attainable especially concerning the revitalization of fisheries that could potentially bring the commercial fishing industry back to the Hudson Valley. I would also strongly support the attempts of the program to protect existing wildlife. However, some of the goals seem a bit far-fetched such as increasing "water quality for swimming". I think the program could do everything in its power and most New Yorkers wouldn't feel entirely comfortable swimming in the Hudson. A number plans are loaded with meaningless government jargon such as training "3,000 decision makers on best management practices for invasive species control, etc". What is a decision maker anyway? Can I be a decision maker? I respect the message presented in this agenda, but think it's a bit convoluted. And after years of polluting and abuse, who wouldn't be skeptical when considering the possibility of restoring the Hudson to it's former self?

The Hudson River Compact

Will you sign?

Bio Seminar this afternoon

I would like to let you all know that today there will be a biology department seminar talk given by Dr. Terri Provost titled "Effects of Low Level PCB Exposure on Endocrine Function in Rats." It will be at 4:10 pm in Science Center room G041. Might be interesting, given our discussion last class.

Jersey City: A Model City?

Importance of Fish

As we discussed in class, PCB’s have destroyed the natural ecosystem of the Hudson and polluted the water resulting in unsafe and inedible fish. However, many people continue to fish in the Hudson anyways. Why don’t we take the step to ensure that people just don’t eat the fish? This was a simple solution to a much bigger problem that the class discussed. Some underestimate the importance of fish and fisheries in our society. Fish are needed for the well being as well economic growth for United States along with the rest of the World.

More than 27,000 known species of fish living in oceans, lakes and rivers reflect the cornerstone of global diversity. As an essential resource for humans, 132 million metric tons of fish are captured or raised each year with 75% of the catch being directly consumed by people. Human consumption of fish is not purely for enjoyment but a significant part of our diets. One billion of the human population relies on fish as their main source of protein and worldwide fish provides over 2.6 billion people with more than 20% of their animal protein.

The importance of marine life reaches beyond humans’ basic need for quality protein it also plays a critical role in the economy. Today, 38 million people earn an income based off of fishing related activities. Globally marine and freshwater fisheries generate over US 130 billion annually, and employ at least 200 million people (Combos 11). Even the regional fishing developments are vital to allow small-scale fishermen to stay employed.

By attracting sportsmen, many areas are able to thrive through tourism resulting in economic stability. It has been reported that, “forty-million anglers in the US spent US$41.5 billion during 2001, producing over a million jobs in tourism and recreation, and providing nine times the overall economic input of commercial fishing” (Combos 11).

Although these facts don’t show the importance of fish in the Hudson, it does show how much we rely on fish in the World. Fish, a very important resource, is already strained by climate change, disease, pollution and over fishing. Steps should be taken to make sure that fish stay reliable for future growth.

I think Shen is turning our class into fish freaks!

Combos, Stacey. Are We Putting Our Fish in Hot Water? Ed. Martin Hilor. n.d. 3 Apr. 2007 .

Nursing the River Back to Health

I received an email from the EPA last week outlining the plan for PCB dredging in the Hudson. According to the letter, dredging is set to begin in 2009 and will be entirely paid by General Electric. The dredging start date has been delayed because of the legal boundaries that needed to be crossed to force GE to pay for the project (the Action Agenda, written in 2005, says that dredging was to begin this year). To learn more about the details of the project, visit www.epa.gov/hudson. I agree with Joe that the current plan might not be the most cost-effective or best dredging program, but I would rather see dredging begin in two years rather than wait another five years for new technology to be approved. If in the next two years alternative technologies are approved, I think the EPA should remain open to these new ideas. I believe that after dredging, the Hudson will be one step closer to the clean Hudson envisioned in the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Estuary Action Agenda.

The Action Agenda has a number of important components and ambitious goals, all intended to improve the health of the Hudson River and its watershed. The restoration of the river and shoreline habitats is one of the most important parts of the Agenda, especially the restoration of wetlands. For too long, many developers and officials alike have seen wetlands as wastelands to be filled in, but wetlands have incredible filtering powers that can clean rivers. In the town of Arcata, California, artificial wetlands were planted near the coast and are used to filter all of the town’s wastewater before it empties into the bay (visit http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/indepth/usaarcata.html for more information). From this example and the scientific knowledge that is available, it is clear that rebuilding tidal wetlands would be incredibly beneficial and relatively inexpensive for New York State.

Because nothing in nature is isolated, all of the pieces of the Action Agenda are interconnected. To a pessimist, the extensive plans to improve the environmental state of the Hudson outlined in the Agenda may seem unattainable, and it may very well be too ambitious, but I am very optimistic that the Agenda will achieve many successes. The recreation, tourism, and educational aspects of the Agenda will help to increase the public’s appreciation for and understanding of the river, which in turn will likely help to improve the health of the river.

NYT Crtical of Yonkers Development

Condos Proposed on Site of Former Brickyard

State Leaves Rivers at Risk

Study Shows Bacteria Could Be Solution for PCB's in the Future

A study recently conducted by the National Science Foundation and General Electric has found a group of bacteria that is able to detoxify the common PCB form AROCLOR 1260. Using funding from the National Science Foundation and General Electric, a PCB expert from Rensalear Polytechnical Institute, along with a team of microbiologists from Georgia Tech, were able to find this combination that could remove chlorine atoms in Aroclor 1260, and replace them with hydrogen, thus dechlorinating the PCBs.
This article proves that there are other options besides dredging that companies and governments could seek in PCB control. If instead of spending $700 million to dredge the river, General Electric had sought these technological advances earlier, they could have possibly saved an immense sum of money, while possibly controlling PCB in a more effective way. Instead of rushing into costly environmental projects, businesses should seek cheap technological advances. This will allow businesses to prosper and help the environement simultaneously.

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2007/04/12/stories/2007041200111500.htm

$145 million R&D Lab in Westchester

Dredging Revealed

The debate over the proposed dredging of the Hudson River reveals some of the same issues we dealt with during our discussion of the SLC plant. Though much of the opposition to the proposed dredging are afraid of the unintended consequences, such as release of more PCBs from the sediment or the destruction of underwater ecosystems, others are just worried about the inconvenience of dredging machines in their community. As the old GE commercials tried to convince local residents several years ago, the dredging may be ugly, noisy, inconvenient and unnecessary in the Hudson; not to mention the fact that the Hudson has already made much progress in the last few years and does not appear (to the naked eye) to be so bad. Like the people of the town of Hudson, everyone wants to do what is best for the environment if possible but no one wants to accept it in their own backyard (or waterfront). The dredging of the Hudson is obviously a different example because it is site specific (the dredging cannot be moved to some other river) and the damage has already been done.

However, I wonder what people would think of the inconvenience of the proposed dredging if the reports, “PCBs in the Upper and Tidal Freshwater Hudson River Estuary: The Science behind the Dredging Controversy” by Baker et al. and “Toxic Substances and Their Impacts on Human Health in the Hudson River Watershed” by Landrigan et al. were made available to them. Perhaps if Hudson river residents received this packet of information created by many prominent scientists about the dangers PCB’s pose on their own lives as well as the life of the River and its underwater inhabitants they would be more willing to accept the potential noise and disruptions for a few years.

Environmental Inequality

The statistics presented in the second article we are reading for Thursday, Toxic Substances and Their Impacts on Human Health in the Hudson River Watershed are appalling. Many of the areas specified as target sights under Superfund are quite close to where I live and directly affect myself and people I know. What struck me most profoundly, however, were multiple statements throughout the paper emphasizing that minority groups are at greater risk for contamination by the chemical pollutants in the surrounding area. I found myself asking, why is this? Why are Hispanic and African American populations found to have greater concentrations of PCBs in their bodies? This is an issue that was briefly addressed in the movie we watched earlier in the semester, and it has been mentioned in class a couple of times off-handedly, but I want to get to the root of this issue.

There are a few main schools of thought related to this issue. Many of the arguments involving this issue very obviously link minority status to class status. The most obvious contributor to environmental inequality is the fact that poorer residential areas (often populated by minorities) tend to have poor air quality and a disproportionate number of factories and other factors that contribute to pollution. The lower real estate prices in these areas contribute to the high number of minorities. Also, companies are reported to choose these neighborhoods because they will be met with the least opposition because the population is less educated, less informed, less powerful politically, and more dependent on local job development efforts.

There is another argument that minority peoples do not have the political clout to affect change in the environment. Because of their minority and economic status, government organizations are less apt to address the grievances. Also, because minority groups tend to be less involved in their government, they are reported to be less educated on issues about the environment. This can also be linked to inequality in the education system, which is a separate monster.

This a very complicated issue, and I have only scratched the surface with this information. It becomes apparent that a plan needs to be set in motion to educate minority populations on the dangers of environmental inequality and what they can do to use the government to their advantage. There also need to be changes with in governmental structure and American society, but that is a very nebulous issue.

If anyone is a sociology major, please weigh in on this topic.

I received the information in this blog from a very interesting scholarly article:

The Impact of Race on Environmental Quality: An Empirical and Theoretical Discussion

Raquel Pinderhughes

Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 39, No. 2, Environmental Conflict. (Summer, 1996), pp. 231-248.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0731-1214%28199622%2939%3A2%3C231%3ATIOROE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

Exploring Hudson pollutants

I appreciated two articles which we read in our Sophomore Seminar -- “PCBs in the Upper and Tidal Freshwater Hudson River Estuary: The Science behind the Dredging Controversy” by J.E. Baker, W.F. Bohlen, R.F. Bopp, B. Brownawell, T.K. Collier, K.J. Farley, W.R. Geyer, R. Nairn, and L. Rosman and “Toxic Substances and Their Impacts on Human Health in the Hudson River Watershed” by R.J. Landrigan, A.L. Golden, and H.J. Simpson – for their systematic explanation of pollutants, particularly PCBs, in the Hudson River. I think that other texts which we have read that address pollutants in the Hudson simply present the problem without explanation or present a biased view of the dredging controversy. The above articles use scientific evidence to explain the effects on and the risks to the environment, animals, and humans from these pollutants and an exploration of the current state of PCBs in the Hudson and predictions for the future health of the river.
I think that the authors of “PCBs in the Upper…” presented a convincing argument for the benefits and need to dredge areas of the Hudson of PCBs. They further showed me the health risks from PCBs and that contaminated Upper Hudson River sediment is and is going to be the continuing source of PCBs in the river. I also appreciated that the authors acknowledged the difficulty of making models to show and predict the movement of contaminated sediment and PCBs, that dredging will cause temporary problems for nearby communities and habitat, and the need for further research. They do not ignore these problems, but with the available information the authors “conclude that the risks are real, the problem will not solve itself, and that the proposed remediation (with monitoring) is feasible, appropriate, and prudent” (364).

Environmently Friendly Industrial Production in Yonkers

Talk has been circulating recently regarding the redevelopment of the Glenwood power site in Yonkers, NY. While this news would normally make environmentalists cringe, REMI Cos, the company planning the reconstruction, has put forward a "Green" design for the building. This proposed plan would allow the Power Station to produce its own energy, and would be carbon-neutral, consuming the same amount of carbon dioxide that it produces; not allowing excess greenhouse gases to be emitted into the environment.
A large, 25 story tower will be atop the plant, featuring a rooftop wind turbine that would take in solar energy, and keep heat during the winter. The building would be composed primarily of steel and glass. Among other environmentally-friendly features would be a rainwater collection system that would allow water to be reused to collect toilets. Chief executive of REMI Cos, Eric Kaiser, is concerned about protecting the environment while developing industry. Speaking of the newly proposed Glenwood complex, he stated, "It's a much healthier, cleaner building that will not contaminate the environment, and to us, that is important."
Kaiser has made the right moves, specifically by appointing Guy Battle to his team of engineers. Battle has an impressive resume of low-energy industrial design, including the plans for the Ground Zero Freedom Tower in New York City and the Wrigley Innovation Center in Chicago. REMI Cos. is taking the right direction in industrial development. With all of the governmental and environmental battles industries face today, it is hard for large projects to develop. Environmental concerns often overpower the possibility of production, as groups are unable to develop due to regulations and local concern. However, by working hard to make their project environmentally friendly, REMI Cos. is finding a way to grow despite all of the obstacles business are hampered by today. The only way large industrial corporations will survive in the future in this environmentally-minded country is if they find a way to function in an environmentally-friendly way. If this project in Yonkers is sucessful, it may serve as an example for future projects, and could help re-establish industry along the Hudson River, without causing great environmental damage.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070408/NEWS02/704080359/1018/NEWS02

Environmently Friendly Industrial Production in Yonkers

Talk has been circulating recently regarding the redevelopment of the Glenwood power site in Yonkers, NY. While this news would normally make environmentalists cringe, REMI Cos, the company planning the reconstruction, has put forward a "Green" design for the building. This proposed plan would allow the Power Station to produce its own energy, and would be carbon-neutral, consuming the same amount of carbon dioxide that it produces; not allowing excess greenhouse gases to be emitted into the environment.
A large, 25 story tower will be atop the plant, featuring a rooftop wind turbine that would take in solar energy, and keep heat during the winter. The building would be composed primarily of steel and glass. Among other environmentally-friendly features would be a rainwater collection system that would allow water to be reused to collect toilets. Chief executive of REMI Cos, Eric Kaiser, is concerned about protecting the environment while developing industry. Speaking of the newly proposed Glenwood complex, he stated, "It's a much healthier, cleaner building that will not contaminate the environment, and to us, that is important."
Kaiser has made the right moves, specifically by appointing Guy Battle to his team of engineers. Battle has an impressive resume of low-energy industrial design, including the plans for the Ground Zero Freedom Tower in New York City and the Wrigley Innovation Center in Chicago. REMI Cos. is taking the right direction in industrial development. With all of the governmental and environmental battles industries face today, it is hard for large projects to develop. Environmental concerns often overpower the possibility of production, as groups are unable to develop due to regulations and local concern. However, by working hard to make their project environmentally friendly, REMI Cos. is finding a way to grow despite all of the obstacles business are hampered by today. The only way large industrial corporations will survive in the future in this environmentally-minded country is if they find a way to function in an environmentally-friendly way. If this project in Yonkers is sucessful, it may serve as an example for future projects, and could help re-establish industry along the Hudson River, without causing great environmental damage.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070408/NEWS02/704080359/1018/NEWS02

Burnt Toast In the Hudson

In reading the "burnt toast" article Professor Eismeier has recently sent, I was inspired to put a little more faith in technological advancement. When first hearing of the dredging technique, I thought that this was a somewhat barbaric method both from the sight of it and its damaging effects on the environment. Hearing of a new technique, involving only carbon by which to absorb the PCB's, was refreshing in the sense that I felt human beings were really using their full knowledge of chemistry to solve the problem. Although this project has proven effective in some tests, the Hudson may be on too large a scale for it to be completed. It is difficult to know exactly how this would affect the Hudson in the long run, however, and it sometimes seems as though the Hudson has become a giant science experiment. Since it is so difficult to anticipate the effects of a foreign chemical in the Hudson, some of these techniques must be working in a trial and error method with the Hudson as the guinea pig. Hopefully this new technique can prove to be successful but if not I fear the Hudson may end up worse than it was before.

Despite Warnings, People Still Eating Hudson Fish

Childhood Exposure to PCBs

Another Fish Freak

A kindred spirit of Mr. Shen offers advice about eating fish.

A New Way to Degrade PCBs?

Info about PCBs

Hope for the Hudson

Alex is absolutely right to point out the terribly inefficient protection efforts Suszkowski and D'Elia describe. After all, a wide array of governmental and non-governmental organizations at the local, tri-state (NJ, NY, and CT), and national level are responsible for protecting the Hudson and enforcing environmental policy. A quick look at table 22.2 presented on page 322 reveals just how complicated the system is. Multiple organizations collect data, but different organizations (on different levels of government) attempt to apply the data to policy. The entire system appears to be one massive big-government bureaucratic mess. A redundant experience in redundacy.

Yet there is still great hope for the Hudson. As Suszkowski and D'Elia report, the Hudson is considerably cleaner than she was in the recent past. For the first time in decades, the water above the Lincoln Tunnel meets New York State swimming standards. 67,800 acres of harbor shellfish beds are now safe to harvest from. New Yorkers can once again harvest shellfish from 30,000 acres of beds directly off of Queens. Beaches across New Jersey and the Boroughs are open again. There's less TSS (total suspended solids, measured in metric tons) in the river today than in 1900.

Attempting to govern the Hudson may be incredibly complicated. But we're making progress. The Hudson is cleaner than it's been in years. If the public continues to push for a cleaner Hudson and the government works to streamline bureaucratic efforts, we can continue to make the Hudson cleaner year by year.

Wasted resources, time, effort, and opportunity

Wasted resources, time, effort, and opportunity. When reading “The History and Science of Managing the Hudson River,” an article by Dennis J. Suszkowski and Christopher F. D’Elia I was shocked by how these themes of inefficiency plague environmental protection policy for the Hudson River.

The first case cited in the text was a three year study of environmental problems and institutional issues funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This study produced incredible amounts of information totaling about four thousand pages of memoranda which when published in 1979 combined into a two volume report. Unfortunately the results of this report did not directly affect environmental policy or influence and independent agency to bolster support for environmental issues.

In 1976 the Hudson River Level B Study took place. Funded by the Federal government, the objective of this study was to assess the basin’s condition and project the needs of the water and related land up until the year 2000. This study again did not influence any existing policy.

Why do we waste our resources on these studies? Although they are useful as training for scientists they are intended and funded to affect environmental policy.

Other managerial flaws add to the inefficiencies which plague environmental policy on the Hudson as well. Currently there are nine federal agencies, five state agencies, three regional authorities, and numerous municipalities which are in charge on protecting and managing the water. This structure is inefficient because not one organization can be held responsible for problems which rise.

In order to fix the problems which have manifested in the management of the Hudson’s environmental policy it is important to research ways to improve it. This research, if it is not plagued like the cases listed above, can help make a more efficient environmental policy.

CARP: The Perfect Dish for an Environmentally Friendly Hudson

In Dennis J Suszowski and Christopher F. D’Delia’s paper The History and Science of Managing the Hudson River, the two authors discuss a number of environmental issues that are affecting the river as well a number of other connected bodies of water. In response to these environmental issues a group of environmental organizations have sprung up. The rise in environmental groups over the past half a century has given way to government reform and more governmental regulation on polluters at the federal, state, municipal and regional levels.

One such organization is Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project. CARP was formed to focus on the power of governmental oversight in the area of contaminant reduction, which they believed to be minimal at best.

Today CARP is “perhaps the largest and most ambitious contaminant assessment effort ever undertaken” (p. 328). The management committee which runs it has representatives from ten different organizations all with the common interest of analyzing the contamination of the Hudson and then getting rid of it.

The power behind CARP comes from those ten different organizations. The groups involved in CARP represent a wide array of views and size from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, to New Jersey Maritime Resources, as well as the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. By brining their combined power and resources to CARP they are able to give it tremendous funding and achieve tremendous success. If real progress on the environmental front is ever going to happen it’s going to be through the combined efforts of numerous organizations, and CARP provides a fantastic template from which to start.

An Emerald City Shade of Green

Some two months ago I wrote a post on General Electric’s latest “ecomagination” campaign, a drastic change from the General Electric that fought for decades over the cleaning of PBCs in the Hudson. Their fresh green outlook is more attractive to the new generations with global warming on the mind. After our discussion and debate in class I decided to take a look into the St. Lawrence Cement, SLC, company to see if they publicized a different view on their plants than the novel or movie may have shown.
In investigating I found a very similar story to that of General Electric. SLC’s website has information about the company and the locations of different plants, including Catskill. Although not as drastic a change as General Electric, SLC is clearly trying to keep up with the new environmentally friendly standards. In their press releases the first article, published on March 29, 2007, is entitled St. Lawrence Cement lauded for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The article link is attached, but it discusses SLC as one of the leading companies in greenhouse gas reductions. They were commended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for “having achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions under the EPA's Climate Leaders program”.
I personally see this as a great change for a company, who only ten years ago were being fined for air, land, and water pollution. I am willing to believe that this is a change brought on by the efforts of small non-profit groups like Friends of Hudson and Scenic Hudson. These groups have worked hard to keep SLC out of Hudson and it has obviously shown them that their environmental policies need a change. If small groups and large groups alike had allowed for the plant to have been build then SLC might not have needed the good publicity this greenhouse reducing recognition will give them. SLC may have come around to the color green at some point, but I have a feeling their defeat in Hudson gave them a jump start.

http://www.stlawrencecement.com/CA/ENC/id/1610646401/mod/gnm40/page/news.html

A Difficult Decision

In studying the environmental history of the Hudson, one's first inclination is to see the glass as half full. Throughout the last half century or so a number of environmental organizations have stepped to the forefront of a continuing battle to preserve the Hudson River, and have supported a number of initiatives intended to clean-up the Hudson and restore some of the natural beauty that has been lost since big business came to the region. A number of organizations including HEP (The New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary program) and the Hudson River Estuary Program have made important steps in collecting scientific research and lobbying government officials to make changes to protect the Hudson. The Hudson River Foundation, which sponsors research efforts aimed at preserving the Hudson River, has been responsible for a number of recent changes like the proposal involving the study of Atlantic sturgeon in the early 90's. The HRF has a set of categories they hope to address in the years to come including long-term, short-term and imminent problems in the river and New York Harbor.

So the question a young environmentalist might ask is how could one see the glass as half empty? We've done a number of things to protect the Hudson recently, backed by enormous victories over major corporations like Con-Ed and government initiatives like the proposed Westway construction. Aren't things better than they once were? Well, let's take a closer look at this question. Are things better than they were say in the early 20th century, when New York Harbor was festering with Typhoid and sewage was deposited into the Hudson with reckless abandon? I think it would be relatively safe to say that things are a bit better than they were then. But one of the reasons my classmates and I took this class was to discover the true legacy of the Hudson; to study it's history from the first time Henry Hudson laid eyes on the valley to first time some of us laid eyes on it driving up to Hamilton. We've read accounts of the Hudson River during its earliest days when the Hudson Valley was compared to the Garden of Eden. We've read excepts of Adrian van der Donck's account of his travels around the region during which he observed an abundance of unique flora and fauna. The Hudson was in bad shape after big business beset the region and continued to exploit the abundant, fresh water, and I think most environmentalists would say that the Hudson is a lot cleaner than it was back then. But it sure wasn't, and never will be as clean as it was when the Indians gave a name to the river that flows two ways. It never will be as clean as it was in the early days of America. Mankind has left their mark on the Hudson through their ignorance and greed, a mark that can never be permanently reversed. But mankind has also realized the value of this unique waterway and has, through their generosity and genuine concern, attempted to preserve it. So is the glass half full or half empty? I'll let you decide.

Listen to Aristotle

Last week we had an interesting and spirited debate on everything from politics to global warming and the environment. Our class is very diverse and we have people that represent all ends of the spectrum. Some of us are hardcore conservatives while others are far left liberals. The different ideologies in our class lead to many spirited debates that can be very entertaining even comical at points. However, when the debates get too out of hand and people get upset when someone disagrees with their point of view, it takes away from the discussion. Last class we had a staged debate over whether or not a new cement plant should be installed along the Hudson. The debate was good and the participants were well informed, but I think both sides were guilty of fabricating some of the facts. I felt each side either over or under exaggerated their points in order to convince the appeals board that their opinion was the right one. People arguing against the plant denied that cement is actually more environmentally friendly than wood. While proponents of the plant denied that there would be negative visual effects, if this 2.8 sq. mile plant were to be built alongside the 2.3 sq. mile city of Hudson. This kind of behavior is seen in politics all the time. Some people will argue to the death to defend whatever their political party believes in, even if deep down they do not really believe it. These kinds of actions are extremely frustrating to me. If everyone in this world were just upfront and honest there would be no need to smudge the facts and a lot more would be accomplished. I think we would learn more from one another in our class if we let people finish their thoughts before condemning them. I know this post is a little bit of a rant but what I’m trying to say is that people need to be willing to compromise if things are going to get done. We should all strive to be wise in the eyes of Aristotle who said, “It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Encounters with Hudson mansions

(I wrote this post a couple of weeks ago but neglected to post it until now).

The trips that I took with my family while growing up generally included a visit to at least one National Historic Site or National Park. The many plane rides, long car drives, museums, parks, beaches, and hotels of these trips, however, are no longer separate in my mind, and thus I did not think that I had any mentionable interaction with the Hudson until I read the end of The Hudson: A History by Tom Lewis. The final chapter of the book mentioned Franklin D. Roosevelt’s childhood home and adult retreat of Springwood at Hyde Park. I then remembered that I had visited these house, museum, and library – I specifically remember standing in a second-story room in the back of the house, gazing across the expansive lawn at the Hudson.
Professor Lewis’s book also led me to consider the Hudson’s connections to the Newport, RI mansions, a few of which I have visited. Two of Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt’s (1794-1877) grandsons built summer “cottages” in Newport, far from the Hudson, at the end of the 19th century. Cornelius Vanderbilt II built The Breakers and his younger brother, William K. Vanderbilt, built Marble House, which cost $11 million. Cornelius II and William could not have built these large and ornate houses if their grandfather had not earned his wealth on the Hudson. The ice that kept their food cool in the hot summer may have come from the Hudson.
I have more experiences that are connected to the Hudson than I had realized.

CSO Map

FYI Shen

Sewage seeps into Hudson

Bottler Slimes Hudson Tributary

town meeting

The debate over the St. Lawrence Cement Company turned the people of Hudson, New York against each other. The members of the opposite sides either supporting the plant or against the plant hated each other. One of the most surprising aspects that I noticed while watching the movie in class was how the local government handled the situation. Mayor Scalera seemed to look at what was for his best interest when taking the money for the plant. The town hall meeting to discuss whether or not to take the offer was what I thought to be a joke to call that city government. When an alderman tells a constituent at the end of a meeting that he does not like them, which is not acceptable I believe. This is what I thought was the root of what turned this whole situation so bad. When a governmental body pins people against each other and create such a divide is not right. The government is supposed to help sort out the situation calmly and not cause such fights. It is hard to believe that any of these city officials could get re-elected after what they pulled. I am not sure if what I see in my city is a better run city government or if there are towns across the country that have governmental meetings like this. I just see this as not acceptable and it is cause of them that they cannot accomplish anything.

The New Hudsonians

Kindred Spirits

Waterwire.net

Stop the SLC Plant

The St. Lawrence Cement’s controversial plan to construct a massive plant resulted in opposition from Friends of the Hudson and Scenic Hudson on the grounds of critical environmental and economic hazards. The Hudson River has extraordinary beauty and a “unique repository.” The aesthetics of the Hudson is a contributing factor to the value and defining characteristic in this town; allowing the quality of life to surpass that expected of a town with a large industrial complex. It presents the people of Hudson with a sense of identity and a place of well-being. The new plant would be a “highly dominate visual element” taking up 2.8 square miles, while the city of Hudson covers only 2.3 square miles.

But aesthetics do not just add to the quality of life; it also helps the economy of Hudson. After a serious financial crash in the 1960’s, the factories shut down and the solution was to move to a different support base, instead of going back towards an industrial economy. Hudson decided to work on “smart growth” by using the beauty of the area to attract tourism and the expanding second home and the antiques markets. By building a plant of this magnitude, the Real Estate market would collapse and “sustainable development” would no longer exist. Therefore, the proposed SLC construction would take the Hudson area two steps back instead of one step forward in establishing economic growth and security.

While many believe that the SLC plant will have a positive effect by creating jobs for locals, the unemployment rates in the area are lower in Columbia County than in Greene County. In addition, The SLC’s own DEIS explained that,”The proposed project would result in little net change to SLC employment.” The plant is not expected to economically help Hudson, but instead stands to have a long term negative impact. With all of the health hazards, damaging environmental, aesthetics and economic issues, the decision not to construct the St. Lawrence Cement Company was a positive move for the community.

Beauty as a Business

Continuing with the debate of aesthetics and its validity, I would like to say that Ceci made a very good point with the mention of selfishness among some of the environmentalists in the reading. Although the area replaced by the cement plant would be less pleasing to the eye than the wilderness that was once there, this is true for any site untouched by industry. For a citizen of Hudson to say that the plant should not be build because it wouldn't look nice is unreasonable as it implies either that the plant would look nice somewhere else, or that no new industry is justified because it is not as pleasing to the eye as a forest or river. The plant will replace views of nature no matter where it is built and what these people are saying is "don't build over my view." Signs that read:"save our city, save our river" signify to me a kind of instinctual possessiveness completely unconcerned with anyone else's city or river. On a personal note I find it a little hard to take seriously a group of people so opposed to unaesthetic arcitechure when, from what I could see in the video,these people live in a city made up of rundown former brothels. In my opinion such concerns for aesthetics should be geared more toward the preservation of already inhabited areas in which beauty has been maintained and is enjoyed by a majority.

This brings me to the topic of Cape Wind, also brought up by Ceci in her most recent post. Being a year round resident of Cape Cod I hear many opinions about the towering windfarms to be placed in nantucket sound. Just as with the city of Hudson, some citizens' only argument is that the structures would mar the beauty of the area. Although I enjoy very much the beauty of my home and the surrounding areas, I can by no means glorify them to the extent that they would be too beautiful for something so potentially benefitial to the environment as these wind farms. In this case,however, there is some validity to the argument of aesthetics as Cape Cod is highly tourist based in its economy. Citizen's owe their living to the beauty of the area and I feel as though the concern for aesthetics is much less selfish here as thousands from around the country visit the cape so that they too can enjoy its sights. Although I believe that tourism is a powerful argument, my major concerns are more related to the economics of the construction itself. If these windfarms were entirely effective, I think it would be a great advancement in environmentalism and a step toward keeping our earth clean. If these farms were inneffective or somehow failed, however, this would be a disaster and presents a risk I am very reluctant to see taken. This project being the first offshore windfarm in the U.S. presents many potential problems. If the 130 proposed turbines break down or cause an oil leak, the cost for upkeep may prove these structures as being more trouble than they are worth. This is not to mention the damage it would do to the surrounding ecosystem. When one thinks of the traditional windfarm in a field in the middle of nowhere, these issues are much less powerful as failure doesn't necesarrily mean the destruction of a region's fishing and tourist economy. For these reasons I have to conclude that although beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it must be evaluated in a personal as well as an economic sense.