During major storms like hurricane Sandy, New York City is an easy target for flooding, because the area of impermeable surfaces, like concrete and asphalt, outweigh permeable surfaces, like grass, throughout the city. As a result, after a large storm, according to the Department of Environmental Conservation, raw sewage runs off into the Hudson River. To prevent that, a bill, authored by Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal, is currently in the New York Senate for a green space tax abatement for building owners. In the agreement, the owners will receive $4.50 per square foot of concrete that is converted into green space.

​The new bill, currently in the New York Senate, was started on the Upper West Side, and was approved by Upper West Side community members like City Council candidate Mel Wymore and the West End Preservation Society. On the Upper West Side, old brownstones are known for their “doughnut” backyards. According to Rosenthal, this bill would be an incentive for building owners to stop paving over backyards. In fact the bill was unanimously supported by Community Board 7.
​
“If I walk around the back of my building, everything is concrete. It would smell nicer and ​be more aesthetically pleasing, at the very least if it were green,” said Linda Rosenthal.

​But this issue would not just be helpful for the Upper West Side, according to the bill’s supporters.

​“One of the interesting things about New York is that these rowhouse backyards are all over the place in different areas in the city,” said Evan Mason of Sustainable Yards NYC, an initiative trying to claim back urban green spaces. “If people were to remove these concrete spaces, there could be real change.”

​According to Mason, there are 53,000 acres of open space in New York City. There are multiple ways that more greenery could affect the city. One, she said would be the immediate impact on sewage runoff during major storms. Mason said that this would save the city money by burdening the water treatment center less. During a large storm with mostly rain like Tropical Storm Irene, rain can seep into the permeable ground causing less runoff. However, storms like Hurricane Sandy with more flooding from storm surge than rain, would probably not affect the storm run-off.

​But in addition to helping the city out during a rainstorm, Sustainable Yards argues that more green space can also improve quality of life. Evan Mason explained that it is a no-brainer: when more trees and vegetation are planted, the air becomes cleaner, and an urban setting becomes more livable.

​“People like the idea of turning the hands of time and reducing the ‘concrete creep’ and this isn’t as difficult to manage as other sustainability measures,” said Mason.
​This tax abatement is also very similar to the fairly new tax abatement which offers incentive for green roofs.

​“It seems like there’s not a lot of emphasis on trying to greenify backyards. We are trying to encourage people to plant trees, and use small flagstones as their concrete space,” said Jay Adolf, a Community Board 7 member.

​Linda Rosenthal said that the bill has to go through a committee first, before it can go to the floor, and it will hopefully be passed later this year.

VAN SANT AND DAMON’S PROMISED PROPAGANDA

Gus Van Sant must really be out of imagination (or horniness) to make the drab, politically slanted Promised Land. That’s two phony films in a row for Gus, following the 2010 Restless. Promised Land takes on the fracking controversy about drilling for gas in underground shale deposits, using Gus’ Good Will Hunting star Matt Damon as a gas company stooge trying to trick Pennsylvania farmers into leasing their land. As an exposé of the fashionable dilemma, the film is unconvincing politically and fraudulently sentimental about the average American’s skeptical response to technological progress.

When Damon, as corporate shill Steve Butler, tries hoodwinking rural folk (“‘Fuck you money’ is the ultimate liberator” he tells a landowner), his dishonesty recalls George Clooney’s self-pity in Up in the Air. Damon’s a shrewder actor, so he eschews Clooney’s false empathy and portrays a man who corrupts the American Dream while refusing to lose the American rat race. This frick-or-frack quandary turns Promised Land into a reverse-Capra movie in which the little people convert the bad protagonist—reviving his buried good instincts.

But Steve’s transformation is half-ass; his heart isn’t in the job anyway, only his contempt—the phony common-folk stance the Environmental Left prefers. In Promised Land, the anti-fracking controversy seems to be about class superiority as much as about the environment.

Van Sant, Damon and co-screenwriter, co-producer and co-star John Krasinski (portraying Dustin Noble, an antagonistic environmentalist) pretend that political position is more important than complicated truth. Using pretzeled logic, these filmmakers twist their story into unbelievable shapes to make the self-righteous point that Americans’ greed outweighs their truest values. Easy for millionaire filmmakers to say.

The love triangle between Steve, Dustin and local schoolteacher Alice (Rosemarie Dewitt) lacks the gay sexual tension typical of Van Sant; this is just a propagandistic gimmick relying on the sentimentality of white-picket-fence heterosexual normalcy. (You can hear sheep bleating behind Steve’s confidence game, and an American flag is used as backdrop.) Van Sant, Damon and Krasinski present what amounts to anti-fracking propaganda without deciding which side they are on. It’s as if the industrial revolution—and unbiased cinema—never happened.

Photo by Mr. Adrian Camera. Photo courtesy of Flickr Commons.

By Paul Bisceglio

South Bronx residents and community groups filed a lawsuit last Wednesday to halt online grocery delivery service FreshDirect’s relocation from Queens to a new 500,000 square-foot facility in the Harlem River Yards. The residents argued that the city failed to account for the new facility’s adverse environmental effects, the consequence of what residents claim will be the grocery deliverers’ nearly 2,000 daily truck trips.

In February, the announcement of FreshDirect’s move won the praise of city and state officials, who were happy they did not lose the company to New Jersey, according to the New York Times. Locals in the proposed construction area, however, were unwilling to add to neighborhood’s already high levels of noise, pollution and asthma.

The lawsuit was filed in the State Supreme Court in the Bronx. Its defendants include the New York City Industrial Development Agency, FreshDirect and Harlem River Yard Ventures, the Times reports.

FreshDirect contended that the residents’ delivery truck figures were grossly exaggerated. “FreshDirect has 225 trucks and does not come close to making 2,000 trips per day,” a representative told New York Press.

The grocery delivery service also issued the following statement: “Contrary to the assertions made in the recent lawsuit, a thorough environmental impact review commissioned by FreshDirect was already conducted. It showed the new facility will generate far fewer truck trips and result in less traffic when compared to the 1993 approved uses of the Harlem River Yard.”

The lawsuit, however, aims to annul a declaration by the Industrial Development Agency that affirmed FreshDirect’s negligible environmental impact.  If the suit succeeds, FreshDirect would be forced to reevaluate its effects on the environment.

Finnegan: What actually is hydraulic fracturing?

Josh Fox: Hydraulic fracturing is a new method for drilling for natural gas. The reason why this is happening now is that the U.S. Congress in 2005 passed a law exempting this form of drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Hydraulic fracturing injects millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into rock formations at such high pressure that it breaks apart the rocks, and the gas that’s trapped inside these rocks frees up.

The problem is that it is an underground injection of an enormous amount of chemical material that creates a lot of hazardous waste, and what’s been happening is that both the gas and the chemicals are turning up in people’s aquifers, and their private water wells, and it poses a great threat to the New York City watershed because they’re proposing to drill there.

It seems like this is dangerous for the environment and bad for people. So what is the fight in support of this?

You would think that the drilling is so problematic—and it’s been documented so many times as a heavy-duty industrialization process that this would be ruled out—but that would be underestimating the power of Haliburton and Chesapeake and Exxon. They have billions of dollars and considerable influence in Albany and in Washington, and everybody in New York City and New York State should be involved in getting them out of here, because it’s going to be very very difficult to do that.

New York City residents definitely need to wake up to the fact that they have the best tap water in the world, the largest unfiltered drinking source in the world, and they have to work to protect it, or else they could end up with these Haliburton chemicals coming out of the tap all over the city. It would be enormously costly, very very problematic for health, and virtually impossible to control.

Could there ever be an industry incentive for these companies to develop alternate methods?

People have to start realizing that we have to move beyond fossil fuels, and that that’s everybody’s responsibility. The truth here is that you cannot rely on the government in this instance. Where it really comes from, and where change really comes from in the United States is when people take to the streets, get upset, march, go crazy and do all those things that people did in the civil rights movement.

You’ve been pushing for the passage of the FRAC [Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals] Act, which would require disclosure of chemical compounds used in fracking and end the exemption from the Safe Water Drinking Act. Would that be enough?

No. There should be a moratorium, nationwide. The truth is that we don’t need this energy. There are a lot of other ways to go about getting energy for the United States that do not include the systematic contamination of the water supply, the systematic destruction of land and property value, the incredible amount of greenhouse emissions that go on with this form of energy development. It is simply a show of power on behalf of those gas companies that they are allowed to do this at all.

Natural gas is often touted as the cleaner alternative to coal—is it really a better option?

Fracking for natural gas has a much higher emissions profile than was previously suspected. Methane itself is a greenhouse gas, it’s far more potent than CO2. It escapes throughout the process, at every stage of the process, the drilling, the pipelines, the fracking, the tanks. And that means that the emissions of raw methane that isn’t being burned, when you take together the whole life cycle, it shows that fracking for natural gas is actually worse than coal, worse than our worst fossil fuel. Because of all this new information that’s coming out, both from the EPA and from Cornell University and other places, natural gas has to be viewed as the worst fossil fuel option.

What is the biggest thing that New York City residents should be aware of?

To continue the campaign for this New York moratorium is the number one priority. Get involved with the local Sierra Club, get involved in the local Frack Action group or with United for Action, NY H20. There are so many amazing grassroots organizations on the ground in New York City. If they want to continue to have their tap water, they’re going to have to volunteer some time.

By stocking our kitchens with more food that’s grown within a 200-mile radius of New York City, we can create jobs, reduce the city’s carbon footprint, lower health insurance premiums and make the United States less vulnerable to bioterrorism. Yet for decades we have paid no attention to the importance of eating fruit and vegetables grown in New York City’s “food shed,” the region surrounding the city where fresh produce can quickly and easily be transported to city markets.

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of meeting Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto , and one of the leaders of a quiet revolution in America centered on regional food systems. According to Pollan, adolescents get 15 percent of their caloric intake from soda, and all those sweetened soft drinks vastly increase the incidence of childhood obesity and diabetes. Add in the fact that a type 2 diabetes patient faces annual health care costs of $6,600, and the link between diet and health insurance premiums quickly becomes apparent.

With national health care spending running at $147 billion a year to treat obesity and $116 billion a year to treat diabetes, we can see the urgency of substituting pears for Pepsi. Researchers from Columbia and MIT agree, having concluded in a recent study that the best long-term solution for reversing childhood obesity is to improve diet by developing regional food sheds.

The food shed’s other benefits are no less real. Seventy years ago, when regional food systems were dominant, a single calorie of fossil fuel produced two calories of food. Today, it takes 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of the processed food found in supermarkets. The implications for carbon emissions and the environment are enormous.

With respect to jobs, food manufacturing is New York City’s most stable industry. But it employs only a fraction of the people who would be employed if we maximized the capacity of our food shed and joined it with modern, efficient distribution systems to bring regional produce into every corner of our city.
And, yes, there are even national security implications. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a great advocate for New York State on these issues, points out that if we rely on just a few parts of the country for the lion’s share of our food, we are much more vulnerable to bioterrorism. Numerous regional food systems located throughout the country minimize that threat.

The biggest transformation in the United States during the next generationmay well come in the way we feed ourselves. In the White House, the president has floated the idea of a soda tax, and the first lady is opening eyes with her garden. In City Hall, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing creative ways to increase the number of supermarkets in underserved neighborhoods. Everywhere there are unmistakable signs of new thinking about food.

For much of the past year, I have been working with a terrific team from Columbia University and the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture to create a blueprint for developing the New York City food shed. We are making progress, and on Dec. 12 the food shed movement will get another boost. Along with Just Food and New York University, I will be hosting a daylong conference, complete with workshops and planning sessions, called the New York City Food and Climate Summit. Come join us and become part of the only grassroots movement in town that promises to make you healthy, wealthy and wise.

–
Scott M. Stringer is Manhattan borough president.

When I go grocery shopping, I’ve started using my many free cloth bags that I’ve accumulated from various street fairs, my husband’s job and a couple of clothing stores that encourage the demise of the plastic menace. I am also making a conscious effort to remember to fold one up and carry it in my handbag, in case I make an impromptu Gristede’s pit stop for milk or bread. Sure I want to help maintain the planet, but I’m also in it for the acclaim, which I thought came with the territory.

When I was still a plasti-holic, I experienced eco-envy of those ahead of me on line at the aforementioned Gristede’s, as well as C-Town, Key Food and Food Emporium, with their coveted Whole Foods “I’m Not A Plastic Bag” bags or even the less notable cloth equivalent.

These consumers-cum-environmentalists seemed to hold their heads up a little higher, and walk out of the supermarket a little taller for their noble efforts to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I swear I saw the usually Is it time for my break, yet? cashiers embrace these admirable customers with their eyes, grateful for being kept from becoming forced accomplices in this crime against nature.

I wanted membership into this elite, revered group that was saving the planet one food-shopping trip at a time.

Okay, the first few times after making my decision, I forgot the recycle bags when I went to the store. My bad.

When I finally remembered to bring the cloth totes, I apparently was not swift enough whipping them out at checkout. Suddenly, it seemed that cashiers, who I never recalled as being that efficient, moved with the speed of Quick Draw McGraw. By the time I had my good-for-the-environment bags out, my groceries were packed in plastic, sitting on the counter and ready for me to be on my way.

The first time this happened I was going to skulk away, chalking it up to a failed attempt because I had not yet honed my eco-skills. But wait. I had finally made certain to bring the bags. I was on a mission—only one person, perhaps, with only two bags of groceries, but according to Gore & the Gang, it could make all the difference.

“Oh no,” I said, standing there like Oliver Twist, but instead of an empty bowl outstretched, I had my empty cloth bag. Nodding to the fait accompli before me, I added, “I don’t want those.”

No welcome smile or admiring gaze for tree-hugging me. I thought the cashier was going to take my bag, yank it over my head, lead me to the automatic doors and, with her foot on my behind, push me out on to 86th Street. Needless to say, the customers behind me, who had to wait for my groceries to be re-bagged, didn’t have my back either.

I’ve since learned to announce the presence of my cloth carryalls from the get-go. Yet, still no “you-go-eco-girl” fist bumps. In fact, cashiers even make me pack my bags myself. (I guess if you BYOB, you can just DIY.)

If “green is good,” then why are so many being environmentally unfriendly to me? Perhaps it’s time to start using Fresh Direct.

–
Lorraine Duffy Merkl’s debut novel, Fat Chick, by The Vineyard Press, is coming soon.

That’s because the developer had no information to present about the board’s suggested meeting topic: environmental sustainability. Instead, the chair of Board 7’s Green Committee read aloud sustainability concerns, covering topics like

Board 7’s Green Committee catalogued its sustainability concerns for the Riverside Center project, which stretches from West 59th to 61st streets between West End Avenue and Riverside Boulevard. Photo by Andrew Schwartz

green building standards, an underground “Energy District” that could efficiently provide heating, cooling and electricity, and the use of “greywater” for irrigation and industrial uses. Extell representatives mostly declined to respond, noting that they were present only to listen. After the meeting, the board sent questions to the developer in hopes of a reply.

In a statement, George Arzt, a spokesman for Extell, said, “As we stated at the meeting, we are reviewing these issues and will be addressing them during the ULURP process,” using the acronym for the city’s land-use review procedure.

At the meeting, Extell representatives mentioned that they are currently in the process of studying cogeneration, when heat from generating electricity is used to heat and cool buildings and produce hot water. And in response to concerns about too many parking spaces, representatives said the number was carefully chosen based on current use and proposed future demand.

Participants also once again raised the possibility of including a Metro North station on or near the site. Dan Brucker, a spokesperson for Metro North, said in a separate interview that in the coming weeks, the agency plans to involve the public, local businesses and government officials in discussions about the proposal.

“We are definitely considering it, and considering it seriously, because indeed we do want to serve that area, and we think there are many benefits for it,” he said.

Although the meeting was billed as a discussion focused on sustainability, architect Paul Willen presented “A New Proposal for Riverside Center.” Willen is an advisor for the Riverside South Planning Corporation, but the proposal was his independent work in collaboration with Dan Gutman.

Willen pointed out that the “green” space in the current proposal seems “private” and inward looking, ill-suited for public activity. The arrangement of buildings would create shadows, limiting direct sunlight in the park, and would prohibit direct access to the waterfront park and the Con Edison IRT powerhouse, which is being considered for landmark status. Willen proposed removing one of the buildings to solve the problem.

Another plan presented at the meeting came from Craig Whitaker, an architect working for the Coalition for a Livable West Side. Whitaker pointed out that under the current arrangement, retail planned within the project will be difficult to sell, as it will face park area rather than highly traversed streets. He added that most of the park space doesn’t feel like true public space because it is situated among scattered buildings. Whitaker suggested clearly separating buildings from the park area, using gridded streets to delineate the park border in a similar fashion to Gramercy and Washington Square parks. The arrangement would have all buildings facing the park, and would create approximately two acres of true public space. He added that in many of the possible configurations for such a plan, the developer would actually have more land on which to build. Moreover, the streets and park could be installed before the buildings are constructed, allowing the community to enjoy the park before the project’s 2018 completion.

Helen Rosenthal, chair of Community Board 7, hopes the Riverside Center Working Group can meet in September to discuss a status update and community concerns. Once Extell’s application is certified by the Department of City Planning, which will likely happen this fall, the board will have 60 days to issue a formal recommendation.

The league reviewed 13 bills from the 2008 to 2009 legislative session that have been introduced, and ranked Council members on their vote or support through sponsorship. Evaluated bills included congestion pricing, legislation that mandates room for bicycle storage and one that requires large buildings to undergo energy audits every 10 years.

A Brewer-authored law that barred commercial stores from leaving the door open when an air conditioner is operating was also considered by the league.

Other community boards have embedded environmental concerns into already established committees. Board 9, for example, has a Health/Human Services & Environment committee, and Board 6 has a Public Safety, Environment and Human Rights committee. Officially, the mission of Board 7’s Green Committee is to “promote sustainability of the Upper West Side by engaging residents in education, advocacy and direct efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the community.” Working alongside other committees, the group adds its perspective to every relevant conversation within the board.

“Traditionally, bike lanes are the concern of the Transport Committee,” said  board chair Helen Rosenthal. “But there’s a green angle there as well. By being able to ask both committees to review, both sides of the argument get weight.”

The committee has tackled a wide range of topics, including green buildings, solar energy, traffic reduction, recycling, storm capacity planning, pedestrian-friendly streets, energy-efficient lighting and the use of plastic bags.

“We’re kinda the kitchen sink of green,” said Melanie Wymore, the committee’s co-chair (she shares that responsibility with Elizabeth Starkey).

That includes issues extending far beyond Manhattan.

“Whenever we hear of someone doing something interesting or new, we invite them to come and talk,” Wymore said. “We provide a conduit for people to exchange ideas about sustainability issues.”

Jason Post, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, praised Board 7 for its innovation.

“Local efforts are crucial to realizing the ambitious goals in PlaNYC,” he said, referring the mayor’s 25-year plan to reduce New York City’s carbon footprint and promote sustainability. “We hope that other community boards follow the stellar example that Manhattan CB 7 has set.”

Borough President Scott Stringer also gave the committee a positive review.
“I welcome efforts like CB7 and other community boards in creating green committees to specifically address local environmental issues,” he said, adding that such efforts mesh with his goals as borough president to address Manhattan’s health and environmental concerns.

One of the committee’s current projects is the massive IRT powerhouse, at 59th Street and 11th Avenue, which ConEd hopes to transform into a steam-and-electricity “cogeneration” plant that is three times as efficient as the current steam-only power plant.

Kate Sindig, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense Council, also recently came before the committee to present a citywide “product stewardship” plan. This eco-friendly law would transfer the problem of toxic waste disposal, especially from electronic goods like televisions and computers, from owners to the manufacturers, giving financial incentive to build with fewer toxins.

Also present at the meeting were representatives of a non-profit organization Jewish Heart for Africa, who discussed their venture of providing solar panels to pump water for villagers in remote areas of Africa. They were looking to contact people who might be interested in supporting their cause. Two days after the meeting, Laurie Moldawer, the group’s co-founder, was excited about the result.

“Within 24 hours we were already in contact with people,” she said. “We were open to anything, but this has already surpassed expectations.”

The Marcellus Shale rock formation in upstate New York is a potential source of natural gas, which would only be accessible through a new method called “Hydraulic Fracturing.” However, the method requires toxic compounds, which could possibly seep into New York City’s watershed, according to Duane and Gennaro.

While hearings will take place in areas near the Marcellus Shale, none are currently scheduled for New York City.

“The fact is that nobody knows the environmental impact that this controversial drilling will bring to the Marcellus region,” Duane said in a letter to the State Department of Environmental Conservation. “We want to ensure that DEC thoroughly considers any and all threats to our precious natural resources and allow New York City residents, advocates and elected officials to testify at a scoping hearing. Anything less is unacceptable.”

According to Duane’s deputy chief of staff Colin Casey, if contamination occurred, as it has in New Mexico and Wyoming, the city would need to build an expensive water filtration plant.