Showing posts with label pond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pond. Show all posts

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Nature insisting on life among the detritus of civilization

William Bryant Logan, writing in The NYTimes, July 20, 2019, about the resurgence of nature in the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island 18 years after it had been closed;
Moving on, we walked into a rolling landscape where the soils were part dirt, part garbage, part riprap gravel. The makeshift stream beds were pus green. Willows struggled along watercourses that were edged with thick rinds of stone. Some cottonwoods had managed to reach a respectable height, but most had been pulled down by hydra-headed vines. Scrawny red maples ran uphill right into a descending phalanx of branchy black cherries. Royal paulownia, the queen of weed trees, sat on garbage bluffs along the canals, beside the threadbare poles of pear trees. It was a mix of natives and invasives, but each was a tree or a vine that liked to live in what ecologists call “disturbed landscapes.”

I became disturbed just looking at them. One fallen black cherry had turned up a root plate six feet in diameter. Rootlets wound in and out of the rough surface, like the filigree in some Tiffany brooch. Packed among the exposed roots were green, clear and brown bottles of a dozen sizes; half a child’s red plastic dump truck; fragments of plates, cups and dishes; and a few hardy red and yellow labels. Stretched taut in a corner was a beige nylon stocking, one end of which adhered to the top of the root plate while the other clung stubbornly to the ground.

I was spellbound, so I almost stepped on a snake. She gathered herself into a loose coil a foot away from me, regarding me appraisingly, her tongue flicking in and out. A beautiful yellow-striped garter snake! My first thought was, “What is she doing here!?” My second was, “This is the first wild snake I have ever seen in the city.”
What does the forest know?
We know how long it takes most kinds of leavings to decay. Organic material goes quickly: cardboard in three months, wood in up to three years, a pair of wool socks in up to five. A plastic shopping bag may take 20 years; a plastic cup, 50. Major industrial materials will be there for much longer: An aluminum can is with us for 200 years, a glass bottle for 500, a plastic bottle for 700, and a Styrofoam container for a millennium.

The forest does not know this. It does not think. It just acts. Because it is so good at sprouting, resprouting, reiterating, and repeating the entire process, it can keep up the living and dying for as long as it takes, even if that is a thousand years. The trees are not conscious. They are something better. They are present. [...]

We think of woodlands as places of beauty and repose. We are accustomed to judge a picturesque woodland as a good one and an ugly wood as bad. When Mount St. Helens exploded in 1980, there were endless plans to make it better. Instead, the rangers and scientists mainly stood back and watched. A new forest is slowly emerging. We need to change our thinking: Ask not just what these landscapes look like, but also what they are doing. Fresh Kills Landfill taught me that they may be places of struggle and healing as well, particularly when they come to restore what people have deranged.
In a similar fashion, nature has reclaimed the Bergen Arches in Jersey City, a deep mile-long trench that had once had for train tracks in it:




In a polluted pond just outside the Arches:


Does that turtle realize, or care, that it's sunning itself amid trash?

Friday, June 19, 2015

Friday Fotos: Laudato Si, Pond Scum

In honor of the Pope Francis' environmental encyclical I give you photos of phosphate run-off at work.  You can find commentary on the encyclical and a link to the document HERE.

IMGP8813rd graffiti connection II.jpg



The green is pretty, no? We have to own it before we can clean it up or prevent it.



IMGP2442rd

You  can find larger versions of these images, and more like them, at my Pond Scum set on Flickr.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Reflections

Babies, sunsets and sunrises, and reflections—all sure-fire photographic subjects capable of drawing interest even to otherwise unremarkable shots. Which is to say, they are dangerous and delicate.

reflecting-pool.jpg

Reflections, why are they interesting? There is, I suppose, the easy symmetry. Symmetry attracts our attention, perhaps for evolutionary reasons. Faces and bodies are symmetrical when see from the appropriate angle. But, while attractive, symmetry is also boring, because static and obvious.

inside-outside.jpg

Then there's the reality game. One in the pair is real, and one is but a reflection. If you're in the real presence, you can run your fingers over one and feel its contours, but the other has no contours, only a surface. And not even that if the reflecting medium is water.

Reflections can be elusive. Take this image (below). I know what's being reflected, and yet I had to think about the image, carefully, for a minute or so, before I could parse the central reflection.

IMGP8268rd

What gave me pause were those bright verticals to the right of center. What could they be?