Standing a mile-and-a-half long on Manhattan’s west side is the elevated railroad known as the High Line. Built for freight deliveries in 1934, the last train ran on the High Line in 1980. From then on, nature took over - quietly, like a secret.

Wind and wildlife dispersed seeds over the abandoned railroad and a lush garden grew amid the ballast and steel tracks. Closed to the public, the trestle’s primary visitors were wild - birds, insects, and the occasional adventurous human. For these explorers, finding one’s self alone in a city of 8 million, 30 feet above street level, with a view of the Hudson River whose winds made the Irises and Evening Primrose sway - was magical. Meanwhile, on the ground, property owners in the surrounding area lobbied to demolish the High Line. But in 2002, a group called Friends of the High Line won the city’s support to preserve the railroad and turn it into a public space. The first section of the park opened in June 2009.

Botany is a force of nature whose quiet yet critical role in our ecosystem is often neglected. Fortunately, this is not the case with the new High Line park. In this video I interview Patrick Cullina, Vice President of Horticulture at the High Line, to learn more about this unique garden in the sky. When shooting this video, I also had my mother in mind – her carefully tended yard, and frequent childhood visits to the Bronx Botanical Garden where she’d take innumerable photos of my siblings and I next to the flowers. As an adult, I appreciate such beauty even more.

– Irene Tejaratchi Hess
Producer, NATURE

As part of THIRTEEN’s online series The City Concealed, producers Bijan Rezvani and Daniel Ross go behind the scenes to document the changes at the world’s most notorious garbage dump. Although these changes might be good for Staten Island and the environment around Fresh Kills, where does all that trash go? Watch the film now. Plus, producer Bijan Rezvani gives his take on what it was like to film atop of tons of garbage for the Inside Thirteen blog.

1. What is nanotechnology?
The chemist and Nobel prize winner Richard Smalley described nanotechnology as “the art and science of making stuff that does stuff at the nanometer scale.”

nanotech: Colloidal gold

Nanotechnology involves working with materials at an incredibly fine scale—around the size of the atoms and molecules that they are made of. But the aim is to achieve something new and useful. By working at the nanometer scale—where one nanometer is a mere one billionth of a meter long—it becomes possible to tap into some unique properties of matter. Many of these properties only become apparent when small clumps of atoms and molecules are carefully constructed and used as the building blocks of larger structures. For instance, some materials can be used in new ways when they are engineered at the nanoscale. Other materials behave in strange new ways that enable innovative new uses.

Gold, for example, becomes a highly reactive, red-colored metal when formed into nanometer-size particles. And working at the nanoscale allows highly sophisticated new materials to be engineered that would be impossible to produce using conventional technologies—everything from super-strong materials to the next generation of computer chips to targeted drugs.

2. What are the benefits of nanotech?
Many people see nanotechnology as a tool kit that allows scientists and engineers to do new things, whether they are chemists, physicists, biologists, or working in a hundred and one other fields. In many cases, the things we use everyday don’t work as well as they could because we haven’t been able to control their structure precisely at the finest level. But nanotechnology is changing this. For instance, a growing number of consumer products are being improved through the use of simple applications of nanotechnology: Sunscreens that go on clear, but protect against harmful UV radiation; clothing that repels stains; socks that prevent the buildup of odor-causing bacteria; tennis racquets that are stronger and lighter; MP3 players that are smaller while holding more songs; even foods that are supposedly better because they have been engineered at the nanometer scale.

But these consumer products are only the tip of the nanotechnology iceberg. Because the technology enables other technologies to work better, it has the potential to help address some of the biggest challenges facing us. These include combating climate change, generating renewable energy, controlling pollution, ensuring access to clean water, and developing highly effective medical treatments.

As nanotechnology is used to make better products and address serious challenges, it is expected to generate jobs and money. Some estimates put the possible market value of products that depend in some way on nanotechnology as being worth over $3 trillion dollars within the next five years. While estimates like these are sometimes hard to evaluate, there is little doubt that the “nanotechnology tool kit” will play a major role in underpinning future technological and economic development.

3. How does nanotech improve existing technologies?
Sophisticated as they might seem, many existing technologies are akin to trying to make fine jewelry while wearing boxing gloves. Nanotechnology is the equivalent of removing the gloves. For example, consider the integrated circuits at the heart of modern computers. The power of these circuits is limited by how many components can be squeezed onto a single chip. But it is also limited by how fast the heat generated by the electrons coursing through the components can be removed. Nanotechnology enables components to be shrunk to the nanoscale, allowing many more of them to be packed onto single chips. But it is also improving the materials used to transmit heat away from these components, ensuring they don’t overheat.

Sunscreens are another example of where nanotechnology improves an existing technology. 10 to 15 years go there were two options to making a sunscreen. You could either use chemicals that are absorbed into the skin, and protect against harmful UV radiation from the sun. Or you could use particles of materials like titanium dioxide—the same material used to make paint and some foods a brilliant white—to coat the skin and reflect the harmful radiation. The particles were generally more effective at protecting the user and had the advantage that they lay on top of the skin rather than being absorbed into it—but they left a pasty white residue on the skin that was cosmetically unattractive. Nanotechnology has since removed this disadvantage. But using nanometer-scale particles of materials like Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide, manufacturers have developed sunscreens that are transparent to visible light while still reflecting UV radiation—and that don’t rely on chemicals that are absorbed into the skin. The result is highly effective products that are also cosmetically acceptable.

However, the economic, social and individual advantages of nanotech improvements to existing products will not always outweigh the time, effort and resources needed to make them happen.

4. What kinds of industries are involved? How and where are nanomaterials made?
There are many types of industries involved in nanotechnology, ranging from small start-up companies to major multinational corporations. The types of materials being made are also very diverse. The NanoMetro map published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies gives a feel for the range and location of nanotech businesses in the US, although it probably doesn’t capture everything that is happening. The map identifies industries using nanotechnology in the broad areas of electronics, energy and environmental applications, imaging and microscopy, tools and instruments, medicine and health, and materials. One important point here is that nanotechnology is as much about the tools needed to see and manipulate matter at the nanometer scale—electron microscopes and scanning force microscopes for instance—as it is about creating and using new materials.

Many nanotechnology applications rely on nanomaterials—materials that have been engineered with nanometer-scale structures. A lot of the nanomaterials currently in use are simply nanometer-scale forms of materials that have been used for many years—such as the Titanium Dioxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens. As a result, it is common to find companies with experience developing chemicals and materials using more traditional methods beginning to develop nanomaterials. At the same time, there are a number of smaller companies that are developing increasingly sophisticated and unique nanomaterials. These are often spun out of University-based nanotechnology research.

Approached to making nanomaterials are as diverse as the materials themselves. Some of the simplest nanomaterials are made by reacting chemicals together, either in a liquid—to produce suspensions of nanoparticles—or in a gas, essentially burning materials in a controlled manner to produce nanometer-scale particles. These are then collected, purified, and further processed before being added to products. At the other end of the spectrum, researchers are modifying viruses, and re-programming them to build nanomaterials. Recent research has led to new batteries that are based on virus-constructed electrodes. In between, there are many different ways of engineering matter to form nanostructured materials that can be used to add value to products.

5. What kinds of nanomaterials are appearing in consumer goods?

single-walled carbon nanotubes
(photo by Alex Parlini)

Most nanotechnology-enabled consumer products currently available rely on relatively simple nanomaterials. A survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies indicates that silver nanoparticles are one of the most the dominant nanomaterials currently in use, appearing as an antimicrobial agent in everything from clothing to cooking utensils. Carbon nanotubes—a unique form of carbon with unusual mechanical and electrical properties—is also appearing in a number of products, predominantly in sporting goods as a way to make them stronger and lighter. Nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are widely used in sunscreens and cosmetics, while silica nanoparticles are also being used in a number of products. There are also a number of products using “soft” nanomaterials, which rapidly fall apart when they have done their job. For instance, some cosmetics use nanometer scale liposomes—very small capsules containing specific materials—to deliver nutrients and other ingredients to the outer layers of the skin. These disintegrate when they reach their destination, delivering the encapsulated material to where it is needed.

With the exception of carbon nanotubes, these and other nanomaterials being used in consumer products tend to be nanostructured versions of materials that have been used for some time. However, over the next few years it is likely that increasingly sophisticated and complex nanomaterials will find uses in consumer products.

6. What are the negatives of nanotech?
Like any technology, nanotechnology has its pluses and minuses. These will generally be specific to different uses of nanotechnology. For instance, the potential downsides of a nanotechnology-enabled memory chip in an MP3 player will be very different from using nanoparticles in food.

Because of the new and unusual behavior of many engineered nanomaterials, questions have been raised about their safety. If something can be used in new ways, get to new places, or has new and unusual physical and chemical properties, it is reasonable to ask whether these might also lead to new ways of causing harm—either to humans or the environment. Evidence to date is sketchy, but it does suggest that some nanomaterials might cause harm in unexpected ways if exposure occurs. For some nanomaterials, their potential to cause harm will be negligible. In other situations, more care will need to be taken to ensure safe use—a lot depends on whether exposure is likely, and how toxic the material is. Common sense and current knowledge go a long way to reducing possible risks. But more work is still needed to determine the best ways of using these new materials as safely as possible.

Other concerns about nanotechnology are more social and ethical in nature. Will nanotechnology lead to personal rights being infringed—perhaps through ubiquitous surveillance? Who will benefit from these emerging technologies, and who will pay the price? At what point should the use of nanotechnology in enhancing human abilities be questioned?

7. Are there any health side-effects associate with nanotechnology? (e.g. carbon nanotubes causing lung cancer, unexpected in-vivo reactions)
Nanotechnology in and of itself does not lead to health impacts, simply because it is a toolbox of different techniques rather than one specific technology. However, some uses of nanotechnology could affect people’s health, if used inappropriately.

For a material to cause harm to humans, it must first get into the body. Once there, its toxicity will determine how severe any response is. A high exposure to a low toxicity material (and many nanomaterials will have a low toxicity) may result in a negligible impact. On the other hand, a low exposure to a highly-toxic material could cause a lot of damage.

Two materials that have been researched quite a bit are Titanium Dioxide nanoparticles, and carbon nanotubes. In both cases, the materials have been studied in cell cultures and in animals but not humans, and so estimating the toxicity of the materials to people is still a little difficult.

Research has shown that inhaled Titanium Dioxide nanoparticles are more toxic than larger particles of the same substance. In this case, size makes a difference it seems. However, as Titanium Dioxide has a very low toxicity to begin with, the nanoparticles—even though they appear to be more toxic—still seem to be reasonably safe.

Carbon nanotubes appear to be harmful if inhaled, but the harm seems to depend on the type of nanotubes—and there are many types of carbon nanotubes. Recent research has indicated that long, straight, stiff carbon nanotubes that look like asbestos fibers under the microscope, could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled. However, many types of carbon nanotubes don’t have the right shape for this to be a serious concern. Other research has shown that tangled clumps of carbon nanotubes could also harm the lungs if inhaled, although it unclear how much material is needed for harm to occur.

In both these cases, the critical factor is exposure. If exposures are low—either while making the materials or using products containing them—risks of health effects will also be low. The good news is that it seems exposure to carbon nanotubes probably will be low—this is a material that doesn’t readily become airborne as fine fibers. However, more research is needed to work out how low an exposure is low enough.

(more about nanomaterial safety)

8. What kinds of threats to the environment might nanotech pose? (e.g. metal oxide nanoparticle toxicity to fish and frogs)
It’s not clear how harmful different nanomaterials will be if they get out into the environment, although it is clear that some nanomaterials will be more harmful than others. Important questions: how much material, from where, whether it clumps up into larger particles, how far it is transported, and whether it changes as it moves through the environment–where it accumulates, how long it lasts…etc.

The good news is that nanoparticles from sources like fires and volcanic eruptions have been ubiquitous in the environment as long as living organisms have been around, and so they have evolved over time to deal with them. That said, no-one is quite sure how the environment will respond to engineered nanomaterials—especially precisely engineered nanoparticles.

One particular potential threat that has already been raised concerns the use of nano-silver in products. Silver is very effective at killing microbes, which is why it is being used in an increasing number of products. But it is also highly toxic to a number of organisms as well as microbes. What is not clear at present is what the impact of silver nanoparticles washed out of products and into the environment might be. The amounts used may be low enough for the impact to be negligible—or they may not. It’s a question that can’t be answered well without more information on how much nano-silver is being used, where it is being used.

9. Who regulates nanotechnology products?
There is no one agency or organization that regulates nanotechnology products. Rather, they are regulated according to the type of product. For instance, the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for drugs, food additives and cosmetics that contain engineered nanomaterials. The Consumer Protection Safety Commission covers consumer product safety. The US Department of Agriculture covers food safety—except where FDA has jurisdiction. And the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for chemicals and pesticides. Each part of this patchwork of regulations and regulatory agencies has different levels of regulatory authority when it comes to nanotechnology products.

10. How much is still not known about the safety of nanotech products, and what needs to be done to fill in the gaps?
From a scientific perspective, there is still a tremendous amount that we don’t know about how to develop and use nanotechnology products safely. Specific research questions that need answers have been raised by a number of organizations, including the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the US government National Nanotechnology Initiative. There is broad agreement that if nanotechnology is to succeed—and succeed safely—there needs to be a major strategic research program that identifies and fills the outstanding research gaps. This will require a clear set of goals and objectives, additional research funding, and greater coordination between the organizations that fund research, and those that use the information to ensure material and product safety.

That said, we are not starting out with a blank slate when it comes to using nanotechnology products safely. Knowledge from other materials can be used to reduce potential risks in many cases, and existing regulations can be applied to nanomaterials—although their implementation may be less than perfect. However, strategic research will be essential to underpin the long-term safety of increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based materials and products.

11. What kinds of recycling challenges are there for nanotech materials?
What about nanolitter?
Recycling nanotechnology products presents a number of challenges. First, there is the problem of stuff that isn’t recycled, either because no-one thinks about it, or because including nanomaterials in a product makes recycling difficult. This leads to the possibility of nanomaterials being released into the environment, as products are disposed of in landfills and slowly degrade, or are incinerated.

Where nanotechnology products are recycled there are two challenges: Is it worth attempting to extract and reuse the nanotechnology components of the products, and how might this be done; and does the inclusion of a nanomaterial in a product make conventional recycling harder? To illustrate this second point, imagine nanoparticles of some substance were added to plastic bottles to make them perform better, but that these nanoparticles interfered with the quality of material recycled from conventional plastic bottles. Would it be better to separate out the nano and non-nano bottles, and how would that be achieved in practice. The first challenge is perhaps a little easier to address, as it is unlikely that nanomaterials could be recycled from nanotechnology products in a useable state. Rather, it is more likely that the substances forming the nanomaterials—the silver in nano-silver socks for example—would be reclaimed and used to form new nanomaterials.

12. What are some of the future uses for nanotechnology? How likely is a nano-fabricator (a machine that builds on the nanotech level)?
The next few decades will most likely see some tremendous advances that are based in part on controlling matter at the nanometer scale. These could well include new forms of generating and storing energy; lighter stronger materials; targeted cancer treatments; treatments for degenerative diseases; efficient ways to purify water; faster more powerful computers; computers that run on light, not electricity; biological organisms that are programmed to make new materials and devices; metamaterials that channel light in highly unusual ways. We will definitely see a shift from the rather simple nanomaterials being used today to increasingly complex multifunctional nanomaterials. And associated with this will be an increasingly sophisticated suite of instruments for observing and manipulating the world at the nanoscale.

Based on current research, there will further advances in developing new molecules and nanoscale systems that mimic or reflect what happens in biology (biology, after all, operates very effectively at the nanoscale). These will move us closer to building new materials and devices molecule by molecule. But the end result will be much closer to conventional chemistry or biology than the ‘nano-fabricator’—a speculative machine that can construct complex products out of their constituent atoms, much like the replicators of Star Trek.

13. How can we prevent future problems with nanotechnology? (e.g. the ‘grey goo’ problem)
Nanotechnology will come with its own set of problems—just as every technology preceding it has. The trick here will be to have the foresight to spot the problems before they get too large and to navigate a course around them. This task will require strategic research to address plausible issues, and ways of translating the results of this research into proactive action.

Even with such an approach, there will be missteps. But hopefully, with the right strategies in place, corrective action will be able to taken fast enough to prevent either major human health or environmental impacts, or the hopes of nanotechnology to address critical challenges being dashed.

In the long term, there may be challenges that are outside our current ability to comprehend the potential dangers, and how to avoid them. Not self-replicating nanobots perhaps—the so-called ‘grey goo’ that is more science fantasy than science fact—but other technological breakthroughs that take us places unimaginable a few years ago. The only way to deal with such challenges is to develop institutions that are sufficiently fleet-footed and forward-looking to respond to the challenges as they come over the horizon.

The one thing we cannot afford to do is to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the potential of nanotechnology to do great good and possibly great harm.

Dr. Andrew D. Maynard has testified before Congress on nanotech issues, and currently is the Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center for Scholars, a division of the Smithsonian. You can see his full bio here.

Other resources on Nanotechnology and the Environment
* Environmental Defense Fund recently started a blog
* Article from Science Daily

When I started covering the environment in the mid-seventies, very few media outlets had full-time reporters on the environmental story. Television paid little attention, except for catastrophes. Even The New York Times didn’t let me cover it full-time until Reagan, Watt and Gorsuch turned it into a political issue. By the 80s, most media had at least one environmental reporter–including TV. Environmental reporting became much more knowledgeable and sophisticated. But media managers, to whom the environment was an unfamiliar issue, tended to treat the stories with skepticism, influenced probably by complaints from polluting advertisers.

2. Has the economy affected good environmental reporting?

In recent years, as economic troubles have piled up for the media, environmental coverage is often the first thing dropped. CNN, for example, which set the pass for broadcast coverage of the issues for years, got rid of its entire environmental staff recently. The NYTimes, however, seems to be bucking the trend, have just formed and environment and health team.

3. How have you seen the media shift in the last 40 years or so in how the media covers environmental issues?

I wrote my first story on global warming in 1978. It was held for months and then printed near the back of the Saturday paper, about as deep as The New York Times can bury a piece. I used to have to fight with editors to get global warming stories in the paper. The evidence was clear from the beginning, but only in recent years has the skepticism of editors eased. Now it appears to be the single most covered environmental story. Unfortunately, few other issues get the same kind of sustained coverage these days, particularly issues involving health and the environment.

4. What are the biggest problems with media coverage of ‘green’ topics today?

There’s not enough of it.

5. Does the way the media views environmentalism do any damage?

Only in places like Fox news which distort the story through an ideological prism.

6. What do you consider the most trusted media sources for environmental coverage?

The NYTimes, The Washington Post, NPR, and Bill Moyers.

7. What is the most egregious error you see over and over in environmental reporting?

The misguided striving for balance–on one hand…and on the other hand when there is no other hand. It is everywhere, but especially on global warming where the “skeptics,” most of them paid by industry, always have their say even though the evidence is overwhelming against them. Balance in journalism is commendable, but not when it is at the expense of truth. That is a grievous disservice to the public.

8. Is there an environmental topic you wish would get more media attention?

Indeed there is. The impact of chemicals, heavy metals, and nuclear contamination on the environment, and especially on human health, is an enormously underplayed story. The toxification of the environment is as great a threat to the future viability of life on earth as global warming, probably greater. But it is getting scant attention in the media, certainly not as much as it deserves.

9. Does this relate to your current work?

I just co-authored a book with my wife showing that toxics in the environment are helping generate an epidemic of chronic illness among America’s children. But we are all at risk; kids are our canary in the coal mine. It seems we are finally going to address the climate change issue. We cannot wait another 30 years to stop the toxification of the environment.

10. Environmental reporting is often undertaken to effect change. Have you seen certain methods work better than others?

The best is good investigative reporting that exposes misdeeds by industry or government that harm the public.

11. Earth day was last week. Is there a vision there that you saw undertaken in 1970 that you think is still being carried forward? Or has some sight been lost in that regard?

The first Earth Day took place at a time of social ferment and citizen activism: the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the anti-war movement. That social and political climate gave substantial impetus to the environmental movement and put pressure on government to act. The public reacted strongly to the Reagan administration’s effort to roll back environmental progress. Since then, however, the country has become more subdued on social issues, nowhere more than on the environment. The goals of Earth Day remain, but the impetus behind them has slackened, I believe.

12. Do you have a favorite, reliable, thorough reporter who could use more attention?

One of the most solid environmental reporters year in and year out is Ken Ward of the Charleston (WVA) Gazette.

13. Do you have opinions about the new environmental channels and media services?

I was founder and first publisher of Greenwire back in 1991, and it is still going strong–better than ever, I think. Environmental Health News, a service of the Collaborative on Health and the Environment, also does an excellent, comprehensive digest of environmental news every day.

Philip Shabecoff has covered environmental issues for decades. His books on the issues include Earth Rising, A Fierce Green Fire, and his most recent, Poisoned Profits. Shabecoff spoke on C-Span’s Book TV in February 2009.

1. What was the hardest endangered species story you’ve had to cover–hardest emotionally?

Tough question. I became really attached to the Sumatran rhinos, and between seeing the massive deforestation in Indonesia and knowing that those big, beautiful creatures are being wiped off the planet just for their horns…it really is infuriating. Similarly, lemurs are a favorite of mine, and when you see whole forests disappearing so quickly from Madagascar to make room for mines or to be turned into charcoal, you know countless irreplaceable animals are disappearing with them. It’s extremely frustrating.

2. Were there stories/species for ‘Loneliest Animals’ that you wanted to do but couldn’t facilitate, or didn’t have anything you could film in conjunction with them? (I’m thinking of animals like the saola–where there are hardly any, but no one can find them?)

Yes, there were actually many animals like this. One was the Javan rhino, which is extremely rare. From camera traps we know there are a handful in Vietnam, and there is a small protected population in Ujung Kulon National Park in Indonesia. They are rarely seen, though, so it would have been very difficult for us to film them. In any case, there have been repeated instances where the rhinos have learned to avoid camera traps and several times have destroyed them. Apparently, they don’t like to be photographed.

3. What is considered a sustainable population for an endangered species? Is there a different figure for birds, mammals, etc?

This is a tough question and not everyone agrees on the answer. Scientists have suggested that anywhere from 50 to 500 individuals are required to have a viable population, but of course this varies from species to species, depending on the frequency of their breeding cycles, number of offspring, dependency on the mother, lifespan, etc. In many cases, this number is irrelevant anyway as conservationists are forced to work with what we have left. I haven’t met anyone yet who is going to give up just because they think there are too few survivors to save a species.

4. There’s an obvious nature vs. nurture debate with the activities of reclaiming endangered species. In your observations and research, how much do most species retain, hard-wired, of their own survival mechanisms?

This is an ongoing and very interesting debate. Are captive-born and raised animals suitable for release into the wild and do they require “training” to survive? Again this varies from species to species. Some animals learn important skills from their parents, like which predators to avoid, how to find food, etc. The National Zoo had a very successful program to build up and release a population of golden lion tamarins in Brazil, and they had a kind of “boot camp” to teach the captive-born primates to survive in the wild. However, they quickly determined that the boot camp was unnecessary and the tamarins seemed to take to life in the wild without any problems. The Duke Lemur Center also did a test release of black-and-white ruffed lemurs and they also were pretty successful. One of the most amazing examples of hardwired behavior was when the female rafetus turtle was put in the male’s pond in Suzhou. This male is 100 years old, has lived alone maybe all his life and has possibly never encountered a female. But the minute he detected a female in the water, he knew exactly what to do.

5. Did you encounter any species that have to be managed in zoos because they simply wouldn’t/can’t survive in their former environments?

Yes. One example is the Panamanian golden frog, which is kept in captivity now because almost all of its former habitat is either being cleared or is infested with a frog-killing fungus called chytrid. Right now there is no place for this frog to live other than in captivity. Another example is the kakapo in New Zealand. They’re big, flightless birds that are kept in isolation on an island off the southern coast. They have an intensive breeding program going year-round to keep this species alive, but these birds evolved without any defenses against cats and other species humans have introduced to the main islands of New Zealand. So the program is keeping the birds alive, but without serious protection there is almost no chance they could survive outside their protected island.

6. What is the most promising method you’ve seen for recovery of an endangered species to a manageable size?

Fish and Wildlife Service’s black-footed ferret program has been very successful in terms of rebuilding a population from very few animals. The California condor is another success story, and in the Galapagos, a captive breeding program restored the Española tortoise from 14 animals to over a thousand. So, a combination of intensive captive breeding with increased protection and awareness of the animals’ natural environment can definitely work.

7. You also have covered population collapse. Are we seeing more of this?

Population collapse in general? Yes. The forests are still shrinking, prairie and swamplands are being converted for agriculture. The more the human population explodes, the less room there is for everyone else. If you’re referring to colony collapse disorder of bees, yes we’re still seeing this. Many of the studies on CCD have revealed a wealth of new information about bees and the various factors that may be causing the collapse, but so far no one has pinpointed a single cause.

8. A lot of organizations have different plans for bringing back endangered species…like the zoo species survival plans and EDF’s ‘Back from the Brink’ plan. Have you noticed a particular method or organization being more successful than another?

The Species Survival Plans (SSPs) for different species utilize the expertise and facilities of many different zoos, and some of the work they’re doing is extremely impressive. I can’t say one organization is more successful than another, but we were all very impressed with the work being done at the National Zoo’s captive breeding center. They’re doing artificial inseminations on everything from black-footed ferrets to Przewalski’s horses to clouded leopards. It really is a high-tech Noah’s ark.

9. What do you see as the key or crux action (or, rather, first action) to slowing the number of species that go extinct? Is it environmental protection or sequestering populations?

Without environmental protection there really is no hope for these animals. No matter how many we produce in captivity, if they have nowhere to go, they won’t survive.

10. What are your opinions on the idea of, in the future, if technology develops to this point, cloning from the tissues of extinct animals?

Well, I certainly hope it doesn’t come to that. There is already a tissue bank in England where they are storing samples from endangered animals for this very purpose. Again, if we don’t stop destroying the last wild places on Earth where these animals evolved and where they need to live, bringing them back to life in a lab won’t serve any purpose other than to create curiosities for humans to gawk at. It won’t be about creating sustainable populations. I mean, I’d like to see a living woolly mammoth as much as the next guy, but do we have room on the planet for them?

11. Of the stories you had in “Loneliest”, which was the most heartening/hopeful? Can you make any comparisons between ‘Bees’ and ‘Loneliest’?

One of the most heartening things was seeing the spirit of stewardship that has taken over in the villages around the Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary. Seeing the kids sing songs about the Sumatran rhino and performing Sumatran rhino dances — this is a direct result of the outreach work the Sanctuary is doing. And it gave me hope that the kids in this region are going to grow up with a real appreciation for the rhinos and will want to help ensure their survival.

Comparing ‘Loneliest’ to ‘Bees’, people related to ‘Silence of the Bees’ because first of all, few people realized how complex and fascinating bees are but also no one was really aware of how important they are in terms of what we eat. When you tell people no bees = no food, they pay attention.

In the case of ‘Loneliest Animals’, it’s easier for people to say well, extinction is a natural phenomenon, and besides, how does the loss of lemurs affect me? It’s a much harder personal connection to make, because it’s much more complicated.

12. Since you wrapped filming on ‘Loneliest Animals’, have there been any new developments?

Yes. The eggs that many suspected Lonesome George had fathered turned out to be infertile. So he may have made himself a little less “lonely” with one of the females in his pen, but so far, no offspring. Also, my favorite lemur, Titus, died of cancer in October, so there are no more golden-crowned sifakas in captivity. On a brighter note, the turtle crew in China discovered that the female rafetus’ diet before coming to Suzhou was nutritionally poor, which may be the reason that about half of her eggs were too brittle to survive. Since last summer they’ve been feeding her a much better, calcium-rich diet, and they plan to reintroduce the male and female in May. Everyone is pretty optimistic that by the end of summer, we’ll have a new generation of baby giant Yangtze soft-shell turtles.

13. Are you going to continue to follow the stories you have already produced films on? Are
you working on other stories in the same vein, or do you need a break from this topic?

I would like to keep working on other projects along this same vein, because there are so many similar stories and they’re fascinating and complex. We’ve received such an overwhelming reaction to ‘Loneliest Animals’ already, and I think it’s because people expect conservation-oriented films to be boring. It’s nice to be able to surprise people by giving them adventure, science, natural history and conservation all at once.

Read an earlier interview with Shultz here, from when he shot Silence of the Bees for Nature.

1. When you wrote “500 places”, what was the time-frame you envisioned for the “disappearing” aspect?

Some destinations in the book are in more imminent danger than others, certainly. The time frame I had in mind was more like within the next seven years–provided nothing was done to save them. That’s an important clause.

2. Are there any destinations in the book which have already disappeared?

There are a few sights that have already been irreparably damaged, just to establish the point that sights do disappear. For example, there’s the Buddhas of Bamiyan, in Afghanistan, ancient sacred figures which the Taliban deliberately blew up in 2001. There’s a plan to replace them, but even if they’re rebuilt with fragments of the originals, they will still be only replicas.
Also of note: Pompey’s Pillar, in Billings, Montana, a rock formation that bears the only physical evidence of the Lewis & Clark expedition. The formation’s still there, but the sweeping Yellowstone Valley panorama that Lewis & Clark admired is now marred by a hulking set of high-speed grain elevators, which local activists tried and failed to prevent. It’s a sobering truth that sometimes the environmentalists fail.

3. Did you balance those with any success stories?

Yes, several destinations in the book were included not because they are in danger, but because they successfully preserve a species or an ecosystem that is threatened elsewhere. For example, I feature several beaches where the dwindling population of piping plovers still nest safely. Although the great sweeping prairielands of North America have largely disappeared, I directed readers to several small preserves across the U.S. where the prairie ecosystem has been wonderfully resurrected.

4. Since the book was published (in late 2008), have there been any new successes?

In January, the U.S. government ordered the modification or removal of 4 hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon, thus restoring a crucial system for salmon and bald eagles. Also, I’ve read that the Egyptian government has taken steps to clear out the welter of souvenir stands and tour hustlers from the vicinity of the Great Pyramids.

5. Have there been any situations where the situation has gotten worse?

Well, soon after the book was published, the state of Florida announced that it was planning to buy back 181,000 acres of Everglades land from U.S. Sugar to restore the “river of grass” ecosystem. Since then, Florida’s budget crisis caused the governor to scale back the deal radically. That was a huge disappointment for environmentalists.

6. What percentage of the endangered destinations in the book are threatened by human actions?

It’s almost impossible to separate the man-made causes from the natural causes. Rising river levels in Europe, for example, which have endangered historic cities such as Florence and Prague – they’re impacted by climate change, which is to some degree cyclical but is also heightened by pollution and global warming. And deforestation of agricultural lands across central Europe has only exacerbated the problem.

7. Why did you include manmade sights – cities, historic buildings, cultural artifacts – alongside natural landscapes and animal species?

As I researched this book, it became clear that the creations of civilization were often threatened by the same forces that were destroying natural landscapes. I keep coming back to the spectre of the Hurricane Katrina devastation (another example, by the way, of a disaster caused both by natural forces and by human error).

8. What are some of the places in the Eastern Seaboard/Mid-Atlantic States/New England area that most concern you?

I have a personal attachment to the Adirondacks, which I first visited as a child visiting my grandfather’s cabin. With such a huge inter-related water system, it’s a constant struggle to prevent the invasion of non-native species. And as widespread as that protected area is, it’s still at the mercy of acid rain and rising mercury levels in the water. The loon population – which is what biologists call a “sentinel species,” reflecting the health of the entire food chain – is increasingly impacted by those stresses to the whole ecosystem.

9. Anything even more local to NYC?

The jury is still out on whether the historic amusements of Coney Island will be saved. The Wonder Wheel and the Cyclone are still in operation, but Astroland closed down in 2008. Beyond being an iconic 20th-century cultural scene, that was just a really cool small-scale place to take the kids on a summer afternoon. It makes me incredibly sad to think of it being swept away by real-estate redevelopment.

10. How do you reconcile the idea of urging readers to visit sights that are being damaged by too much tourism?

It’s a vexing question. The Galapagos Islands, for example, are worth seeing because their isolation preserved several unique ecosystems – the number of endemic species there is just amazing. But with so many visitors these days, the threat of non-native species is sharply on the rise. I still think it’s an important destination for anyone who cares about the environment, but if you’re going to visit, travel only with responsible tour companies that consider the environmental impact of their visits.

11. What about local authorities that over-exploit their own tourist attractions?

There certainly have been instances of mismanagement in places like Machu Picchu, Angkor Wat, and Pompeii, all of which show the strain of too much tourism. Their local economies have grown so dependent on the tourist trade, however, that I don’t want to discourage travelers from going there. What we can do is to visit such sites more thoughtfully. Instead of taking your own car, go with a group tour. Go early in the morning or late afternoon when the crowds have eased off. Stay overnight near the sight so you can patronize local hotels and restaurants. And for goodness’ sake, respect rules about staying on paths and not touching artifacts.

12. Are there other destinations in the book that have been more thoughtfully managed?

I am impressed by what’s been done at the Acropolis – its new museum protects several original structures, which were being damaged by Athens’ air pollution. It’s not quite the same as seeing all the originals in place on the hilltop, but the replicas on the outdoor site are hard to tell from the originals. Stonehenge is another example – it was amazing in the old days when you could walk right up to the standing stones, but I’m still moved by the site, even though visitors are now kept at a distance. These are trade-offs we have to accept.

13. What do you hope your readers will take away from your book?

Don’t take anything for granted – the landscapes and historic buildings that are here today may not be here tomorrow, so see them now. And use your tourist dollars to support environmental change. Getting off the beaten path at a national park or nature preserve can be the highlight of your vacation, and will change you in ways you never expected.

Holly Hughes writes about travel for Frommer’s travel guides.

The series, 8 half-hours, is very first TV series dealing with environmental issues. Each episode analyzes an ecosystem that was (and sometimes still is) being threatened as the result of man’s decisions; frequently, big business decisions.

The films were shot by renowned nature photographer Shelly Grossman, and written by environmental writer Mary Louise Grossman. The footage of animals in the wild is spectacular; the tone of the program unflinching. The series was based on their 1969 book of the same name.

Topics covered:

* How the growing water demands of South Florida’s population explosion meant drastic changes for Everglades wildlife
* A look at the effects of a large oil spill and pesticide runoff on Santa Barbara’s local oceanic wildlife
* What the proposed effects of the Alaska Pipeline would have on the animals that lived amongst the construction (the project was completed 7 years after broadcast)
* An examination of development around Pyramid Lake, Nevada
* How the animals on the American Prairies were fairing, population-wise: coyotes, bison, prairie dogs, and even black-footed ferrets–before they were declared extinct in the wild; then brought back from the brink in the last decade
* more

1. What is the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and what kind of work do you do there?

WHOI is a nonprofit institution dedicated to understanding marine science and engineering, and dedicated to gaining the best understanding about how the ocean works. At WHOI, we think of the ocean as a big manufacturing plant and we figure out what goes on in the plant. We’ve been around since 1930, and we have 150 scientists that work on different projects. We’re trying to figure out what happens to the ocean.

2. What is the greatest threat to the ocean around New York and the eastern seaboard now?

It’s question of scale and time. If you’re in Long Island, the biggest threat in the short term might be algal bloom, or it may be these places where there’s no oxygen in the ocean and fish can’t breathe.

A brown tide (algal bloom) near Long Island; the blue water is Block Island Sound.
( photo by L. Cosper, 1986)

In the long term, we’re not quite sure what the sea level rise will affect, what ongoing climate changes will affect. These are questions of extreme debate. It’s hard to tell. In terms of things that are tangible to the lay person, we certainly have a problem in Long Island Sound, thanks to the runoff from the overuse of fertilizer. What happens is that the natural populations of bacteria in the Sound will eat all the fertilizer and food that is overproduced. It’s like too many drops of Miracle-Gro are going into the ocean. The bacteria and algae population grows astronomically. The ocean has oxygen in it, but it will run out, and you end up with fish kills. This has to do with how much fertilizer goes on our grass, or runoff from our septic systems.

3. Large cities like New York have a profound effect on the marine environments around them. We all know that industrial pollution damages ocean ecosystems, but what other threats to the ocean come out of cities?

In the grand scheme of things, there’s more oil that enters our coastal environment from urban runoff than from oil spills out in the ocean. You know that black patch of oil that runs down the middle of the road all over New York City? That gets washed off in the rain, into the sewers and finally the ocean. So the end result is that there’s a significant load of oil in the ocean from urban runoff. Cars by themselves cause a lot of pollution and runoff.

4. Are there any other “dead zones” in the ocean around New York City or the Eastern
Seaboard?

There may be, but not on the scale of the dead zones in Long Island Sound.

5. Climate change is supposed to wreak havoc on ocean currents, especially the movement of warm and cold water — how will New York City’s temperature zone be affected by climate changes in the ocean?

Cold water is denser than warm water. Melting sea ice and warmer water is actually less dense and takes up a greater volume, causing a rise in sea levels. One of the problems that people struggle with is that 1 to 2 degree changes in water temperature are subtle and hard to grasp, but these are huge factors. It’s a big deal, because that’s a lot of heat. Think about trying to heat up water in a pot, and the amount of energy and heat it takes to do that. Now think about the amount of heat and energy it takes to raise the temperature of the ocean. These temperature changes impact how the ice will melt, the density of water, and the rise in sea levels.

6. There’s a lot of buzz lately about the melting of glaciers, and their effect on sea levels. How severe is this problem, and how does it affect coastal cities like New York?

Low-lying regions are going to affected by sea-level rise, and there are erosional issues as well. (See a map of New York land areas vulnerable to sea level rise). Sea level rise takes land away. You’re going to have a greater impact of sea level rise in coastal areas because the water’s close in already.

7. How has the Atlantic ecosystem changed over time as urban populations have grown?

Over time, over-fishing has upset the natural balance of the ecosystem. Humans are playing around at the bottom of the food web by affecting algae that’s being made, and we’re tinkering at the top by over-fishing, and the end result is that we have fish population problems.

8. What kinds of new initiatives, public or private, are happening to help clean up marine environments?

Right now, we have geo-engineering going on — scientists and thinkers are getting together all over the world to try to figure out some way to manipulate the ocean to fix some of these problems. Large meetings are happening to talk about geo-engineering as we speak, dealing with the concept of cleaning the ocean. Trying to neutralize the acidification of the ocean because of CO2 emissions is a daunting task. Right now, the only thing we can do is to stop putting stuff in.

9. Some people might say: “I don’t live in the ocean. Why should I care about what happens out there in the ocean?” How would you respond?

What I would point out is how much the ocean regulates our climate. I would take them to a map, and put my finger on northern Europe, and have them tell me the average temperature in that latitude. Then if I slide my finger over to central Canada, I’ll find a significantly colder region. The ocean does a huge job of regulating the temperature of the coastal areas and inland. The reason why people move to coastal areas is because it’s warmer in the summer, and less cold during the winter. When you mess with the ocean, you affect the climate.

10. Does economic advancement have an adverse effect on ocean environments?
For example: Is the ocean worse off around more developed cities like New York, as opposed to a cities in the Third World?

A lot of emerging nations don’t have the same pollution controls as the Western world. I think some of these rapidly industrializing countries should look at how they affect the environment as they grow. Ideally, they want to grow rapidly as a Western society, but do it cleaner. They can say to themselves, “Here’s our chance to grow and explode, but we’re going to grow and leave behind less of an imprint than the U.S. or Britain,” for example.

11. Do you think the American government is doing enough to protect and preserve marine environments?

I would say no. I would say all the research that’s going to manned space flight should be turned around to do the work of NASA’s research on how the ocean works. We should be doing some triage about how we use NASA assets. Some of these satellites are finding data about the ocean that a million ships can’t. Think about a patient in the hospital. All we can do right now is tell people its pulse and its blood pressure. In order to understand how the ocean is behaving, we need to see the sea from below and above. I would argue as Chris Reddy, oceanographer, that I would devote many of NASA’s assets to studying the earth, not the solar system.

12. What about municipal governments, like in New York and Boston? Are they doing enough to protect the ocean?

It’s difficult right now to expect much. I think education is the best place to start. I would try to do as much education as possible about the ocean and the best way to add clarity to issues like climate change.

13. So aside from recycling, are there things that the average New York City person can do to help the ocean?

In reality, use less energy. It all comes down to energy. We’re in a struggle to keep CO2 levels down. For instance - do you really need to use that much shampoo? Most shampoo comes from petroleum, and it has to be processed, and transported, creating more CO2 in the atmosphere and more pollutants in the ocean. Think about every time you use toothpaste or lotion — all these little things add up. To me, I think we can start to save energy on a scale of 25% based on efficiency. It’s all about energy. We have to get energy from fossil fuels like coal, and then coal releases mercury into the ocean. If you burn something you make CO2, which acidifies the ocean, which impacts shellfish adversely. I would say conserve energy, and use less of everything.

For more on Reddy, go here. Please note that Dr. Reddy’s opinions in this Q&A do not necessarily reflect those of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.