Olivia Cevasco
24 September, 2020
AP Biology - C EVEN
Current Event 1
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
The article “A Forecast for a Warming World: Live to Learn with Fire” explains that California’s wildfires are the direct result of the state’s record-breaking heat and drought conditions (due to climate change) which cause fuels, such as underbrush, to dry out, making them more likely to burn. There have been over 8,000 wildfires in California so far this year that have burned over 3.7 million acres of land.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
In the past three years, the number and intensity of the wildfires in California have increased. So Thomas Fuller and Kendra Pierre-Louis raise the question: ‘How do we live in an ecosystem that is primed to burn?’ and offer a solution: prescribed burns. Prescribed burns could prevent wildfires by clearing out underbrush, such as grasses and shrubs, that cause extreme fires when they are overgrown, as was the case this year. Prescribed burns are also more cost-effective than fire suppression, with $30 to $35 is spent per acre in a prescribed burn, while it costs about $1,000 dollars per acre to put out a wildfire. Furthermore, scientists discovered that if a wildfire does occur in a site of a prescribed burn, the fire is far less intense. A senior wildlife biologist for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Nathan Klaus, explained that a fires that occur after a prescribed burn go "from a 20- to 30-foot breaking front to two to three feet.” Prescribed burns are necessary to prevent extreme wildfires because they are cost effective and save lives.
As a California native, I fully understand the severity of the past years’ wildfires. I know what it’s like to wake up and smell smoke in your house even though no windows or doors are open and the fire is hundreds of miles away. In 2018, my grandmother was evacuated from her home in Napa in the middle of the night, a helicopter flying low over her neighborhood blaring evacuation orders. The Partrick fire came within 200 feet of her home. This year, I’ve had friends who had to stay inside for over a month--not even because of coronavirus--because the air quality index was over 250 from the smoke. With that much particulate matter in the air, the inhalation of smoke is equivalent to smoking 20 packs of cigarettes each day. Smoke from wildfires can worsen pre-existing conditions like asthma and cause long-term effects such as lung cancer.
I decided to review this article for two reasons. First, I want to understand the solutions to California’s wildfire crisis, and second, I felt that this topic ties into our recent study of ecology. While Thomas Fuller and Kendra Pierre-Louis provided a strong argument about the severity of the fires as well as the solutions, they could have furthered the reader’s understanding of the issue by explaining the long-term effects of smoke on health (I had previous knowledge of that). The journalists should have explained that California’s fires aren’t a short term issue; these fires are causing potentially deadly long-term health effects in humans and animals and reshaping California’s ecosystems and geography as a whole.
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
ReplyDeleteCevasco, Olivia. “How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires.” Blogspot.Com, 23 Sept. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-can-reduce.html#comment-form. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
In Olivia’s response to the New York Times Article, “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live with Fire '', I really enjoyed how she wrote about her own personal experiences with wildfires. In her review, she writes, “I know what it’s like to wake up and smell smoke in your house even though no windows or doors are open and the fire is hundreds of miles away.” As a native New York, I have never experienced or know anyone who has first-hand experienced the wildfires in California, so I thought it was very effective for Olivia to write about the emotions she felt while living through them in California. Not only this, I liked how she included the fact that prescribed burns cost $35 per acre, while putting out a wildfire costs $1000 per acre to extinguish. This was a key piece of information for this review because it adds evidence to why prescribed burning should be used way more often, even from the point of view of an economist, who usually disagrees with environmentalists. Finally, I thought that including the picture of the wildfires in her review was very influential as a reader. The picture really brought the review together, adding a visual aspect to her vivid descriptions of the negative effects of the wildfires. I think it is important as a writer to give the reader a visual component because it helps the reader digest the information better, and in this case, the picture helps add dramatic effect to the severity of the environmental crisis going on in California.
One area of weakness in Olivia’s review was the lack of scientific substance. In their review, I felt that there was a lack of evidence used to explain why wildfires are harmful to the ecosystem and the environment. While there was much said in support on how to solve this problem, the review rarely explained why this was a problem passed the point of human consequence. I would have loved to hear more about the effect it takes on the local community in California and how it affects species interactions and energy flow of the ecosystem. Another area of weakness in Olivia’s review was her connection to society. While her stories were very interesting, they did not provide much context for California wildfires. I think it would have been beneficial to add on to these stories by explaining the overall impact on California, the animals, and the impact on surrounding states.
After reading this review, I learned that prescribed burns are the short-term solution to this growing problem. The real root of this problem is climate change, perpetuated by human choices. We choose to emit tons of carbon into the atmosphere, instead of converting to renewable energy. We know the consequences of climate change, like increased severity of wildfires, but we do not change at a pace necessary to correct this problem. The problem is affecting everyone. Olivia’s grandma came too close to the blazing fire than anyone should ever have to, and many more people lost their homes and livelihoods to the fires. Even in New York, less severe consequences affect us, such as the recent cold weather. This review has changed my perspective on the effect of climate change because it added a human side to it. I personally am not directly affected by climate change, however, there are people who suffer the consequences every day in California, and that should never happen.
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
ReplyDeletehttps://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-can-reduce.html
In her review of the article “A Forecast for a Warming World: Live to Learn with Fire” Olivia provides a well-written summary and critique of the New York Times publication. While reading her review, several aspects of her writing stuck out to me. For example, Olivia employs strategic and distinct figures that signify the importance of the article’s contents. In her first paragraph, Olivia emphasizes the fact that “There have been over 8,000 wildfires in California so far this year that have burned over 3.7 million acres of land.” She then includes a picture of the raging wildfires directly below this statistic, making the data seem even more real and alarming. I thought that this was very well done on her part because it makes the reader understand just how grave the situation is out west by providing a detailed and graphic image. Another aspect of her review that I think Olivia did an exceptional job on was her description of the solution offered by the authors of the original article. Although her description of the information offered in the article was somewhat brief, it was succinct and got the point across to the reader while sparing them of having to dig through the article themselves for the important information. She was strategic in her employment of key phrases and facts from the original article, for example when she stated that “...$30 to $35 is spent per are in a prescribed burn, while it costs about $1,000 to put out a wildfire.” By including this figure, Olivia was able to emphasize one of the key ideas presented in the article without including too much information from the original article. Perhaps the best part of Olivia’s review in my opinion was her personal connection to the events currently going on out west. Prior to reading her review, I hadn’t known that Olivia was originally from California so hearing her personal connection to the horrific events really made her review more meaningful and genuine. When she included personal anecdotes such as knowing what it’s like to “wake up and smell smoke in your house even though no windows or doors are open and the fire is hundreds of miles away.” This personal anecdote had a strong impact on me as a reader because I was able to put a face to this experience. I have been fortunate enough to never have this kind of experience so I can only imagine how scary it is to wake up and immediately inhale the scent of smoke. (1/2)
Although her review was exceptional in many areas, I found a few small areas for improvement in the review. One area in which I feel this review could be improved is in the initial description of prescribed burns. There is no formal description of what a prescribed burn is, and though the reader is able to figure out the concept through context clues and the statistics later provided in the review, I think that a short definition at the beginning of the discussion of the article would have been beneficial because it doesn’t force the reader to guess what a prescribed burn. Another area for improvement in her review is the analysis of the Nathan Klaus quote at the end of the first paragraph. One suggestion that I would offer is to briefly describe what a breaking front is after quoting the article in order to make it more clear to the reader. I think that a crystal clear understanding of this term would make the readers understanding of the analysis more impactful.
ReplyDeleteOne fact from the article that Olivia stated in her review that I found to be particularly interesting was the fact that over 3.7 million acres of land have been burned in just the past year alone. As humans we can only fully understand numbers of a certain capacity so hearing this fact was especially shocking. Reading this fact not only in the article but in the review as well really drove home the devastating fact and made it all the more impactful. To think that we live in a world where these fires are not only devastating but also somewhat common is a depressing thought to say the least, and hopefully reforms will be put in place in order to limit these fires to the best of our abilities without interfering with the environment to the point where it is no longer beneficial. (2/2)
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With
ReplyDeleteFire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
Cevasco, Olivia. “How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires.” Blogspot.Com, 23
Sept. 2020,
bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-can-reduce.html#comment-form. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
Olivia handled her response to the article, “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire” extremely well. The wildfires are a nuanced, complicated, and nuanced topic which she summarized and described accurately. I especially appreciated Olivia’s early use of hard numerical data in her response to truly emphasize the extent to which these fires have affected California. She wrote “There have been over 8,000 wildfires in California so far this year that have burned over 3.7 million acres of land.” It is important to not downsize or downplay the extent to which these fires have hurt the ecosystem, and Olivia’s use of numbers that are astonishing (and accurate) achieved this well. I also think Olivia chose her quotes well. She only used one, and yet it summarizes the article perfectly. “‘How do we live in an ecosystem that is primed to burn?’” This is the main question that the article she reviewed was trying to answer, and by choosing this as her only quote directly from the article, Olivia was able to make her point more clearly. She also integrated this quote well, by following it with the answer prescribed by the article: prescribed burns. Lastly, Olivia obviously chose her article extremely well. Her personal connection to California and her experiences with the fire really emphasized to me how dire the situation in California is. It is difficult to imagine “[waking’ up and [smelling] smoke in your house even though no windows or doors are open and the fire is hundreds of miles away,” as Olivia described. This personal account was integral to my understanding of the situation beyond the science. It was a very nice addition, and it was handled very well.
One area of weakness that I identified was the brevity of the review. There were many ideas introduced (climate change, prescribed burning and the economics of fires, the ecological impact, and Olivia’s personal experience), but I feel that they were brushed over rather than fully developed. It may have been more clear and cohesive if each specific aspect had gotten more attention or if Olivia had chosen one or two topics in particular, rather than trying to address the entire issue. Secondly, I think that more emphasis should have been put on the cause of the fires, climate change, rather than Olivia’s own experiences. While Olivia’s experiences were interesting and important to my understanding, they would have been better received if I had had more of a basis in scientific fact. If the discussion of prescribed burns and climate change had been a little longer and more developed, and the discussion of Olivia’s personal experiences a little shorter, I think that the review would have been more sound and given a better overview of the issue.
Overall, I came away from this review with a much better understanding of the gravity of the issue in California, as well as the potential solutions that are not well implemented as of yet. Although I do not live in California, I have friends and family who do, so this was a really interesting and informative read for me, which is why I chose to comment on Olivia’s review. I also now am more conscious of the fact that climate change is having tangible effects across the nation. It is easy to dismiss climate change as an issue for later (although that would obviously be a mistake), but Olivia’s description of the ridiculous impact on California makes it obvious that it is an issue for now. This review has truly made obvious to me how important it is to lobby and protest in order to raise awareness around climate change.
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
ReplyDeleteCevasco, Olivia. “How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires.” Blogspot.Com, 23 Sept. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-comment-form. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
I think Olivia did a great job in her review, as it is thorough, evokes emotion and has a clear/supported thesis. She establishes that she has a clear understanding of the topic/article as she provides statistics in her review, such as when she describes the fires that have burned over "3.7 million acres of land". Her review is also successful in drawing in interest around the article. She uses personal anecdotes, i.e. "I know what it’s like to wake up and smell smoke in your house... the fire is hundreds of miles away" to establish a connection to the topic, which peaks the reader's interest. I know I was much more inclined to read Olivia's review after finding out that she was a California-native and that her grandmother had once been at risk. Finally, Olivia takes a clear thesis in accordance with the article she read - that prescribed burns should be used for fire-suppression - and supports her claim with evidence from the article. After she states, "Prescribed burns could prevent wildfires", she immediately corroborates this by describing the pros of prescribed burns, i.e. that they are "cost-effective" and "save lives". On the other hand, Olivia makes her claim more nuanced after diverting from the author's claim in her conclusion. She critiques the authors for leaving out key information about the effects of forest fires on our health, and narrows down her argument by explaining how prescribed fires are necessary to deal with a long-term problem. Overall, Olivia did an excellent job in stating/analyzing the author's claim as well as connecting to it.
Although her review is beyond satisfactory, there are a few things Olivia could improve upon to make her review more in-depth. Firstly, in her introduction, she claims that the forest fires are "due to climate change", but never elaborates on this. Although this is common knowledge to most, there is a large portion of the country that does not believe in climate change, so her review could be stronger if she explained the correlation between climate change and forest fires more concretely. I also think she could explain how attempts are being made to fix climate change - the ultimate solution - rather than prescribed burns - the short-term solution. Secondly, I think Olivia's review could be made stronger if she investigated opposing sides to the author's claim, as dialectical reviews are always stronger/more clearly unbiased. By mentioning other possible solutions (and even refuting them), Olivia could greatly strengthen her own claim. By explaining/adding in some other perspectives, Olivia could make her review more academically-accepted in the science world.
After reading Olivia's review, I feel that I have a nuanced understanding of not only California's forest fires, but of scientific approaches to problems in our ecosystems. I learned that yes, forest fires are clearly an issue, but also that steps can and should be taken to manage them. Moreover, Olivia's personal take on the article conveyed that issues involving climate change shouldn’t be a political issue - people’s lives are at stake. This was communicated in her conclusion paragraph, where she critiques the authors for leaving out information on the severe effects of forest fires on human/animal life. Olivia's review proved to me that just because we can't always see climate change clearly, that its effects are ever-prevailing, and we must take steps to prevent it in order to save our world and population.
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
ReplyDeleteCevasco, Olivia. “How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires.” Blogspot.Com, 23 Sept. 2020, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-can-reduce.html#comment-form. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
Olivia did a fantastic job on her response to The New York Times article, “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” She provides essential background knowledge, modern data, and analysis of this data, all while making a personal connection to her audience. In her introduction, Olivia sets the scene by explaining the number of wildfires and their implications on the surrounding land. With this, she quotes the main question: “‘How do we live in an ecosystem that is primed to burn?’” while she provides her answer. This method is extremely effective at bringing her whole argument to the surface of the text, creating a sense of objectivity in her writing. Secondly, Olivia provides just the right pieces of evidence to benefit her argument. She states that “$30 to $35 is spent per acre in a prescribed burn, while it costs about $1,000 dollars per acre to put out a wildfire. Furthermore, scientists discovered that if a wildfire does occur in a site of a prescribed burn, the fire is far less intense.” This comparison draws a connection to the benefit of prescribed burns, both economically and environmentally. Lastly, Olivia does a great job relating this article to her life in California, giving a new and personal perspective to the evidence previously stated. For example, Olivia says, “This year, I’ve had friends who had to stay inside for over a month--not even because of coronavirus--because the air quality index was over 250 from the smoke.” With numbers like this, people wake up to the smell of smoke in their homes, despite all the windows and doors being closed, which Oliva mentions in her response too. Because her personal experience is woven into the review, it gives the reader the ability to gain empathy and understanding of the implications of the data previously mentioned.
Olivia’s review did a great job of explaining possible solutions to the deadly wildfires, but she also could have mentioned how to go about creating these sites of prescribed burns. By knowing about the process, it could have been made clear to whom these solutions should be presented. I also would have loved to see Olivia make the connection between her personal experience and the outside world. Though Olivia does a good job of talking about the implications of the wildfires on people, I think she could have added a bit more on how this influences the plants and animals in California, as well as its surrounding areas. Rather than brushing up on the subject, the addition of a few sentences regarding the damage to ecology would have further heightened her argument.
After reading, I learned about prescribed burns and how they could potentially save California from a detrimental future. I had very little knowledge of this topic before reading this article, which was my main reasoning for choosing it. I still need to do more research about the fires in California, but now I feel like I have enough foundational knowledge to get an even better grasp of this problem. I have close family friends that live in California who have been seriously affected by the wildfires, making this review close to home. These stories have shown the negative effects of climate change, proving that if we don’t find ways to help our environment now, it will be very hard to recover.
ReplyDeleteFuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With
Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
Cevasco, Olivia. “How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires.” Blogspot.Com, 23
Sept. 2020,
bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-can-reduce.html#comment-form. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
Olivia Cevasco’s review of the New York Times Article, “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire,” had a captivating mixture of statistics from the article and personal experiences that made this topic seem so much more relevant despite the coast-to-coast separation we have from the site of the raging fires. I felt the strongest aspect of Olivia’s review was the paragraph on her experiences as a Californian native and a first-hand perspective on living near the fires. I would not have thought the wildfires would be so impactful to society and everyday life, yet hearing that there were people who had to “stay inside for over a month...because the air quality index was over 250 from the smoke,” for health and safety reasons made me realize the prevalence of the issue in many people’s lives. Her more personal insights made me more interested in reading the article and learning about the fires themselves. Olivia also integrated numerical data into her review in a very natural way. This allowed for the flow of information to be kept smooth and consistent while still giving more tangible evidence that makes her argument that much more convincing. She never made it feel like I was trying to decipher numerical information, yet I was still able to conceptualize the vastness of the fires--“3.7 million acres of land” burned so far this year-- and the cost effectiveness of the prescribed burning. Including a picture of the wildfires in California and the intense orange hue that filled the skies there was another strong aspect of Olivia’s review. Again, as someone who has never experienced wildfires or even been to California, it can be very hard to grasp the intensity of this issue. The image that accompanies her numerical data and first-hand point of view emphasizes the topic’s extreme urgency and pervasiveness.
I would have liked to hear more about the cause of the extensive wildfires in California and some potential alternatives for prescribed burning that would also help reduce the severity of the fires to the environment and to society. Olivia mentioned that global warming was a leading cause for the increasingly perfect conditions to host wildfires and how it is responsible for the increased number of fires in recent years, but she never mentioned other factors that would increase the number of fires or how direct the impact of climate change truly is on the fires. Also, prescribed burning is most likely not the only solution to fire suppression, and I felt it would have made the review more well rounded had she mentioned other potential solutions and why prescribed burning was the one she chose to emphasize in this particular instance.
Olivia’s personal input truly stood out to me when reading this review of the article linked. It can be easy to dismiss the effects of climate change and other world issues that do not directly influence oneself, but reading how a classmate has experienced tangible effects of something so imminent to the future of the entirety of the world makes climate change seem like less of ‘tomorrow’s problem’. It was also interesting to learn how the fires are being handled in a much less proactive and aggressive manner than they could be considering the effects of the issue at hand. Prescribed burning does not seem like the ultimate solution to the intense Californian fires, though it does seem like a good starting point and one that should be utilized to a higher extent.
Thea Reichel
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
September 23rd, 2020
Current Event 1
Fuller, Thomas, and Kendra Pierre-louis. “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With
Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/climate/california-wildfires-climate-change.html.
Cevasco, Olivia. “How Prescribed Burns Can Reduce California Wildfires.” Blogspot.Com, 23
Sept. 2020,
bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/how-prescribed-burns-can-reduce.html#comment-form. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
For my current event, I read a review by Olivia on an article originally published in The New York Times, titled “A Forecast for a Warming World: Learn to Live With Fire.” First, Olivia did an excellent job when writing her introduction because it immediately grabs the reader's attention by posing a question. “How do we live in an ecosystem that is primed to burn?” This caught my attention and made me want to continue reading. Olivia also did a good job including statistics directly from the article to establish her credibility and allow the reader to comprehend the subject. For example, “Prescribed burns are also more cost-effective than fire suppression, with $30 to $35 is spent per acre in a prescribed burn, while it costs about $1,000 dollars per acre to put out a wildfire. Furthermore, scientists discovered that if a wildfire does occur in a site of a prescribed burn, the fire is far less intense. ” This quote is a key point in the article. Lastly, I appreciate how Olivia was able to make a connection between the topic and the reader by establishing the importance of this issue.
Although her review was very well written, there are certain areas in which she could have improved. For example, she should have selected more quotes because they allow the reader to understand the topic in greater depth. Secondly, Olivia should have voiced her opinion more heavily in her review because adding her opinion would allow readers to understand the subject more easily.
The emphasis Olivia’s current event has on the importance of this issue has inspired me to look into ways we can help and made me more interested in climate change.