
Cleaning New York's harbor with one billion oysters - gscott
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/tech/billion-oyster-project/index.html
======
uijl
In the Netherlands we, as hydraulic engineers, are working on something called
'Building with Nature'. This is a perfect example of that. If you guys like
this, check out [https://www.ecoshape.org/en/](https://www.ecoshape.org/en/).

~~~
spiderfarmer
As a part of that there are several projects underway trying to get oysters to
return, using artificial reefs:

[https://www.platteoester.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/Overv...](https://www.platteoester.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/Overview-flat-oyster-restoration-NL-dec-2018.png)

------
yursky
[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/oyster-
tecture/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/oyster-tecture/) is an
excellent podcast about this project. It summarizes the history of the
ecosystem and the intent behind the project very well.

It's amazing how much of an oyster mecca new york used to be...

~~~
jimkri
Thanks for the link, I had no idea New York was such a popular oyster city.
Also led me to the Build Oyster Project on Governors Island

------
pseudolus
Mark Kurlansky (of Cod and Salt fame) wrote a book "The Big Oyster: History on
the Half Shell" which detailed the history of oysters and NYC [0]. Apparently
at one time more than 700 million oysters a year were being harvested.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/Big-Oyster-History-Half-
Shell/dp/0345...](https://www.amazon.com/Big-Oyster-History-Half-
Shell/dp/0345476395/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=mark+kurlansky&qid=1548077538&sr=8-3)

------
ako
We should all be freaking out about what we’ve done to the earth, but nobody
seems to really be able to compare it within historical context. We just dont
know what it was like just a century ago. I’m always surprised by facts like
in this story and similar like
[https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b...](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-
fish-stories-getting-littler) And
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/nyregion/new-york-city-
sm...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/nyregion/new-york-city-smog.html)

~~~
ericdykstra
Sometimes I think our only options going forward are a world where all natural
habitat has been completely decimated, or an eco-fascist regime enforces
pollution (and thus effectively population) control on the whole planet.

~~~
nnq
> a world where all natural habitat has been completely decimated

That's probably the way we'll have it, but there will be _artificial-natural
habitat_ , eg. "reservations", that could grow to even be country-sized or
half-continent-sized if we manage resources right. (Though probably they'll be
smaller since we're going to have to some pretty large scale heavily-
engineered-and-very-unnatural-agriculture to prevent famine in the face of
climate degradation.)

The second option sounds somewhat enticing... _but it would likely severely
diminish speed of technological progress, hence diminish our even-longer-term
changes of survival (think encounter and warfare with alien civs etc. - the
universe is huge and if we /our-mostly-artificial-descendants survive long
enough we'll have to compete with strains of life much more virulent than
ourselves today)._

~~~
makerofspoons
There is reason to believe we may have already hit peak farmland or may in the
near future: [http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/why-peak-farmland-is-
good...](http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/why-peak-farmland-is-good-news/)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/05/26/peak-
far...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/05/26/peak-farmland-is-
coming-closer-thanks-to-cow-free-milk/#20684ea75842)

~~~
ForHackernews
Lots of current farmland is due to become unproductive with climate change, so
we'd better hope we don't need as much.

------
onetimemanytime
Question: Do oysters clean the water by "eating" the pollutants ? If so, after
oysters die, wont that pollutant still be in the water? Or is it in a stable
form and does not harm us.

~~~
pwagland
Good question! My understanding is that a lot of the pollutants actually end
up in the shell, so they don't magically disappear, but they are pulled out of
the water, and they end up in the hard sediment on the sea floor.

------
cgb223
So uh, how edible will these billion oysters be considering the crap they’re
filtering out of the river..?

~~~
erikpukinskis
My general understanding about bioremediation is the material has to be
removed and put in a landfill.

~~~
Cthulhu_
The "natural" process is that e.g. oysters grab the co2 and bad stuff from the
water, die, sink to the bottom and get covered in sediment. That's where major
carbon sinks ended up anyway, to be turned into oil/coal/gas over millions of
years.

~~~
oyster
Somehow, I think the pollutants originating from human activity will really be
very much quite different from what used to become sequestered in sedimentary
rock.

Smoke detector radiological sources, teflon pans, noble gases and
refridgerants, cadmium paints and pigments, dioxins, kepone, BPA, hydrazine,
sulfur mustards, medication, depleted uranium. The list goes on.

~~~
mfoy_
Nice try, Oyster. Back to the NY harbour with you.

------
fafl
Wouldn't this invite some kind of oyster-predator or oyster-disease?
Biodiversity would be more sustainable ...

~~~
ashelmire
Apparently there used to be trillions of oysters in the area. Turns out humans
were the predator.

~~~
pixl97
Humans reduced their numbers, but human pollution is what wiped them out.

------
bartkappenburg
Here's a (pretty recent) interview, in an episode of 'Tell me something I
don't know', with the organization behind this project on Freakonomics:
[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/tmsidk-
guarnaschelli-2018/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/tmsidk-
guarnaschelli-2018/)

------
raverbashing
Zebra mussels might be up to the task as well, apparently they are an invasive
species, they will live anywhere and will eat anything

(But they are a freshwater species)

~~~
ThirdFoundation
I grew up near Portage Lakes in NE Ohio. For much of my childhood, the water
was a little murky, the seaweed wasn't too thick, and the lakes were pretty
harmless (and fun) to swim in.

Sometime around 2001, zebra mussels were accidentally introduced (the common
theory I've read is by attaching to a boat that had been docked in Lake Erie
prior to being brought back to Portage Lakes). The zebra mussels spread _very_
fast and the lake noticeably changed. The water became much clearer. As a
result, more sunlight could penetrate the water, and it could penetrate
deeper, so much more seaweed grew.

Personally, I hated them because they made swimming at our local park more
dangerous. Their shells are sharp and will cut human feet pretty easily.

That being said, in hindsight they did _appear_ to clean up the water a lot. I
wonder if they actually made the lake healthier for humans to swim in and live
near as a result?

------
paulhilbert
Obligatory 99% invisible reference:
[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/oyster-
tecture/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/oyster-tecture/)

------
maxerickson
It worked for the Great Lakes. :(

------
giorgioz
In Italy mussel shells are famous to purify the water. It's important to
remember though that mussels growing on very dirty waters (like sewers
outgoing in the sea) might be contaminated and are not edible.
[https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_mussel_farming_could_help...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how_mussel_farming_could_help_to_clean_fouled_waters)

------
exitcode00
Imagine if the project was given the 5 billion tax dollars handed to Jeff
Bezos instead of a measly 4.5 million... This is why the environments a
disaster - not because you decide to buy an SUV

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Imagine if the project was given the 5 billion tax dollars handed to Jeff
> Bezos instead of a measly 4.5 million...

The $4.5 million is money New York has to spend out of revenue. Spending it
lowers the amount of money New York has.

Neither of those is true of $5 billion in tax incentives. Look at the cash
flow.

~~~
exitcode00
Who cares where it comes from. Tax payers are out 5 billion does it matter
how?

~~~
abtinf
I believe the point of the gp is that the money isn’t coming from anywhere. No
one is out $5B. There is no budget line item you could point to that
identifies the expenditure “$5B for Bezos”.

~~~
exitcode00
It's all semantics - I don't understand why people want to defend a multi-
billion dollar corporation, but, lets say, that NYC didn't write off 5 billion
to Amazon. Could the city have budgeted more for the failing subway and nasty
harbor given that they received more in taxes? Maybe.. if they really cared
for the city.

All these corporations do with their profits and tax-incentives is hoard them
overseas and spend them on stock buy-backs.

[https://www.barrons.com/articles/2018-record-stock-
buybacks-...](https://www.barrons.com/articles/2018-record-stock-
buybacks-51545361596)

~~~
autokad
> "lets say, that NYC didn't write off 5 billion to Amazon. Could the city
> have budgeted more for the failing subway and nasty harbor given that they
> received more in taxes? Maybe"

You do realize NYC is not collecting less taxes because Amazon came? If Amazon
goes to another city, they collect 0. if Amazon gets a tax break, they collect
0. now you could argue that Amazon provides some sort of extra burden on city
resources, though they would also collect more taxes from the employees and
other services rendered.

~~~
atq2119
The problem with that logic is that you're predetermining your conclusion by
picking the baseline that you're comparing against.

You pick your preferred baseline, fair enough. But since we're talking about a
discriminatory tax break here, it's perfectly reasonable to choose as baseline
a world without discrimination. And in that comparison, NY de facto pays the 5
billion or whatever it is. Of course, this is also choosing an ultimately
arbitrary baseline for comparison.

You can ping pong this discussion indefinitely because there is no absolute,
divine baseline to compare against.

~~~
autokad
No. There is no discussion, the answer is absolutely no.

NYC is not PAYING 5 billion dollars. they are simply not taxing it, therefor
you can not say 'what else could they have used this money on instead'.

Its like me hosting a website for many charging 100$, and one person comes to
me and says they will pay me 0$ but do other stuff, but otherwise they will
not use my services. I can not say 'gee, if I charged them 100$ I could do
these other things with the money', because I am not paying them 100$ to use
my site.

