Toxic Pollution

Oceans, Toxic Pollution

The unbridled use of disposable plastic: A new global crisis

The massive spread of COVID-19 has created a global health crisis, leaving millions of people sick and thousands dead. Due to the nature of the disease and the ease of contagion, protective and biosecurity measures have been implemented on a massive scale. These include confinement and safe distancing, constant disinfection of hands and surfaces, and the use disinfectant bottles, bags, and personal protective equipment like mouthpieces, masks, gloves, and other objects. Unfortunately, plastic—single-use plastic, in particular—is the primary material used to make these objects, which implies an indiscriminate increase in the use and disposal of this material. The processes needed to manage those single-use plastics have become another major challenge in the face of a crisis that is collapsing economies and health systems. It’s clear that our greatest global concern is to defeat the pandemic, and prevent more deaths and infections. But also of concern are the side effects it’s producing, like the backsliding of global efforts to reduce plastic waste and prevent environmental damage. Before the pandemic, contamination by plastic waste was already considered one of the main threats to the environment and biodiversity. According to a recent study, only 9 percent of the plastic produced worldwide is recycled. The rest is left as accumulated waste that damages ecosystems, mainly the oceans, and the species that live in them. Plastic pollution directly affects thousands of species, like marine mammals or birds that get entangled in the waste. Other species confuse the debris with food, as is the case with fish and sea turtles. Our greatest global concern right now must be overcoming the pandemic and preventing further death and infection. But let’s also be aware that, because of it, we’re moving backwards in the reduction of plastic waste and the prevention of the damages it causes. Backsliding in the Regulation of Plastics In December 2018, the European Union's parliament approved a ban on single-use plastics, which was due to come into effect next year. However, due to the pandemic, the plastic products industry has asked the European Commission to delay the implementation of the standard by at least one year. Although many countries had committed themselves to reducing the use of plastics this year, the pandemic has forced some of them to postpone such plans. In California, the governor temporarily lifted the ban on single-use grocery bags because of the risk of transmission through reusable bags. In Thailand, where single-use bags had been banned since January, officials expect up to a 30 percent increase in their use.  According to that country's Environment Institute, 62 percent more plastic was consumed in Bangkok in April compared to the previous year, most of it being food packaging, which is difficult to recycle. In Latin America, the situation is similar. In the Mexican state of Jalisco, an era free from plastic bags and disposable straws was set to begin in January 2020, after a rule banning their use came into force. When the pandemic struck, the ban was abandoned and consumption of these products by establishments and citizens was only 10 percent less than last year, according to recent data. Greenpeace denounced the plastic industry in Mexico for seeking to reverse local bans using the argument that plastic is the ideal material to avoid COVID-19 infections. The environmental organization warned that nothing replaces continuous hand washing and surface disinfection. It explained that using disposable plastic containers, utensils, and cutlery neither guarantees hygiene nor prevents infection since the virus can remain on these surfaces for two to six days. The Importance of Debate and Seeking Alternatives Before the pandemic, there was greater social awareness of the need to reduce the use of plastics, especially single-use plastics. However, the need to contain the spread of the virus and industry strategies to capitalize on the health concerns of the population have led to the re-emergence of plastic as an indispensable material. Now more than ever, we must take care of each other. We also must protect the natural world that sustains life. The pandemic has exposed our weaknesses, and one of them is vulnerability to pollution. It’s possible that when containment measures are lifted or relaxed we’ll find that our dependence on plastic has increased significantly and that our planet is in more danger than before. We must continue the global debate on plastics and work together to find effective alternatives, taking into account the economic recovery of the sectors most affected by the crisis. Some urgent actions that could be taken in short and medium term include: Promoting environmental awareness and responsible consumption, encouraging non-healthcare workers to use reusable personal protection items made from environmentally friendly materials. Adopting best practices for recycling and policies against pollution by plastics at the national level, as part of a global action plan. Promoting the development of the circular economy, which aims to eliminate waste through the continuous reuse of resources. Requiring companies to make greater investments in sustainability, ensuring compliance with their environmental policies and corporate social responsibility. Encouraging investment in the research and development of alternative materials, which are more biodegradable and recyclable, as well as progress in the design of new, less contaminating, chemical additives. When it comes to plastics, we cannot control everything. But these actions can help give the new normal a more sustainable form.  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Contamination and COVID-19: Why didn't air quality Improve in the Valley of Mexico?

Measures adopted to deal with the global health pandemic caused by COVID-19 have led to a reduction in some atmospheric pollutants, which has considerably improved air quality in various cities around the world. Yet in the metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico (MCMA)—which includes Mexico City and surrounding towns—air quality has not improved despite the suspension of activities associated with sources of pollution like traffic and industry. Months before the health emergency was declared in late March 2020, the air quality reported by the Valley’s Atmospheric Monitoring System was in the range of "regular" to "bad," due primarily to vehicle congestion. With restrictions on mobility established due to the pandemic, vehicle traffic decreased by up to 70% and, with it, so did some of the air pollution. According to official information, distancing measures caused a reduction in carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides—of 58 and 32 percent, respectively. However, tropospheric ozone (O3), one of the most damaging pollutants to air quality and human health, did not decrease significantly (only 3 or 4 percent, according to official data). That’s why, in May, two months after measures were adopted to address the health crisis, air quality in the Valley of Mexico remained at the same parameters as the beginning of the year—that is, ranging from "regular" to "bad," according to the Atmospheric Monitoring System. The question that arises, then, is WHY? What causes air pollution? Various gases and compounds contaminate the air. Primary pollutants—like carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)—are directly discharged into the atmosphere. Secondary pollutants, like tropospheric ozone (O3), form in the atmosphere as a result of the chemical transformation of those primary pollutants. Tropospheric ozone is formed from the interaction of sunlight with "precursor gases," including volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Now, there are three factors that actually affect air quality: weather conditions, topography, and concentrations of one or more pollutants at levels that can harm the environment and human health. These concentrations are measured by official monitoring systems, like the MCMA Atmospheric Monitoring System. The World Health Organization establishes concentration levels of pollutants that should not be exceeded over a specific period. For tropospheric ozone, the recommended value is 50 parts per billion (ppb) over an eight-hour average. But Mexican regulations are more lax and establish a lower limit for this compound: a concentration less than or equal to 95 ppb on an hourly average (that is, in a 60-minute time interval). In addition, to activate an environmental contingency for ozone, concentrations must be greater than 154 ppb (hourly average). This standard implies less protection for the population's health. At the beginning of this year, the hourly ozone concentration in the Valley of Mexico averaged only 23 ppb, but it has risen since then. Despite the restrictions resulting from the health crisis, the average hourly concentration of ozone was 41 ppb in April and 45 ppb in May. Also, from January to May, 99 days were recorded in which ozone concentrations exceeded the 95 ppb limit. Why did concentrations of ozone increase? The restriction on mobility during the health contingency was not adequate to decrease concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere for two reasons: first, the sources of this compound are not limited to the use of vehicles; and second, the period of social isolation coincided with the so-called ozone season, a time of the year when the concentrations rise due to the increase of solar radiation and the decrease of rain and wind. As previously mentioned, tropospheric ozone is formed by the interaction of sunlight with precursor gases. Among these gases are nitrogen oxides—mainly generated by the combustion processes of automobiles, especially diesel engines—and volatile organic compounds, which arise from more diverse sources: the use of solvents, leaks of liquefied petroleum gas in heaters and stoves, cosmetic and cleaning products, and evaporated fuel in gas stations and automobiles without evaporative emissions control. According to official data, during social isolation, volatile organic compounds were only reduced by 15 percent, including all their emission sources. On the other hand are forest fires, a major source of ozone precursor gases. From January 1 to May 3 of this year, in Mexico City alone there were 644 forest fires— lower in number compared to the same period in 2019, but equally as intense. As for the ozone season, which begins the last week of February and ends with the first rains in June, the average temperature in the Valley of Mexico was higher this year. In April, it was 2°C higher than the average recorded in the same month between 1981 and 2010—the hottest April in recorded history. Because the temperature is directly related to solar radiation and lack of wind, its increase explains the higher ozone concentrations. The sum of these factors contributed to the fact that ozone concentrations actually increased despite the restrictions established by the pandemic. This, in turn, led to the residents of the Valley of Mexico continuing to experience poor air quality and suffering its negative health impacts. Why reducing ozone is good for public health and the climate Ozone not only affects air quality and thus public health. It also has the ability to absorb sunlight and heat the atmosphere, meaning it is a  short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP). Because its emissions aggravate the climate crisis, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world have highlighted the need to reduce SLCPs in order to rapidly combat global warming. The intensity of the forest fires and the particularly high temperatures of this year's “ozone season” demonstrate the effects of the climate crisis that we are failing to adequately confront. That’s why it’s imperative that the government implement actions to reduce emissions of precursors gases—not only during the health emergency, but also when we get through it, when motorized transportation (a source of nitrogen oxides) is reactivated. Improved controls on the type of cars on the road, based on their polluting potential, and personal choices like biking, also recommended to reduce the risks of contagion, would help to achieve this objective, reduce global warming, and improve the health of those living in the Valley of Mexico. In addition, society must commit to measures of regulation, communication and education that curb consumer habits and improve on the production and distribution of goods and services that continue to emit volatile organic compounds (another ozone precursor) on a daily basis. Restricting the production and use of aerosol products, as well as repairing and preventing leaks of liquefied petroleum gas, would help to reduce these emissions. Finally, it’s necessary to strengthen the country's weak environmental policy and combat non-compliance with environmental health standards, which has resulted in an insufficient reduction in air pollution. Mexican air quality standards must be updated to set stricter limits that are compatible with international standards and the protection of the human right to health. The above are just some examples of actions that authorities and society can take to show that we have learned a lesson and will do what is necessary to improve air quality and face possible new health crises, as well as to combat the climate crisis that threatens to end the world as we know it today.  

Read more
Public Participation, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Colombia: Holding virtual hearings violates communities' right to participation

In the context of the pandemic, and since the beginning of Colombia's obligatory isolation, businessmen have asked the Colombian government to "simplify environmental procedures." On April 3, 25 entrepreneurs sent a letter to President Iván Duque asking for the simplification of processes including prior consultation, environmental licenses and royalities. One of the first measures undertaken was the attempt to simplify the prior consultation, proposing to make it virtual. In response, indigenous communities and the Ombudsman's Office requested that the Ministry of the Interior respect human rights and reverse the measure, which it did.  However, the quest to change the way consultations are conducted continues. At the request of the Ministry of the Environment, the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA) is promoting several virtual environmental hearings, even proposing they be held on radio and digital platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. These are hearings to address key environmental issues in the country. The problem is that communication on these platforms is unilateral, denounced the organization DeJusticia, thus eliminating the possibility of discussing technical issues, and presenting an obstacle for those with limited access to the Internet. On April 13, 2020, ANLA issued Resolution 642, which opened the way for virtual participation processes. Days later, the licensing authority scheduled a virtual hearing to discuss a very important issue for the region: the return of aerial spraying with glyphosate, a toxic herbicide. The hearing, scheduled for May 27, was intended to address the modification of the glyphosate environmental management plan. But, thanks to a legal action, on May 18 a judge from the department of Nariño suspended the hearing. As evidenced, there exists an ongoing intention to carry out similar proposals during the pandemic. Many have been halted by the early warnings of citizens, judicial actions or statements by control authorities. On 20 May, the Administrative Court of Santander ordered the Ministry of the Environment to plan virtual working groups.  It has also called for a virtual public hearing on the Santurbán páramo, where a mega-mining project threatens to harm this strategic ecosystem, which is vital for local water supply and the mitigation of the climate crisis.  Holding virtual hearings implies a damage to the rural, indigenous and urban communities affected by a project, and to Colombian society in general. In addition to being in the midst of the worst crisis in recent history, these communities lack access to the internet and the basic necessities that could guarantee their virtual participation.  In Colombia, and across the region, the rights of access to information, justice and participation are among the most violated. We must stand at high alert so that the pandemic does not become an excuse to continue abusing them. All remaining proposed virtual proceedings must be immediately suspended, until there exists guarantees for the due exercise of the right to participation and the exercise of national and international oversight in these matters.   

Read more
Toxic Pollution

ACT: Clean Air for All

  Read in Spanish // in Portuguese.  Globally, nine out of ten people live in places where the air is extremely harmful. Gases and particles that pollute the air we breathe also heat the planet, and those emissions are a major cause of the global climate crisis. You can help save lives and contain the climate emergency. Tell your government to commit to reducing emissions of these pollutants. Among these contaminants are black carbon, generated by burning wood for heating and transportation using diesel; methane, the natural gas that runs the kitchen; and hydrofluorocarbons, gases that make refrigerators and air conditioners cool. They are known as short-lived climate pollutants because they stay in the air for a relatively short time. Therefore, if we reduce their emissions we can also reduce global warming in the short term and, at the same time, improve the quality of the air around us. That potential has been supported by thousands of scientists around the world, who have made an urgent call for the early reduction of these pollutants.  As part of global efforts to cool the planet, governments must update their emission reduction commitments to the United Nations by March 2020.  YOU can ensure they don’t miss this opportunity! SIGN HERE and tell your government to commit to stopping these damages!

Read more
Mining, Public Participation, Freshwater Sources

Learning from Mendoza, Argentina: “Water is not negotiable

Near the end of 2019, the citizens of Mendoza, Argentina united in one of the province’s most important social manifestations. Their objective was clear: to defend their water. People of all ages—members of NGOs, environmental assemblies, anti-mining movements, scientists and academics—took to the streets to demand that the local government reverse the modification of Law 7722, known as "guardian of the water" or "the people’s law." The law is fundamental for the protection of water in Mendoza because it prohibits the use of cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in mining activities—all of which seriously contaminate rivers, lakes and other natural water sources. Enacted on June 21, 2007, this law resulted from a long struggle by civil society. A step back in environmental protection The government intended to modify Law 7722 with another regulation, Law 9209, which allowed for "the use of chemical substances [including cyanide], mixtures or dissolutions of them, to ensure the sustainability of the [mining] project.” The justification for eliminating the prohibition on the use of cyanide and other toxic elements was "to guarantee the sustainability of the use of natural resources, with special emphasis on the protection of water resources and to ensure compliance with mining activities.” The use of cyanide in legal mining is becoming less frequent due to the risks involved in its manufacture, transport and use. Cyanide compounds are highly toxic in their gaseous form or when dissolved in water. Considering that the limit of cyanide in drinking water for safe human consumption is four drops per liter, the concentrations used in mining present high risks. In addition, there is abundant evidence of cyanide spills and losses from mining facilities during transport, and multiple cases of mass fatalities of wildlife near mining facilities, particularly migratory birds. The legislative amendment sought to make the procedures for environmental control and monitoring more flexible, by establishing that it was no longer obligatory for the Environmental Impact Statement of a mining project to be ratified by law. This undermined the effectiveness of Law 7722. These changes, promoted by the government of Mendoza, violated environmental protection principles contained in Argentina’s Constitution, among them sustainability and other national regulations that the provinces are obliged to comply with and enrich. For example, article 41 of the Constitution states that "all inhabitants have the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have the duty to preserve it." The citizen's response The social response to this modification—which intended to give free rein to the use of substances with a high environmental impact—surpassed all precedents. By successfully reversing an initiative already approved by Mendoza's legislators, it became an example for the entire region. The largest demonstrations in Mendoza's history began on December 22. Under the slogans "water is not negotiable" and "water is worth more than gold," the people of Mendoza organized to express their disapproval of the new law. The following day, 50,000 people gathered in front of the Provincial Government House after a journey of more than 100 kilometers, which began in the town of San Carlos, in the Uco Valley. They demanded: Law 7722 is not to be touched. Despite this widespread popular rejection, the Governor of Mendoza enacted the reform. Then, thousands of self-convoked neighbors gathered at kilometer zero—between San Martín and Garibaldi Streets—in the provincial capital to demand the law’s repeal. On December 26, faced with constant and growing social pressure, the Governor announced that he would not enact the new law. That palliative measure was deemed unconvincing and mobilizations intensified. The Governor then decided to reverse the amendment to Law 7722. On Friday the 27th, he announced the reform’s repeal, which finally happened on Monday the 30th. The case of Mendoza teaches a valuable lesson to all Latin American countries: When citizens are aware of the importance of nature and the scale of the dangers it faces, they will not yield. Socio-environmental conflicts are not only a response to those who have control over natural resources, but also to their effects on a complex social network. For humans and also for other beings, nature is a formative part of our identity, culture and customs. We are part of it and it is part of us. It is a living and interconnected network. That is why we must be its main defenders. The prompt and necessary updating of the concept of "sustainable development" is one of the challenges of Environmental Law in the 21st century. We mustn’t promote development that attacks nature and ignores human rights.   Learn more about the use of cyanide in mining (in Spanish).  

Read more
Toxic Pollution

A Plan to Decontaminate Our Cities and Contain the Climate Crisis

In an open letter made public at COP25, more than 100 organizations from Latin America and around the world urged governments to include ambitious and measurable targets for confronting air pollution in their new climate commitments, which must be submitted to the United Nations by March 2020.Join the Global Call for Clean Air! SIGN NOW!Read it in Spanish    In Portuguese Poor air quality is the environmental problem that claims the most lives worldwide.Each year, more than four million people die from the health damages caused by air pollution. Official data shows that, globally, nine out of ten people breathe polluted air, and that the problem affects more than 80 percent of urban residents. The majority of those affected are in developing countries and the damages most severely impact the most vulnerable sectors of the population: children, pregnant women and the elderly.At the same time, humanity is seriously threatened by a climatic emergency whose impacts are also suffered with greater force by the most vulnerable segments of the population.Both problems, the climate crisis and poor air quality, are related to the atmosphere around us and are a matter of human rights. In this sense, there is an efficient way forward on both fronts. It’s an opportunity we must seize, and it has to do with reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs).Short-lived climate pollutants are atmospheric agents that contribute to the climate crisis with much more intensity than carbon dioxide (CO2) and, as their name indicates, remain in the atmosphere a relatively short time, from days to decades—unlike CO2, which can last millennia in the atmosphere. In addition, these pollutants degrade air quality, affect glacial areas and reduce crop yields. They include black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).Aiming to mitigate them implies reducing global warming in the short term and, at the same time, advancing in the decontamination of cities.This opportunity has already been supported by science.The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together experts on the subject, stressed in its Special Report on 1.5°C that, in order to confront global warming, we must incorporate into our efforts the mitigation of pollutants other than CO2, specifically black carbon and methane.Recently, more than 11 thousand scientists from around the world joined the call. In a public declaration recognizing the climate emergency, they identified among the measures necessary to solve it the prompt reduction of short-lived climate pollutants, noting that this would reduce warming by more than 50 percent in the coming decades.The forthcoming update of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)— containing the climate commitments that governments must submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—opens the possibility of betting on the mitigation of these pollutants and contributing effectively to the fight against the climate crisis and poor air quality.The deadline for governments to submit new and more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions is March 2020.For all of the reasons stated above, the undersigned organizations consider that the States that are part of the UNFCCC must respect human rights, protect them with the highest standards, and consider them in their climate commitments.In this sense, we ask that governments:Include ambitious and measurable targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in the update of their NDCs by March 2020.Detail in their commitments the means of implementation, which must ensure compliance with the targets they set.Frame the fulfillment of commitments in comprehensive policies that recognize the different levels of impact among the population, with special emphasis on the protection of children and other vulnerable groups.Specify the monitoring, reporting and verification procedures that will accompany the implementation of their commitments.Ensure that local governments and companies respect the policies established and adapt their actions to the urgent need to improve air quality. Download the letter

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

COP25: Organizations call on governments to improve air quality and, with it, slow the climate crisis

In a public letter, environmental and social organizations from Latin America and around the world urge governments to limit short-lived climate pollutants in their international climate commitments, which must be submitted to the United Nations by March 2020. Madrid, Spain. Governments must include ambitious and measurable targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their new climate commitments, more than 100 organizations said in an open letter presented today, on the occasion of Human Rights Day, at the twenty-fifth Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "Mitigating short-lived climate pollutants implies reducing global warming in the short term and, at the same time, advancing in the decontamination of our cities," said Javier Dávalos, coordinator of the Climate Change Program at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). These pollutants are sometimes called "super climate pollutants" because they contribute to the climate crisis with much more intensity than carbon dioxide (CO2). As their name indicates, they stay a relatively short time in the atmosphere—from days to decades—unlike CO2, which can remain for millennia. Short-lived climate pollutants include black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons. They degrade air quality, affect glacial areas, and reduce crop yields. Poor air quality is the world's most deadly environmental problem. Each year, more than four million people die from the health damages caused by air pollution. The benefit of reducing these harmful emissions has been backed by science. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together experts on the subject, stressed that to tackle global warming we must incorporate the mitigation of non-CO2 pollutants, specifically black carbon and methane. In addition, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world noted that the early reduction of short-lived climate pollutants would reduce warming by more than 50 percent over the next several decades. "The coming update of Nationally Determined Contributions opens up the possibility of governments betting on the elimination of these pollutants and thus contributing effectively to the fight against climate change and poor air quality," said Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. The deadline for governments to update their contributions is March 2020. That’s why the signatory organizations have called for the inclusion of ambitious and measurable goals for the reduction of these short-lived climate pollutants, and for governments to detail how the targets will be implemented, monitored and reported in the new commitments before the United Nations. "The solutions needed to reduce and eliminate each of the four short-lived climate pollutants are not mysteries. They are known and have been proven. But we need governments to prioritize those solutions if we are going to be able to avoid the worst impacts of climate change," commented Amanda Maxwell, director of the Latin America Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In addition to the open letter, the organizations have launched an online petition for the cause to be supported with signatures from individuals around the world. Both problems, the climate crisis and poor air quality, most severely affect the most vulnerable segments of the population, among them children, pregnant women and the elderly. Confronting poor air quality is a human rights issue.   Read the letter to governments. Read and sign the citizen petition. pRESS CONTACTS Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Fabiola Nuñez, NRDC, [email protected], +1 (646) 889-1405 Renata Assumpção (Brazil), Instituto Alana, [email protected] Ricardo Ruiz (Mexico), CEMDA, [email protected], +5215559644162  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Sacrifice Zones: The injustice of living in an unhealthy environment

Forty percent of the energy produced and consumed in Chile comes from burning coal. Just 28 thermoelectric plants, concentrated in five locations across the country, generate that enormous amount of energy. In these so-called Sacrifice Zones, inhabitants live immersed in pollution. The result is severe health damages, children with learning disabilities, and poisoned seas. The serious detriment of living in one of these areas has been amply documented. A recent report from the Catholic University of Chile, commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile, shows that living in a Sacrifice Zone translates into greater risks of illness and premature death. The country’s current social unrest represents a historic opportunity for transformation. Pushed by the voice of its people, and in the Presidency of this year’s international climate negotiations, Chile can lead a structural change focused on the redistribution of burdens and benefits, both social and environmental. The result would be a cleaner and fairer country. The road to decarbonization In June, after a year of discussions with industry and other stakeholders, President Sebastian Piñera announced a schedule for the decarbonization of Chile. In the agreement, industry leaders pledged to close all coal-fired power plants by 2040. As positive as it may seem, an in-depth analysis of the proposal leads to the conclusion that the government’s goal is not ambitious enough to achieve the prompt justice that affected communities deserve. The timetable sets the nation’s eight oldest plants up for the closure by 2024, but fails to give dates or details on the closure of the remaining 20 plants, leaving it to the goodwill of future administrations. Under those terms, there is no way to guarantee that the plan will be implemented. Moreover, waiting 20 more years is not an acceptable deal for those who have already carried too much of the burden for far too long. Nor is it a move toward maintaining our planet’s climate equilibrium, a battle in which we have no time to spare. Another criticism of the government's proposal is that shortly after it was announced, the energy company Engie inaugurated a new coal-fired power plant in Mejillones, a Sacrifice Zone in the north of the country. The new plant has more than double the operating capacity of two thermoelectric plants in Tocopilla, which the same company would have closed after signing the decarbonization plan. But it's not all bad news. A month before social protests broke out in Chile, the government signaled a more ambitious decarbonization goal. In September, the Chamber of Deputies approved an initiative asking the President to move the closure of coal-fired power plants up by ten years, to 2030. The request is based on a study commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile and completed by the consulting firm Kas Engineers. Their research shows the technical and economic feasibility of reaching decarbonization by 2030. Chile’s current social crisis erupted in the midst of the search for a binding agreement to achieve decarbonization. Social unrest in Chile Chile is in the midst of a historic moment. Social discontent—generated by the injustices, inequality and lack of equity endured for years by the most vulnerable segments of the population—triggered ongoing protests, which have yet to abate. What’s happening in Chile is a mirror of what could happen in many countries of the world, particularly in Latin America. The metaphorical grass is dry and any spark could surely ignite social mobilization, uncovering chambers that have for years accumulated injustice and discontent. The figures confirm that Chile has grown and there is less poverty, but neither the benefits nor the burdens have been equitably distributed. Authorities have failed. Confidence is running out and disillusionment is increasing. The Sacrifice Zones are a very clear example of the structural problems afflicting our society: certain communities bear all the costs and enjoy none of the benefits. This is unacceptable. A new direction is possible Fires, floods and other extreme weather events, which uproot people’s lives, show us that nature will not stop protesting until we respect her. Society is also calling for respect, with an urgency that has gained the attention of decision-makers. Changes that once seemed impossible are within reach. It’s not that social demands are more important than environmental demands, or vice versa. Environmental demands are also social demands. Although the climate crisis and pollution affect us all, the damage is much greater for the most vulnerable populations. Changes that favor our planet can and must be made with a social justice perspective, and in harmony with nature.  In the case of Chile, decarbonization—and with it, an end to Sacrifice Zones—is the change that will make us a better country. Because one of life’s greatest injustices is being forced to live in an unhealthy environment.  

Read more
Coral reefs, Oceans, Toxic Pollution

The oil spill devouring life on Brazil’s beaches

Photos: Marcela Cintra / Text: Laura Yaniz  Since late August, oil has been registered at more than 500 points along 2,500 kilometers of coastline in northeastern Brazil. What began with the appearance of small black spots on some beaches quickly became huge stains that changed the color of the sand itself. The spill’s origin remains unknown, as local organizations and communities organize to clean up their beaches. Far from being resolved, the problem is getting worse every day. The oil’s advance is threatening the marine life in mangroves and coral reefs, both key ecosystems for the survival of species. In addition, residents of the affected communities, who depend on tourism and fishing, have seen their lifestyles and economies threatened. Their health is also at risk due to the consumption of contaminated seafood and direct exposure to the spill. Faced with the inaction of government authorities, the people have been cleaning the beaches and sea with their own hands. The spill itself, coupled with state neglect, violates the human rights of the inhabitants of the hundreds of affected beaches. AIDA—together with the Projeto Publico Institute, Salve Maracaipe, Projeto Caribessa and Rede Minha Jampa—denounced these violations before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an effort to urge the Brazilian government to respond to this social and environmental crisis. Soledad García Muñoz, the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights expressed her solidarity with the Brazilian people and authorities in the face of the tragedy and called on the State to "take the necessary measures to avoid a bigger deterioration of the affected ecosystems, considering that the time, the resources and the way of acting focused on human rights are the key factors for the effectiveness of a contingency plan that the present situation deserves.” She added: “the slower and partial are the measures adopted, more irreparable will be the damages for the Brazilian coast and its biodiversity, as well as for the quality of life of the people that live in these affected regions. It is necessary an urgent and sensible response in face of these serious events generated by the contamination, because that could also accelerate the effects of the climate change in the coast, mangroves, swamps and other ecologically vulnerable habitats.”  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Air pollution: it damages your health from day one

Although they occur seasonally each year, respiratory diseases are becoming increasingly severe, said pediatrician Gina Pinilla, who works in Bogotá. As air quality decreases, health complications increase for children who come to the emergency department. What Dr. Pinilla has observed in more than a decade of experience as a doctor is no mere impression. A study conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers in Colombia shows that health damage from poor air quality is noticeable from day one. Hospital admissions increase over the first 24 to 72 hours and can extend for almost two weeks. It’s the first multi-city study conducted in Colombia and Latin America to determine the relationship between air pollution and respiratory and circulatory diseases in the population, explained lead researcher Dr. Laura Rodriguez of the Industrial University of Santander. Each contaminant affects us differently One of the findings that most caught the researchers' attention is that harms caused by pollutants are different for children and adults. Children suffer from respiratory diseases, while adults face cardiovascular complications. "Children between 5 and 9 years old face greater impacts and are more likely to have an episode that takes them to the emergency room,” explained Dr. Rodriguez. “But this doesn't mean that the younger ones are unaffected. When a child has respiratory complications, he or she may stay hospitalized for up to a week and be connected to respiratory support. "There are children who need prolonged hospitalizations. For a week, they are dependent on oxygen, whether from a nasal cannula or oxygen machines,” Dr. Pinilla added. “Then they are left with side effects and get sick often." The particular mixture of pollutants found in the air also affects each age group differently. "Pollution in every city has its own behavior: interaction, quantity and the change in makeup between cities," said Dr. Rodriguez. In Bogotá, for example, pollution by sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are related to circulatory diseases in people over 60. Pollution by nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and PM2.5 particles significantly increases the risk of hospitalization in people under the age of 15. The researcher says that the damage caused by nitrogen dioxide is not given much importance, despite being associated with cardiovascular disease in adults. And, when that pollutant is combined with sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, its effects are enhanced. Pollution harms, even in small quantities An important takeaway from this study is that contaminants can begin to damage public health even before they reach maximum allowable limits. Nitrogen dioxide, for example, is considered harmful, yet regulations have set very high emission limits. "Reaching these limits is very difficult. The city has to be in absurdly high pollution for the alerts to sound," explained Dr. Rodriguez. “The health effects are not related to whether you are exposed to the limits or not, but to the type of mixture you are breathing, because the pollutants are potentiating each other.” In several Latin American cities, regulations allow pollution limits that exceed the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). For example, the WHO recommends a maximum average of 20 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of PM10 (solid particles such as ash, soot and dust), but Bogotá has an average of 38 µg/m3. Other cities in the region have even higher annual averages: 40 (Monterrey), 55 (Mexico City), 62 (Lima) and 69 (Santiago). What does this information mean for your city?  When poor air quality reaches its most critical levels, hospitals are left without beds and many children with respiratory illnesses remain in the emergency area, explained Dr. Pinilla. It's a common situation because there are no action plans for environmental contingencies. For Dr. Laura Rodriguez, the most important result of her research would be that it helps institutions take action to confront the issue. She recommends local governments and health institutions: Control and regulate the air quality parameters of industrial emissions, and consider monitoring other pollutants. Increase efforts to communicate to the public about the risks of pollution levels in their cities. Prepare hospitals, especially in the first months of the year when pollution reaches its highest level, aggravated by changes in the climate. She emphasized the importance of making intersectoral and multidisciplinary plans and investigations to understand the panorama of air pollution, and to ensure that this information gets into the hands of the appropriate authorities. The study was also conducted by Julián Alfredo Fernández-Niño (U. del Norte, Barranquilla), Néstor Rojas (U. Nacional), Luis Camilo Blanco (U. Santo Tomás) and Víctor Herrera, U. Autónoma de Bucaramanga). Consult it here.  

Read more