Mexico

Mexico City: Air Pollution Points to Climate Solutions

By Laura Yaniz, AIDA social media manager (originally published in Animal Político) Smog causes continuous environmental alerts in Mexico City. But did you know a legal framework exists to combat the pollutants that cause it? Mexico City nearly entered into a state of emergency due to its poor air quality. The government almost closed gas stations, ordered half the city’s vehicles off the road, suspended classes, and closed government offices. If air pollution had spiked any higher, they’d have closed restaurants and reduced certain industrial operations by 60 percent. The cause of the crisis—which hasn’t been this bad in 14 years—is ground-level ozone. Along with black carbon, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), ground-level ozone is a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that, overall, SLCPs are responsible for more than 30 percent of global warming, although recent studies calculate that it may actually be closer to 40 or 45 percent. The good news is, they have a relatively short lifespan in the atmosphere, ranging from a few days to a few decades. Reducing these emissions, in Mexico and wherever they’re found around the world, presents an immediate opportunity to achieve near-term mitigation of climate change while improving air quality and human health. Close to Extreme Mexico City’s Metropolitan Index of Air Quality measures the chemical components of air in whole numbers that are easy to understand. On May 5, ozone reached 192 points (the equivalent of 0.1929 parts per million). When the Index reaches around 200 points ozone can damage skin. The city was only 8 points away! The city has spent several months in and out of Phase 1 of the Environmental Contingency Plan, whose most famous measure is the “Doble Hoy No Circula” program, which restricts vehicles from circulating two days a week, instead of the habitual one. If Phase 2 had been declared, the extreme measure would have divided vehicles by odd and even plates and declared that half of them could not be driven.  About Ground-level Ozone Ozone is a gas that exists in two different layers of the atmosphere. In the stratosphere (the highest layer), ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation and protects us from the sun’s dangerous rays. In the troposphere (the lower atmosphere, from the ground to about 10 or 15 kilometers up), ozone acts as a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, harms human health, and affects the growth of agricultural crops. Tropospheric ozone is not directly emitted by any one source. Instead, it’s the result of a chemical reaction between the sun and “precursor gases,” which can occur naturally or be produced by humans. The most important precursor gases in regards to ozone are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The latter cover a wide range of substances, including methane, and are primarily generated at gas stations, in homes, and through the chemical industry. Ozone remains in the atmosphere only a few days or weeks, a very short time compared to other gases, such as carbon dioxide, that linger in the atmosphere for centuries, even millennia. This is precisely what makes the mitigation of ozone an interesting opportunity: if we reduce emissions, we could see the climatic and health benefits in the near and medium term.  Ozone contributes to such illnesses as bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma, and can scar lung tissue permanently. According to a report from the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, an international organization dedicated to reducing short-lived climate pollutants, tropospheric ozone is responsible for roughly 150 million premature deaths each year. It also affects global food security by reducing the ability of food to absorb carbon dioxide, which reduces yield.  AIDA Supports Efforts to Control Short-Lived Climate Pollutants To help governments reduce SLCP emissions, AIDA attorneys have created a report, Controlando los contaminantes climáticos de vida corta: Una oportunidad para mejorar la calidad del aire y mitigar el cambio climático. El caso de Brasil, Chile, y México (Controlling Short-lived Climate Pollutants: An Opportunity to Improve Air Quality and Mitigate Climate Change: Brazil, Chile, and Mexico). We are distributing it to key decision-makers in government agencies to help them understand the urgency of the problem and the opportunities their legal frameworks provide to facilitate emission reductions. The report reviews policies, laws, and programs on air quality and climate change as they relate to SLCPs in Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Of the three countries studied, Mexico is currently the only one that has incorporated these contaminants into its climate change policy. The government recently went a step further by including SLCP reductions in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)—the commitments made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. As the AIDA report notes, it’s not enough to recognize the importance of reducing SLCP emissions. Greater efforts must be made to reduce emissions. Countries must improve pollutant-monitoring systems, provide sufficient funding for emission-reduction programs, and create systems to evaluate progress. Developing strategies to identify principle emissions sources and to reduce emissions should be a near-term priority not just for the Mexican capital, but also for all the governments of Latin America. AIDA is committed to supporting policymakers with legal expertise that can speed improvements in air quality, human health, and climate change.

Marcelina, the voice of the San Pedro Mezquital

At 57 years old, Marcelina López has a very active life. She sews her own clothes, makes beautiful jewelry, raises chickens, sells eggs, cooks, is a midwife and organizes the women of her community; all while faithfully conserving her traditions, those of the indigenous Wixárika people. Perhaps what distinguishes Marcelina most is her great character and conviction, qualities that have rooted her deeply in a grand cause: the defense of Mexico’s San Pedro Mezquital River, threatened by Las Cruces Dam. At AIDA we’re deeply moved by the commitment of Marcelina and honored to be part of the same fight. Just like her, we want the San Pedro—the only free-flowing river left in the western Sierra Madre Mountains—to run free. We’ve been inspired to know more about this incredible woman, and to understand why she does what she does. Colors of the Sierra Madre Marcelina lives in a house made of mud, built high upon a hill, in a small community in the state of Nayarit. To go anywhere from her house, she has to walk an hour and a half through the mountains. She travels everywhere on foot. There’s no doubt Marcelina is a special woman. Everyone in the region knows her; she is unmistakable. She has the look of a wise indigenous woman, the bright colors of her clothes equal only to those of the beaded necklaces she wears each day. She herself colors the beads; they are a symbol of the importance of her culture. She often wears a head wrap, which gives her an air of certainty and connotes rich ancestral wisdom. Though her profound presence can seem serious, Marcelina is a very sweet and loving person. Over the years, Marcelina has not been immune to violence and machismo, in its many expressions. She has had to fight to have her voice recognized in agrarian assemblies, and, for a time, had to provide for her children as a single mother. Her people, the Wixárika—known in Spanish as the Huicholes—are a majority group in Nayarit. They live in the western central region of Mexico, in the Sierra Madre Mountains; they primarily populate the states of Nayarit and Jalisco, but are also represented in parts of Durange and Zacatecas. In their native tongue, belonging to the family of Uto-Aztecan languages, wixárika means “people.”   For the Wixárika, ceremonies are fundamental to the social wellbeing of the group. It is through these sacred rituals that they ask for rain, give thanks for the harvest, bless its fruits, and pray for health and vitality. Their ceremonies are, in short, where they celebrate and honor life. For Marcelina and her people, the San Pedro Mezquital is the pillar of social, spiritual and economic life. Its waters support their subsistence farming and fishing activities; 14 of their sacred sites are spread along its length. What’s more, the river feeds Marismas Nacionales, one of the most important mangrove forests in all of Mexico. This important source of life and culture is threatened now by the construction of Las Cruces Dam, a project being proposed by the Federal Electricity Commission. The megaproject would be located 65 kilometers north of the city of Tepic. It would have a capacity of 240 MW, divided between three generators. The dam would effectively stand as a 188-meter high concrete curtain. Speaking for the river In her excellent Spanish, accented with clear links to her indigenous roots, Marcelina has on various occasions stood before microphones and cameras to defend the San Pedro River and the lives of those who depend upon it. “The construction of this dam will have a severe impact on our culture and our spirituality. Many of our ceremonial centers are located along this river,” she explained. “It is there that we leave our offerings of thanks; it there that we pray, not just for our own community, but for the entire world.” When asked why she decided to be part of the movement in defense of the San Pedro, Marcelina responded: “As an indigenous women, I’m hurt that they want to take away our river. What’s happening? Why didn’t they consult us indigenous people [about the project]? Where is their respect? Why are we treated this way?” Her questions remain unanswered. The construction of Las Cruces will have negative impacts on the land, its natural resources, and the way of life of the indigenous people who depend upon it. The dam will flood 4,506 hectares; the town of San Blasito, sections of communal land, at least 14 sacred sites, and one ceremonial center, will all be under water. “We are the roots of Mexico,” Marcelina concluded. “It’s not easy for us to change our sacred sites; they’re like a tree rooted deep in the soil. Down these rivers run the blood of our gods.”

Water in Mexico: a human right, bottled

Mexico consumes 12 percent of the global volume of bottled water, highlighting the failures of the country’s water supply system and the violation of a basic human right. Nobody should be denied a glass of water. Serving your guests water is polite; it shows you have good manners and empathy for others. It is also, though not quite as obvious, an issue of human rights. In Mexico’s capital, until only recently, restaurants could deny a glass of water to their customers and require them to drink only bottled water. On one occasion, the owner of a gourmet pizzeria reacted furiously when she saw my boyfriend take out his own water bottle to take a pill. She told him it was prohibited to bring outside food and drink into her restaurant. Then, when we asked for a glass of water, she responded angrily: “We don’t give water away here, we sell it in bottles.” A circular business What you find being sold in supermarkets is not the water, but the bottle. In Mexico, the cost of the extraction and supply of water is relatively low, since almost the entire service is subsidized. According to the highest available rate, a glass of water costs seven cents (.007 Mexican pesos). For a bottle with the same quantity of water, the pizzeria charged $1.50 (28 pesos), seven times the supermarket price. The incident in the pizzeria occurred after the Legislative Assembly of Mexico City required food establishments to provide free glasses of water to customers who ask for it. But even after the legislative provision, I have often had to clarify that I want a glass of water, not a bottle. The waiters often warn me, “It’s filtered water,” reminding me of its unreliability. The dynamic behind this type of business has changed: they now buy large jugs of bottled water or spend money on filters, because in Mexico it’s well known that you never drink water directly from the tap. It’s an unspoken secret, almost popular belief, that tap water is dirty water. It’s common that even those of us who don’t buy bottled water have a filter in our homes. This belief emerged from the 1985 earthquake, when various pipes broke and drinking water mixed with sewage. Later, during a cholera epidemic in the 1990’s, the government promoted chlorinating or boiling the tap water. Yet no authority was responsible for the quality of the pipes through which the drinking water ran; water which, by definition, should be fit for human consumption. In contrast, Chile promotes three reliable water sources: chlorinated, boiled or taken from the tap.  In Mexico, the health threat coincided with the arrival of bottled water. What the companies promoted in those early years was confidence and security in the quality of their water. So, little by little, we went from boiling and chlorinating our water, to buying it in 20-liter jugs, to buying small plastic bottles that hold less than 250 ml of water. According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), in 2014 Mexicans consumed 253 liters of bottled water per person. This compares to 94.3 liters per person in Europe (where public drinking fountains are commonplace) and 37 liters per person globally. Mexico consumes 12 percent of the world’s total volume of bottled water. The World Bank cites 80 percent of the Mexican population as distrustful of the water supply system. Bottled water companies, then, have nothing but room to grow, especially considering the majority of the population doesn’t yet consume the recommended two liters of water per day. And a large quantity of bottled water is used on daily tasks such as cooking and washing dishes, even on bathing newborn babies. Can you or can’t you drink tap water? The answer is: It depends. The responsibility for water supply in Mexico is so fractioned that it’s impossible to get a convincing response. In the capital city, water quality is disclosed each year and in only two neighborhoods does it not meet standards for human consumption. Unfortunately, those with the worst water quality also have the lowest standard of living. Information on the subject doesn’t arrive to our homes, it’s difficult to access and – in some cases – the information is non-existent, hidden or disguised. No government authority is responsible for water quality: not the National Water Commission, not state or city governments. Violating a human right Without convincing responses about the reliability of the water supply system, Mexicans are opting to buy bottled water. By doing so, we’re demonstrating that something is wrong with the country’s water system, and the human right to water is not guaranteed. According to the UN, drinking water must be safe, clean accessible and affordable for all. The human right to water was included in the Mexican Constitution four years ago, but its implementation, and the party responsible for guaranteeing it, remains under discussion. While the debate continues, millions of Mexicans are, understandably, buying bottled water to protect their health. The lack of information about or accountability for the water supply system makes the guarantee of this human right nothing more than a dream.   The UN established that people shouldn’t spend more than three percent of their income on water services. In Mexico, only those with incomes greater than $1,200 a month (21,000 pesos) spend three percent or less of their income on bottled water. The other 80 percent of households in the country spend as much as eight percent, a staggering figure, especially considering it doesn’t include what they pay for water used for other domestic activities. People are buying bottled water because they don’t trust the country’s water supply system. By denying a glass of water to its population, the Mexican government is denying a fundamental human right.  

Indigenous groups ask Pope Francis to help stop Las Cruces Dam

In a letter delivered to Vatican representatives, indigenous and riverine communities affected by the construction of a dam on Río San Pedro Mezquital asked that the Pope intercede on their behalf before the Mexican government during his visit to the country. They explained that the hydroelectric project would cause serious harm to the environment and human rights.  Mexico City, Mexico. On the occasion of Pope Francis’ visit to Mexico, indigenous and riverine communities from Nayarit state wrote a letter asking the Pope to intercede on their behalf before the Mexican government, in hopes of putting a stop to the Las Cruces Dam project on Río San Pedro Mezquital. The project, they explain, puts at risk their culture and way of life, and also threatens Marismas Nacionales, one of the country’s most important wetlands. The letter was delivered to the local headquarters of the Apostolic Nunciature, a diplomatic mission of the Vatican. It reads: … We respectfully solicit that you, Your Holiness, during your visit to our country, intercede on our behalf before President Enrique Peña Nieto, so that his Government stops the human rights violations of all indigenous communities in the name of development, and that it abandon further advancement of the Las Cruces hydroelectric dam because of the human and environmental impacts it will cause. Mexico’s Secretary of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) has granted environmental permits and water rights for the construction and operation of the dam. “They did so without having guaranteed the right to prior consultation of the indigenous communities affected by the project, which include the Náyeri, Wixárica, Mexicanero and Tepehuano peoples,” explained Sandra Moguel, AIDA attorney. “SEMARNAT authorized the project with the condition that the Secretariat of Energy realize a process of consultation with the indigenous communities, which should have been done before issuing the authorizations.” In their letter, the indigenous communities honor and celebrate Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Sí, in which he recognizes the important contribution indigenous communities can make towards the promotion and protection of culture and natural resources. “The Río San Pedro is not simply part of our lives, but also fundamental to our spirituality,” explained Julián López Cánare, member of the Náyeri Indigenous Council, who delivered the letter. “All of its territory, from its headwaters to its mouth, is a sacred space where we strengthen our identity and values.” This river also feeds Marismas Nacionales, one of Mexico’s most important wetlands. The area is recognized as a Biosphere Reserve and a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetland ecosystems. Finally, the indigenous communities explained in their letter that the pressure put on them to agree to the project has escalated to include harassment and illegal detentions by the government. They also cite instances of acts simulating consultation, which would not be valid considering the project has already been authorized. Citing the visions for the future they share with Pope Francis, the letter finished: Your Holiness, hopeful in the power of your intercession, we part here with the passionate hope that your encyclical letter, Laudato Si’, inspires and propels profound changes in politics, practices, and beliefs of governments, businesses, civil society, and the mentality of our fellow man, with hopes of constructing a more just, more humane, and truly sustainable world.

Worth Protecting: Mexico’s Marismas Nacionales

By Anna Miller, AIDA writer On Mexico’s northern Pacific coast, verdant mangroves reach their roots into the shallow soil, drink up the sweet, fresh water flowing from the mountains, and shelter the diverse, abundant life teeming below. Crabs crawl along the muddy ground, fish zig and zag along the root systems, crocodiles wait patiently in the shallows, and sea turtles feed on their way to coastal nesting grounds. This living, breathing community, extending 2,000 square kilometers through Nayarit and Sinaloa states, is the largest mangrove forest on Mexico’s Pacific coast.   Despite the importance of this rich environment, the Marismas Nacionales are at risk. Their health and vitality are threatened by the proposed Las Cruces hydropower project, which would dam the Río San Pedro Mezquital, the last free-flowing river in the Sierra Madre Mountains.  After the senseless destruction of the Tajamar mangroves in Cancún, Mexico must now, more than ever, live up to its responsibility to preserve vital wetlands like Marismas Nacionales. There is so much worth protecting.  The San Pedro Mezquital River is born in the highest peaks of the Sierra Madre, flowing through dense green forests and across valleys before reaching the coastal plains of Nayarit, where its fresh waters feed Marismas Nacionales. Altering the natural flow of the river would increase sedimentation in the wetlands and risk suffocating the sensitive system. The vast coastal wetlands along the Gulf of California are home to as many as 20 percent of Mexico’s mangroves. A sort of biological super system harbors a diverse array fish and birds and insects and amphibians. The Marismas Nacionales are believed to constitute one of the most productive environments in Northwest Mexico.  Coastal communities also live in harmony with Marismas Nacionales and depend upon the wetlands for their survival. The coastal marine environment provides a sustainable livelihood for local populations, who fish and harvest shellfish. The communities are therefore linked with the health and wellbeing of the wetlands.  An avian paradise, the Marismas Nacionales are home to more than 250 species of birds, nearly half of which are migratory.  The Marismas provide a critical wintering habitat for birds from the Pacific coastal region: in parts of the year, 80 percent of Pacific migratory shorebirds take shelter there. Many local species also seek out the mangroves as shelter from surrounding areas during particularly harsh weather.  Without a healthy river, the life in these vast mangrove forests and coastal lagoons may be lost for good. With the construction of Las Cruces Dam, Mexico is putting at risk another of its sacred natural places. AIDA is committed to protecting Marismas Nacionales, and the health and way of life of all the living things that depend on them. We hope you’re with us.    Learn about our work to stop Las Cruces Dam

Protecting Sea Turtles in the Gulf of Mexico

By Sandra Moguel Every few years, hundreds of hawksbill and kemp’s ridley turtles glide through the warm, shallow waters of the Veracruz Reef System. There they swim and feed amongst the brightly colored corals, which stretch for miles through the Gulf of Mexico. When the sun goes down, many of the females make their way back to the very beach from which they hatched, to lay the eggs of the next generation. This ritual has happened for centuries, as the migratory turtles move and feed and breed their way through the Gulf and Caribbean waters. But it’s happening less and less. As their critical habitats are threatened by reckless human activities and a changing climate, the population of hawksbill turtles in the region has declined by 95 percent, making them a critically endangered species. The hawksbill (eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemps’ ridley (lepidochelys kempii) turtles are just two of the five neotropical species of sea turtle that spend a portion of their migratory cycles along the coast of Veracruz, Mexico, and within the confines its reefs. Now, these turtles are facing a new threat – the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. To raise awareness of the risk posed to these threatened species, AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) on September 22 presented a petition (in Spanish) before the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention (IAC), under which Mexico has obligations to protect turtles found within its borders. In the petition, we detailed the direct and indirect impacts that the expansion of the Port would have on the various turtle species and their habitat. We also mentioned that in the project’s environmental impact statement, the Veraruz Port Authority stated that the port expansion “will never have a direct effect on protected species.” They therefore failed to present protection measures for sea turtles, particularly the hawksbill, which is listed as threatened under both the Sea Turtle Convention and Mexican law. Our petition before the IAC requests they take measures to understand the threat and urge Mexico to act, including: conduct an investigation on the impacts the port expansion would have on the turtles and their habitat; conduct a site visit; make recommendations for the protection of the species and their habitat; and urge the Mexican government to apply precautionary measures while evaluating potential environmental impacts on the turtles. Also on September 22, alongside CEMDA, we delivered more than 36,000 signatures from a citizens’ petition urging the Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources to revoke the environmental authorization granted for the Port’s expansion. The petition argues that the expansion project would put in danger two of Mexico’s natural treasures – the Veracruz Reef System and Los Tuxtlas Reserve, a natural protected area from which basaltic rock for the construction would be extracted. The permit has been approved without considering the severe environmental impacts it would have on the unique ecosystems of the region and the creatures that call them home. The Mexican government has thus violated national and international obligations to conserve biodiversity and protect its natural heritage. As long as the Port of Veracruz expansion project threatens sensitive species and ecosystems, we will continue to advocate through national and international bodies to stop it.  Thank you for supporting our work to defend the health and biodiversity of the Veracruz Reef System!

Nearly 37,000 people urge SEMARNAT to protect Mexico’s natural treasures

The Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and the Veracruz Reef System are at risk from the expansion of the Port of Veracruz, authorized by SEMARNAT. Signatures to protect the important natural sites were collected on a citizens’ petition at change.org/saveveracruz A coalition of organizations has alerted the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Commission for the Protection of Sea Turtles of the threat the project poses to sea turtles. Yesterday civil society organizations delivered more than 36,000 signatures urging Mexico’s Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) to revoke an environmental permit granted for the extraction of basaltic rock from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve for the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The highly successful citizens’ petition was delivered to José Luis Juan Bravo Soto, the Director of Citizen Services at SEMARNAT, and David Gutiérrez Carbonell, the Director General of Conservation Development at CONANP. The authorization granted to the Port Authority of Veracruz by the government in June 2014 would increase the damage the port has historically cause to the surrounding coral reef ecosystem, and put in danger two of the most important natural treasures in Mexico: the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and the Veracruz Reef System. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA) and the organizations Resistencia Organizada por la Conservación Ambiental (La Roca) and the Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA) stated in a press conference that the Veracruz Reef System is already in grave danger due to SEMARNAT’s approval, without sufficient technical and scientific information, of a plan to modify the borders of the Veracruz Reef System National Park in order to expand the Port of Veracruz. Permission granted for the extraction of basaltic rock from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve for construction of the port’s new jetties conflicts with the Reserve’s management program, which expressly prohibits the use of explosives in the area. This region contains one of the last rainforests in Mexico, serves as a natural barrier against hurricanes and tropical storms, provides a refuge to millions of plant and animal species, and is home to many communities.  In addition to actions taken so far, on September 22 AIDA and CEMDA presented a report before the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC), detailing the direct and indirect impacts that the expansion of the Port of Veracruz would have on sea turtles and their habitat. The Veracruz Reef System is the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico. It works as a natural barrier against waves and storms; in 2010 it protected the city of Veracruz from Hurricane Karl.  It is also home to a large variety of flora and fauna. The coasts of Veracruz, including the reef system, receive at different times of year five species of neotropical sea turtles. The Port Authority said in its environmental impact statement that the project “will never have a direct effect on protected species.” The statement, however, failed to provide protection measures for sea turtles, particularly for the hawksbill turtle, listed as a threatened species under both the Sea Turtle Convention and Mexican law. This species is found in the Veracruz Reef System National Park and has migration routes throughout the Gulf of Mexico. SEMARNAT authorized the expansion project in December 2013, without requiring a special management plan for the conservation of the hawksbill sea turtle. The authorization, therefore, runs contrary to the obligation of the Mexican government to promote the protection, conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations and the habitat on which they depend, particularly spawning and feeding grounds. It does nothing to restrict human activities that could affect the turtles, particularly during periods of breeding and incubation. The Veracruz Reef System was declared a Natural Protected Area in 1992 and was registered, in 2004, as a Wetland of International Importance in accordance with the characteristics established by the Ramsar Convention. The authorization granted by the environmental authority therefore contravenes national and international standards and does not properly consider the cumulative impacts that the project would have on the ecosystem. It also ignores the Mexican government’s responsibility to protect the biodiversity found within its territory, and disregards the National Biodiversity Strategy and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Sign the petition at: change.org/saveveracruz Photos of the delivery of signatures: http://www.cemda.org.mx/?p=4555

A World Without Ozone

By Laura Yaniz In Mexico, on September 16th, people rest from a night of partying, and so does the sky. In that country, Independence Day begins contaminated by the excessive fireworks used in patriotic celebrations. The irony is that, worldwide, that same day is reserved to celebrate the preservation of the ozone layer. What would have happened had we not decided to care for the ozone?  Each 16th of September, Mexico City wakes up with its air hanging thick and dirty. Although the streets are nearly empty, the government maintains a “Don’t Drive Today” program and sanctions distracted drivers whose plate numbers are forbidden from driving that day. I call them “distracted” because on holidays, the government often suspends the “Don’t Drive Today” program, but not on September 16th. On this day, everyone must recover from his or her hangover, including the sky. This is a result of September 15th, when Mexico celebrates its “motherland night.” In cities across the country, thousands of fireworks are launched from plazas packed full of partiers. And so, the next day, the sky hangs even greyer than usual. It’s a bit ironic that September 16th is International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer.  More ironic still is that a Mexican named Mario Molina was part of the group of scientists who discovered what was causing the hole in the ozone layer: chemicals expelled into the air by human beings. The discovery became a turning point in the war against gases that damage our atmosphere. It led to diplomatic actions worldwide: the Montreal Protocol was signed with the specific purpose of protecting the ozone, prohibiting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, commonly known as Freon) and spurring the elimination of other harmful substances. “My first environmental panic,” is how Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA climate change attorney, remembers it. And why not? Destroying the ozone meant weakening protection against the UV rays that cause skin cancer and cataracts, not to mention the fact that extremely dangerous radiation could cause drastic changes in the ecosystems we rely upon in our own lives. We’ve had 40 years of scientific investigation into the effects of chemicals on the ozone, and 30 years of global and political actions to confront them. Have they mattered at all? Yes. The world we avoided NASA published a simulation that explains the world that might have been had we not acted so quickly to protect our ozone: By 2020, 17 percent of all ozone would have disappeared on a global level. By 2040, UV radiation would have reached an index of 15 in mid-latitudes. An index of 10 is considered extreme and can cause burns within 10 minutes. By 2065, we would have lost two-thirds of the ozone, causing never-before-seen UV radiation levels, which could cause burns in only 5 minutes of exposure. Would we have reached 2100? NASA didn’t say. The hope: What we can do Richard Stolarski, a scientific pioneer in ozone studies and the co-author of NASA’s simulation, expressed his admiration for the global work to confront the problem: “I didn’t think the Montreal Protocol would work, it was very naïve in terms of politics. Now it is a remarkable international agreement and should be studied by all those involved in seeking a global agreement on global warming.“ Certainly, what was achieved was inspirational, because a catastrophic situation was avoided.  But we can’t let down our guard just yet. When the Montreal Protocol prohibited chlorofluorocarbons, industry replaced them with hydrofluorocarbons.  Like the CFCs they replaced, HFCs are potent greenhouse gases. As part of our Climate Change program, we work to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, which include hydrofluorocarbons. Although they represent only a small percentage of greenhouse gases, their production and use are growing and will continue to increase if action is not taken. That’s why at AIDA we are working to identify ways to strengthen regulations that reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. Because these pollutants persist in the atmosphere only briefly, reducing their concentrations can provide near-term climate benefit, giving us more time to implement renewable energy and efficiency programs that lessen the severity of climate change. Are you with us?

Defending Mexico's marine biodiversity from deep sea mining

Two Texts That Will Reconnect You With the Earth

There are two texts you should read because you live on this planet, two texts that will reconnect you with the Earth. You should read them because the Earth is protected not just by law and science, but also by heart and spirit; and because, like it or not, we share this home with everyone. They are Laudato Si, the recently published encyclical by Pope Francis, and Falling in Love with the Earth, an essay by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. As the Zen Master says, “we and the Earth are one.” The texts concern all people, regardless of their religion, beliefs, politics or understanding of the planet’s environmental realities.  It is not my intent to summarize these publications, or to deter you from reading and experiencing them firsthand. My intention is to encourage you to know them, because each allows us to better understand the realities of our planet, and sheds light on how to make our time on Earth positive. What is at stake is, as the Pope would say, “our dignity.” We must be mindful of the kind of planet we want to leave for the future. Laudato Si: The Papal Encyclical Pope Francis’ encyclical is an extensive document that, with the help of science, analyzes both the reasons behind the planet’s grave environmental situation and its possible solutions. I was pleasantly surprised by the level of scientific detail included in the text, and by the recognition that climate change is the responsibility of human beings. By reminding us of the urgent need to move from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources, and to control atmospheric pollution, the text illuminates the path to Paris. At the end of the year, the French capital will host the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference, set to usher in a new and binding global climate accord. It was heartening to see the Pope emphasize the social inequalities of the planet, particularly by explaining the relationship between environmental degradation and the communities it affects—primarily poor and indigenous peoples. But still, the encyclical is not perfect. One point it misses is how women suffer more from climate impacts, so the historical debt the Catholic Church has with us is still pending. The Pope states that those with the most power—corporations, countries and elites—are the primary responsible parties, though they’re certainly not the only ones. The powerful, therefore, are obligated to develop solutions. It is encouraging to read this since the Vatican has not exactly been characterized by its vows of poverty, and especially since I’m Latin American and work in this region, the most unequal in the world. The encyclical concludes that an “ecological conversion” is necessary because “living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.” This applies to everyone, as the work of protecting nature is the essence of being a virtuous person. A Time to Act In reading both the encyclical and the essay, you may notice that their conclusions are not new. The Pope is quite reminiscent of his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who first spoke in the 13th Century of the need to protect “our Sister Earth.” Thus, the Pope and the Zen Master continue the urgent call to analyze our way of life, our consumption and our treatment of the Earth.   So, why don’t we care for the planet, as we should? Why do we need their reminders? Why does it still seem we’re going from bad to worse? I don’t have the answers. But neither do the Zen Master or the Pope. “Sadly, many efforts to find concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proven ineffective, due not only to powerful opposition, but also to a general lack of interest,” Pope Francis said. Trending topics on social networks are a hard reminder of this reality. Cities, countries and what seems like the entire world are paralyzed during the World Cup, the Olympics, and even during beauty contests. Paying attention to these events is not bad, but the little attention we give to environmental problems and inequality is. The apathy must stop TODAY.  Therein lies the relevance of these documents. We need to get involved, strive to understand their content, act on our understanding and show results, not make excuses. The Pope acknowledges that “politics and business are slow to react, far from living up to global challenges.”  Judging from the current situation, I would say we’ve all reacted slowly. Let’s change that now. I’m sure we all have something we could improve, and something we could contribute. Regardless of specifics, simply because we live on Earth, we have a responsibility we must acknowledge. As Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh says, caring for and honoring the Earth “is not an obligation. It is a matter of happiness, of personal and collective survival.”