NewsTaco

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

In case you missed it, the Sierra Club came out in support of comprehensive reform—and more explicitly, a path to citizenship.

This keeps the debate alive, and the “green bandwagon” going for immigration reform as we continue with working out the details of what “comprehensive” immigration reform will look like—as well as the reasons to make this happen. The Senate “Gang of 8” unveiled their proposal already and as of this writing we will see what the House may propose.

It was bold of the Sierra Club to take this public step on immigration, following initial outings by Bill McKibben from 350.org and Phil Radford from Green Peace. It was also bold because the Sierra Club is a mainstream environmental organization—and the nation’s oldest.

Not surprising, in making this statement,  it also opened itself to attacks—but this also presents the opportunity to keep exploring the “green case” for immigration reform, the issues connecting the two, and whether more environmental organizations should come out in support.

In responses to the Sierra Club’s statement on Huffington Post, one sees comments such as :

“I guess the Sierra Club hasn’t consulted with the BLM about the total destruction of our national parks and monuments in the Sonoran Desert along the US/Mexico border that is being caused be illegal migration.”

“Ahhhh someone with their thinking cap on. Yes, no issue and nothing else are as vital to Earth and mankind as Zero Population Growth. As we can only act locally, why do we want to add more and more human hordes to our society? Don’t we already have too many folks, too many problems and our ecosystems are going, going, going.”

“Read somewhere one of the club’s leaders invested heavily in big solar. More and more humans, ‘destroying it through population growth.’”

“I just wrote to the Sierra Club and cancelled my membership. I am not anti-immigrant in the least, but I do believe in controlling the population that moves into environmentally overtaxed regions, regardless of where they come from or who they are, and evidently the Sierra Club no longer thinks protecting wild lands from too many people is important.”

“This is why I chose to not join the Sierra Club. Just because someone is for clean energy and against fossil fuels doesn’t mean they are for the environment. What about the doubling of the population due to all of this unchecked immigration? What about the loss of arable land needed to house these new immigrants? What about the severe water shortage that’s predicted for the west in about 60 years due to all of these new immigrants? What about the trees that will have to be cut down to build houses? The extra pollution that comes from doubling your population? This is ridiculous and I can’t believe the Sierra Club has lost their way in such a stunning manner to actually think this is good for the environment.”

The list could go on, many recalling a past nativist frame or with some attempted disguise of “common sense”.

But this sampling does point out two to three arguments that reasonable people can explore and discuss, so long as they are open to some nuance and an understanding that people are not just problems but also powerful tools for solutions.

Here are some common threads of argument, with some considerations to “chew on”:

• Immigrants are destroying our public lands through border crossings
• Immigration is increasing our population which puts further stresses on our environment
• Immigrants are an addition to the problem, not part of the solution

For further consideration I offer these thoughts and responses.

Immigrants are destroying our public lands. At a time when agencies like the National Park Service know and want to increase diversity and Latino outreach, it is a mistake to assume that immigration or “immigrants” in general equate deteriorating public lands. Yes, there ARE issues of litter and habitat disturbance with border crossings. I wrote some reflections on that in this column. But at the same time, consider issues like this as causes of broader policies and with other actors. Migrants crossing the border do not simply choose a potentially deadly desert trek with the intent of littering. It is a decision done in the context of drug and economic policies between the US and Mexico—where people get caught in the middle and are easier to blame, as opposed to digging deeper into what these policies do. Read Aura Bogado’s piece for a little more digging. We want keep borders open for economic policies, but not people.

In addition, if individuals or organizations want to look at habitat destruction, a bigger issue may be how proponents for border walls and enforcement routinely seek exemptions from environmental regulations.

Immigration is a population problem. Well, yes, the population is increasing and we are taxing our ecosystems—worldwide. Though it is easy to assume that more people equate more of a problem, there is also the issue of the impact each person has. Many parts of the world do not “live like Americans” where we have a disparate environmental impact through our lifestyle, not just our population figures. Also, addressing an immigration system is not the same as saying that “11 million new people will just appear”.  They are already here, and we have the opportunity to engage them (us) in a meaningful constructive way that will help deal with our environmental and conservation concerns.

Immigrants are an addition to the problem, not part of the solution. This relates to the second point but it is broader. If as a default one sees recent and established immigrants as “part of the problem”, without considering the opportunities they present for solutions—then we are not really having a progressive discussion and will only really focus on shouting talking points. Poll after poll shows a broad and focused range of support among Latinos for conservation and environmental issues. A recent poll by Voces Verdes and Latino Decisions shows high Latino support for action on air pollution and climate change.

Most of these polls focus on Latino voters (out of necessity) but the opportunity is there to engage would be and potential voters. What if environmental/conservation organizations worked with voter registration efforts? What if they worked with citizenship drives? If you want to engage with the Latino community, you have to put in the long-term effort, not just come calling by campaigns.

Another point is that in the broad spectrum of Latinos there are conservation ethics that have been there for generations. Whether it is a cultural connection to mother Earth Pachamama, habits of reduce-reduce-recycle, or historical traditions of working the land, there is much that Latino communities bring to the table to inform an “American” conservation ethic. As Van Jones put it if you are not engaging diverse communities, “You’re leaving out too many good ideas.” Basically, we cannot allow potential solutions to be off the table because of misunderstandings, biases, or simply non-engagement.

So—what to do? It brings us back to the question: does comprehensive immigration reform make sense from an environmental/conservation stand and should other organizations join in?

It may be that you can pick your reason. An environmental/conservation organization may want to join in for the quest to diversify the movement and grow the support base, politically and economically. One may join as a basic question of social and economic justice. Another may want to join in because based on their experience they know that Latino communities are not “new” to conservation ethics, can deliver successes, and have long historical traditions of conservation work in the US.

But regardless the reason, the outcome is still one in which conservation and environmental organizations can play a positive role in this process—even if they risk some ire and a share of piercing comments.

Diversity is strength in the natural world—that can be reflected in our social efforts as well.

[Photo by CPB Photography]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

National Park Week is coming up, aligned with celebrations on Earth Day. During this time, the public can attend National Parks for free. Do you have plans to attend your closest National Park?

The question is posed because it provides an opportunity to go past how public land managers and organizations are working to reach out to diverse communities, and point out the opportunities for Latino communities to not only visit National Parks, but develop deeper understandings, connections, and responsibilities for our National Parks.

As Latinos will attain greater sociopolitical power, a guiding question is, how do we handle the responsibility of being stewards to our heritage in the National Parks?

There are certainly many areas where the National Park System has struggled to be more relevant to changing demographics and reaching out to diverse communities. But at the same time, there are various success stories and there are National Park units that are deliberately working to “bring the park to the people.”

Nonetheless, though there may be park units that have a clear need for more Latino engagement, it should also be clear that there is a rich Latino history and heritage in many park units.

This is highlighted by the recent NPS theme study detailing Latino heritage in US history. That is a study worth reading, especially to put into context how Latino history has been an interwoven thread in the American historical tapestry since the very beginning. This is alongside the establishment of the American Latino Heritage Fund in 2011, which has been working “to ensure that our national parks and historic sites preserve, reflect and engage the diverse stories and communities of American Latinos throughout American History and for future generations.”

We certainly need that work and it is important to expect our stories and engagement to be reflected across the National Park System. At the same time it is important to embrace not just the opportunity but the responsibility. That means demanding accessibility to this public heritage and making it culturally relevant, but also working to ensure its sustainability.

That could mean being involved in the policy work of having a healthy park system. It can mean being advocates for the park system across different platforms. It  could mean deepening our understanding of what the National Parks are and how they work—and how they are different from other public lands. It could mean simply attending your closest National Park, if you have not, to discover the heritage that belongs to all of us. Regardless, it involves taking some form of action.

Part of this work will not only involve highlighting the park units that most clearly tell the Latino heritage, but also seeing how we can broaden our experience into other park units. We can clearly identify with the new Cesar Chavez National Monument, but how do we create a Latino story for Glacier National Park? How is our story evolving with Kings Canyon National Park or with Grant Tetons National Park?

So we do need to keep in mind the following:

• There is a need for more Latino community engagement in our National Parks.
• There is a need for more Latino representation in the National Park units.

But at the same time, as we own our power, demographically and politically, we can ask ourselves not only how do the National Parks represent us, but how we represent our responsibility for our National Parks. We need to increase our stories in, about, and for the National Parks. How will you engage with your parks this upcoming National Park Week?

[Photo courtesy National Parks Foundation]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

So the articles keep on coming out echoing the same message: “We essentially have a racially segregated environmental movement”.

One that made recent headlines was over at the Washington Post, titled “Within Mainstream Environmental Groups, Diversity is Lacking”.

The article provides a good snapshot of where we are, with a bit of history and hints of what we can do to fix it. The important thing is that it provides direct quotes from diverse leaders working to get this message out to prompt action.

The Washington Post article was followed up in Color Lines with “Mainstream Green is Still Too White”.

That article was more targeted, with clear sections breaking it down and digging a little deeper. It closes with essentially an open question/proposal to mainstream environmental groups: Will you let us lead?

This discussion on diversity lacking in mainstream environmental groups echoes past articles, which have elicited a range of responses trying to address why this is the case.

To that discussion I will add the following thoughts, stressing the steps for solutions rather than an autopsy of why we are where we are.  To quote the Executive Director of Azul, Marce Gutiérrez, “’We essentially have a racially segregated environmental movement’ – Agreed. Now, how do we start to change this?”

That really is the question, which was furthered highlighted when I had a conversation with a professor who has done research into the barriers to engagement with the outdoors/conservation by communities of color.

The take-away message was “we can talk about barriers all day long but…” The key point was that in many ways the barriers have not changed. Yes, we can narrow it down from broad barriers to the specific ways in which they affect separate communities. But it still comes down more to “what are we DOING?” more so than “what is the answer.”

There are three points I put forth for consideration:

• The pool of talent available, how they are represented, and for what purpose.
• The mindset of mainstream organizations that need change or may seek change.
• The funders that support these efforts—and how their support help or hinder efforts.

On the first point, the statement is simple. There are many talented individuals and organizations out there doing the good work related to communities of color and environmental/conservation issues. Most are categorized under “environmental justice”. But a good segment is working as bridges between mainstream conservation issues and issues relevant to communities of color. Simply put, one cannot say that there are no “qualified” applicants out there. The important point is that they are valued for the contributions they bring, and that real diversity is not limited to just counting the number of “people of color on staff”.  As Adrianna Quintero from the NRDC put it in the Washington Post article:

 “Last year, we did a big analysis of what our diversity needs are, and we found that in order to attract the talent, [applicants] need to be allowed to do work where they feel like they are giving back to their communities.”

So how are organizations hiring these individuals, reaching out to them, and putting them in positions that leverage their skills, rather than just counting them for “diversity purposes”?

On the second point, whether mainstream organizations want to change, it really connects to points one and three—whether they are hiring people committed to these issues and how they are prioritizing their spending.  Even organizations that are working on it have a ways to go. As the Washington Post article noted:

“Spokeswoman Maggie Kao [for the Sierra Club] said the group has had an environmental justice arm for at least a decade. Still, several minorities who work for Sierra Club said it lacks diversity.”

A question there may be not so much that an organization has an “added on” component of environmental justice, but rather if an examination of the organization’s values, mission, vision, and framework shows environmental justice as part of the mindset and internal drive. This is not to criticize the good work that many mainstream organizations are doing, but rather to point the way to keep moving forward on diversity—to internalize diversity rather than just add it on.

The third point is a big connector to all this:  how funding is allocated for environmental/conservation work. As this 2010 Environmental Grantmakers Association report noted, funding for work labeled as Environmental Justice, Environmental Health, and Indigenous Populations, paled in comparison for big issues like Climate Change. We could get into the semantics of whether climate change funding was applied for work with communities of color—but the larger picture is a snapshot of how funding is prioritized, and what organizations claim those larger shares. It is also not to dismiss how important it is to tackle climate change, but rather to challenge funders to think about “the big issues” with a “community of color lens”. We are all affected regardless of skin color and ethnicity, yet it can seem like the ones getting the money and credit are “the big organizations”, which focus that money and energy in ways that can seem exclusive of communities of color.

To funders, the question and challenge is: how is your funding diversified? Not just in issues and organizations, but in mindset. It seems like common knowledge that land conservation will get millions while community programs struggle for operational costs in the thousands. Investing in the environment means investing in the communities that will benefit from and provide support for environmental/conservation issues in the future—a demographically diverse future.

Simply put, this third point goes back to the “put your money where your mouth is” or “walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk”.

Yes, projects and programs cost money. But if the answer is “we don’t have the money” rather than “how are we spending the money and what can be changed?”, then it points more to a mindset that sticks on knowing the barriers but not moving forward to provide solutions.

If you set a plan in motion, it speaks to your philosophy of working towards change, instead of just seeing the challenges.  Are you working for the opportunities or just dragging on the challenges?

Of course, matters may be different for a public agency compared to a mainstream environmental non-profit. Agencies have to work within one set of rules and non-profits within another. But the question will still be, what are they doing within that set of rules?

Non-profits should be most nimble in that respect, while keeping in mind how funders also need to think about how the money is used—and how it supports or leaves out communities of color.

Public agencies also face funding challenges, yet in many ways they have clearer directives to engage diverse communities. Here, public agencies do need more traction but yet they also have big potential, with the right reframing and shift in thinking.

To close, there may be people asking, so what? Why worry about this issue?

If you are stuck on that point, it could be a whole discussion. The short of it is that diversity yields strength, in our social world just like in the natural world. Monocultures do not really thrive on their own.  If mainstream organizations want to remain relevant and access that strength from diversity, they need to embrace it in meaningful ways, and share in the leadership—as well as the money—that they have been accustomed to having on their own.

As Van Jones, noted in the Washington Post article:

“Any movement or cause that’s racially exclusive will have less power and less influence. You’re leaving out too many good ideas. I think the cause of having a liveable, survivable environment is weakened by the fact that we have these divisions.”

We can keep pointing fingers or wondering why some arms are crossed—or we can make sure we are reaching out, grasping hands, and making it work. Also, much like in many things, follow the money.

[Photo by Giovanna Di Chiro, EPA EJ Blog]

Have you read an article you’d like to suggest for the NewsTaco community? Let us know at: tips@newstaco.com

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

Immigration is THE topic for most Latino communities right now and it has the right political buzz in the wake of the 2012 elections. As part of the process are the different ways that groups and coalitions are forming to negotiate this opportunity to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality this year.

Also in that process are all the pro and con arguments for comprehensive reform, ranging from a basic point of social justice, to health, to the economics of it, and so forth.

So in this mix, can an environmental case be made for immigration reform?

Well, if you missed it, recently there were two key opinion pieces from two different environmental leaders calling for immigration reform and a path to citizenship. Both pieces elicited a variety of responses, which I would generalize from a general “you’re missing some key points”, to a “right on brother.”

But it does make it a good question to ask: is there an environmental case for immigration reform? And if so, how does it make sense to frame it, and by whom?

The first piece was in the LA Times by Bill McKibben, a well-known progressive environmental figure, especially in the area of climate change. Most recently, he has been the lead figure for 350.org and the battle over the Keystone XL Pipeline.

In a nutshell, McKibben argued that it was time for the environmental community to embrace immigration reform. His piece elicited a stronger negative response from a variety of Latinos, the “you’re missing a point, or don’t get it” response. The title of the piece “Immigration Reform—for the Climate” may be indicative of the framing that many saw as condescending, misguided, missing the point, or  worst of all, downright racist. Part of the issue was that it was seen as using the call for immigration reform as a self-serving way to move the climate change agenda.

To give credit to McKibben, he acknowledges that many environmentalists have had difficulty with Latino and immigrant communities when framing the issue of population—essentially framing immigrants as a problem that leads to more disparate effects on the environment. Most memorable in that history were the troubles the Sierra Club had as it struggled with the issue of population control, and a potential board takeover that hinted of nativist themes framing migrants as the bad guys.

But a missing point is that in tying increased population patterns as directly correlated with immigration, we can miss the point that a greater threat is to not critically examine our consumption patterns, immigrant or not.

Caroline Selle, from We Are Power Shift, offers a good deconstruction McKibben’s piece and further outlines some general problems with it. She sums it up as such:

“That argument makes me very, very uncomfortable. First, it has echoes of the ‘noble savage.’ Second, McKibben lumps all immigrants into one giant group. Third, he glosses over the responsibility we over-consumers have for creating the problems that spur mass immigration in the first place. And, finally, he skims past the barriers to entry immigrants face when trying to make their voices heard. Immigrants often don’t have a voice in the public sphere, but that’s often not for lack of want or trying.”

To further add, Selle notes that it ignores some history and deeper systemic issues, again focusing on the reasons as to why people need to migrate in the ways they do now.

A fair point to note, and question to ask, of the McKibben piece is who is the audience? Or what specific purpose does it seem to serve?

The piece reads more of a “conversion” piece, where he acknowledges how he is changing on the issue. If we read it with that perspective, two things come to mind. The audiences are himself and those in similar places. Second, the purpose comes across as a way to serve the climate change audience more so than the immigrant community.  This does not necessarily excuse how the overall message comes across, but at least it provides more of an understanding of where he is coming from.

Part of the problem is that to several readers, the piece read a bit clunky, like “it’s ok, Latinos are not that bad, and we can use their political clout for the change we want.”

Mind you, I too have called on Latinos to use their demographic and political clout for conservation and environmental issues. But I think part of the key difference is that you can say it so that it is an empowering statement or you can say it so that it sounds too self-serving or missing key background context on immigration.

Nonetheless, I trust Bill McKibben as he takes this risk. In fact, in the comments section of Selle’s story, he admits to needing to “learn his way forward”,  and acknowledges that his audience was those resisting immigration reform—and that I would  also surmise are ones who care about the environment but may not necessarily see a sound connection with immigration reform.

The second opinion piece was over on the Huffington Post. Philip Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace had a very direct call for a path for citizenship. But in his piece, he did not explicitly call for immigration reform as a way to help with climate change. Rather, it was more a call of unity. As he noted:

“Every society is judged by how well it embodies its highest aspirations and how it treats its most vulnerable people. It’s not who we are as a society to create a separate class of people and force them to risk exposure to dangerous pollution or toxic pesticides simply because our immigration policies lag behind reality… Only a roadmap to full citizenship will enable all of us, including aspiring Americans, to achieve the safety, sustainability, and dignity that everyone in America deserves.”

Again, asking who the audience is and what is the purpose, this piece read clearer in terms of addressing the same environmental/conservation demographic and that it was a call for working together as a social justice issue. He was not saying that immigration reform was good for the environment. It read more of a “we’re with you”.

Having said that, there would still be many points to bring out that if mainstream environmental organizations are “with us”, then why does it not seem reflected in the movement? Why are there are so many stories about how the environmental justice movement has been wary of some of the work of mainstream environmental organizations?

But that is not to detract from exploring the connections between immigration and the environment. The connections are not new and there are genuine and valid areas to explore between the two issues. You can read some exploration of the issue, connections and conflict, in this piece by Jorge Madrid: From a Green Farce to a Green Future. And the Sierra Club too has attempted to tangentially explore the issue via interviews in its magazine articles.

But if we come back to the question of making an environmental case for immigration reform, I would argue these questions would be useful to keep in mind:

• Who is the audience? How might other audiences respond and does it matter?
• What is the purpose and what is your intent? Can it be misread?
• Has genuine outreach efforts been made to partners on the other issue? Are they with you? Does it matter?
• Do you understand the messages of the other issue or the “other side”? Are you missing something?
• Are you touching on the core issues? What may be missing and how important is it to partners on the other side?
• Are there ways to frame the issues in constructive ways?

Others may have more to add or disagree. People may also come up with different answers along with different questions. But to continue that dialogue, here is a closing thought that may help:

Latinos can and should wield their growing demographic and political weight for conservation issues and especially climate change. Pressing right now is immigration reform, which has had many vitriolic politicized moments. So allies are needed and there are valid connections with conservation organizations for mutual cooperation, but a cooperation that is complementary, not coming across as possessive. For years, this has been a genuine concern by environmental justice organizations,  that cooperation is not balanced and issues are “possessed” in unhealthy balances that lead to “feeling used” or neglected. As a leader of an environmental justice organization once told me. “We’ll work together, we’re here. But we will speak with our own voice and they need to be careful they are not speaking for us or at us. If they are going to do that, then it’s just another way of continuing to exclude us.”

With that in mind, there is the opportunity to, as McKibben said, learn forward. And we can learn forward together, from each other, with each other.

[Photo by CBP Photography]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a Google Hangout on Diversity in the Outdoors, hosted by the Sierra Club. A good summary of it is up on the Huffington Post, courtesy of Stacy Bare, Director of the Sierra Club Mission Outdoors Program.

First of all, this is a much needed discussion, something I have alluded to in previous posts. It is an issue that many are aware of, but it requires a bit more push to keep making it a national discussion.

During the diversity discussion, several good points were made, which also provides a good opportunity to focus again on the ways Latinos do and can engage with the Outdoors, as well as the ways we can support efforts in this endeavor.

Here are the points that Stacy Bare made from the discussion, but furthered boiled down with a special focus connected to Latinos:

• Find where people are getting outside and build on the work already being done.
• A traditional Latino family may bring multiple generations out for a party vs. two hikers seeking adventure on a rock face.
• Activity in a back yard, city park, or sidewalk is equal and more accessible, than national parks.
• Ensure that people can visualize themselves in the outdoors, change the visual representation of the outdoors: There are not enough Latino youth and family faces in catalogs or outreach.

To note, of course these points also apply to many communities of color, but I want to highlight this for Latino communities so as to engage you, dear readers.

Embedded in these points are some interconnected issues, but it presents a useful opportunity to tease out the differences when we talk about outside, outdoors, and the Outdoors.

First, “outside” simply means being outside, but which presents a range options. Latinos ARE outside. In some cases for many Latinos, ironically, much of that outside experience is working the fields—an experience that is important to note because it provides a frame and starting point for that particular demographic.

But it has also been documented that Latinos readily engage in outdoor activities of a recreational nature much like other groups, with family as a focus. This can start in the backyard but extend to municipal and county parks. I call this the “carne asada” effect. Thus, local parks with recreational space are a draw for Latinos. This is also not limited to the grill and a soccer field—there are many Latinos who like to fish in the rivers, jog on shoreline trails, bicycle, or simply go for a walk around the lake.

What makes many of these spaces safe and enjoyable is that there is a sense of comfort and connection to family, still within reach of “home”. We may be in a new space but still within familiar context and with many of the skills needed to be in these environments: play in an open field, fire up the grill, set up the volleyball net, etc.

Second, there is being in the “outdoors”, which can be an intermediary step for some communities or a brand new experience for others. This can involve really travelling to a new park or encountering a new set of experiences with new skills needed.

Take for example a Latino family going to Yosemite for the first time. They will start where it is comfortable, in the valley or near the recreational areas. They will venture out on the trails to familiar spots, they may want to get in the river, bring food—maybe some birotes/bolillos with a particular stuffing. But they may or may not know all the fees or the option of purchasing a federal lands pass. They may also be unfamiliar with the particular regulations for a National Park, and the differences compared to BLM or Forest Service land.

Such knowledge is important, and many Latino communities know that. But the expectation of HOW they should know can be an issue. As Latinos, we will make mistakes; maybe we will not come prepared and stand out a bit. We may not have “the right shoes” or “look like we belong there”. But how that initial interaction and experience goes will determine if we come back and with what frame of mind. It does not mean we need a “taco stand” at the food court to make us feel welcome, but a Latino ranger taking some time to welcome them, check in, and connect with some cultural understanding can make an incredible difference to bridge misunderstanding, close knowledge gaps, and learn from each other.

Does this mean that you NEED a Latino ranger or your program will be ineffective? Of course not, but if that is an opportunity that is not explored, it is a missed opportunity.

Some accounts note that some families avoid park rangers because they look too much like immigration agents. Some avoid them because they think “federal agent” and wonder about what information is asked for, reported, and for what purposes.

But there are several examples of how to engage Latinos in these “intermediary outdoor steps”. Some programs such as the Environment for the Americas use Latino interns to server as cultural connections for Latino families to access and learn about nearby public lands. Others, such as Pura Vida in Grand Teton National Park work to connect Latino youth with bilingual activities. These examples provide opportunities for Latinos to see themselves in the outdoors in a positive manner, with cultural connections as starting points.

Lastly there is the “Outdoors”, which I propose as a frame of mind and experiences that many of us in outdoor conservation take as a given set of values or overlook what bridging opportunities and skills are needed to get communities to this stage—apart from the “if they just had the information and the equipment”. For example, visiting Yosemite is going to the outdoors. But hiking up Half Dome or backpacking one of the remote trails for a couple of days is being in the Outdoors. This may be out of reach for some Latino communities because of time, experience, skills, or a welcoming environment.  This is where many of us want to connect Latinos because it can showcase the wonders of our public lands and we hope to instill that sense of preservation and conservation.

Organizations that handle this well can instill those connections. Organizations that do not handle it well end up “rushing” communities to “want to love” the Outdoors without considering relevance and cultural connections.

There is also the question of skills provided in a supportive manner.  If you expect Latinos to simply show up for a “camping class”, then you may only get a certain group for whom it seems relevant. Some may have a bit of experience, have the time, have the money, or have someone to go with. You may also only get young professionals or youth that have been exposed to connections with outdoor experiences. But many times you may need to address the whole family and especially the parents so as to really connect conservation ethics with cultural values and relevance. A great example of this is the work of Camp Moreno, which explicitly frames its program with connecting to parents and the family, and giving them the skills with supportive and fellow parents to practice camping skills—and being aware of their concerns and needs.

The point of it all is that we are trying to address a recognized need of getting more diversity outdoors and in the Outdoors, while recognizing where Latinos are and would like to be. You have National Park Superintendents stating that there is a need for more diversity in National Parks. More so than a challenge, this presents an opportunity because we all benefit from increased diversity in the broad range of our public lands, from municipal parks to wilderness areas.

We have solutions bubbling around but it is important to note how programs complement each other and support Latino leadership. Programs like the California Mini-Corps Outdoor Education Program and Camp Moreno highlight Latino leadership, which is needed. This is complimented by the work of organizations like Nature Bridge, Sierra Club Mission Outdoors, and Outward Bound, among many others, that have the resources to get more Latinos outdoors.

But is important to stress that in getting more Latinos outdoors, is important to support Latino leadership in this issue. It is not necessarily lacking, we are here, and the individuals are out there, especially “bridging” individuals such as myself that bridge the Latino and the conservation community. Much like other mestizos, we encounter challenges of identity, especially compared to more “outdoor people”.

Thus, we just need to keep building this leadership infrastructure and keep connecting while identifying and recognizing the value of bridging individuals and giving them a chance to work in this platform. That should serve as a call for mainstream conservation organizations and for Latino organizations looking for expertise on the issue.

It is already fairly well-established that Latinos are engaging with conservation and environmental issues from an environmental health and environmental justice perspective out of necessity. But in addition to that, we have a role and contribution to make in the spectrum from being outside to engaging with the Outdoors, and in having experiences from enjoyment of the outdoors to conservation of the Outdoors.

[Photo by Jose Gonzalez]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

Earlier this year the Super Bowl commercial “God Made a Farmer” attracted keen attention by various Latino blogs and advocacy groups for overlooking the fact that the modern “farm” relies on much Latino and immigrant labor.

It was necessary to call that out, as Cuéntame amusingly did. Fact is that a large part of our agricultural system relies on often unseen and underappreciated (or conveniently ignored) labor.

This provides a connection to a conservation issue and another often unsung labor force that is under threat: bees.

If we were to ask you, dear Latino reader, how do we get the bountiful fruit that is picked by the farmworker, how would you respond?

The plants and trees provide the fruits, but it requires pollinators to make sure the pollen from some flowers end up in the flowers of other plants. Flowers do not simply rely on the wind to carry that pollen, it requires pollinators, which can be a range of creatures: bats, birds, moths, and butterflies.

But bees, las abejas obreras, are key pollinators for many agricultural crops—and they are under threat as millions of bees have disappeared and died in what is commonly known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Why does this matter? ¿Porque poner atención?

Bees are a business for many farmers who hire companies that bring whole hives to pollinate their crops—simply put, it is a key economic service.  But there are also many bees out there that do this work “for free”, a key example of an ecosystem service that we either take for granted or do not pay attention to how we benefit. Bees may pollinate crops but they also pollinate other plants, providing an important ecological service.

For years, the causes of Colony Collapse Disorder have been studied, often leading to many questions with few concrete answers. But more recently, several answers keep pointing back to us, people—and how we treat the environment.

A key factor has been the role of pesticides, which is being studied by the EPA, but which gardeners can notice in their own backyards, as noted this year in this NoozHakwk news article from Santa Barbara, CA. As the article notes:

“Carrie Kappel had just returned from a weeklong trip last October when she noticed something was amiss in her Montecito backyard.

Piles of dead and dying honeybees littered the inside and outside of the thriving beehive she and her two young children had been watching over since April.

Local beekeepers recently learned that a combination of pesticide chemicals highly toxic to bees most likely were the cause of the Montecito die-off, according to results from samples tested in an Agriculture Department lab.”

Similar issues were noted in this article by National Geographic highlighting a new study:

“This study shows that when pesticides are combined, the impact on bees is far worse than exposure to just one pesticide. ‘This is particularly important because one of the pesticides we used, coumaphos, is a ‘medicine’ used to treat Varroa mites [pests that have been implicated in CCD] in honeybee colonies throughout the world,’ neuroscientist Geraldine Wright said.

The pesticide, in addition to killing the mites, might also be making honeybees more vulnerable to poisoning and effects from other pesticides.”

Studies will continue, and when you involve industries with money to lose, there is bound to be some politics to consider and policy delays.

But the question will still be, can we afford to lose bees? Why keep them mind and what can we do if we realize we are in danger of losing them?

Bees are certainly special. The Mayans carefully studied bees, which you can see in some surviving codices, and continue to respect and work with them to this day. Those bees, a different specie than our common European honeybee, are under threats for differing reasons, but they provide the similar benefits we derive from the bees in our farm fields.

So as we pay attention and fight for the rights of the human labor force out in the fields, let us also see what we can do about the other labor force in the fields and in ecosystems beyond, las abejas zumbando de flor a flor.

[Photo by US Fish and Wildlife Service]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

We highlight getting to the Outdoors for a wide range of benefits, especially relating to physical and cognitive health.

But a recent story by the National Wildlife Federation noted another key benefit in getting more Latino youth to the Outdoors. As the article notes:

“Perez Elementary School, a registered Eco-School in Austin, Texas and recent winner of a Children in Nature Collaborative of Austin award for environmental education, reminds us that green schools help close the achievement gap for low income and minority students as well as protect the planet and lower energy costs. The student body at Perez is 86 percent Hispanic and 93 percent low income, and the school has made steady academic progress by taking learning outside.”

We have had outdoor schools and environmental education for decades. But there is a difference in what all the different categories mean. Outdoor schools can mean many things, and though in general it can mean education taking place in the outdoors, they tend to be associated with physical skills and “adventure” related programming. Environmental Education is usually related to learning about the environment and conservation issues, with some schools even specifying as being outdoor science schools.  To that we have added nature education and “eco-schools”.

But a general take-away point to note is that the Outdoors can serve not just as a place to learn, but also as a subject to learn, and as a platform for integrated learning of all subjects.

It is not so much that this simply becomes a substitute for learning indoors at school, but that rather it can serve as a key alternative for students that struggle with the “standard classroom” environment.

This is crucial for Latinos and other students of color, which have high rates of dropping out and low academic achievement (though that may be changing recently).

Several years ago, a major study in California studied the effects of Outdoor School programs. The findings pointed to academic gains in the classroom, especially in Latino Students. Along with a host of other benefits like conflict resolution and environmental behaviors, students “who attended outdoor school programs significantly improved their science scores by 27 percent, as measured by a pre- and post-survey.”

As the NWF article also notes:

“Evaluations of environmental education programs in Florida and Texas confirm that economically disadvantaged, Hispanic, and African-American students see the biggest academic benefits from outdoor learning.”

“Perhaps the best news is that green schools make learning fun and engaging at the same time that they boost academic performance. Learning and exploring outdoors, students come into contact with natural things that elicit a deep emotional response.”

So results across the board seem very promising for Latino students. What would be next steps?

Some ideas are to make sure that these programs serve as examples for other education programs. At the same time, it should be relevant and worthy to ask how the programs are culturally relevant and connect with the familias. This can help inform programs that struggle to connect with the very communities that can benefit the most.

Part of this is to also think how the programs reflect the diversity of the communities they serve—specifically a question would be: what is the diversity of outdoor and environmental education teachers?

This would not be to indicate that Latino students cannot learn from non-Latino teachers, but it would be important to explore how cultural leadership and role models are available in this field.

Again, all of this matters, because using the Outdoors can be a powerful connection for Latinos in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields and other careers in conservation, a need that has already been established. You can see sample models such as the work being done the California Mini-Corps Program and Environment for the Americas.

So work is being done, there is an interest, and there are benefits. We just need to continue pushing forward, pa delante.

As a closing statement, we need to ensure we have a conserved Outdoors to serve as an education platform. But that will be a post for another day.

[Photo by Jose Gonzalez]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

After President Obama’s comments on climate change during the State of the Union address, a new poll by the Natural Resources Defense Council affirmed once more that Latinos support taking action on climate change.

As the story by Voces Verde noted:

“’In light of State of the Union, we wanted to see where Latinos stood on Obama’s comments about climate change,’ says Adrianna Quintero, Director of Voces Verdes. ‘What was surprising was that once again Latinos have higher support for taking action against global warming.’”

“’It’s an economic issue. It’s a health issue,’ says Andrea Delgado, Legislative Representative at Earthjustice and former fellow at the National Latino Coalition on Climate Change. ‘Making sure we’re protecting communities all across the board, means nurturing cleaner energy from cradle to grave.’”

This is important to note because there are a variety of reasons why we need to take action on climate change. Much of the discussion has been regarding the science and causes of climate change, along with some of the ecological and physical changes that would come from a changing world under climate change duress—think of melting glaciers and endangered polar bears.

But another issue that has also been key is the direct impact of climate change on us, humans—especially when it comes to health.

It has been fairly clear how general environmental health disparities exist for communities of color, but it is important to ask and note: How do we connect health regularly to climate change?

There are certainly a host of issues connecting health and climate change, from the effects of increased algal fish blooms, increased pests like mosquitos, dirtier air, and extreme heat waves. The key is how it affects people and how we look at this from a public health perspective.

As this article from Scientific American notes,

“’The face of climate change ought to be people,’ epidemiologist George Luber, associate director for global climate change at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. ‘We ought to kind of internalize it.’”

“Some of those effects are easily identified, like the injuries and loss of life that result from more frequent and intense storms. Others are more subtle, like loss of power after a storm that may expose a region to extreme heat from lack of air conditioning, the cumulative effect from more allergies due to higher pollen counts, and the introduction of new diseases from warmer climes that Luber said are already popping up in unlikely places.”

As Latino communities, this is a strong issue on which to rally because as with many disparate environment effects, it is communities of color that are usually “hit first and hit worst”.

This is not to mean that this is merely a self-interested look at climate change. It does matter that we are wiping out habitats and endangering species through climate change. But the connection to saving the polar bear is not as concrete an issue for many communities that do not have the same privileges as more affluent communities have with the outdoors. This is also not to say that Latinos and communities of color do not care or are not able to grasp the concept of threatened species and melting glaciers—it is a simply a reality that more pressing issues are the health of their children, or losing access to affordable food and water.

The good news is that many communities of color have clearly made these connections and have begun taking action. The call now is to keep stressing these points so that we can save the polar bear, and our health—Hay que tomar acción por el planeta, nuestra salud y nuestras comunidades.

[Photo by California Air Resources Board (2011)]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

This month I had the opportunity to attend the California Green Summit in Sacramento, CA. The recent article by New America Media highlighted some key points and it is a great summary of what to take away for policy makers. Read it as a good recap.

However, I submit for review a few other observations to complement those reports.

As I was live-tweeting the event, I tweeted an observation that I wondered if I could count the number of Latinos in the room on one hand. I did not expect the tweet to be retweeted, but I did hear some similar observations afterward.

That is not to say that the summit was not inclusive. In fact, a key panel focused on this issue, capping off the findings of the CLCV’s CA Latinos on the Environment Survey.

In addition, many of the presentations and speakers hit that point home: diversity was not just an ecological term, it needed to be reflected in the general conservation movement.

But going beyond highlighting poll findings, calling for more diversity, and re-affirming Latino interest in environmental and conservation issues, it is important to reflect upon what action was being done to move the issue. Presenting concrete examples, key case studies, and opportunities to share and mentor are key.

That last point was noted by some speakers on the panel: We have to take the opportunity to mentor.

Specifically, a lawmaker on the key guest panel stated this to the whole room, stressing that mentoring should be a key component in building the type of movement we want to see, especially with Latino communities and environmental/conservation issues.

This resonated with a question a young professional asked—and that I would have asked myself: how do young Latino professionals interested in these issues being connect with mentors that are already connected and have influence?

Conversely, how do mentors provide opportunities to welcome and support young Latino professionals interested in environmental and conservation issues?

At the moment there is a lot of focus on youth in high school and college via the form of internships or similar programs. But what happens after college or with other young professionals looking to help with these issues? What networks of support can they access? How are mentors reaching out to those who could be ideal mentees? And ultimately where are the actual employment opportunities for this? Internships and AmeriCorps positions are great places to start, but what is the professional network that helps those ready to take next steps?

I do not simply throw these questions into the void and I do say them in any accusatory manner. I honestly can claim that as I have reached out to individuals for guidance, feedback, and support, many have offered their thoughts and time. Yet it feel like there could be more opportunities to weave networks of support and mentoring opportunities as we develop this idea of Latino leadership in conservation—current and future.

[Photo by Jose Gonzalez]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

Currently in California, campaigns and debates over “ban the bag” have risen in various cities. Most recently there was an effort at the state level that failed. Nonetheless, many municipalities have been successful throughout the state in implementing local bans on plastic bans.

The effort is not just in California, as many places throughout the US and other parts of the world have implemented bans or are having the same debate. Mexico City implemented a ban in 2009.

Even so, after such bans are implemented, debate continues as to their effects. An opinion page in the San Francisco Chronicle this week argued that reusable bags were “unhealthy” due to facilitating food-borne illnesses. San Francisco passed the nation’s first plastic bag ban in 2007.

But rather than diving straight into weighing the pros and cons in the debate over banning plastic bags, it is important to note Latino perspectives and efforts in the campaign to “ban the bag” in California.

This is important because in many environmental campaigns, when communities of color are part of the picture, they may be the “victims” or simply the recipients of detrimental environmental effects. But in many cases, Latino communities are actively speaking with their own voices—and it is important to see how those issues and campaigns are framed rather than just as an “added-on” constituency to a mainstream conservation effort.

Latino participation in the plastic bag ban campaign is notable in that they were making cultural connections to why it made sense to ban plastic bags.

With a tagline like “Vuelve a tus raices”, return to your roots, it highlighted how many cultural and community practices are by effect conservation practices. Some of these are older practices, some are newer.

Growing up in Mexico as a kid, I remember we did not shower because it was wasteful; we used a pila de agua, a raised concrete pool, to hold water for washing. Similarly, in Mexico and the US, collecting cans and bottles is a good recycling practice, but more importantly it is a way to supplement the family income.

In regards to the bags, one can imagine the colorful market mesh bags our abuelitas would take to the mercado for shopping. Other times it served as a school bag for children—I had one myself as an elementary student.

It was that very image that the “Deja El Plastico” effort used to lead the campaign online, including unique videos in Spanish.

Thus, while there was certainly plenty of English campaign imagery and framing, it was unique and empowering to see Latino voices and Latino faces urging their communities to be a part of this campaign—and in many ways to take ownership of the framing.

This matters for conservation organizations to see how such efforts can take shape, and to avoid issues where Latino communities are “used” for campaigns but not really integrated as key partners.

[Photo by Deja El Plastico, Azul]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

There is a certain fortune in being able to live in California and having the opportunity to visit los arboles grandes, los gigantes—the redwoods and sequoias. But it is a gift that some take for granted, or assumed that it is equitably accessed.

Growing up in the California Central Valley, visiting the redwoods was not a regular opportunity our family could take. We were a low-income immigrant Latino family. Not to generalize, but our weekend outdoor venturing, though numerous enough, was centered on local city and county parks. These trips were very recreational in intent, focused on carne asada, games of volleyball, and swimming in the river, which mirrors some of the research.

To take a visit to a park that was a protected area was a different frame of mind and experience—a frame of mind that I think is easy enough to understand from a middle-class Anglo background, but not always as easy from a low-income Latino working class experience.

That is not to say that it makes us ignorant, unappreciative, or unable to have that frame of mind, but I say it to stress the point that we can come from different starting points.

Furthermore, the idea of redwoods and Latinos is not one that intuitively comes to mind. Yet, there are connections made every day between Latinos and these giants, and as we look into the history we see even more.

Some of the first European accounts of the redwoods and sequoias came from Spanish explorers and settlers. One account, by Don Gaspar de Portola, notes how they saw “árboles muy altos de un color rojo“, tall trees of red color. No one had seen trees like these and so they called them “palo colorado“, redwood.

To this day you see the hints of this history in the names of places, for example, Palo Alto, “Tall Tree”, home of Stanford University and a hub of Silicon Valley.

I do not recall the exact first time I saw one set of giants, the giant sequoias in the Sierra Nevada.  I believe it was as part of a school trip or because my family had wandered into the foothills looking for a place to play in the snow. But I do recall wondering how these trees grew so big and why I did not see them where I lived, in the flatlands of the valley. ¿Por qué tan grandes y por qué aquí?  I imagine that could be a similar sense of wonder and curiosity of the first Spanish.

Nowadays, Latinos are poised to be the largest ethnic group in California and key to continued redwood and sequoia conservation will be for Latinos to see these unique natural wonders as part of their heritage and worth protecting, to understand them and know that they have a hand and responsibility to continue their care.

Latinos are already living in Redwood areas and growing. We are getting out there, but there are still concerns that we are no accessing these public lands in the same way, or with the same opportunities are other socioeconomic groups. Rather, like many communities of color, we are lagging behind.

There have been efforts, usually in partnership with mainstream conservation organizations and will calls related to health.

It is important to recognize those as starting points because they matter to our communities: cleaner air, healthier families, cleaner water, and so forth.

But I also want us to get to similar end points where we can enjoy these natural treasures and experience the magic of being among these gigantes.

Anglo or higher-income communities can routinely have those magic moments of being in the redwoods.

Latinos can and do have them as well. The trick is not in leaving us at the starting points or rushing us to the end. Sometimes, well intentioned efforts forget we may need to start at a different experience. Then there is the need to provide positive experiences that guided us to those end points.  Often groups may forget that and try to rush everyone to be where they are—killing a bit of the magic along the way.

Embedded into my first experiences with giant sequoias and redwoods was the idea that these trees were special, different from other trees, and they needed protection. But part of it felt like going to a museum—I could admire what I was looking at but needed to keep a respectful distance.  It was something to go see.

It was on a later trip to Redwood National Park where I recall really experiencing what to me is the magical realism of walking through these cathedrals of trees. These giants were real and yet seemed to be magic, reaching out to me beyond a physical experience and from such distance in the past.

As a true heritage, a visit to the redwoods and sequoias should be something that we all should see, regardless of socioeconomic status or skin color. We should learn more about how to protect and conserve them, along with the fascinating information that fills books and visitors displays.

But we should not just visit a park with a removed sense of seeing something on display. If we can connect with ourselves, and connect ourselves to where we are, then we open a window to appreciate such natural gifts, and hopefully see what responsibility rests in our hands.

These amazing giants have lived for so long, some thousands of years. As Latinos we need to be to understand what puts them at risk, why do they matter, how are they protected and what needs to be sustained. But it can start with a visit, and making sure we know and have an opportunity to access them.

[Photo by Jose Gonzalez]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

As Latinos we eat all kind and type of fish—at least as reflected how I grew up and based on the menus of any typical Mexican or Latino restaurant.

There are ceviche plates, mojarra frita, caldos, and a host of variations with grilling, frying, and soups. Of course, it does not stop at fish—shrimp, octopus, oysters, and other seafood are part of the mix.

Some of us even venture into other cultures and delight in things like sushi—though others, such as my father, steer clear. “Esta crudo, it’s raw!”

But something to note is that I hardly recall my family thinking about whether the fish for dinner was sustainable, or if there was an awareness of where it came from. More and more so this matters because some fish is not sustainably harvested, some fisheries have collapsed, and in other cases, the fish we think we are eating is not exactly what we think it is.

Two recent articles highlight this—issues that Latinos should take notice and add to their environmental awareness.

The first article, from the Daytona Beach News Journal, points out how Peruvian fishermen catch less and less Peruvian anchovy—an important food for local communities and export.  It is a problem because there will just not be enough fish to go around. As the article notes:

“Not only has overfishing of the Peruvian anchovy, or anchoveta, battered the industry that makes Peru far and away the world’s No. 1 fish meal exporter, it has also raised alarm about food security in a nation that had long been accustomed to cheap, abundant seafood.”

The irony is that much of that fish is turned into meal to feed other fish or farm animals—this is a common complaint against fish farms that use wild caught fish to feed farmed fish. It is also a problem because the wild caught fish may be better nutritionally than the farmed fish—and it can reproduce faster. Instead of feeding the small fish to the big fish, we should probably just eat the small fish.

Related to that is a story on Slate, Are you Eating What You Think You are Eating?

The focus is on how true fish labeling is—whether if it says salmon, then you are actually getting salmon. This matters on two points, among several. First is that if we are eating fish that is mislabeled and actually unsustainable, then we continue to do ecological harm. Second, from a consumer standpoint, it may be unsafe and illegal.

It also points to how, as we consume and run out of a certain specie, we “market” a new fish for our plates. A classic example is Chilean Sea Bass, which is actually the Patagonian toothfish. But with a name like that, and matching looks, it was deemed better to change the name to market to consumers. Even so, you may not be getting Chilean Sea Bass.

Same thing when you go for “white fish”, which can be a host of species.

Point is that we are devastating the ocean with our love for fish, from apex predators like sharks down to food web to the plankton. But it is important to note that the fish need a break and we need to “eat smarter” if we want to continue to enjoy fish on our plates. As Latino consumers, it is worth it to take a bit of time to consider how we are part of the solution. We can vote with our ballots but also with our dollars, and continue to frame sustainable fishing with a Latino voice.  Part of that is making the effort to stay informed (think critically!) and following up with actions.

Add to this the debate on whether to consume genetically modified (GMO) salmon, and you may need to take a second look at those fish tacos or caldo de pescado.

[Photo by NOAA]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

If you missed it, recently there was a news story from ProPublica about Mexico drilling into a deep aquifer for drinking water. The catch, as the article notes, was that in the US, the same type of aquifers are considered so unlikely to be used for drinking water that they are not really regulated as such—leading to easy contamination. As the article notes:

“U.S. environmental regulators have long assumed that reservoirs located thousands of feet underground will be too expensive to tap. So even as population increases, temperatures rise, and traditional water supplies dry up, American scientists and policy-makers often exempt these deep aquifers from clean water protections and allow energy and mining companies to inject pollutants directly into them.”

This matters because water is often compared to as the “next oil”. There may be problems with that analogy, but a take-away point is a diminishing access to potable water due to pollution or climate change.

We have already seen how water contamination most likely affects disadvantaged communities (i.e. low-income communities of color).

So the question to pose to you, dear Latino reader: can you answer where the water you drink comes from?

This is an important question because many of use generally take for granted turning on the tap or finding bottled water at the neared convenience store or supermarket.

And often it is that convenience that masks what a valuable resource water is and how often we are careless with it—a resource that keeps us alive.

There are several issues to consider, ranging from the privatization of drinking water supplies, to a crumbling public water infrastructure, to the diverting use of water for manufacturing and resource extraction.

For years in Latin American and communities in the US there have been some battles over the privatization and commercialization of water.  In the Western United States, water is tied to a long history of conflict and struggles, affecting many Latino and Hispano communities.

But the question comes back, where does your water come from?

The answer matters because you may be directly or indirectly casting your vote for the kind of system we want, the kind of laws we value, and the types of protections we want on our water systems.

If you regularly drink bottled water, it may be because you have to if your local source has been polluted—and you need to consider how to respond to that. If you choose bottled water in places with good municipal sources, you may be lining the pockets of corporations at the expense of local utilities—the irony being that some bottled water comes from municipal sources and municipal sources are often better regulated than bottled water. There is also the whole issue of what we do with those plastic bottles…

If your water comes from wells and aquifers, it is important to pay attention to what activities could affect that quality—could it be fracking? Could it be farm runoff? Is it being depleted faster than it could be restored?

If your water comes via a distribution system fed by snowpack, what affects that snowpack? How reliable is it? How is climate change affecting it?

If your water source is connected to key ecosystems such as a delta, river, or other important watershed, then how is that ecosystem affected? If it is destroyed, how does it affect the water quality? Do we need to construct filtration systems because we have damaged the ones nature has in place?

The list could go on.

But the point is that we expect to have clean drinking water while we may not always be aware, or have the time and privilege to think about where our water comes from, what it takes to get it to us, and what affects it along the way.

As Latinos it should matter to us. Many Latino communities struggle with access to clean water and there is a history of water issues affecting Latino communities. But we also have the ability and opportunity to affect these issues in positive ways—in California this was highlighted last year with the signing the “Human Right to Water Act”.

So next time you turn on the tap, would you able to answer where your water comes from? And more importantly what is being done to conserve that water and protect its source?

[Photo by Benjamin Miller/Freestockphotos.biz]

By Jose Gonzalez, NewsTaco

A cool San Francisco Bay morning is warming up on a marshy shore of the Martin Luther King Jr. Shoreline, part of the East Bay Regional Park District.

A couple of joggers and walkers are on the trail as birds flutter about in the bushes and gulls and geese fly overhead.

Soon enough I hear some voices in the distance, distinguishable to me in much the same way birders can tune in to specific bird calls. “It’s a class of 4^th or 5^th graders”, I thought to myself.

Led by their teacher, they come up the trail and are greeted by staff from Save the Bay, a regional organization committed to the protection of the San Francisco Bay.

The students are here to do some habitat restoration, but first it is time for introductions and some warm up activities.

Looking at the group of 5^th graders, the majority of them are Latino—I can hear their various comments to each other in Spanish though they understand and readily respond to questions in English about marsh habitats, sharks, and food webs.

“This is the future”, I think to myself, highlighted by three key demographic statements. Since 2010, the majority of school children in California schools are Latino. Furthermore, undergraduate applications to the University of California system were dominated by Latinos for the first time while this year may close with Latinos being the largest single ethnic group in the state.

As the saying goes, “the future is now.”

After some introductions and a “marsh march”, the students make their way to a section marked by flags. A Save the Bay staff member demonstrates the process for planting native plant species.

The kids are eager, still full of energy even after playing an active game to calm and focus them.

But they take to the task with much enthusiasm. Most of the boys run off to several sections while many of the girls calmly and methodically replicate the process of planting: dig the hole, tap the plant out of its casing, line it with the ground, add dirt, add mulch, add water and yell “plant check” for validation of a job well done. Then it is on to planting the next sapling.

The work the students are doing is important for several reasons.

First of all, restoring marshes provides direct habitat to many species that rely on the bay wetlands as a home and migration stops. In restoring the marshes, it also helps bay communities with potential flooding, not to mention the enhanced recreational aspects of having access to beautiful parkland and functioning habitats for wildlife. All of this in the face of marshes at risk from climate change.

But the process also helps connect the students directly with the land and outdoors in proactive ways. And it is heartening to see a group of Latino students so actively engaged.

Earlier in the day I struck up a conversation in Spanish with a parent volunteer. “All but one of them knows Spanish” she said. “And the teachers, though not Latino, know Spanish as well.”

“It’s interesting because I think they thought they were going to pick up trash, but I like that they can come out here and learn about this place.”

I thought about that comment later on as the kids were antsy to start planting and one girl asked if she could just pick up trash—a helpful task, but it is good that kids get to engage with the environment hand- on beyond just litter cleanup, and to engage with it beyond as a lecture or presentation piece. I am reminded of how the writer Richard Louv put it: let them climb trees.

I introduced myself to several students. I noticed that in speaking Spanish to them, their demeanor would change at times—hard to exactly say but it seemed a bit more respectful—con respeto”. Throughout the morning I noticed some of the boys I checked in with would look around to see if I was watching. I would give them a nod, con respeto.

As I left I asked one student what was something that stuck with him about the activities. He responded “how we filled up part of the bay to make houses for people”.

“And what do you thing about that?” I asked.

“Well, people need houses, but animals too.”

The seedlingss the kids were planting are the future for a healthy marsh habitat—sorely needed homes for the animals. But so too are these kids the sorely needed future—a future that is here now taking care of the natural environment, engaging in its conservation—con respeto.

[Photo by Jose Gonzalez]