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]

The post Continuing the Green Case for Immigration Reform appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Adrian Pantoja, PhD, Latino Decisions

Contrary to popular assumptions, Latinos are not a single issue group. Like many other Americans, Latinos care deeply about a variety of issues, including protecting the environment. In the latest national survey carried out by Latino Decisions and Voces Verdes, a significant majority of Latinos were again shown to favor policies aimed at reducing air pollution and preventing climate change. These findings are not surprising in the context of prior studies showing over two-thirds of Latinos favor water conservation efforts, and are more likely to support candidates who make environmental protection a priority.

In a national survey of 600 Latinos carried out in April 2013, respondents were asked: “Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) setting safeguards to limit air pollution that impacts the public health?”

Eighty-four percent of Latinos, a very robust majority, said they favor allowing the EPA to set safeguards to reduce air pollution. The source of this strong support may be explained by the fact that Latinos tend to reside in areas with high concentrations of air pollution. According to a2011 study by the Natural Resource Defense Council, nearly one out of every two Latinos lives in the country’s top 25 most ozone-polluted cities. The consequences of breathing air that is unsafe are well documented with immediate or near-term health consequences for those breathing it on a daily basis. It comes as no surprise that illnesses associated with air pollutants, like asthma and chronic bronchitis are prevalent among Latinos. In short, Latinos generally, and their children in particular, may be the most vulnerable to failed environmental safeguards and having continued strong leadership in place at EPA to protect against these harms, is critical.

Given the adverse health impacts of air pollution, are Latinos as concerned about climate change—an issue many tend to think is only important to environmentalists. To gauge how important this is to Latinos, we asked: “If President Obama has the power to pass a rule that limits the pollution that causes climate change do you support him doing so?”

Latinos strongly support, at a rate of 86%, President Obama taking action to reduce pollution that causes climate change. The widespread support for taking action demonstrates Latinos perceive this issue to be one of more immediate consequence.

There were little to no differences across various segments within the Latino population including sex, income, education, and nativity. When differences were observed, party identification accounted for the variation. To put a finer point on it, there was a 10 percentage point gap between Democrats and Republicans on the EPA question, and a 26 percentage point gap on the presidential authority question. It is noteworthy, though, that in both instances about three-quarters of Latino Republicans favored the proposals, a sound majority.

Continued concern for the environment is significant, since many are waiting to see stronger environmental action from President Obama in his second term. In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama boldly proclaimed that he would take action to prevent climate change by stating,

“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

While other issues appear to be taking priority at the moment, it is important for elected officials to understand that protecting the environment remains a priority for Latinos. Clearly, all segments of the Latino population not only care about the environment, they support action on the part of elected officials (in this case President Obama) to take affirmative steps to reduce air pollution and control climate change. Despite being portrayed as a group that is singly concerned about immigration, the reality is much different. Our survey shows that Latinos remain committed to environmental protection because they know it can safeguard their health and communities.

Methodology: Latino Decisions interviewed a nationally representative sample of 600 Latino adults.  The poll was conducted April 17- 24, 2013. Respondents were selected at random in both landline and cell-phone only households. The nominal margin of error is +/- 3.9%.  Interviews were conducted in Spanish and English at the subject’s discretion.

This article was first published in Latino Decisions.

Adrian Pantoja is professor of political science at Pitzer College and a senior analyst at Latino Decisions.

[Photo by EnvironmentBlog]

The post Latinos Committed to Clean Air & Preventing Climate Change appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Silvia Casabianca, Saludify

We were talking the other day on how the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) message to its 74,000 members became almost automatically compromised as soon as they decided to accept sponsorship from Big Food companies. But what about Monsanto donating half a million dollars to, for example, the 4-H youth development?

Thank you very much!

The 4-H organization promotes hands-on learning in its clubs, camps, school-based and after-school programs. Although the funding amounts to less than a dollar per volunteer, Big Ag money (Monsanto, DuPont, John Deere, Philip Morris, Kraft, Cargill) grants the training for these volunteers.

What kind of training?

With more than six million members, 4-H is one of the largest youth organizations in the world. Through volunteers, the movement supports youngsters who learn to engage in hands-on learning activities in the areas of science, citizenship and healthy living.

So far, so good.

The 4-H AgriScience curriculum and supporting programming continues promoting the study and exploration of possible innovations in biotechnology, which is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products like soy ink, to cite but one example.

Is Monsanto’s sponsorship influencing what the 4-H children are taught? There is no reason to trust that they will keep their hands out of he curriculum.

Monsanto sponsorships: Money buys

As of now, it looks that the values taught by the club continue to be quite distant from industrial agriculture (Big Ag’s signature), which includes innovation in machinery, genetic engineering, chemical-based crops, global trade and other techniques with the goal to produce food at mass scale.

At least on paper, 4-H says its approach is comprehensive and holistic – from agriculture to climate change to alternative energy. And the curriculum seems to still be focused on sustainable agriculture.

However, it’s difficult to abstain from wondering what requests Monsanto might be making in retribution for its generous sponsorship.

Funding 4-H is not an isolated event. Monsanto systematically targets educational institutions across the United States. It pays for research that later can be commercialized and turned into profits, steering research efforts in favor of genetically engineered organisms and chemical-based crop systems.

Clearly revealing its ties with the corporation, Danforth Campus at Washington University, for example, has thanked a 100 million dollars grant by naming their life science building “The Monsanto Laboratory of the Life Sciences.”

What’s in the agreement signed between the corporation and the university?

Academic freedom compromised

By definition, universities have the mission to work for the common good. Research and publications are the way universities undertake their operation.

Manipulating youngsters with the idea that genetic engineering or chemicals in the crops are a necessity is even more deplorable than influencing research in the academic world.

Fears that academic freedom are compromised by afflux of private money have proven reasonable.

Linda Ferris wrote in “Mother Jones,” that agricultural schools have become “Monsanto’s new incubator of technology and propaganda – a factory of making money on the cheap by controlling these institutions and using their students to do their research and work.”

Before the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, any invention funded with federal money automatically became the property of the federal government. The Act facilitated technology transfer from universities to industry and encouraged relationships between biomedical researchers and biotechnology companies.

“Bayh-Dole transformed the university’s public mission,” Risa L. Lieberwitz said at a speech given at the Association of American Law Schools annual meeting in January 2005, “by emphasizing private corporate interests through the commercialization of publicly funded research discoveries.”

The universities can now license patents for use to for-profit corporations such as Monsanto, for commercial development.

Funding might be necessary for the sake of furthering research, but what good does it make if it leads to slanted research?

It is well known that studies tend to benefit sponsors and cases of negative data from research being withheld have been reported.

President of the Commonwealth Fund, Dr. David Blumenthal and colleagues at the Harvard Institute of Health Policy reported that one in every five professors in the life sciences has delayed publication of their research to protect financial interests. Geneticists among other researchers were the most likely to withhold information.

Conflicts of interest arising from funding research, compromise the quality and veracity of procedures and results.

This article was first published in Saludify.

Silvia Casabianca graduated and practiced as a medical doctor in Colombia and has a master degree in Art Therapy from Concordia University (Montreal). She is the director of the Eyes Wide Open holistic center in Bonita Springs, FL. where she has a private practice as a psychotherapist and bodyworker.

[Photo by IRRI Images]

The post Is the Academic and Scientific World Selling Out to Monsanto? appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Dr. Herny Flores, NewsTaco

            Last week I attended a presentation by Krista Schlyer, a photojournalist who published a book entitled Continental Divide.  Her presentation was on the effects that the border wall, the wall the United States is constructing between itself and Mexico, has had on the wildlife habitats that overlay both countries.  Although her comments were designed to address the environmental and habitat issues, she did extend them to immigration reform.  I suppose I had been curious about what she said for quite a while but she really placed the entire relationship between environmental degradation and immigration in a clear context.

Ms. Schlyer traced the history of the wall from its origins under NAFTA through present times pointing out how the wall not only disrupted natural migration and feeding patterns but also forced immigrants to cross the border in very hazardous places.  NAFTA displaced millions of peasants from their farms and forced them to come to the United States.  The Clinton Administration decided to implement a strategy of “prevention versus deportation” and began building the wall.  It now covers almost the entire border with the exception of the area between Texas and Mexico.

Mexico has insisted that the wall not be built along its northern border with Texas to protect the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande watershed.  Building the wall along the Texas border, argues Mexico, will create possibilities of floods and endanger habitats, drinking and irrigation water supplies.  Still, the United States is determined to build the wall regardless of the environmental externalities just to inhibit undocumented immigration.

The new immigration reform bill that the now infamous “Gang of Eight” unveiled recently in the United States Senate, all 844 pages of it, adds more money and has more focus on border security than anything else.  This overemphasis on border security has been at the behest of Republicans, aided and abetted by the two Latino Republicans Cruz and Rubio.  The Republicans are also using the Boston Bombing to add fuel to the raging debate around immigration reform.  Well, I´ve got news for you senators: both bombers would have been in compliance with the bill anyway and they still would have bombed those helpless folks in Boston!

Ms. Schlyer’s presentation made it clear how complex the entire immigration issue is.  Our public officials are only acting in a “knee-jerk” fashion and not taking a truly complete look at what a comprehensive immigration reform program would look like.  All the senators are doing is listening to their party’s ideologues, the defense and gun industries and ignoring the social wellbeing of the border communities on both sides.

The way in which the United States is pursuing border security may be designed to keep immigrants from crossing freely but the effects have been and will be disastrous not only for communities, but for the environment as well.  Even if the wall is completed it will not prevent immigrants who earnestly wish to come into the United States from at least trying.  Crossing the wall is not that difficult for a young person (if I tried they would have to place me in traction for at least a month). All you have to do to see what I mean is go to YouTube and search for the video of two young women who managed to climb the wall in less than 18 seconds.  Can you imagine how easily determined people could duplicate or better the feat of these young women?

Although the current debate appears to indicate that the $1.5 billion dollars being allocated for border security will not be used for wall building, my sources inside the senate say otherwise.  Regardless, the border security element of the current immigration reform bill is really nothing more than a bargaining chip placed in the bill to allow Republicans and some Democrats leverage to weaken the path-to-citizenship elements of the bill.  Pro-immigration reformers are being faced with extortion in order to get any kind of bill, even a bad one, out of congress.

The path-to-citizenship provisions are already so extreme that it’s almost better to just kill what has been proposed by the “Gang” (I wonder if they have hand signs and placas like street gangs), rather than go forward with a bill featuring environmental degradation, endangering wildlife habitats, as well as endangering the health and welfare of communities on both sides of the border.

I fully understand the quandary I’m creating but I’d rather have no immigration reform than bad immigration policy.  I’d rather have the status quo of uncertainty and risk than new policy featuring codified peligros for all.  What we need is a policy developed by a group of individuals whose operating assumptions have nothing but the absolute welfare of the planet at the forefront rather than electoral or monetary gain.

You can follow Dr. Henry Flores on Twitter : @hflores

[Photo by CBP Photography]

The post On the Environment and Immigration Reform appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Amanda Maxwell, La Onda Verde de NRDC

Chile

Chile’s Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA) has sent the Superintendence of the Environment—the country’s environmental regulatory body—several claims regarding Hidroaysén’s alleged breach of its environmental permit. The claims are backed by a SEA-commissioned report, issued in March of this year, that outlines several irregularities pertaining to the drafting of the project’s Relocation Plan, a document that was to be negotiated and agreed to between the developers of the mega-damn project and the families that would be directly affected by the flooding of their properties. (Diario el Divisadero 4/17/2013)

Barrick Gold—the Toronto-based mining company whose Pascua Lama gold and silver mining project was suspended last week amid charges of environmental irregularities—has asked the Copiapó Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision. In the official request, the company claims that the Chilean Superintendence of the Environment, and not the appeals court, has the sole authority to suspend projects for regulatory incompliance—an action that the regulatory body has considered on at least two occasions and deemed not necessary. (Diario Financiero 4/18/2013)

Enel Green Power—a subsidiary of the Italian energy company Enel—has been awarded exclusive rights to develop and operate a 130 MW wind farm, called Sierra Gorda Este, in Chile’s Antofagasta region. The project will add to the 6.4 GW of already installed power generation capacity that the company operates in the country and contribute to the broader target of operationalizing 11.3 GW of renewable capacity by 2020. (AméricaEconomía 4/16/2013)

Chile’s salmon industry has once again been hit by the Infectious Salmon Anaemia virus (ISA), which was detected in a fish farm cage containing 0.12 percent Atlantic salmon stock of major producer Multiexport Foods. Although the virus poses no known risks to human, many major supermarkets have removed Chilean salmon from their shelves. ISA led to a 65 percent decline in salmon stock in 2007, devastating an industry that once supplied 30% of the world’s salmon and trout. (The Santiago Times 4/12/2013)

Costa Rica

Costa Rica lacks adequate legislation to protect its 970 square kilometers of coral reefs, claims a coalition of several public and civil society groups that has mounted an effort to fill the regulatory gap. The groups, which are preparing a decree to regulate fishing, tourism, and other activities, indicate that as much as 97% of the country’s coral reefs are already showing signs of severe damage. The reefs generate approximately $582 million in ecosystems services annually, principally by serving as the birthplace for several high-value fish species, providing natural storm surge protection, and creating tourism revenue. (La Nación 4/16/2013)

Seven Canadian organizations are pressing Infinito Gold to withdraw its April 4 threat to sue Costa Rica for US$1 billion for suspending the construction of the Crucitas gold mine. In a letter sent to the company’s CEO, the organizations call on Infinito Gold to “drop all legal actions against Costa Rica and its citizens and to leave the country.” The Calgary-based company has claimed that the suspension—which was announced following a 2010 nation-wide ban on open-pit mining—breaches a trade agreement between the two countries. (Inside Costa Rica 4/17/2013)

The Constitutional Chamber of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court has agreed to review a zoning plan put forth by the Puerto Jiménez municipality that paves the way for the construction of a large 107-slip marina at the Crocodile Bay Resort in the Golfo Dulce. The marina is part of a larger development project that environmental groups have challenged for years on the grounds that it threatens local wetland and marine ecosystems. (The Tico Time 4/17/2013)

Mexico

Mexico’s Energy Regulatory Commission, in collaboration with the Ministry of Energy, isdeveloping a new program to encourage the development of solar energy projects in the country. The program will elaborate guidelines for the licensing of solar projects and establish “Electric Power Auctions” for small producers (those generating less than 30 MW). At the close of 2012, Mexico—estimated to have the third largest solar potential in the world–registered 1,640 small-scale generation contracts, representing 61,486 KW of capacity. (El Economista 4/17/2013)

Experts in Mexico are drafting 12 public policy proposals to combat the country’s chronically poor air quality. Proposed measures include updating Mexico’s air quality and clean fuel standards, creating incentives to renew the domestic vehicle fleet, and engaging in greater public discourse. Air pollution is estimated to have cost Mexico over 520 billion pesos (approximately US$42 billion) in 2009, approximately 4.4% of the country’s total GDP. (El Occidental 4/18/2013)

Mexico’s plans to expand domestic shale gas exploration may be stymied by water shortages, noted Miriam Grunstein, a professor at the Centre for Research and Teaching in Economics in a recent interview with IPS. Water is a key ingredient in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—the primary method to extract natural gas from shale rock formations. The country experienced a prolonged drought in 2012, which threatened the agriculture and livestock sectors and deteriorated living conditions in dozens of rural villages. (IPS 4/18/2013)

This article was first published in NRDC Switchboard.

Amanda Maxwell is a born and bred Jersey girl, but has lived for varying amounts of time in Michigan, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, and the Czech Republic before moving to Washington, DC. Prior to joining NRDC she received my Masters degree in International Politics and Economics with a focus in Renewable Energy policy from Charles University in Prague. While there, she gained an appreciation for night running, train travel (especially of the high speed variety), and the local pivo. She received a Bachelors degree in history and Spanish from Middlebury College, and also studied in Buenos Aires.

[Photo by ClifB]

The post Latin America Green News appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Amanda Maxwell, La Onda Verde de NRDC

Chile

The Italian energy company Enel—which has a 51% stake in the beleaguered HidroAysén mega dam project through its subsidiary Endesa—will only  remain committed to the 2,750 MW venture as long as it has the support of both local and national governments. In a conversation with the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones, Fulvio Conti, the company’s CEO, stated that while Enel is looking to grow its investments in Latin America, without government direction and support for HidroAysén, the company will choose to move its capital elsewhere. Meanwhile, the project has publicly clashed with several mayors in the Aysén region over the last couple of weeks, demonstrating the increasingly strained relationship that its owners, Endesa and Colbún, maintain with the local communities. (Diario Financiero 4/9/2013; Dow Jones Business News 4/8/2013; El Ciudadano 4/10/2013)

“Geothermal energy is a renewable, local, and clean energy source that can be exploited from the country’s north to its south”, stated Diego Morata, director of the Andean Geothermal Center of Excellence (CEGA) during a seminar co-hosted by CEGA and NRDC last week. The event sought to tease out the barriers to geothermal development in Chile, a country with abundant stores of the resource but zero installed capacity. (Piensa en Geotermia 4/10/2013)

The use of non-conventional renewable energy in Chile grew by 23% over the last year, reaching 5% of total energy generation in 2012. Biomass constituted the largest portion—50%—of NCRE capacity in the country, followed by hydro (35%), wind (12%) and solar (.02%). By law, all energy supply contracts signed after August 2010 must include a 5% renewable energy target. The target is set to increase 0.5% per year until reaching 10% in 2024. Congress is currently debating new legislation to raise the target to 15% or 20% by 2020. (Tendencias 8/4/2013)

Saferay, a German solar energy developer, has applied for an environmental permit to build a 135 MW photovoltaic plant in Chile’s Atacama Desert. The Carrera Pinto plant will have about 561,000 solar panels and add approximately 240 GWh of electricity per year to the country’s central electricity grid, the SIC. Work on the plant is expected to begin in September. (Bloomberg 4/8/2013)

Barrick Gold Corporation—a Toronto-based mining company—has suspended construction work at its Pascua Lama mine after an appeals court in the northern city of Copiapó charged the company with “environmental irregularities” pertaining to the gold and silver mining project. Indigenous communities in the area have accused Barrick of contaminating their water supply and polluting nearby glaciers. The company is awaiting the completion of three reports commissioned by the Superintendence of the Environment, the region’s Health Service and the national Environmental Evaluation Service before determining next steps, which may include completion of another environmental evaluation and payment of compensation. (New York Times 4/10/2013; Diario Financiero 4/11/2013)

Costa Rica

The Blue Flag Ecological Program—created in 1995 to distinguish beaches that met strict water quality, hygiene, and sanitation standards—awarded the first “sustainable homes” prize to 19 Costa Rican households. The category, which was created in 2012, seeks to recognize actions that encourage water and energy efficiency, reduce the use of fossil fuels, and promote reforestation. A Blue Flag was also awarded to Isla del Coco, a first for the island, for its efforts to improve waste management. (La Nación 4/11/2013)

Industrias Infinito, a subsidiary of the Canadian mining company Infinito Gold, hasaccused the Costa Rican government of breaching a trade agreement between the two countries when it suspended a gold mining concession in Crucitas de San Carlos. The two sides have six months to settle the dispute, after which the case will go to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. The conflict arises from a 2010 Decree establishing Costa Rica’s as a country free of open pit mining. (El Financiero 4/4/2013)

Mexico

In a petition submitted to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation—an international body created under NAFTA to promote collaboration between member states on environmental issues—eleven conservation groups (including NRDC) areasking for an investigation into government approval of the construction of four “mega resorts” in the Gulf of California. The petitioners are asserting the government ignored its own environmental laws and failed to protect sensitive marine and coastal ecosystems when approving the projects. (eNews Park Forest 4/11/2013)

Mexico’s House of Deputies has approved a 15-year energy strategy for the country, an initiative introduced by President Peña Nieto that passed the Senate last month. The strategy calls for modernization of Mexico’s transportation, energy storage and distribution infrastructure, strengthening of its petroleum refining capacity, and that advancement of clean and secure energy sources. (Yahoo! Noticias 4/9/2013)

Federal deputies met with representatives of the Mexican Association of Wind Energy on Monday to discuss potential actions to spur the development wind energy projects in the country. Among the various proposals, the deputies are backing the creation of the Mexican Institute for Renewable Energy, which is expected to help attract private investment to the sector. Mexico’s wind energy potential is estimated to be 12,000 MW. (Reve 4/8/2013)

This article was first published in NRDC Switchboard.

Amanda Maxwell is a born and bred Jersey girl, but has lived for varying amounts of time in Michigan, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, and the Czech Republic before moving to Washington, DC. Prior to joining NRDC she received my Masters degree in International Politics and Economics with a focus in Renewable Energy policy from Charles University in Prague. While there, she gained an appreciation for night running, train travel (especially of the high speed variety), and the local pivo. She received a Bachelors degree in history and Spanish from Middlebury College, and also studied in Buenos Aires.

[Photo by antitezo]

The post Latin America Green News appeared first on NewsTaco.

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]

The post The National Parks: Our Heritage, Our Care appeared first on NewsTaco.

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

The post Diversifying the Enviro Movement appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Amanda Maxwell, La Onda Verde de NRDC

Chile

Thousands of dead shrimp and small fish have emerged from a duct of the Bocamina II plant, an Endesa-owned thermoelectric power generation plant located near Coronel in southern Chile. This incident comes just days after a mass die-off of shrimp, crabs, and other marine life was discovered along a beach in the same area. Several fisherman and international environmentalists have blamed pollution from local power plants for the incidents. Endesa and Colbún, two of the country’s electricity generators and owners of three area power plants, have countered these claims, stating that the die-off likely had natural causes. The Environmental Crime Investigation Unit expects to release a full report on the incident within a month. (BioBioChile 3/26/2013; The Santiago Times 3/22/2013) 

Chile’s National Forest Corporation (Conaf) is pursuing strategies to protect Darwin’s fox—a critically endangered fox species found in Nahuelbuta National Park and Chiloé Island. Facing threats such as habitat loss and diseases transmitted by area dogs, the fox population has dwindled to approximately 500 animals. Aiming to address these issues, Conaf has initiated a vaccination campaign for local canines and installed 15 cameras to help scientists investigate the state of the current fox population and its habitat. (La Tercera 3/24/2013)

Persistent air pollution in Chillán and Chillán Viejo has earned the municipalities a “saturated zone” declaration, a label given to areas that exceed ambient standards for air pollutants such as particulates, ozone, and carbon monoxide. The designation will allow the cities to develop a formal Decontamination Plan, focusing on areas such as transportation, firewood use, building energy efficiency and industrial emissions. (Nación 3/25/2013)

Costa Rica

Residents of Puerto Jimenez, Golfito have filed an appeal in Costa Rica’s Constitutional Court against the region’s regulatory plan, which paved the way for the approval of a new marina development in the Golfo Dulce. The plan is being challenged on the grounds that it was never fully publicized, lacks a technical analysis of the area’s biodiversity, and was elaborated and paid for by a private company that would personally benefit from new development projects. (El País 3/28/2013)

Costa Rica’s CRUSA Foundation has granted over 1.4 million dollars to help protect the country’s vulnerable watersheds. The grant will help finance seven projects, including a “water fund”, which aims to create an investment portfolio for water and watershed-related projects. Other initiatives include the strengthening of 60 rural aqueducts in Costa Rica’s northern and central regions and integrated management of the Purires River micro-watershed in Cartago. (El Financiero 3/22/2013)

Costa Rica will aim to become carbon-neutral by 2021, claimed René Castro, the country’s Minister of Energy and the Environment during a recent trip to China. Castro indicated that part of his trip was geared toward learning about China’s strategy to increase production while decreasing its energy consumption. Costa Rica, which is currently projected to increase its energy consumption by 7% by 2016, will need to invest at least 1% of GDP to help neutralize emissions. (El Financiero 3/26/2013)

Mexico

Helping to mark World Water Day, the Mexican government has declared water to be an issue of national priority and security, paving the way for the elaboration of new and improved policies to govern water use. The government will seek to guarantee supply, reduce waste, and prohibit the drilling of wells without prior authorization from the National Water Commission. Currently, 35 million Mexicans live without adequate water access. (AméricaEconomía 3/23/2013)

This article was first published in NRDC Switchboard.

Amanda Maxwell is a born and bred Jersey girl, but has lived for varying amounts of time in Michigan, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, and the Czech Republic before moving to Washington, DC. Prior to joining NRDC she received my Masters degree in International Politics and Economics with a focus in Renewable Energy policy from Charles University in Prague. While there, she gained an appreciation for night running, train travel (especially of the high speed variety), and the local pivo. She received a Bachelors degree in history and Spanish from Middlebury College, and also studied in Buenos Aires.

[Photo by Wonderlane]

The post Latin America Green News appeared first on NewsTaco.

By Amanda Maxwell, La Onda Verde de NRDC

Chile

HidroAysén, the company intending to build a 2,750 megawatt dam project on two rivers in Patagonia, announced that it would not present the environmental impact study for its transmission line until the end of 2014, in the most optimistic of scenarios. The company has not shown clarity about how it would move forward since parent company Colbún announced in May 2012 that it recommended halting work on the project. Among the reasons given for the delayed timeline, HidroAysén cited the need to re-evaluate the baselines and other technical studies needed for the transmission line’s environmental impact assessment. At the same time, Chile’s government announced that the Committee of Ministers, which is supposed to rule on the 58 appeals filed against HidroAysén’s dams’ approval, will likely not make a decision this year. Filed in the middle of 2011 and originally set for 2012, the appeals case is viewed as too politically unpopular for the government to take a stance. (Economía y Negocios 3/19/2013, 3/21/2013)

The first stone was laid in the Pampa Elvira Solar project in Antofagasta, a $26 million investment by the Chilean-Danish consortium Energía Llaima-Sunmark. The complex will produce 51,800 MWht annually, allowing the Gaby Mine to replace 85 percent of its diesel fuel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15,000 tons of CO2 each year. Officials expect Pampa Elvira Solar to be operational during the second semester of 2013. (La Segunda 3/15/2013)

Executive Director of the Chilean Renewable Energy Association (ACERA), Carlos Finat, spoke to the Energy and Mining Commission in the Chamber of Deputies of ACERA’s support for the proposed “20-20 law”, which would mandate that 20 percent of Chile’s energy generation come from renewable sources b 2020. He argued against the executive branch’s recent statements that the law would be too difficult to achieve, saying it is both technically feasible and economically beneficial. He further said that the “20 by 2020” goal would allow renewables to compete in upcoming distribution tenders. (Cámara de Diputados de Chile 3/21/2013)

Community members in Puchuncaví and La Greda fear that the opening of the new coal-fired power plant in AES Gener’s Ventanas will create even higher levels of industrial pollution in the already-saturated area. The addition of the new 270 MW plant will make AES Gener’s Ventanas complex the largest coal power plant in Chile, at 885 MW. (El Mercurio de Valparaiso via Terram.cl 3/20/2013)

High energy costs and low water levels are pushing Chilean winemakers to invest in innovative ways to run their wineries. The Morandé winery has installed solar panels at its Añade vineyard, and is assessing the feasibility of using solar energy at other vineyards, too. The De Martino winery says it has already achieved savings by using energy more efficiently, and is looking to optimize insulation and natural light uses. The Montes winery also reports considerable savings after employing various energy efficiency strategies. (Diario Financiero 3/15/2013)

Mexico

The city of Cancun will be host to the 2013 Solar World Congress during November 3-17th this year, making it the first time the congress will be held in a Latin American nation. The 50 year-old Congress will be attended by over 110 countries and organizations, such as the International Agency of Energy and the International Agency of Renewable Energy. At this year’s event, the congress will encourage energy reforms among member countries, pushing governments to make the transition to renewable energies as soon as possible. (Tiempo en Linea 3/20/13)

The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) as well as international experts have contacted President Enrique Peña Nieto about the already high and growing mortality rate of sea turtles off the coast of Baja California Sur. According to CEMDA, more than 2,000 turtles died in 2012 – a 600 percent increase from the mortality rates in the past few years – placing it among the highest turtle mortality rates in the world. Many of these deaths can be associated with high levels of accidental kills associated with small-scale fishing in the Gulf of Ulloa. (Hispanically Speaking New 3/13/13)

At the Fourth High Level Dialogue between Mexico and the European Union (EU), Marie-Anne Coninsx, the head of the EU’s delegation, recognized President Peña Nieto for the country’s new environmental policies. Among the advances highlighted in the meeting was Mexico’s recent adoption of the Climate Change Law. At the meeting, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources also announced a new forest program which would plant 180 million trees to increase the awareness among Mexicans of the need to manage forest resources sustainably and rationally. (El Economista 3/19/13).

Regional

Mountainous communities in the Andes have been experiencing climate change’s impacts on glaciers first hand, as melting glaciers are increasingly causing dramatic flooding events that can threaten communities. The Risk Management Office in the Peruvian municipality of Huaraz recently warned that water levels in the glacial Palcacocha Lake are again at record highs, indicating that the lake’s walls –formed by loose rocks and debris—could rupture and cause a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF). If it were to happen, the equivalent of 240,000 Olympic swimming pools (approximately 17 million cubic meters of water) would rush down the valley and to the city of Huaraz, home to over 110,000 people. The threat of the GLOF has citizens calling on the government to take preemptive action. (E&E News, Climatewire 3/14/2013)

This article was first published in NRDC Switchboard.

Amanda Maxwell is a born and bred Jersey girl, but has lived for varying amounts of time in Michigan, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, and the Czech Republic before moving to Washington, DC. Prior to joining NRDC she received my Masters degree in International Politics and Economics with a focus in Renewable Energy policy from Charles University in Prague. While there, she gained an appreciation for night running, train travel (especially of the high speed variety), and the local pivo. She received a Bachelors degree in history and Spanish from Middlebury College, and also studied in Buenos Aires.

[Photos: Mexican Sea Turtle by Quiltsalad; Palcacocha Lake courtesy University of Oregon; Puchuncavi La Greda Chile courtesy Prensa.cl]

The post Latin America Green News appeared first on NewsTaco.