Cancun and the Bad Example
Stewardship of the environment has never been a priority for Mexico. Until the end of the 20th century, it was insisted that it was more important to combat problems like poverty or crime. The current federal government says that the discourse on this thinking has changed, but its actions contradict this claim. The country will be, beginning today, hosting a summit intended to fight global warming, without having shown the world that it is a worthy host or a nation convinced that caring for the environment is a priority.
Why save the mangroves if a luxury hotel in the Caribbean can provide jobs and attract international tourism? Why stop logging the margins of the Valley of Mexico if the area’s farmers need to plant to survive? These were justified and logical questions before scientists convinced politicians (or at least some of them) that the health of our ecosystems is a key factor in solving problems like poverty, hunger or the effects of natural disasters.
Cancun, the host city to the international summit addressing climate change, is an example of how Mexico has not learned why it is better to conserve the environment than to sell it to the highest bidder. From the start, the construction of more than 100 hotels on coastal dunes caused the erosion of sand. More than a billion dollars was then spent pumping sand from Cozumel, which only served to damage coral and other types of marine fauna, for after a few months the wind again reduced the dunes.
Cancun is also a reflection of the country. ProArbol, considered by the government “the principal program in support of the forestry sector,” was assumed by the U.N. to have planted hundreds of thousands of hectares of trees when, in reality, the majority of those planted had died. The continuing use of 205 million incandescent light bulbs is due to economic concerns by the Secretaries of Finance and Economy. In turn, the Federal Electricity Commission plans for the future use of coal despite the pollution it causes.
The 16th U.N. Conference on Climate Change was an opportunity to showcase a country coming unstuck from the Third World. This was not possible because of what Mexico has not done, but also due to the incompetence of what it did.
Why save the mangroves if a luxury hotel in the Caribbean can provide jobs and attract international tourism? Why stop logging the margins of the Valley of Mexico if the area’s farmers need to plant to survive? These were justified and logical questions before scientists convinced politicians (or at least some of them) that the health of our ecosystems is a key factor in solving problems like poverty, hunger or the effects of natural disasters.
Cancun, the host city to the international summit addressing climate change, is an example of how Mexico has not learned why it is better to conserve the environment than to sell it to the highest bidder. From the start, the construction of more than 100 hotels on coastal dunes caused the erosion of sand. More than a billion dollars was then spent pumping sand from Cozumel, which only served to damage coral and other types of marine fauna, for after a few months the wind again reduced the dunes.
Cancun is also a reflection of the country. ProArbol, considered by the government “the principal program in support of the forestry sector,” was assumed by the U.N. to have planted hundreds of thousands of hectares of trees when, in reality, the majority of those planted had died. The continuing use of 205 million incandescent light bulbs is due to economic concerns by the Secretaries of Finance and Economy. In turn, the Federal Electricity Commission plans for the future use of coal despite the pollution it causes.
The 16th U.N. Conference on Climate Change was an opportunity to showcase a country coming unstuck from the Third World. This was not possible because of what Mexico has not done, but also due to the incompetence of what it did.