Scientist Condemns Mexico's Environmental "Double Standard"

It is easy to be the first to ratify international environmental treaties. It is quite another thing to effectively control air pollution, says Mexican scientist Luis Roberto Acosta.

MEXICO CITY - The Mexican government has "a double standard" when it comes to the environment, says Mexican scientist Luis Roberto Acosta, pioneer in the measurement of atmospheric pollutants.

The Mexican government has ratified international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, but does not deal seriously with the growing pollution problems that are overwhelming the country's major cities, said Acosta in a dialogue with Tierramérica.

Acosta introduced the UV index in 1993 to calculate the levels of ultraviolet rays from the sun in the Mexico City valley, and designed one of the first systems for environmental information on the Internet.

A researcher with the atmospheric physics laboratory at Trent University in Canada, Acosta currently heads the International Environmental Monitoring System in Mexico, which in 2006 will establish a high altitude climate observation center to measure gases like ozone and carbon dioxide. It is the first center of its kind in the Mesoamerican region.

- The Mexican Nobel laureate in chemistry, Mario Molina, says that in 10 years the Mexican capital could have clean air if changes were introduced in public transportation and improvements were made in gasoline quality, among other measures. What do you think?

-We should always be optimistic, but if one looks at how the number of cars keeps growing and road construction encourages car use, without definitive investment in public transportation, well, it's difficult to think about.
The pollution problems in Mexico City can be confronted using technology, monitoring emissions, introducing hydrogen engines and other measures. The technological problem has already been resolved, what is needed is political will and integrated social action. The timeframe can't be determined because it depends on political leaders and circumstances.

-But the pollution measurements in the Mexican capital indicate that air quality has improved in the past 10 years.

-Since 1997 and 1998, when there were many fires in Mexico and suspended particulates reached alarming levels in the city, we haven't had dramatic episodes again. But we don't think that has happened basically because of an improvement in the vehicles on the road or adequate systems for fighting pollution, but rather it has depended a great deal on meteorological conditions.
The climate has the last word in the Mexico City valley. If we begin to have high pressure fronts or extreme conditions, it is very likely that we'll reach very high pollution levels and that would produce a crisis. The deeper problem is not resolved. Eighty percent of the days in a year we are above the recommended maximum for ozone.

-The proposal to reverse this situation with the radical implementation of new technologies doesn't seem feasible for now, because it requires big investments and appropriate political and economic conditions.

-The argument that clean technology is still expensive is a vicious circle. They say they won't invest in new technologies because the costs are high, and since there is no massive investment, these technologies don't go down in price. So it turns out that using gasoline and today's cars is indeed accessible, and a liter of gasoline is cheaper than a liter of water.
We have an economic system that encourages the use of hydrocarbons. However, the changes could come about rapidly, perhaps driven by some environmental crisis. In 1992 there was extreme ozone pollution in the capital and some positive actions were adopted.
What I think is serious is that the pollution problem is focused on only in the capital, when in other cities air pollution is already extensive and often even greater than here.

-What is going on with the authorities? They aren't attending to this serious situation, but they support agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, which specifically calls for reducing emissions of gases generated by fossil fuels.

-For Mexico it is very easy to be the first to ratify everything, but in practice that doesn't mean much. The authorities in the national arena who are responsible for controlling emission of pollutants can't deal with that task, but at the same time they attend international meetings, they talk about climate change, and they go to the forums and sign the papers. There is a double standard.

-Would it be better to be like the United States, which didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

-The U.S. position has been criticized, but it has merit. Why would they put a limit on burning fuels if no alternative domestic market has been created yet? What is certain is that in reality an alternative energy market is functioning. I believe (the United States) will sign something similar to Kyoto when there is truly a clean technology that can be used to supply the whole world. That shows it is acting with a certain amount of integrity and coherence, which is not the case for Mexico.

* María Amparo Lasso is Tierramérica's editorial director.