Quito
Ecuador is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world; a large system of parks, research stations, and protected areas has been established to protect this biodiversity. There are also a number of legal policies that protect the environment. Ecuador’s constitution is perhaps the most famous of these protections; it guarantees the right to live in an “ecologically balanced environment free of contamination”. The 1999 Law of Environmental Management goes even further, promoting waste management, sustainable alternative technologies, and respect for native cultures and practices.
The Galapagos Islands, in particular, are especially sensitive to environmental threats. Lawmakers recognized this, and in 1999, placed limits on immigration and agricultural activity as well as created a monitoring program for both native and invasive species on the islands. Laws like these, along with Ecuador’s strong support of international climate change and biodiversity agreements, appear to show that the Ecuadorian government considers environmental protection a high priority. Although these laws look good on paper, reading Tammy L. Lewis’ Ecuador’s Environmental Revolutions has changed my perspective on how effective they actually are. Often times, they have been cast aside for the sake of economic growth. In the future, as more biodiversity is lost, I believe the government will be forced to distance themselves from the fossil fuel/extraction industry, and instead focus on ecotourism. |
Quito is a city of over 1.5 million people that stretches over an area approximately 44 km long and 3-8 km wide. In 2002, there were only 250,000 cars in the city; about 75% of motorized trips were taken on buses. Prior to 1996, Quito’s bus system consisted of an unregulated mess of privately-owned old buses with low quality of service and increasing levels of criticism from citizens. The buses, many of which were long overdue for scrapping, ran on diesel; they were emission-heavy and very loud.
After mounting pressure from the public for a better, cleaner bus system, the Quito Trolebus System was first introduced in 1996 (and has since been expanded). The trolleybuses run on electricity rather than diesel, and operate in their own segregated busway/lanes to prevent congestion. Unlike the previous bus system (and many in the US), passengers pay upon entry to the system, not their particular bus- this is much more efficient and speeds the boarding process. In addition to the reduction of pollution (both gas emissions and noise), other benefits of the new system include increased hours of operations and a large (and clean) dedicated fleet. Although the changes to the Quito bus system are very impressive, I’m surprised that rail lines weren’t incorporated into the new design; it seems like train/trolley lines would work well in the island platform system. I’m curious what it would take to bring a system like this to the United States. Many public transportation services (such as NJ Transit) could really do with an overhaul similar to that which took place in Quito in 1996. Perhaps as people are more educated about the benefits of public transportation, we’ll see some change in the right direction. I don’t believe the US will ever achieve Quito’s high ratio of bus to car usage, however; the idea/importance of car ownership has been engrained in the American culture for nearly a century. As a nation, we’re obsessed with cars- owning them, driving them, racing them, modifying them- the list goes on. Car ownership is glorified in movies, TV shows, commercials, books, etc.; public transportation, on the other hand, is usually thought of as dirty, run-down, and altogether lower-class. Although I think it may be too late to change people’s mindset towards public transportation in the majority (area-wise) of the country, it may be possible to improve public transportation in American cities in the future. |
Located on the edge of the infamous Ring of Fire, Ecuador is one of many countries in which there exists a relatively high risk of natural disaster, namely earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Wealth and education are the two major human factors that affect disaster severity. The wealthy are typically more able to afford disaster-proof housing and medical care; therefore, they are more likely to survive natural disasters. The poor, unfortunately, tend to suffer the most. With enough education, however, it is possible to reduce, if not avoid, many impacts of natural disaster. Literacy enables the use of written warnings; more advanced education that allows specialized knowledge of certain kinds of disasters (particularly important with Ecuador’s volcanic and seismic activity) can help even more. A combination of wealth and education can also lead to improvements in technology, such as earthquake-resistant infrastructure, that can save lives (and money, in the long run) as well as property (Tschakert et al., 2017).
We’re very fortunate to live in an area with a fairly low probability of natural disaster. Although there are exceptions (i.e. Hurricane Sandy), potentially catastrophic events like earthquakes are largely foreign to us here in southern New Jersey. I’m not sure if I could withstand the stress of living in a disaster-prone area; fortunately for me, I don’t have to. However, millions of people don’t have that choice- including many in Ecuador. By improving education and technology, we can help reduce the damage (both loss of life and property) in regions (like the South American Pacific Coast) which are vulnerable to natural disaster.
Reference
Tschakert, P., Zimmerer, K., King, B., Baum, S., and Wang, C. (2017) Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Pennsylvania State University.
We’re very fortunate to live in an area with a fairly low probability of natural disaster. Although there are exceptions (i.e. Hurricane Sandy), potentially catastrophic events like earthquakes are largely foreign to us here in southern New Jersey. I’m not sure if I could withstand the stress of living in a disaster-prone area; fortunately for me, I don’t have to. However, millions of people don’t have that choice- including many in Ecuador. By improving education and technology, we can help reduce the damage (both loss of life and property) in regions (like the South American Pacific Coast) which are vulnerable to natural disaster.
Reference
Tschakert, P., Zimmerer, K., King, B., Baum, S., and Wang, C. (2017) Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Pennsylvania State University.
The Andes stretch for nearly 9,000 kilometers across the western edge of South America. The mountain range’s formation began about 170 million years ago, when Nazca plate was subducted under the South American plate. As is typical in subduction zones, a volcanic arc began to form along the western edge of the South American plate due to rising magma; this was accompanied by uplift from the subduction process as well as hydrothermal intrusions. The majority of the uplifting process, however, did not occur until approximately 25 million years ago. The same processes of uplift and erosion are still occurring today (Stewart and Velásquez, 2017).
Cotopaxi, one of the world’s largest volcanoes, is located in the Ecuadorian Andes, just over 50 km from Quito. While the last significant eruption took place in 1904, a minor eruption took place only 2 years ago in 2015 (Britannica, 2017). Although it would be wise to exercise caution near the volcano, I believe we should still visit. The last eruption to take place before 2015 was in 1940, and before that 1904 (Britannica, 2017). Assuming this ~40-80 year pattern holds true, we shouldn’t experience any volcanic activity from Cotopaxi during our visit in January. References Britannica (2017) Cotopaxi. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Stewart, N.R., and Velásquez, M.T. (2017) Andes Mountains. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. |
Cloud forests differ greatly from the lowland rainforests we typically associate with tropical areas; they get their name from the constant presence of clouds/mist within them. This moisture promotes high diversity of plant species, such as various orchids, lichens, ferns, and mosses; unlike many other forests, however, they consist of only a single story of trees. As elevation increases, the transition from rainforest to cloud forest is seen as a gradual change to smaller, mossy trees. Their smaller size is largely due to the cloud cover they receive; the clouds block a significant amount of light from reaching the forest, so the trees cannot photosynthesize enough to grow as tall as their lowland counterparts.
The most important ecological service provided by cloud forests is the collection of water. Water from the clouds condenses on the vegetation, and eventually makes its way into rivers and streams. It has been estimated that water from cloud forests accounts for up to 1/3 of the water in the previously mentioned montane streams. Epiphytes (air plants) make up a large portion of plants in cloud forests; they also contain/store up to 50,000 liters of water per hectare. The water collected by cloud forests is largely unpolluted, and is usually available year-round. This makes it a valuable water source in many regions; in one part of Honduras, cloud forest-derived water makes up 40% of the water supply for over 850,000 people. Like the other regions of Ecuador, cloud forests also provide a home for many endemic species of both plants and animals. Examples include the golden tree frog and various tree ferns. In addition, 10% of the world’s endemic bird populations are found in cloud forests. The wild relatives of many crop species also inhabit cloud forests; these include avocado, coffee, and tomatoes. Unfortunately, this has lead to deforestation in many cloud forests, since the location is ideal for mass production of native plants such as coffee and orchids. I believe that the answer to protecting cloud forests, like the other regions in Ecuador, is to promote ecotourism. Of course, there is a difficult balance that must be upheld between development for tourism and preservation. Our visit to Mindo should prove to be a very educational experience about a type of forest that most people (including myself up until now) know very little about. |
Although Latin America’s glaciers and Amazon basin provide it with one of the largest sources of fresh water in the world, access to potable water is scarce in some areas. In many cases, the water is available- but so heavily polluted that it cannot be used. Lead, mercury, sulfuric acid, and other pollutants such as various petrochemicals are commonly dumped in water as a result of lacking (or unenforced) environmental regulations; some of this water, unfortunately, is still used, often by the agricultural industry.
Some Latin American scientists are researching methods of treating polluted water to make it more fit for agricultural use. In Mexico, researchers are experimenting with an ancient technique for wastewater treatment: hydro ponds. Located alongside canals, these ponds “capture” pollutants, and rely on various microorganisms to break them down/sequester them. After a year of testing, it was determined that the system worked, and produced water fit for agricultural use without harming native aquatic species.
In addition to wastewater treatment, water conservation has also been explored as a method of protecting fresh water in Latin America. In Chile, shower clocks/timers have been introduced in an effort to encourage people to take shorter showers. Aerated shower heads have also started gaining popularity; both the timers and shower heads reduce families’ water bills, which further encourages a reduction of water use.
In some parts of Latin America, the largest obstacle to water accessibility isn’t pollution- it’s privatization. The unregulated privatization of water supply and distribution often puts rural and poor urban areas at a disadvantage. There is little monetary incentive for companies to provide water to these areas, so therefore they don’t. Many citizens, even those not living in these areas, experience poor service and high prices under a privatized system. Some organizations, however, such as the World Bank, see things differently. They believe that the private sector can achieve the same results as a public water service, and point to success stories like Chile’s high percentage of wastewater treatment as evidence.
I personally believe that the privatization of water services is doomed to fail; any company seeking to profit from providing basic human rights is on a slippery moral slope. The chances of greed consuming the administrators of such a venture are too high; it is very easy to see how the pitfalls of capitalism can be applied in this situation. If it is not profitable to provide water to poor/remote areas, these companies likely won’t. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the whole system; the goal is to provide potable water to all citizens.
Some Latin American scientists are researching methods of treating polluted water to make it more fit for agricultural use. In Mexico, researchers are experimenting with an ancient technique for wastewater treatment: hydro ponds. Located alongside canals, these ponds “capture” pollutants, and rely on various microorganisms to break them down/sequester them. After a year of testing, it was determined that the system worked, and produced water fit for agricultural use without harming native aquatic species.
In addition to wastewater treatment, water conservation has also been explored as a method of protecting fresh water in Latin America. In Chile, shower clocks/timers have been introduced in an effort to encourage people to take shorter showers. Aerated shower heads have also started gaining popularity; both the timers and shower heads reduce families’ water bills, which further encourages a reduction of water use.
In some parts of Latin America, the largest obstacle to water accessibility isn’t pollution- it’s privatization. The unregulated privatization of water supply and distribution often puts rural and poor urban areas at a disadvantage. There is little monetary incentive for companies to provide water to these areas, so therefore they don’t. Many citizens, even those not living in these areas, experience poor service and high prices under a privatized system. Some organizations, however, such as the World Bank, see things differently. They believe that the private sector can achieve the same results as a public water service, and point to success stories like Chile’s high percentage of wastewater treatment as evidence.
I personally believe that the privatization of water services is doomed to fail; any company seeking to profit from providing basic human rights is on a slippery moral slope. The chances of greed consuming the administrators of such a venture are too high; it is very easy to see how the pitfalls of capitalism can be applied in this situation. If it is not profitable to provide water to poor/remote areas, these companies likely won’t. This, of course, defeats the purpose of the whole system; the goal is to provide potable water to all citizens.
DISCLAIMER: Any information/statistics not separately cited can be found at amalavidaexperience.weebly.com