Chile Forum

I found it wildly infuriating when we first moved to Central America, that the beautiful countries were covered with plastic. Plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic laminated food packages everywhere! There is a beautiful place in the western province of Chiriqui, Panama, where when you drive up the road towards the highest place in Panama, Volcan Baru, a national treasure, the trees are covered with what looks like Tibetan Prayer Flags. But when you get closer, you realize, it's plastic bags! The dump is at the foot of Baru. But the point is, that plastic bags are so destructive, in so many ways.

It got me thinking...why do these people throw trash! Well, one theory I have is that until the introduction of plastic in Central America, people threw out containers. They were coconut husks, corn and plantain leave husks, anything that wasn't glass, or metal, got tossed, literally. There weren't disposable diapers, everything wasn't pre-packages like it is now. I could almost scream at the amount of plastic bags grocery store workers try to send you home with. And I am guilty! I forget to take my own canvas bag for my shopping. And like an earlier poster mentioned, the bags inside of bags at the stores are ridiculous! When I buy two lemons, two limes, a couple of onions and some lettuce, that would be five bags, at least at Santa Isabel grocery store. Last I knew, those fruits and veggies are not allergic to each other, and would travel nicely until I get home.

Habit. I have to get into the habit of taking my own canvas bags. Ignore the strange looks. I need to bite the bullet and pay more for the windows I will install when we build in Futa. Mother Earth News knew it long ago, and they continue to produce great info on conserving.

I would love to hear from anyone who has implemented solar in southern Chile. I know it can be done. Not necessarily for total heat and hot water, but to use less gas, wood, and electric.

Vicki

"It starts with me."

There is a big win coming for Chile's environment in the mining industry. I simply can not give details away until it is made public, or my source is toast.

The problem with most of the over hyped "green" solutions for the most part is that they are no where near as efficient or cheap to produce as people lead on.

Hydro 50 years ago was suppose to save us all, and we now know what it really means.

Wind is not cheap to use on a large scale and is not reliable. There is that wind stops blowing problem that needs fixing.

Solar is also hard to mass produce, and the panels are not sufficiently efficient yet to really say power a city. They are coming along however.

Bio-diesel and the like, although perhaps still better than oil also produces industrial pollutants. There is still a good deal of questions about how much fuel must go in to producing a gallon of gas.

The ocean in Chile has potential however to produce a lot of endless energy, near where it needs to be produced. Even if it cost more, It should be more efficient than say trying to pump electricity from the deep Patagonia all the way to Santiago.

And on, and on, and on....

That said, the idea that some combination of these might help on a small level is what is needed in Chile. Removing the need for energy one home at a time is a win for Chile. This I think really can be done, in a lot of areas, because they already use very little electricity. Implement now solutions, before every house is hooked to the grid in the campo, and get small towns hooked to environmental solutions early.

For southern Chile, micro-hydro plants work. We have seen them. A lot of people out in the remote parts of Southern Chile make their own homemade micro-hydro plants out of truck alternators to provide a few lights or run a refrigorator.

It would seem in the government's rural electrification project, rather than running millions of pesos in electrical lines, buy these hard to reach houses hydro plants, solar cells, and so on.

The problem with Chile, and I believe this is mostly a Santaigo thing, is never under estimate how embarrassed they are about being considered a developing country. They like to concrete or pave over grass the first chance they get in building in Santiago.

A lot of people in Santiago tend to take the attitude that it is the rural poor people that are holding back the country, not that they some how should do something to help them develop. There is a blame the victim attitude, or more exactly they feel victimized by the rural people.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:. . . . I have to get into the habit of taking my own canvas bags [to the grocer's]. Ignore the strange looks. . . .

Vicki, if you carry a string bag or two (the kind that formerly was ubiquitous in France and that can still, the last I knew, be bought from L. L. Bean), you can at least go to Santa Isabel without drawing looks (the string bag can easily be crushed into a closed fist)!

admin wrote:. . . . The problem with most of the over hyped "green" solutions for the most part is that they are no where near as efficient or cheap to produce as people lead on.

True. There is no simple solution, save, perhaps, the one that few people will genuinely support: reduction of population. If we all had but one child (or, more precisely, shared but one with another parent), many of these problems would disappear before the end of the century.

But that won't happen.

. . . . The problem with Chile, and I believe this is mostly a Santaigo thing, is never under estimate how embarrassed they are about being considered a developing country. They like to concrete or pave over grass the first chance they get in building in Santiago.

A lot of people in Santiago tend to take the attitude that it is the rural poor people that are holding back the country, not that they some how should do something to help them develop. There is a blame the victim attitude, or more exactly they feel victimized by the rural people.

I've noticed the same attitude, especially among the rich. And not just in Santiago de Chile, either.

Although overpopulation is an issue, it can also be considered that the consumption / waste of that population that is the problem - the old ecological footprint argument.

On a micro level, plastic bags / packaging and no recycling are my pet hate here - how can recycling work here? How does the lack of recycling reconcile with the fact there are people who collect cardboard etc, that there are still values to these materials here?

On a major level, energy is the big one. Maybe that's why I'm more interested in recycling stuff. It seems more achieveable!

I don't think Chile is in any danger of population problems any time soon. I think they might be in danger in Santiago, because the country is overly centralized; but that too is changing fast. Chile has the land and resources to handle a much larger population, but thankfully it has time to plan. In part the small population of Chile, relative to its natural resources is what makes it NOT the rest of Latin America.

I would say Chile would start to get in trouble at around 50 million to 100 million people. Which, I doubt they will reach any time soon given the current 15 million population. If Chile, like the rest of Latin America had say a population of 50 million now this country would be a disaster. There is time to prepare for that population.

I am getting some emails lately form Aguas Libres in the Panguipulli area south of Pucon about a dam. I have not been able to get any more info on it.

Every time we hear about another protest over a dam however, I get suspious because they get blown out of proportion and valuable resources of these groups and communities get waisted on none-issues. We have seen at least a couple of areas where a rumor of surveyor in the area turns in to a full blown environmental protest, even if the guy was just there for the day updating some old data. They strike me as environmental red herrings.

I think the mines are much more of a real tangible threat in southern Chile. Even those I am suspicious of. There are a lot of mining operations that are also just schemes to get investment money, rather than there is ever going to be a serious effort to build a mine. For every 10 to 100 proposed mine projects, I bet less than 1 really goes in to real production for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the environment.

Getting the Salmon industry at least out of the lakes might be a possible win. Getting them to move their rafts around a bit more in the ocean would not hurt either.

I think my point is that we need to pick the battles to be fought more carefully. Chileans will tire of various issues fairly quickly. People mobilizing constantly to fight every rumor, leads to activist fatigue and then the environmental projects that are real go ahead with little opposition. No one takes notice of them in the political / environmental white noise.

Helping locals sort out the rumors from the real threats is a winnable battle. Helping them better focus their efforts is a winnable battle. Often, a lot of these projects like the Geocom project information never makes it to Spanish. The locals need help with intelligence gathering and research from outside of Chile such as the investors get, but are never published in the local communities.

For example, does the company really have the resources to do what they say they are going to do? Are they a viable threat? If they have 10 projects in Southern Chile, which is the one they are putting the most investment in first?

Panguipulli dams: I'd be keen to get more info. From what I can glean:
The Sistema Interconectado Central (SIC) intends to concentrate much of its source from Region de Los Rios. Heading this is Norwegian company SN Power, and of course Endesa and Colbun. Se dicen that up to 10% of the country's hydro power could come from here.

There are two major areas planned, several rivers affected, which I won't name here mainly cos they'll take too long to type. Environmental studies are of course underway though it remains to be seen how effective such studies are in decision making process (eg Celco, Valdivia should never have happened even in professional opinions and not just my humble one).

The idea is that it's the type of hydro that allows the river to follow its natural concourse, but it may be transpiring that this is not the case for at least two rivers which is likely to affect fish breeding, at the very least....

Also, what hydro development companies have been known to do, though I am not alleging in this case, is estimate the flow of water they need and say this is covered by part of the river, and buy the water rights, with the "intention" that they only take what they estimated, but then when they have built say that the river isn't providing the right volume and they therefore need to use the whole river after all to provide the volume they are entitled to....

Those against include the mayor, tourist organisations (including the owner of the Termas Geometricas) and Valdivia as it will affect them downstream, hunting and fishing clubs...

Unasked for opinion from me: We all know the knock on effects of think big dam projects. Hydro actually rocks - but mini hydro projects, not massive ones like this! Isn't more local community-based power the logical solution? Hydro where there's water, wind where there's wind, sun where there's sun, etc?

However. Like I said, maybe that's why I start with plastic bags!

My understanding of solar is that it is expensive, impractical on cloudy days, and not easily stored.

My understanding of wind is that it is expensive, requires the right location, and your neighbors may object to the unsightly towers.

admin wrote:Hydro 50 years ago was suppose to save us all, and we now know what it really means.

Pleading ignorance here: What is the problem with hydro?

I strongly agree, Charles, that winnable battles should be fought first, and that these should be sifted from the constant rumors that circulate everywhere. Both activists', donors', and the general public's fatigue is very, very real. Just as we responsibly limit our consumption of limited natural resources like paper and gasoline, so we must wisely allocate the use of these limited human resources.

admin wrote:I don't think Chile is in any danger of population problems any time soon. . . . I would say Chile would start to get in trouble at around 50 million to 100 million people. . . .

On this, however, we are not agreed. If the United States, with twelve times (or a bit more) the area of Chile and a tougher (and more often enforced) body of environmental law, can nevertheless be in environmental trouble with a population of three hundred millions -- and it is in trouble, serious trouble -- Chile would likely be in equally serious trouble at but twenty-two or twenty-five millions. There's not that much longer to go; I pray that preparation of viable defenses -- good and enforced laws, but, more, a sea-change in the mindset of the people -- may be hastened.

briloop wrote:. . . . What is the problem with hydro?

To name but one: flooded lands. (Consider the loss of wild animals' habitat, of farmland and town, of beautiful scenery.)

Or, another: interrupted streamflow. (Consider, again but through different mechanisms, destruction of habitat, etc.)

It's the knock on effects when a causeway is halted. Everything downstream changes. This means everyone else using the river is affected, people and otherwise.

Regardless of possible pollution, the make up also changes. The classic example of "unexpected" knock-ons is that fish like salmon can no longer go upstream to spawn and die off. The animals that feed off them then also starve. (As do the industries) Etc etc. There's a classic study on this re bears in the US, I'll look it up. David Suzuki is good for some case studies too.

admin wrote:... There are a lot of mining operations that are also just schemes to get investment money, rather than there is ever going to be a serious effort to build a mine. For every 10 to 100 proposed mine projects, I bet less than 1 really goes in to real production for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the environment...

Yes, that's true. But it's not sinister. That is the intrinsic nature of the mining business. Investors only want to put their money into 'sure things'. So you tend to have start-up's or smaller existing mines screaming for attention. It costs a lot of money for discovery, evaluation, reports, and especially for equipment. It takes years to get a mine actually producing. They may have proven resources but the competition for funds is fierce in mining. Basically, one in a hundred comes to fruition.

Re population/consumption ecological footprint comparisons.

To be "sustainable", each person living on the planet should consume no more than four acres of land for their total ecological footprint. Worldwide there exist 1.8 biologically productive hectares per person. Therefore, at the current global population if everyone used only 1.8 hectares we would be "ecologically sustainable". If people consume more than the equivalent of 1.8 hectares per person we would need more planets to support the population and therefore would be living unsustainably. The average American ecological footprint is roughly eight times that amount.

I can't find Chile's for sure as yet but it seems to be half that of the US? It is the highest in Latin America.

So using resources more thoughtfully, reusing and recycling where possible, using less wasteful forms of energy, etc, can all reduce the footprint... culling I'm sure would also be effective

go play outside wrote:. . . . To be "sustainable", each person living on the planet should consume no more than four acres of land for their total ecological footprint. Worldwide there exist 1.8 biologically productive hectares per person.

Which is about 4.5 acres per person: we're closing in on self-annihilation! Less hysterically, I'll add that the area seems to change over time, perhaps with technological changes (I'm hesitant to label all as "advances"): I think I remember that UNESCO or another arm of the United Nations, back in the 1970s or '60s, came up with the figure of five acres a person.

. . . . The average [North] American ecological footprint is roughly eight times that amount.

I can't find Chile's for sure as yet but it seems to be half that of the US? It is the highest in Latin America.

Upon reflection, I'm not too surprised to learn this. Let's see: Chile has about sixteen million people living on about seventy-five million hectares, or about 4.7 hectares a person. When one considers that much of the area of the nation is desert (hot or cold) or mountain, or city or highway, or national park or nature reserve, available arable land per person might be somewhat more like three or fewer hectares. Even with the supplement of fishing and (gak!) salmon-farming, there's too little to sustain much increase in population. I'll stick with my earlier guess of twenty-five million people as the maximum sustainable population.

So using resources more thoughtfully, reusing and recycling where possible, using less wasteful forms of energy, etc, can all reduce the footprint

Hear, hear!

... culling I'm sure would also be effective

"Aye, there's the rub!"

Seriously, smaller families could be encouraged through changes in tax and welfare laws.