Image: Francisco Collazo
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Its nickname is "Isla del Encanto," or "Island of Enchantment," and on the surface, Puerto Rico seems to fulfill every paradisiacal promise made about it by glossy travel magazines. The 111 x 36 mile island has a remarkable range of geological, biological, and habitat diversity, including a rain forest, a dry forest, mangroves, karst formations, three bioluminescent bays, and one of the largest underground cave systems in the world. Mona, one of the five islands in the Puerto Rican archipelago, has been called the "Galapagos of the Caribbean," and approximately 75 miles offshore is the Puerto Rico Trench, recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the deepest part of the Atlantic Ocean.
But America's Caribbean commonwealth is beset by problems that endanger these rich ecosystems, including the twin threats of short-range planning and hyperdevelopment. Only 7 percent of the tropical island is designated as protected, and the administration of Governor Luis Fortuño is actively supporting plans to construct a 92-mile long natural gas pipeline, five incinerators, and a coal-fired power plant; the island is also dangerously close to maxing out its landfill space, stressed by the island's population of nearly 4 million people. The Fortuño administration has also given the green light for construction in the Northeast Corridor, an area that was formerly protected as an environmental refuge.
»View a slideshow of Puerto Rico's environmental future
Critics complain the government is too close to commercial interests. In their view, the urgency to dot the environmentally sensitive "Northeast Corridor" with tourist resorts and luxury residences is less related to propping up the island's sputtering economy than it is to repaying political favors. Members of Puerto Rico's nascent environmental movement contend that the island could be "the next Costa Rica," intelligently exploiting its abundant natural resources through ecotourism, but they worry that poor planning and accelerated development will prevent the possibility.
See what we're tweeting about
66 Comments
Add CommentUn trabajo por encargo de los Massol y sus intereses petroleros en Puerto Rico. No pueden ser mas parcializados. En unos minutos el periodico que defiende sus intereses va a reseñar este articulo. Buena suerte con ello.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInfórmate antes de hablar. Casa Pueblo funciona 100% de energia solar, por lo que NO depende del petroleo. ¿Por qué le cuanta tanto a la gente entender que si hay gente en defensa de nuestra patria sin tener que lucrarse de eso? Por eso es que estamos como estamos aqui en la isla, la gente se deja manipular por un gobierno que nos mantiene malinformados. Defiende lo tuyo que nadie lo va a hacer por ti e instrúyete. NO AL GASODUCTO
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuy buen reportaje, espero que tenga mucha exposición para que se enteren de los desastres ecológicos de PR.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Boricuex - No sabía que los Massol tienen tanto poder y $ para hacer este tipo de encargos. Si te instruyeras sobre esta revista, y sobre CasaPueblo...no dudaríamos que tú por "encargo" o por fastidiar haces ese tipo de comentarios. Da lástima saber que gente como tú en el país vean las cosas así, por eso no lograremos nada como ciudadanos, y estaremos a merced de este gobierno.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article! As a scientific citizen, I feel extremely proud of the research work being made in Hacienda La Esperanza. I have been part of some of the excursions and workshops, and it has been an out of this world experience. Hacienda La Esperanza is a beautiful place, with beautiful people (like Astrid) that have dedicated their lives in order to preserve the environment. The Fideicomiso is a magnificent idea, and through projects such as La Esperanza o Las Cabezas de Fajardo not only are we preserving places with incalculable social and environmental value, but we're also unifying the community with their environment. Anyone who opposes such a beautiful project has not had the opportunity to participate in it. The Fideicomiso's work trascends any political ideal and, on the contrary, it seeks the unification of the people through contact with nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe writer of this article merely repeats a series of very questionable allegations and accusations, without questioning them, without offering an alternate viewpoint, and without clearly identifying the source of those allegations. This kind of unbalanced, unscientific article is NOT the type of article I expect from Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claims presented in this article mostly come from self-proclaimed "environmentalists" in Puerto Rico. Many of these have been identified as paid mouthpieces from the oil industry, which strongly opposes the gas pipeline. Puerto Rico currently uses oil for most of its energy production, and the gas pipeline would mean a huge loss of business for Big Oil. Switching from oil to gas would also reduce significantly the amount of pollution currently generated in Puerto Rico.
The article, somehow, failed to mention any of that.
The author's scientific credentials are also highly questionable. With all due respect, a BA in English and Women's Studies, a Master in Social Work, a PhD in Spanish Lit, and a certificate as a "Registered Poetry Therapist", whatever that is, are not particularly solid qualifications to write about environmental issues in a SCIENTIFIC magazine.
This kind of non-scientific, unbalanced article belongs in Mother Jones or Fox News, not Scientific American.
I could not agree more with Mr. Soto's statements. Sounds more like an errad job article published with the purpose of steering public opinion against the natural gas pipeline. In fact this is the first instance I ever see PR referred to as the Galapagos of the caribbean. I found that statement rather laughable and even ridiculous. I guarantee this 'article' will be cited in the local media as reason to opose the pieline, especially when the publishers of the the most prominent media outlets in the island have vested business interests against the development of the pipeline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it very dissapointing that a publication like scientific american would publish such a poorly researched story riddled with hidden agendas.
This article is the negation of what a scientific article should be. No tables, no studies performed, the author is not even a scientist. That PR has environmental problems there is no doubt but so does all the world. The article provides no solutions, no proposals, just criticism. It can only be called a political hack job, well evidenced by Mr. Acevedo Vila's panegyric, who is a former governor of the island intent on reviving his political career. Again, this article contributes nothing to this magazine or the environmental issues of PR.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection, my misread Mr. Acevedo Vila's comment and I hate to be in agreement with him, but I am. My apologies to the former governor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very disappointing to find a prestigious magazine like Sciam published an extremely biased articled like this one without even verifying the facts. We have been inundated by fictitious propaganda on the island from people and minority factions with political and economic agendas against a project that would curtail our dependence on oil for energy production. This project would reduce 65% of greenhouse gases and the alleged damage against the environment while the pipeline is constructed will be mitigated according to EPA regulations. This is by far the most cost efficient project in the short term for an island that has suffered a five year recession and cannot pay or wait for any of the costly renewable energy alternatives; those are being considered for the future. Right now, Puerto Rico needs a solution and this is by far the best one. Just remember, the States' mainland is crisscrossed by natural gas pipelines that provide cheap energy and heating for everyone. This is only the first gas pipeline to be constructed on the island and it will incorporate the latest technology. Hopefully next time the writer and editors verify the facts and publish unbiased articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHANK YOU FOR FOR SUCH A THOROUGH ARTICLE! PUERTO RICO NEEDS THE HELP OF RESPONSIBLE AND IMPARTIAL SCIENTISTS TO SAVE IT FROM CORRUPT POLITICIANS SELLING ITS PRECIOUS NATURAL RESOURCES.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations in my name and so many others like me who struggle to save our island from irresponsible and corrupt politicians selling our natural resources to the highest bidder. Thanks to Casa Pueblo and their scientific report we found out about the atrocities of the gas line and the viable alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeberias de cambiarte el "nick" a "americanex" y asi responderles a los intereses comerciales de la actual administracion y su insensibilidad social.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe situation in La Pargueras bioluminescent bay is a little more complicated that simply switching to non gasoline motorized transportation to take in tourists. It involves the preservation of the mangrove ecosystem around the bay and undoing the deforestation in the surrounding watershed that allows sediment to run into the bay. Ditto for the biobay in Vieques.. hazardous agricultural waste and deforestation are the biggest hazards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe majority of puertorricans loves their land and wants to protect it for future generations. The present governor Luis Fortuno, who made his millions as a developer, wants to destroy the last remaining virgin coastal land and replace the endangered leatherback sea turtle nesting site with villas, Hotels, golf courses, and shopping centers. The governor is in the process of selling the land that used to be a ecological reserve just 2 years ago to the developers so they can start bulldozing a beautiful paradise like it happens in the movie Avatar. It’s a shame that our governor is not listening to the voice of his people and only listens to those that donate thousands of dollars to his political campaigns. The only way to stop this madness once and for all is by designating the coastal land of the Northeast Ecological Corridor as a critical habitat for the leatherback. About the 92 miles long pipeline, it is completely unnecessary when there are better and cheaper (shorter pipeline) ways of building a gas pipeline. The people of Puerto Rico (over 80% as evidenced by the polls) knows the gas pipeline also cynically known as the "green Way" is completely ridiculous and they don't want it to be built. Imaging a 92 miles long pipeline, dividing a small island's west side from the east side like a Berlin Wall. It is completely ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been a long time subscriber of Scientific American and I live near the unneeded death pipeline the present administration is trying to impose on this extremely small and extremely populated island(its party opposed the plan when they were not in power, and it was a 39 mile death pipeline instead of the 90+ miles of this death pipeline). Thank You SA for sharing our reality with the world. The basic truth of the matter is that the governor and his contributors want to steal as much money as fast as they can using our island's only profitable government corporation. They know the pipeline will not be approved by the feds or the local people. But by the time they leave power they will have stolen millions and millions, and the rusty pipes will be sold to the chinese scanvengers for cents. As for the commentator who signed as Anibal Acevedo, our former governor, I am pretty sure is an impostor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjon676: You criticize Sciam for publishing an article with what you perceive as unfounded claims and lack of research. Yet you state that the gasoducto "would reduce 65% of greenhouse gases..." and that "This is by far the most cost efficient project in the short term..." But...where is the evidence to support these incredible claims???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that it is your statements which are undocumented and plain incorrect. First, to your statement about GHG emissions. You simply repeat the government's mantra here. It is true that the project would reduce CO2 emissions. But two caveats debunk your (and the government's) claim. One, if we look at the EPA's data, they say that natural gas produces about 50% less CO2 emissions than coal burning plants (http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/factsheet/natural-gas#8). However, I could not find a comparison with petroluem (PR has both coal and petroleum). So there is about 15% more unexplained. Second, saying that the project will reduce CO2 emissions is NOT the same as saying that the project will reduce greenhouse gases. Why? Because natural gas, according to real SCIENTISTS produces a GHG called METHANE, which is 21 TIMES MORE POWERFUL THAN CO2 in its heat-trapping effect (ie in producing global warming). Thus, natural gas may be worse in some ways than petroluem. True, natural gas has a much lower residence time in the atmosphere than coal or petroleum, and produces much less sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides, which is a plus. But the effect of methane on global warming cannot be denied.
Now to your statement about cost-effectiveness. It is unclear where you get this conclusion from, as you don't provide any evidence whatsoever. However, the claim that the project will reduce energy costs has already been debunked by serious economists in PR. In addition, it is hard to believe that a 400+ million project (probably about 600 million at the end, PLUS the annual operating costs from buying the gas and transporting it, which are not acounted for in the govt's cost estimate) is the most cost-effective way to reduce energy costsd and envmtl impact. I am sure we can find other projects in wind and solar, for instance, or even in natural gas, which are far less costly and achieve a similar effect (ie which get the same or better 'bang for the buck'). In fact, reputed scientists from Puerto Rico and, yes, environmentalists (with credentials - Massol is recipient of the equivalent of the Nobel prize for environmental issues) have proved this. Moreover, the corrupt way in whichh contractshave been awarded so far (without public licitation, and to party cadres and the governor's friends) point to the fact that this project's resourcs would be put in unproductive and unqualified hands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, overall, I hope that next time it is YOU who does a little research and verifies your biases against environmentalists and in favour of the gasoducto and the governing party in Puerto Rico.
Gustavo Garcia-Lopez
PhD Candidate in Environmental Policy
Indiana University-Bloomington
Las personas de honor y verguenza hacen y dicen cosas por las que responden con sus bienes y reputación personal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuienes responden con bienes y reputacion colectiva son esclabos, pricioneros de sus fechorías.
Pidámosle a quienes están en acuerdo con el gasoducto que pongan en juego su capital y reputación personal para compensar a quienes sufran lesiones, perdida de vida, riesgo de salud emocional y pérduda de propiedades muebles e inmuebles en caso de un "accidente" u ocurrencia en la "VIA VERDE".
Entonces conoceremos qué es el "picus trancus" y el "a juyir" de sus promotores "velerosos".
Lo deshonorable y desvergonzado es imponer estas cargas al Pueblo de Puerto Rico.
Evideloil Gauthier Montañez
Como han dicho otros, boricue, no se de donde sacas que este es un articulo "de encargo" de "los Massol y sus intereses petroleros. Tienes ALGUNA evidencia al respecto, aparte de las declaraciones difamatorias (BTW antieticas e ilegales) que hizo Hector Morales??? Donde esta todo ese dinero que supuestamente recibe Casa Pueblo de los intereses petroleros? Donde estan esos intereses petroleros? Quienes son? Por otra parte, seria interesante investigar quien es la empresa GAS NATURAL FENOSA y que relacion tienen con Fortuno y el PNP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLo que si ya sabemos es que la gente que estan guisando con los contratos del gasoducto estan vinculados directamente con el PNP y con Fortuno. Eso si que es interes directo y conflicto de interes para un proyecto. Asi que si vas a criticar por conflicto de inters, se recto y aplica la misma vara para todos.
Excelente artículo.Ojalá que muchos y muchas lo lean para que se enteren de cómo son las cosas en éste pais.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisY ojalá que ayude de alguna manera a evitar el desastre en nuestra isla del espanto.
Again with the propaganda, the governor was an US congressman and before that a corporate lawyer, not a developer. The so called green corridor will have a small portion developed and that's for tourism purposes, this is a clean industry that depends on a pristine environment in order to attract tourism. It will be a sustainable development where the leatherback habitat will not be affected. The pipeline won't divide our island since it is underground and will run mostly beside highways and it will comply will all EPA regulations. There are no other cheaper or faster proposals than the pipeline to curtail our dependence on oil and reduce our greenhouse emission, that’s a proven fact. Political factions are calling this the death pipeline bypassing the fact that in the last 20 years there has been only 45 deaths related to pipelines in all USA, a country crisscrossed by natural gas pipelines. And last but not least present administration party in the past opposed a pipeline that ran close to communities to serve just one plant, the new one will serve three plants on the island most populated zone, this will lower our energy cost and make the island competitive, our island suffers from high unemployment, we need to attract investors, the pipeline and the tourism development are the best approach to achieve this purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrsoto: You take issue with the article stating that "The writer of this article merely repeats a series of very questionable allegations and accusations..." You add that "The claims presented in this article mostly come from self-proclaimed "environmentalists" in Puerto Rico. Many of these have been identified as paid mouthpieces from the oil industry..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis criticism is very ironic, because you fall in the same trap that you criticize. First, to your comment about the article's 'claims', I would like to know exactly what parts of the article you consider "very questionable allegations and accusations". Is it that "Only 7 percent of the tropical island is designated as protected"? That is a fact (see the PR Conservation Trust website). Is it that the "Governor Luis Fortuño is actively supporting plans to construct a 92-mile long natural gas pipeline, five incinerators, and a coal-fired power plant"? Because that is also a FACT.
Or is it that "the island is also dangerously close to maxing out its landfill space, stressed by the island's population of nearly 4 million people", which is a fact recognized on numerous ocassions by the government and the EPA???
Or perhaps it is this statement: "The Fortuño administration has also given the green light for construction in the Northeast Corridor, an area that was formerly protected as an environmental refuge." WHICH IS ALSO TRUE (the governor passed an Executive Order to remove protection of the NEC)
In short, these are not "allegations" but plain FACTS. If you dont like them, deal with it.
Secondly, to your claim that the statements in the article are only made by environmentalists which are also supported by the oil industry. It is interesting that here YOU repeat a false and difamatory (note: illegal and anti-ethical) statement previously made by Hector Morales Vargas, former president of the PR Planing Board and now president of the PNP party. But, as I said in my reply to boricuax, WHERE IS HTE EVIDENCE about this supposed money flowing from oil interests to environmentalists??? Do you have any evidence? Did Morales Vargas or Fortuno present any evidence? They did not, and I suspect you cannot either. I do know a group who does have a lot of vested interests in the gas pipeline: the PNP cadres and Fortuno's friends. They are the ones benefitting from the contracts for the gasoducto, and thus the ones that are pushing for its approval. So if you are going to criticize someone for supposed conflict of interest, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT and APPLY THE STANDARD EQUALLY TO ALL.
It is true we need other ways to produce energy. but the question is WHY DOES PUERTO RICO needs a tube to go South to North? Why? Is it more wise to bring the gas directly to San Juan? What is the answer? They need to steal public money and on the way, they do not care about environmental issues, it is about business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan anyone explain why they need to build a tube? I think it's easier to bring gas directly to San Juan, but they do not care about the environment, it is business time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. García, thank you for your contribution, my information came from Via Verde’s web page where they debunk most of Massol's Casa Pueblo allegations. I've been debating about this for a while now, and I've not found anything other than political agenda to oppose this project. The fact is we need to reduce our costly dependence on oil and there is no other proposal for the short term, all other alternatives discussed cost billions and take longer to complete. I’m willing to look for new ideas, if you got one, please share it with us, but criticizing this project without presenting an alternate approach to the energy problem is not the way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause bringing the gas directly to SJ would double the cost and time to construct and on the long run would be costlier, if our government intention were to steal, they would not choose the cheapest option. Wouldn't they?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Jon676 I advice you to proof all the allegations are flase before replying with cheap propaganda. Below is the proof (in Spanish), and confirmed by The gobernor Fortuno, that he made investments in development projects before he was a gopbernor:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://noticiasonline.com/D.asp?id=13083
part of the article says:
Sin embargo, en una improvisada rueda de prensa en Guaynabo, Fortuño confirmó su relación con el proyecto Fuentebella.
"Yo invertí con el grupo Pilgrims, que es de la familia (de Ivar) Pietri, y yo soy lo que se llama un inversionista silente. Yo no tengo voz ni voto", aseguró.
Fortuno has close ties to powerful developers in Puerto Rico.
Soy estudiante de ingeniería y me preocupa como la gente insulta a quienes en realidad quieren lo mejor para PR. Muchos estudios científicos se han hecho con este proyecto del gasoducto, es muy cierto que "disminuye" nuestra dependencia del petróleo pero no al máximo como otras alternativas, pero el problema de todo esto es todos los efectos secundarios GRAVES que tiene este gasoducto ya que en todo rincón de nuestra isla hay mucha biodiversidad. Muchas cosas que nos hacen creer de "seguro" en este proyecto es totalmente falso; los exhorto a que hagan un poco de investigación sobre los efectos. Hay otras alternativas para esta problemática y Casa Pueblo lo evidencia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTambién como puertorriqueño me apena mucho que todo el tiempo tengan que involucrar la política en todo. Esto no es nada partidista, esto se trata de un Puerto Rico saludable, un Puerto Rico inteligente. Vivimos en una isla llena de diferentes ecosistemas, el turista viaja para ver esta variedad, aprovechémosla con el eco-turismo y así ayudamos a esta economía que tan grave está.
Soy puertorriqueño, y defiendo el Puerto Rico Verde que todos queremos de verdad. Sin política, con investigación y con conocimiento digo NO AL GASODUCTO!
Puerto Rico is a beautiful island with rich ecological systems, varied habitats, unique tropical flora & fauna, and many caring people. Unfortunately, it boasts a governor whose idea of green conservation is the accumulation of U.S. dollar bills for the few greedy elite. With many hotels struggling to fill rooms, others that have not even opened, and a few going bankrupt, the governor still wants to circumvent the people to give permits for constructing new hotels in the few pristine green areas that serve nesting leatherback turtles and nature loving people. SA summed up his misdeeds very succinctly in this short article. Organizations like Sierra Club de Puerto Rico have been working hard locally to stop the madness. I hope that SA publishes follow-up articles on the ecological treasures we still have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust follow the money. According to its own records the Pipeline has not the necessary approval to be included in its Capital "Improvement"Program" However they already spent $30 millions, mostly to sell an erratic project. Jail prediction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have to protect our Natural Resources, that is why the PuertoRican Parade in New York , June 12 the slogan will be "Enjoy and Protect the Island Natural Beauty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly this will guarantee our economic and social development. Foreing Hotel Industry receives million on subsidies Tax, Energy and labor without benefit to the people.
The truth and the People will Prevail !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the Government and the Companies their efforts are ordinary expenses . People efforts are non deductible in our returns.
We want true economic, environmental and social development
It is well documented Gov Fortuño was the Corporate lawyer of most of these threat of our development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPipeline, NorthEast Corridor and the waste incinerator.
The loyalty is $$$$$
What I find laughable is that this people is questioning this magazine's integrity when I am sure this is the first time they ever read it. As a Ph.D. student in Chemistry in PR, what I have learned lately is that a few lawyers and politicians know more about natural gas and pipelines than real scientists, including engineers, geologists, etc. They simply will not hear suggestions from professionals in the matter, even when they actually approve the use of natural gas. Of course, it is always easier to dismiss the real issue by mudslinging anyone who raises a voice of warning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately environmentalists here are too involved in the politics of Puerto Rico to show true concern for their primary mission. This article is nothing more than supporting evidence for the above statement. On one hand you have a truly environmental issue of the Northeast Corridor being a habitat for the endangered leatherback turtles in danger of being exploited by tourism. On the other hand, you have a proposed natural gas pipeline that will reduce emisions, lower costs to consumers, and improve a poor environmental situation. The only thing the gas pipeline will hurt will be the big oil money that is being made on rediculously antiquated methods of generating electricity for an entire island and it's 4 million residents! Where do those millions of gallons of oil come from that supply PR's electrical needs? That's an interesting question!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's true!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEl Proyecto Via Verde,no cuenta con los permisos pertinentes para su desarrollo.Mas para el gobernador,Luis Fortuño,esto no le hace mella alguna.Esta con la misma actitud que exibiera el ex-gobernador Pedro Rossello,y su Super Tubo.Proyectos Fast Track,donde primero construyen y luego el pueblo pelea por los permisos.Aqui se estan defendiendo intereses ajenos a los del pueblo.Los ciudadanos son los afectados.El cobro por el uso de la energia electrica seguira aumentando,no importa sea petroleo o gas.Estudios revelan que el gas es mas costoso que el petroleo.Si hubiese gas en Puerto Rico,podria ser.Mas no hay.Es decir,que al igual que el petroleo,hay que comprarlo y pagar por traerlo.El mantenimiento de las instalaciones,el almacenamiento etc.cuesta mucho mas.La organizacion Sierra Club,esta dando la milla extra contra esta estafa del gobierno de Puerto Rico hacia su pueblo.Todo se vera afectado con este proyecto de Via Verde.Quebradas,fauna y todo su entorno,amen de sus habitantes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDile no al proyecto que nos quiere arrebatar el Corredor Ecologico.
NO al Proyecto Via Verde.
Conoce para que creas!
This administration's environmental track record speaks for itself: 1. Proposal to build a mass burn trash incinerator rather that reduce, reuse, recycle and compost. 2. Categorize incineration of trash as a renewable energy (trash is not renewable.) 3. Remove the designation of Nature Reserve from the Northeast Ecological Corridor. No other governor has ever eliminated a nature reserve in Puerto Rico. 4. Push to build an extention of the #22 through the Karst region rather than improving the existing road. The construction of the #22 will impact the system that provides fresh water to 1/4 of the island. 5. Build a natural gas pipeline impacting 92 miles of the Island environment when we produce more energy than we need. Let's really follow the money. What interests are behind the Government's proposals. And if Casa Pueblo was really taking money from Petroleum wouldn't they also be buying hundreds of thousands of dollars in false advertising like the government is doing? Follow the money folks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Puerto Rico public agencies must be focus and aligned with the federal agencies performing more critical evaluation of differents projects presented. Actually the Fish and Wildlife, EPA and Corp of Enineers have concerns with the gas pipeline project. I suggest instead of the natural gas pipeline projects, they must evaluate another options for example, the 100% percent convertion of the two energy power plants located in south part of the island to natural gas.nThis option is a more rational option with a minus enviromental impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProtecting the biobays of Puerto Rico is a lot more complicated that simply restricting contamination with flurocarbons. ( motorboats) The ecosystem, while not fragile, depends on remaining within the parameters it has. There can not be deforestation in the surrounding mangrove forests, that is primary. there can not be sediment runoff into the lagoon. the channel to the sea must remain at its optimum capacity, not too big, not too small. the lagoon can not become much more shallow nor much deeper! Light pollution is also a major problem in terms of viewing the bioluminescense. In other words, it must become a priority to preserve it, that is more important than surrounding development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that building hotels etc. on the little land left in the northeast PR that is relatively unspoiled while chancing destroying this important turtle nesting habitat is a ludicrous idea. It is of the most self serving, shortsighted and greedy propositions yet to surface on this island. Gov. Fortuño, you are a fool to do this and I can only hope you are not elected again ( to serve yourself and your friends). You could be doing something positive like developing renewable energy! Tourism only accounts for 6% of PRs economy and you are willing to sell out our grandchildren for this trifle? Shame on you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I may not agree with everything in the article I must say that I am very happy that these issues have been brought into the light. It is really refreshing to see so many discussions both in agreement and against. Open discussion and questions are the way that changes begin and changes are what is needed here on the island.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a scientist, however I don't think you need to be one in order to see all the things described in this article. Just visit some of the places that the author has discussed and you will see it for yourself. It does not take a scientist to state the things that are occuring, have occured and are being debated on the island.
Puerto Rico is a small island and it is overcrowded with very poor urban planning and many other social as well as enviromental issues that are plaguing the island. Will they be resolved overnight...no way. However I think it is time that everyone educate themselves and read articles such as this one along with others that may take different view. Begin to question why things are done the way they are done, and take an active interest and be an active voice and participant in what is happening rather then be spoon fed what the local media or current political party wishes everyone to believe.
Gasoducto as a source of cheaper energy and heating for everyone?? Hmmm...well, every month I get my electric bill the AEE, as propaganda for ViaVerde, informs me of how much money I would save with the gas line. Are you ready? $4.00. Thats right, 4 miserable dollars. Don't believe me? I'll send you a copy of my bill. Well AEE, you can keep your $4.00. I'm not convinced its worth the risk nor the environmental impact, cutting through tropical forest and into the KARSTIC REGION, just to save us all an average of %8 of our electric bill. A cleaner source of energy? Maybe a bit, but its still fossil fuel. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the flaws in this project. But since some of you brought up subject, just so you know, a LOT of people against ViaVerde ARE scientists with Ph.D's and Masters degrees who have very valid arguments. Finally, kudos to you Scientific America for publishing an article that expresses the feelings many of us have toward this Island, rich in resources and full of potential yet acutely impacted by anthropogenic stressors. A result of shortsightedness and poor management.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust asking - but if I remember correctly several years ago when they were trying to build a wind farm on the south part of the island, didn't the enviromentalists also shut down that project due to the impact on a frog or lizard? This seems to be such a problem here, no matter what anyone proposes in order to move forward someone is not happy about it and meanwhile we are all stuck in limbo and complaining.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural Gas as a transition energy source through the southern energy plants of Aguirre, Peñuelas, Salinas. No PipeLine is necessary. Also with the iniative of household and industry to obtain energu from clean and renewal: Wind and Solar, and savings from efficient appliances and equipment instead of spoilling it, Fortuno has the unique opportunity to make a transition to close PaloSeco and San Juan Plant for the health of the Puertorricans. This is an Act of 21 Century, not to force past century failed technologies. Lets look foward !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to read more to talk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not ready, please enroll to a tutorial or environmental remedy course.
In relation with alerts of WindFarms, if government would be interested, its should by its own make the study to declare where thse technology is efficient. Do not blame the environmentalist , blame the government for its lack of support. Same as recycling. Trash disposal is business to Mayors. multimillion $$ in a few hands, Companies and Mayors. Just follow the money. Teach yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not blaming the enviromentalists. Believe me I can hug a tree with the best of them and they are the ones on the island (well some groups anyway) that are trying to make some changes and provide education to the people here. What I am trying to say is that anytime anything is proposed (whether it is solar, wind, gas, etc...)someone or some group can cry loud enough be it with political $$$ or other motivations that it is shut down. The next idea comes along and the same thing happens. I am just convinced that it will be impossible to change anything here because no one will ever be happy with any new solution or idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as if the government were to command the study then of course the political party that was not in office at the time would claim bias.
As far as solar or wind energy for private homes, the legislation allowing people to hook into the grid just passed a couple of years ago. There are no govt incentives to help people afford these systems for their homes. When the govt owns the utility companies why would they encourage natural energy sources? This would only cut the salaries and cut jobs of the govt. employees and you know what an outcry that would cause.
As far as recycling we are way behind the times here but tell me what reclycling businesses are here on the island? Also tell me how do you convince a business to come here to provide this? If they come and build a plant will they also be encroaching on the limited land space by building a plant. Will they be putting more pollution into our ecosystem by processing the recycling materials?
How about the outcry on the island when there was talk of charging for or eliminating plastic bags in the stores? How about the millions of plastic cups, plates, containers, and utensils used by almost every restaurant and in every home here on the island.
Just sayin'
Puerto Rico's worst enemy of the environment is the current government. With its right-wing neo-liberal orientation, it has "sold out" the island to big interests, with total disregard for the environment, our natural resources and is giving the island in a silver tray to developers. Proof of that is, for the first time in history, the governor has phased-off the designation of a Natural Reserve to open it up for large-scale tourism and real estate development, and the proposed construction of a natural gas pipeline that would be environmental genocide for our beautiful island. The skyrocketing growth in membership in organizations such as Sierra Club, The Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico and other environmental organizations are a reaction to that malign trend in the direction the current commonwealth administration is leading the island's environmental future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Fontanez
Vega Baja, PR
I have to agree with rsoto21 that this article lacks scientific evidence to support the article's purpose, the author should've searched scientific evidence with experts that have been studying the devastated effects of constructing this 92 mile gas tube which will place our northern karst region in danger, and many species of plants and animals that are only found in this area.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther negative effects will be for our fresh water reservoirs, since the planned path passes right on top of very importnat aquifers that are located in the northern karst region. For those who are not puertorricans and/or don't live in PR or simply don't care, we don't have natural lakes, but artificial ones, so our aquifers are precious for us. PR is a small island that cannot be exploded in excess which are the intentions of our current governor, Luis Fortuno and his administration. We puertorricans have the responsibility to defend our land for our future generations. We already had a huge deforestation during our agricutural years, where almost 94% of our forests were completely devastated. This cost more than 70 years to recuperate, and we don't want this to happen again. Our grandparents enjoyed to see mountains and valleys with very few or no trees and a wooden house on top of it. This generation will love to see children playing in the woods and being in touch with nature.
If the government wants to minimize the dependance of oil, we are a tropical island that can install thousand's of solar pannels on our home's and wind mills can be constructed in appropriate areas that don't affect our endangered species without making the richer, richest.
I suggest the author to satisfy the readers demand for more information to support the puerpose of this article. And for the ones who agree for the construction of the "super tubo", just watch the documentary GASLAND.
I have to clarify, I was not paid to write this, I'm just a puertorrican that loves her country and enjoys a walk through the forests and get in touch with nature.
This is not intended to be a peer-reviewd article but an overview of the Puerto Rico's environmental situation, so let's calm down a little bit and thank Scientific merican for highlighting our endangered natural paradaise
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand the derogation of the protected status for the Northeast Ecological Corridor, an unmentionable act. Regarding the pipeline, natural gas as a transition energy source is not bad. The route this pipeline will take, however, is a terrible idea. Route Number 10 has been plagued with cracks and re-routing because engineers keep insisting in construcing in this unstable karstic region. ¡NO AL GASODUCTO!
Indeed, the actual governor was against former one 39 miles pipeline calling it "The death pipeline"! How come a 91 miles pipeline is better?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the natural gas less pollutant than the oil? YES, no environmentalist can argue that, and I have not heard any saying that besides the politicians (many of them ignorants of the env. issues in PR because non of them are scientist but lawyers, BA's, or even HS degrees). The thing is they are investing such a high amount of money that any possible reduction on the electricity will need to be use to pay the debt... We have 2 privately operated power plants, one runs on natural gas, that sells the power for 8cents Kw/hr to AEE that sells us for 24cents... Thats 3 times the cost... If they are sure they will save money, why not converting the closest power plant (less than a mile) to natural gas and demonstrate how good it is? Ah! thats because the interest is to built a huge project to help their investors...
PS. the author of this comment is not related to actual governor Luis Fortuño. Is just a coincidence.
During the last 20 years we have witnessed a steady current of environmental degradation for a type of development that turns the country’s most beautiful and ecologically rich areas into legends of the past, play lands for the privileged and/or commercial shopping malls dominated by big box franchise stores. Serious environmental damage is compounded by social fragmentation as established communities of people and irreplaceable native vegetation are erased in the name of progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite overwhelming community support, our current government has done developers a big favor by renaming and renaming a true ecological corredor in order to accommodate large scale tourism and commerce with an inevitably devastating effect on populations of manatees, fish, endangered sea turtles, endemic plant species, as well as dignified local economic ventures that aspire to more than the classical maintenance and chambermaid roles assigned to tourist economy locals. (Last Resorts: The cost of tourism in the Caribbean by Polly Pattullo makes for an enlightening read about this.)
In Puerto Rico, the incestuous relationship between government and big development interests makes for a cynical rejection of holistic planning for the wellbeing of this country’s flora, fauna and future human generations. People genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of Puerto Rican flora, fauna and human health are labeled “‘eco-terrorists” or otherwise discredited. For instance, among some of the comments made by readers of this magazine, representatives of island government or private industry allege ludicrous connections between petroleum interests and the Massols, a family of educators, scientists, internationally recognized community leaders and environmental activists. This exemplifies the kind of untruthful intimidation tactics that are used to sway public opinion and silence socially and environmentally conscious professionals in all walks of life.
The issues broached by author Julie Schwietert reflect the ways in which the ecological sciences affect humanity in a broad way. This seems to me a very relevant take on science in general, one which can help us see our way out of problems caused by science-for-hire and/pure, specialized science, the social outcomes of which are sometimes difficult to glean.
Ms Schwietert has spoken out for a country in which people concerned for the environmental future are routinely maligned and (thanks to a new law that makes certain types of environmental protests illegal) criminalized.
El Gasoducto es innecesario para Puerto Rico, sin embargo el Gas Natural podria usarse como energia de transicion hacia fuentes realmente renovables. ?Porque no es necesario el Gasoducto? Mas del 75% de la energia que se consume en Puerto Rico es producida por Plantas termoelectricas localizadas en el Sur de Puerto Rico (Aguirre, Costa Sur, etc,). Por lo tanto no es necesario el Gasoducto para llevar el gas natural hasta Palo Seco o Puerto Nuevo para que podamos beneficiarnos de este combustible de transicion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlgunos tambien han argumentado que las plantas del sur son ineficientes en la quema de combustible por lo que es necesario llevar el gas hasta las plantas del norte. Lo que parece mas prudente es que utilizemos una fraccion del dinero propuesto para el Gasoducto para hacer mejoras que incrementen la eficiencia de las plantas en el Sur para la quema de gas natural. Por ejemplo el costo de convertir a gas natural las unidades 5 & 6 de Costa Sur fue de $20 millones (aunque todavia no se han podido utilizar pues EcoElectrica no puede suplirles el gas). Por ultimo la reduccion en la tarifa electrica que se supone tendriamos ademas de ser relativamente pequena (menos de 8%) no tiene ninguna garantia de ocurrir pues ninguna compania productora de gas natural le va ha ofrecer contratos de venta de gas a precios garantizados a la AEE por el periodo de amortizacion de la deuda del Gasoducto que debe rondar los 25 anos. Por lo que es seguro que el precio de este combustible que ya ha dado muestras de grandes fluctuaciones en el pasado continuara incrementando y acercandose o superando al del petroleo.
Another ecological atrocity is about to happen in Puerto Rico. The government just allowed the construction of 2 artificial beaches inside the Rio Espiritu Santo ecological reserve in Rio Grande. The location of the construction is a well known feeding ground for the endangered manatees. As a coincidence, today there was another article about a baby manatee that was found sick in one of the beaches that had been overdeveloped with hotels, villas, and golf courses. The manatees in PR will get extinct in a very short time if their feeding grounds continue to disappear. The Department of Natural Resources of Puerto Rico is very incompetent because it is not doing its main job of protecting the ecological reserves. This case and other already commented in this article clearly indicate that the government of PR has a complete lack of respect for their people on regards to their natural treasures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am all for conserving the environment in PR. I do understand that there should be sustainable development, which aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come. If we can find that balance then all will be well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes any body review their AEE invoice? The supose saving are just few $. Please we cannot accept the danger of a gas implementation with this unreasonable benefit. I went to Al Gore mweting in the Hilton and his recomendation was clear, we are an island that has sun, wind and water all year, why going to the worst and non benefit at all option? I think corruption is the reason...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a retired staff member of a large pharmaceutical corporation here and a former analytical and life scientist, I realize that development projects are essential for the economy of a region, especially when thousands can be employed. Yet, in the last decade, under different administrations and reasons, Puerto Rico has become the jurisdiction with the highest percentage of population decrease in the United States. And, when I first came down here 35 years ago from a huge concrete and asphalt city to this island, it was the coastal environment near my residence and where turtles are still known today to come to nest that kept my spirits up as I was heavily engaged in a plant startup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was in that vein that, when I spoke to the then gubernatorial candidate in a radio program, he promised me that, despite critics of his plans to change the status of the Northeast Corridor reserve, he would have pleasant surprises for them and me. I voted for him based on that statement and am still awaiting those surprises.
As a noted marine biologist and frequent newspaper contributor recently stated, there's nothing wrong with the gas pipeline as an engineering project...except for being "ill-conceived, not transparent, conceptually flawed, and not the best investment Puerto Rico can make to meet energy needs." Energy industry execs won't allow renewable energy to dominate until their return of investment is squeezed out of oil and then natural gas. Both fossil fuels are governed by the same magnates. From an investment viewpoint, it makes sense.
Meanwhile, the local authorities pay no heed to the well-thoughtout commentaries submitted at public hearings by knowledgeable citizens, scientists, energy experts, and law clinics on the errors and risks of current plans for various projects impacting our fragile environmental health and safety that include the water reserves of karst regions, wetlands, flood-restrictive dunes, and rich flora and fauna as well as the high consequence area of an established human community residing within the federally defined significant impact zone of a future gas pipeline.
To borrow a word from others, what is given as a response instead to citizens is a mantra continuously played, like a broken record, of an error-free system. Not once do they respond to the declarations of verifiable regulatory non-compliances. With the USA Corps of Engineers reviewing this since December, though now in a stateside venue, greater respect to scientific facts and requirements is expected for this to be a true Eden.
Do you made something, acall or a letter to eliminate plastic ?? So do not blame those you made their best effory against water and foam companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdespierta Boricua!!! este artículo esta fabuloso, y todos saben que este tubo de gas natural es otro esquema de robo de nuestros amigos en Fortaleza y la AEE. El contratista principal no tiene nada de experiencia haciendo esto y de casualidad estaba casi en la quiebra!!!! Si tanto quieren arreglar con gas natural porque sencillamente no hacen un tanque en San Juan??!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations!! This is an excelent article and have the right information. Our actual government is working for money and for the benefit of private actors. Don´t belive it without doing your homework: look for information in the Sierra Club, Puerto Rico Chapter and in casapueblo.org. There are lot of scientific documents and references already published about the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWOW, how much nonsense atacking the messenger rather than the message once more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI reported for abuse the user named Anibal Acevedo Vila for purpoting to be the ex-governor of Puerto Rico Anibal Acevedo Vila. Hard to believe the real ex-governor can't spell "opose" nor "pieline".
Puerto Rico is an islands archipielago. Sorrounded by sea and ocean. It has no known natural deposits of natural gas or other fossil fuels. All the natural gas to be consumed in Puerto Rico would be shipped by sea vessels.
The only excuse the Puerto Rico Energy and Power Authority (PREPA) has put forward to prefer a south to north $450 million gas pipeline over a north shore $100 milion sea pier to deliver natural gas to the north shore power plants is the inconvenience of obtaining permits for a sea bound pier.
YES, PREPA did evaluate and declined the pier option. This whole thing is non-sense.
This is very sad... Your comments confirm that there is no difference between you, Rosello and Fortuno, and that PPD is the same thing as PNP... I am glad your political career is over; you have nothing to contribute... Good luck!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTu comentario es totalmente estupido... Casa Pueblo no tiene ese tipo de influencia y mucho menos tienen intereses petroleros... ELLOS USAN ENERGIA SOLAR.... El unico comentario de encargo es el tuyo, tratando de justificar las politicas idiotas de Flojuño. Por lambones como tu es que Puerto Rico esta al borde del precipicio.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for writing an article that recognizes the incredible diversity that this small island has. Given that there are so many people in a small space, it is important that we are reminded of the uniqueness of Puerto Rico's environment and that it is protected from short term thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this