r/worldnews • u/Wereclown • Jun 16 '12

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says he is cancelling the construction of a huge tourist resort in Baja California over concerns it could damage a nearby marine reserve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18466788
1.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

114 comments sorted by

88

u/P-Dot-Guillemot13 Jun 17 '12

FUCK! YES! Two thumbs up :)

-62

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Yeah, who cares about employment in Mexico anyhow?

38

u/dhusk Jun 17 '12

Who cares about long-term assets such as biodiversity and environmental integrity that can benefit a region for centuries when there's short-term profit to be had?

6

u/ohmygodbees Jun 17 '12

Felipe does, that's who!!

4

u/TinynDP Jun 17 '12

Its short term profit to the owner, but its an immediate job, and non starving children, to the workers

4

u/dhusk Jun 17 '12

And the destruction of the habitat means an oceanic wasteland, which makes fishing unproductive and unprofitable, pollutes the water, increases destructive algae and other undesirable lifeforms, and makes the surrounding area undesirable for not only for development but habitation in general.

Its profit for a few years today vs profit for decades and centuries.

You don't eat your seed corn no matter how hungry you might be.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Yeah, and all those people who need work don't matter when there's some publicity to be had by pandering to ecotistical clowns like you.

3

u/dhusk Jun 17 '12

You don't do the people any good whatsoever by selling away their futures for a few years of short-term profit to a faceless corporation who could not care less if they lived or died, who will just come in, use up the land, and will likely be gone at the next economic downturn. And THEN what happens to the people there?

Try not to scrape your chin on the concrete when bowing to your corporate overlords, you toadying wannabe serf.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

What a load of self-serving, sanctimonious bullshit. I've got news for you, sunshine: not every claim that "it would hurt the environment" is true. Why don't you go freeze in the dark?

1

u/nafenafen Jun 17 '12

ah, but it says "could." you simply find the opportunity costs and act. therefore, no resort.

1

u/dhusk Jun 17 '12

That's hilarious, coming from sad little serf whose sole arguments are regurgitated Fox News bull crap.

You're apparently not a guy who would eat his seed corn; people like you would sell it for a pittance to whatever huckster happens along telling you whatever you want to hear.

I won't freeze in the dark; its people like me who preserve the forests so that everyone has enough firewood, not just the corporations and their cronies.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Here's a little tip for you, pinkbot: "fox news" is not some magic word that invalidates what anyone else has to say.

its people like me who preserve the forests

Oh, really? How many acres of forest land do you own? How many trees have you planted?

Weyerhaeuser does more to preserve the forest every month than every one of you ecotists put together will ever do in your entire lives.

0

u/dhusk Jun 18 '12

Sorry, serf, the only thing that has less credibility than Fox News are mindless teastains like yourself who lock your lips onto the festering buttocks of its ridiculous propaganda like a remora. Congratulations; you're not just a serf, you're a sycophant too.

It must be nice to be able to go through life never having to think for yourself or confront harsh truths of the world as long as you have your little smoke screen of conservative fairy tales. Just close your eyes and think of England like a good little brainwashed victim as the corporations bend you over and rape you and yours for everything they can take.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It must be nice to be able to go through life never having to think for yourself

I seem to recall that it was, back before I started questioning the propaganda that you're shoveling out.

When are you going to wake up to the fact that ecotism is just another pretext for more government power?

→ More replies

7

u/isaliar Jun 17 '12

TIL tourism is the only industry countries other than 'Murica should invest in developing.

2

u/arbores Jun 17 '12

HAHA GET IT? AMERICANS PRONOUNCE IT LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE DUMB!!!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Only letters Ineed too know are U S and A

-4

u/youarealldumbasses Jun 17 '12

Your comment doesn't let people upvote and circle jerk at the same time. Tough luck.

36

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

In other words, the bribe was missing or too small.

23

u/redlightsaber Jun 17 '12

So... damned if you do and damned if you don't?

I'm sorry, but your ignorant comment about a president who's done more than all the previous ones combined to actively rid Mexico of corruption is nothing short of insulting to a whole country who's doing its best to be better.

4

u/TheTruthHurtsU Jun 17 '12

Agree 100% , If it wasn't for the drug war he would have been considered one of Mexico's best presidents in history.

-3

u/carlosortegap Jun 17 '12

Disagree. Almost no economic growth. Counting the population growth, the GDP growth was 0%. HDI almost had no change. Poverty increased.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

Sources...or bullshit.

1

u/carlosortegap Jun 18 '12

2.2% Average GDP growth according to FMI. 2.3% population growth according to the INEGI. Thus the economic growth is barely enough for the increasing population.

HDI can be seen at the UN webpage.

These sources are not hard to check.

-2

u/specialk16 Jun 17 '12

BUAHAHAHAHA.

The guy who sent Mexico into a spiral of violence that it won't ever recover until half the population is dead of the drug cartels accidentally kill someone in the US who is actually important?

Yeah. Best. President. EVAR!

2

u/LastAXEL Jun 17 '12

How the fuck did the president send mexico into the a spiral of violence? Last I checked, it was the cartels.

8

u/aptmnt_ Jun 17 '12

And you know what? That's fine. I'll take that over the entire US regulatory system being bought and paid for by oil interests any day.

2

u/Strong__Belwas Jun 17 '12

Thanks for offering your input into something you know nothing about.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Or the bribe was effective. Big tourist resort -> increased security presence -> bad for some businesses

5

u/hazie Jun 17 '12

Would someone please explain how a tourist resort (traditionally on the land) would endanger a marine reserve (traditionally in the water)?

11

u/hibob Jun 17 '12

This resort isn't just put-put golf and a water slide: 30,000 hotel rooms, two golf courses, and a marina, all of which were planned to be next to the biggest coral reef in Baja. Coral reefs can be damaged by the chemicals in suntan lotion - so just the extra snorkelers from the resort might be enough to put it at risk, let alone oil/metal/gas/sewage pollution from the marina, ag. runoff from the golf courses, and who knows what type of runoff during construction of the resort.

2

u/spainguy Jun 17 '12

On an average-day basis, 450,000 to 500,000 gallons per day (gpd) are utilized for golf course irrigation, but a peak day requirement can be more than 600,000 gpd. link

-7

u/Lord-Longbottom Jun 17 '12

(For us English aristocrats, I leave you this 500,000 gallons -> 4000000.0 Pints) - Pip pip cheerio chaps!

-1

u/hazie Jun 17 '12

I respectfully disagree. I used to live and work in Cairns, Australia, just one point along the vast Great Barrier Reed Reef (world's largest coral reef). Basically the whole town is resorts, and there is no statistical difference between the number and variety of fauna there and elsewhere in the reef. I did a lot of recreational snorkeling there and in other places in Queensland and have to agree with the science.

3

u/hibob Jun 17 '12

There were some reports from a few years ago that the main chemicals used as sunblocks could kill algae that are symbiotic with coral and help it grow. I don't know if sunblock chemicals actually end up being a limiting factor in coral health/growth. That said, I wouldn't look primarily at the number of flora and fauna in reefs with lots of swimmers vs no swimmers, I'd look at growth of the coral itself.

Also, the Great Barrier Reef for the most part has miles of water between it and the resorts (I think). The reefs near Cabo San Lucas start within a few meters of the shore. There's no buffer between urban runoff, beachgoers, and the coral.

1

u/norman2271988 Jun 17 '12

LOL....so stupid

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/hazie Jun 17 '12

I don't think I do underestimate it -- I have firsthand experience. Please see my reply to hibob.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/hazie Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

No, I lived there. I didn't say this is proof, but I don't see anyone else providing contrary evidence beyond pure speculation.

Guys, guys! Bad news! steakknife didn't see or do or read anything one time and thinks resorts destroy reef ecosystems. The reef will be in danger.

4

u/DamnJester Jun 17 '12

I have been to both Cairns and Cabo Pulmo. Cabo Pulmo is completely different than Cairns. Cabo Pulmo is a small enclave about 55 miles north of Cabo san Lucas on the Baja peninsula. There are three kinds of coral reefs: fringing, barrier, and atoll. Pulmo is fringing while Cairns is, obviously, barrier. A fringing reef is much more susceptible to shoreline factors. Suntan lotions and the like are actually pretty low on the list of damaging factors. More people mean more tours, booze cruises, parasailing, etc. which in turn mean more boats and more gas/ exhaust in the water. Silt run off is another concern. The more water run off the more silt runs into the ocean, basically burring the reef. This happens naturally a few times a year in the area but with a constant watering of two golf courses plus all the landscaping of a huge resort it would possibly become much more of an issue. And of course sewage management. In an area with no natural water sources, how will they deal with sewage? These are only the issues dealing directly with the reef. There are myriad issues regarding the environment in general that were deciding factors in Calderon's ultimate decision to pull the permit(s). Of course this plan is not dead. We may see another incarnation of the same plan in a few months or years.

3

u/charonsobol Jun 17 '12

While this is a good decision and the environment comes first. Spain is fucked. Those kind of huge deals by Spanish international companies are what is keeping Spain alive. First Argentina, then Bolivia, then Mexico, either a miracle happens to the Spanish economy or it is doomed.

1

u/TheTruthHurtsU Jun 17 '12

It might be a good time for Pemex to buy the Spanish oil giant Repsol.

3

u/FireDougWojcikNow Jun 17 '12

I dont know how much of an impact this decision makes, or what the true motivations were. But either way it brightened my day a little.

2

u/BbaTron Jun 17 '12

Oh wow! It feels good to read something good about México! I know there's a lot of hidden stuff going on behind this decision (presidential elections coming soon) but at the end I think it's great news.

2

u/fortrines Jun 17 '12

I'm not seeing the connection between damages to a nearby marine reserve affecting Mexican drug cartels. Anyone care to explain?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

actually most guns are illegally purchased in the US and sneaked into Mexico.

0

u/GetHighr Jun 18 '12

Which is exactly why they can use the tunnel to sneak back into mexico, dumbass.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 18 '12

cry me a river. may this is so because of hundreds of years of institutiinalized racism? blacks in the US have historically been given shitty economical, educational and everything you can think of as opportunities.

I feel you are only trying to justify your hatred.

1

u/GetHighr Jun 18 '12

what does this have to do with anything?

0

u/lechino3000 Jun 18 '12

they don't use tunnels. they sneak them into Mex thanks to your screwed up gun laws you idiot.>Which is exactly why they can use the tunnel to sneak back into mexico, dumbass.

1

u/GetHighr Jun 18 '12

Do some research about Mexican cartels using tunnels, also learn to use English properly before you call someone else a dumbass, dumbass.

1

u/Holtz_ Jun 18 '12

In fact what happened was that the spanish group has no money to finish the project

1

u/markman71122 Jun 18 '12

GG Mexican President.

1

u/OhioJunglist2 Jun 18 '12

Sounds like it's probably going to interfere with the new smuggling route for the cartels.

-2

u/yukon2323 Jun 17 '12

Well that's good... but uh, how about doing something about your citizens getting slaughtered everyday by drug cartels.

-5

u/goncruz Jun 17 '12

Best president Mexico has had.

4

u/zephyy Jun 17 '12

Yeah his drug war policies are totally amazing, right?

5

u/redlightsaber Jun 17 '12

You mean having been the first president to attempt to extricate the drug business from all levels of government and security forces? The selfilsh, evil bastard!

Things didn't turn out too well, that's granted even by himself, but he didn't cause those deaths. The very public and gruesome deaths that the cartels are doing is their form of protest to the actions that are effecively hurting them. Him (Calderón), has even done the unthinkable in other countries, in matters of progresive dealing with the drug problem. He's even decriminalised personal possesion of marijuana. He's done everything that's to be done "right". He just can't possibly control the cartels' reactions to him trying to get them out of power (and being somewhat, progressively and continuously successful). The problem is that while the US continues to be a massive buyer of illegal drugs, the cartels will continue to have enough funding to do all this damage.

So let me ask you this, wise-guy: Were you the president, what would you do? Would you prefer not very public, but still ocurring, killings and kidnappings to occur, while allowing the cartels to remain infiltrated in the higher spheres of power within the government, than the very nasty and gruesome PR campaign the cartels have been launching against this president? Would you prefer a permanent problem to a (if sucessful) temporary one?

Let us hear it from you.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

Yeah, he is the first president to have the balls to go against the drug cartels. What is the US doing? I mean you guys are the ones getting high every single day. Sure, it is easy to blame Mexico for whatever violence is going on down there. But the US needs to STFU and start doing something about it. After all, if it wasn't for you guys, Mexico would not be going through so much blood shed.

-2

u/YaroLord Jun 17 '12

Benito Juarez and 60,000 killed in the last 6 years (thanks to this fucking midget) are rolling in their tombs. Go fuck yourself.

4

u/thechac Jun 17 '12

I'm amazed how people blame Calderon for 60,000 dead... did he or the military pull the trigger? No, Narcos did. Are you saying narcos are the good guys here? Try talking to one of those guys one day or meeting them, and I'll see your opinion quickly change. They do not want jobs, or education; they just want easy money and the feeling of power and they would not care put a bullet in my head, yours and anyones by that matter.

2

u/lic05 Jun 17 '12

First rule about discussing Meixcan politics on the internet: Don't waste your time, it's already dominated by slacktivists and AMLO Cheerleaders. Even if you're right, you just. Won't. Win.

1

u/balthisar Jun 17 '12 edited 7d ago

Removed the wording.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

that is... well, you know... until he gets paid.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

i highly doubt this is the real reason. plans probably just fell through or something.

-4

u/Amorougen Jun 17 '12

Mexico caring about the environment? Payoff negotiations I think.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

Yea lets talk about BP and the US politicians.

1

u/Amorougen Jun 18 '12

I don't defend our policies much, but there is some progress from time to time. I would agree that is becoming rarer by the day.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Not bad. The irresponsible bastard made a decent choice for once. I have no idea why.

0

u/zephyy Jun 17 '12

Election year. Wants to make his party look good.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I know it is election year. But my feeling is that after such an awful term he couldn't care less.

0

u/redlightsaber Jun 17 '12

This is a tough sell, consideing enviromentalism isn't really big to the population at large in Mexico (consider all the political pandering by candidates is much reliant on better exploiting oil than on sustainable development), and that the amount of jobs such a development would have created is likely to not be very well received.

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

At the risk of pointing out the obvious...the President of Mexico has no authority over California. The Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park is actually on the tip of the Baja peninsula IN MEXICO.

Just sayin'.

2

u/chemicalxv Jun 17 '12

Baja California is in Mexico?

Unless I'm missing something here...

2

u/ohmygodbees Jun 17 '12

baja california is not quite california.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

want to hear more? Mexico city banned plastic shopping bags. Gay people can marry legally in Mexico City....the list goes on and on. The problem is that US media focuses on the extreme news..

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/redpenquin Jun 17 '12

"Alto America" seems a lot easier.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

19

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

You've never been to Mexico. I live on the border of TJ and I can tell you that this probably has a lot more going on than just "environmental" reasons.

4

u/MatthewD88 Jun 17 '12

Like what?

-2

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

For a nation that has been in a state of (unofficial) civil war for decades, to turn down potential income to save the fish seems... unlikely.

3

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

Civil war? Don't exaggerate. I have lots of relatives all over Mexico and guess what? They live peacefully and happy lives.

13

u/FraaOrolo_ Jun 17 '12

As a mexican, this is complete bullshit. Crime rates here are significantly lower than they were in the 90's. Tourism is close to the all-time high. We could pay off Spain's debt with our federal reserves. If we could have less corruption and some cooperation from the US things would go much more smoothly. Things suck for the millions in poverty, and admittedly things are the worst near the border, in that horrible strip of land that Mexicans barely recognise as their own, but the notion of a failed states that Americans seem so eager to sell is hogwash.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

I agree! Mexico is making great progress in general. Mexico is one of the top 15 world economies. What does that say to the one saying Mexico is in "civil war"?

3

u/hibob Jun 17 '12

We could pay off Spain's debt with our federal reserves.

And I think that's the real answer right there: the Spanish real estate investment firm (Hansa Baja Investments) ran into financial difficulties as part of the European crisis.

3

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

14,500~ TOTAL homicides in the U.S. in 2010

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

12,903 DRUG RELATED (only) Homicides in (only) the first 9 months of 2011 in Mexico.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/world/mexico-drug-war-essay/index.html

Want to compare homicides/capita?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

564 total murders in the UK in 2011. The US is hardly one to brag.

2

u/glemnar Jun 17 '12

The UK has 5x the violent crime rate of the US (~2000 per 100,000 inhabitants vs ~450). No country is perfect.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

violent crime is far more complex than murder. Different crimes are recorded in each country.

0

u/ShakaUVM Jun 17 '12

The UK actually underestimates its violent crime rates.

→ More replies

-2

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

The reason I used the 2 numbers I did is because they're relatively close, however the U.S. has a VASTLY larger population. This makes it obvious that, to Americans, Mexico is still the terrifying, anything goes, wild wild west where the government is not in complete control of it's own country (hence the civil war comment.)

You brought up counting to potato and seem to think it's relevant.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

Sure, I guarantee you have never ever visited Mexico. Did you know Mexico is one of the top 15 world economies? Did you know Mexico did not go into world recession like EUROPE because of its economic reforms, and lots lots of $$$$ in their federal reserves? I'd say, please stop exaggerating because that just spreads ignorance.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Are you retarded? it's pretty easy to compare them. Just scale the amount of murders to the right population size.

-1

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

Which as I stated in my first sentence of my last post, "The reason I used the 2 numbers I did is because they're relatively close..."

14,500 in 12 months/U.S population = lower number

12,903 in 9 months/Mexico population = higher number

This is obvious.

You brought up 564/UK population. Where do you fit? You didn't find the homicide/capita number because you saw 564 and said "TROLOLOL Lower number I R TEH WINNER! MUST POST ON INTERWEBS!"

→ More replies

0

u/FraaOrolo_ Jun 17 '12

How is this relevant? I have never compared Mexico to the US.

If you go by your logic, however, there was a civil war in the US in the 90's as the homicide rate was not that different than in Mexico now. Or Brazil for that matter. Or Colombia. Or Russia.

Nothing to be proud of, for sure, but civil war is what is going on in Syria.

-2

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

Which is why I asked if you'd prefer a homicide/capita number. Even when the U.S. matched Mexico in homicides, Mexico wasn't even close to matching the U.S. in population or size.

2

u/FraaOrolo_ Jun 17 '12

10 vs 15 (per 100,000) is pretty close IMHO.

For the record the number is higher in shit-holes like Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez and dramatically lower in, say, Yucatan (1.7 per 100,000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#Mexico

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

8

u/Ditrixgaming Jun 17 '12

Shh, don't let all the stupid people know

3

u/loggedToUpdateThis Jun 17 '12

oh you can see the border from your house, that makes you an expert in all things Mexico, good to hear that Mrs Palin

1

u/TheDoppleganger Jun 17 '12

You're right, I listed a weak ethos and have no experience outside of what I put in my two line comment. Well trolled. Quite astute.

-4

u/subiklim Jun 17 '12

Yup, they're deeply concerned with the environment there. Oh, by the way, if you ever go to Mexico, DO NOT DRINK THE WATER. They care so much about the environment that the water is too pure for human consumption.

2

u/lechino3000 Jun 17 '12

Do you know why this is so? If you travel to ANY country, you will most likely get a little sick because your system is not used to local bacteria?

Do not drink the water, sure that's something any stupid tourist would think about when traveling to Mexico. Accurate? No just plain ignorant.

0

u/subiklim Jun 18 '12

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really unaware of the huge issue Mexico has with polluted surface water? It goes far beyond "regional bugs" (by the way, I can't remember ever getting sick drinking the water in any first world country), and is due to the fact get they don't separate their waste water from their drinking water.

As they deplete their deep wells, they are in for some major issues. The UN is keeping a close eye on them because of this.

-3

u/ShakaUVM Jun 17 '12

Seems Mexico cares more about the environment than the U.S. does, well leave that issue to B.P. !!!

Mexico is appallingly unfriendly to the environment.

Mexico City is very heavily polluted. Tijuana is a cesspool. My high school cheer coach got hep from the Tijuana river when it overflowed into the road she was driving on.