"You must be the change you wish to see in the world"--Mahatma Gandhi

I am trying to be a socially-conscious environmentalist in one of the biggest and most polluted cosmopolitan centres in the world.

A sneak preview of the yet unpublished GEO Youth LAC Guidebook I'm reviewing:

"The growth of economic activity and increasing population density have led to severe air pollution in many cities, with Mexico City, Sao Paulo and Bogota among the worst affected. The primary sources of such pollution... are mainly urban transportation and industry. The releases include a wide range of pollutants, including greenhouse gases and compounds that form urban smog. The latter have a major impact on human health causing sever respiratory problems, higher rates of lung infections and many premature deaths. The illnesses caused by air pollution are costly both in human and economic terms. Treatment is expensive and employee absenteeism reduces productivity."

And, yes, most employees here at UNEP do get around solely by automobile (car or taxi). And, so far, so have I.

In their defense (and mine), there are not many safe, environmentally sound transportation options available in Mexico City. The city is huge and many people live far from Metro stations. Besides, taking public transit here can be very dangerous. Most people can tell at least one story of someone they know's being attacked in the street here, day and night. In fact, street cabs are also notorious violent crime sites. So it's understandable that the personal vehicle becomes a very attractive option for those who don't want to be kidnapped and raped on the way to work, as apparently happened to a woman taking a taxi to the office from Condesa about a year ago. In fact, someone I met the other day, in trying to convince me how it's not so unsafe here, explained that after 7 years in D.F. she'd only been mugged once; this while waiting in traffic, smoking a cigarette in her own car, by an unarmed man with whom she struggled and lost. I don't know if it will make me more crazy trying not to think about the (in)security of life here or being constantly aware and thus having the illusion of control... But I digress.

And as for the prospect of biking (generally my prefered mode of transport), in D.F. traffic, it seems the equivalent to a death wish/suicide mission. Most likely, you'll get hit on your first day out, not to mention the problems of theft & being exposed to all the pollution & robber types who would have direct access without having to break your window.

Then again, I am accutely aware that security is commonly cited as a reason for people not to adopt more socially and/or environmentally sound practices; I'm usually the first to get annoyed with this excuse. For example, hitch-hikers often face this line of argument in the face of promoting this mode of transport, which, aside from the obvious risks, carries so many benefits (i.e., low/no cost, no additional environmental strain, the opportunity to interact with and engage people from different walks of life, etc.).

There is an element of hypocrisy I am seeing in my willingness to conform to the mainstream as soon as it poses a real threat to me, a certain dissonence I just can't shake. But what now? Should I buy a bike and get hit by a car? Should I insist on taking public transportation, even by myself, at night?

I guess I will need time to resolve all these interconnected issues. Perhaps in writing, I will be better equipped to digest. Please excuse the rambling nature of the following paragraphs...

Some recurring questions, digested with Audre Lourde's statement "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" in mind:

Can positive change be instituted in a top-down, hierarchical manner? Most large organizations designed for this purpose, including most areas of the UN, seem to operate thusly. (I'm happy to say that so far, in many important respects, GEO for Youth is still seeming a pretty grassroots, collaborative process for a project of its scope :)) How can we go about changing institutions while entrenched in those very structures we are, in theory at least, trying to re-build?

Or, more metaphorically speaking, what do you do when you are living in an apartment building constructed atop a toxic waste dump, the cellar rank, the walls moldy, & the whole package deteriorating fast? You know, deep down, that life in the building, as it stands and where it is heading, is not only unhealthy but unsustainable. You agree that, in theory, it ought to be changed, replaced with something better: something sustainable & durable & comfortable. But, although these ideals are attractive, you still need a dwelling, right now... And this delapidated apartment is the only home you have ever known.

Do you simply abandon ship, drag your loved ones into the street where you will all be exposed to the elements from which, despite its problems, the your old home had provided some protection? Do you stay put while trying to work from within, doing your best to beautify and repair it from the inside, even though some of its problems run so deep there is little chance they will ever be resolved? What do you do when the other residents don't seem to care, or to be willing to put in the work/sacrifice necessary to build a better alternative? Let's say you manage to convince your neighbours to tear down the building; together, you erect another, better habitat; and you actually manage to transition successfully... How do you dispose of the toxic remains, or ensure that a repetition of history is prevented?

Finally, if we are stuck in this rotting building, for the time being, is there no benefit in hanging art on the walls?

Feel free to comment.