I’d certainly agree smog enforcement is need… but I’d address it a bit differently than you; let’s look at “the big picture”:
1. AAAS (world’s largest group of scientists, not some veg activist group) says that less petrol is burned if you eat less or no meat (so long as the crops used to feed the cattle use post-1920’s mechanized technology like combines, which is nearly the whole world) …so that helps your goal of LESS SMOG EMISSIONS. But it gets better:

2. Smog enforcement –and much more– can be funded by the _economic_ efficiency of eating less meat; the primary source saying meat production is _economically_ inefficient (not just freshwater, petrol, and other enviro concerns) is also published by AAAS. Sorry, as an enviro engineer myself who’s able to parse their data, I’ll take AAAS scientists’ observations over your observation of Barrio Jesus; e.g. you also might not be considering that the small group of cattle you saw is _able_ to eat the given amount of vegetation near Barrio Jesus sustainably (i.e. so that it grows back), but only because there’s a much larger group of cattle eating another area –in Brazil, for example (then CR imports the meat)– and they’re eating so intensively that Brazil is burning their jungles to make way for more grazing lands (and farmlands, farmlands to feed the cattle, which takes several times more farmland per-eater-of-meat than per-vegan).

In other words “We need to spend more money on smog enforcement programs first” is a Red Herring. Change is needed to prevent both acid rain _and_ greenhouse gases (and I’ve seen climatologists who are former AGW-sceptics from MIT, and full-time-AGW-hysterics, alike, agree that greenhouse gases need reduction, but as for how much, more research is needed).

Mauricio Mira

I’m asking because…

Scientists at the United Nations have determined that vehicles (and thus, likely your electricity too) actually makes LESS difference (in greenhouse gases) than what you put in your belly. It’s described here:

un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

…not only that, but a luxury-tax on meat should reduce the 10%-of-GDP that CR spends on healthcare. It’s just more efficient, environmentally & economically.

However a couple of issues regarding this thread… Costa Rica has no army, true, but if they were attacked from outside forces which is not entirely out of the realm of possibilities considering the instablity of it’s neighbors, almost everyone knows the United States and/or China would come to their aid. So I am not sure how many accolades should be attributed to this aspect of the country.

In regards to energy and environmentalism, it is wonderful Costa Rica has taken proactive measures while it still can… while it still has environment to preserve. Personally I hope to contribute to that in some way on a grander scale than a compost pit in my back yard, perhaps a decent sized private eco-preserve. The last time I visted CR I saw quite a few methane generators which would be unheard of here in California. In regards to hydro-electric causing more damage to the environment than it is worth, that’s mostly garbage from people who have not considered an underwater environment as being a contribution. Just because you cannot see it, doesn’t mean it is barren of life.

To the expat Canadian who thinks San Jose is a third world capital city… are you guys ever happy anywhere? Seriously you base your judgement on whether your neighbors understand what a compost pit is? Something tells me they wont miss you if you decide to move back to Canada.