"Medio ambiente" has been a word imposed in Ibero America to translate environment to Spanish. This is considered to be absurd, a grammatical error. From the point of view of the language it is incongruent and deficient in content.

The continued application of this expression secures idiomatic deviations and causes confusion. The words "medio" and "ambiente" together are redundant. The essential nature of the word ambiente gets lost. We can observe that when the word "medio ambiente" is used in conjunction with other words, it produces empty sentences, ambiguities which do not define anything, i.e.: "medio ambiental education", "medio ambiental impact", "medio ambiental problems".

What is the reason to the continued use of these words if they are not correct? The word "medio" is used to identify a substratum (soil, water, air) conjugated with other words it defines ambiente/environment. Some justify the validity of these words arguing that 1) Organisms of the United Nations adopted initials like PNUMA, CNUMA, and it is affirmed these abbreviations are not easily substituted, 2) in English the word environment is well established, 3) "medio ambiente" relates to the matters of nature.

These arguments are weak, the denominations or abbreviations of organisms do not define idiomatic evolution. A word that prevails in English can not be used as a coin word in another language. In English environment is much more used than ambient. Ambient translated to Spanish should be the correct word to use.

Environment is emerging of biological, chemical, physical and socio-cultural elements that interact and define life. It is absurd to state that environment are only natural components. Ambient is everything, it is a word that globalizes and integrates. Its elements combine and form an inseparable unity.

A campaign was started in the "Summit of the Earth" (Rio 92), to encourage Ibero-American countries not to use the words "medio ambiente", because it does not exist. Our task is not easy, traditional positions have to be opposed, which state that this is only a semantic problem. It is a content problem. Many organisms have corrected their denomination of environment many more are actualizing their publications, and laws.

The once who do not accept these criteria, but continue to support this grammatical vice, do not help real sustainable development. The concept has to originate from clear definitions, which encourage changes of attitude. We need to reach knowledge that allows a rational use of natural resources, without risking the healthy viability of future generations, without damaging the ambient.

Please, remit this leaf to schools, offices, editorial, journalists and translators. @