Tuesday, November 13, 2007 Speak out: Climate change is for real By Lawyer Golly Ramos University of Cebu, College of Law
THE barrage of statements from our local political leaders supporting the Tañon Strait explorations smacks of a well-oiled machinery whose sole mission is to extinguish the growing flames of protests against the project by subsistence fisherfolk and concerned citizens.
Just like other national projects, it is lumped down our throats despite the warnings of more than a hundred marine scientists in the country on its destructive effects on our ecosystem.
It is ironic and pathetic that government agencies like Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Energy (DOE) and the local government units, which are tasked to protect our resources and ensure a healthful and balanced ecology for all—as guaranteed by the State to the people under the Constitution—approved this project.
How could they endorse such project and similar undertakings that pollute and emit greenhouse gases amid the life-threatening specter of climate change and its consequences —storms, floods, drought, sea level rise and displacement of people.
Have we forgotten that we are an archipelago, thus extremely vulnerable to sea level rise and extreme weather conditions? Cebu is a coastal province and most of our cities, and of course the populace, live in low elevation coastal zones. A one-meter increase can already have devastating impact on our way of life.
While other countries already have contingency plans and maps of areas likely to be affected by the sea level rise as a consequence of global warming, our politicians are still in a state of blissful ignorance of what climate change is all about. It is simply ignored. It is business as usual.
Expensive reclamation projects are still being planned when sooner or later, the sea will reclaim the land - once more.
Since its creation in 1992, the DOE is mandated by Republic Act 7638 to have a preferential bias for “environment-friendly” sources of energy. Question: why are most of DOE’s projects focused on fossil-fuel power plants and oil explorations when these contribute to the destruction of our environment, the health and the livelihood of our mar-ginalized sectors?
Why is DOE not in the front line for mainstreaming the use of renewable and clean sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, of which we have unharnessed potential? These projects can even be traded for carbon exchanges and included in the Clean Development Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.
To help mitigate the effects of climate change in our country, the DENR should be abolished and its services completely devolved to the local government units, which are then solely held accountable by its constituents.
A truly independent and no-nonsense Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), similar to the EPA of the United States, should be established.
To say that DENR has not lived up to its mandate and its name is being kind.
It is an abject failure in the enforcement of environmental laws and has led to the impairment of the integrity of our ecosystem.
How come it does not shut down the operations of the illegal and methane-producing dumpsites? How come it cannot constitute the policy-making body called the Metro Cebu Air Shed Management Board which it is mandated by the Clean Air Act to do, together with the local government?
Why is the Philippines, a country so rich in resources—one of the 17 mega diversity countries in the world —labeled the “hottest of the hot spots” in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction? Why is it so easy for the agency to issue environmental compliance certificates despite the people’s protests against ecologically unsustainable projects? Your guess is as good as mine.
In frustration, a friend-advocate now calls the DENR as the Department of Extinguishment of Natural Resources.
We can rant and rave and argue but this we cannot deny - our resources are not finite and we are totally dependent on them for our survival. There is no other option but to prioritize resource conservation.
Actor-activist Robert Redford puts this succinctly: “The environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend?”
It is high time to walk the talk. Our country has a commitment to the global international community to promote sustainable development. Yet, our plans and programs are purely anchored on economic development, disregarding the environment and our responsibility to the present and future generations.
To the political leaders: This is not wise. It is even suicidal.
