by Jowi Aggabao and Lanz Quizon

On May 9, 2022, the Filipino people will elect a new set of public officials from the Malacañang to the barangays. Different presidential aspirants have already filed their certificates of candidacy or COCs; some names that we already knew were gunning for the highest office in the land even before the filing of COCs, while some came as a surprise for many of us. The presidential candidates have already stated their positions on the policies of the departing administration. Some pledged to keep the current policies in place, particularly the current administration’s violent drug war, which has been criticized by a number of human rights organizations. There is one thing in common about most of the candidates: their primary agenda and the front and center of their platform is addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 will arguably be the biggest election issue, aside from corruption and criminality. Additionally, the looming threat of another Marcos presidency is also a pressing issue in the upcoming elections. There are clear efforts to rebrand the Marcos family image to a more palatable one, to the dismay of the many victims and survivors of Martial Law. 

Political participation is a process that leads to freedom of speech and the ability to take part in public affairs. Throughout the history of the Philippines, political participation of the Filipino people has been evident, both through voting and outside electoral campaigns. In this way, electoral campaigns present a crucial avenue for Filipinos to express their sentiments regarding pressing national issues.

However, most of the Filipinos choose not to participate in politics even though they have no idea that they are participating through voting and following laws. In today’s generation, a number of Filipinos choose to remain apathetic or not politically involved. Factors range from age of citizen-voters to economic adversity. Around the world, a pattern of apathy and disengagement with politics among the youth exists across much around the world also. In the Philippines, the traditional perception that the Filipino youths are uninterested if not apathetic to politics remains unchallenged. Some studies in fact confirm this view. A survey of Filipino youths showed that the young consider being politically involved as important as having a good marriage, family life, steady job and good education. Another study noted that the youths’ less-than-positive attitude towards being responsible voters, minimal social involvement, and being uninformed about government have not improved over the years.

Although apathetic Filipinos are high in number, youth participation in politics is evident, especially through social media and mass organizations. In many ways, this helps youth in forming critical opinions and making positive changes in our society through participation in youth organizations, NGOs, people’s organizations, and campus and youth publications. New forms of social and political involvement in public life are emerging particularly among young people, suggesting that youth politics is not limited only to actions that aim to influence government policy but encompasses issues of wider social concerns. No matter how young they are, today’s youth seem to have an expansive critical analysis of our society. Many are aware that several politicians stray away from the right path and they are not afraid to voice out their opinions against an oppressive government.

With the Philippines experiencing some of the worst impacts of climate change, leaders who can really promote the climate agenda and fight for climate justice on all fronts are desperately needed. We need leaders who can look beyond their immediate boundaries, who are bold enough to facilitate change, and who can leave a lasting record well beyond their own terms. Voting during elections is just one of the mechanisms by which we can express our calls but our political participation does not and should not end here. The real fight does not take place every six years, the real fight happens every day and in the streets through collective action. . As part of the youth sector, we should vigorously organize and mobilize in demanding climate justice. We should take part in the struggle in order to have a more secure future on this planet. 

The climate crisis is still one of the biggest issues that is widely not discussed in presidential debates or forums. The climate crisis is arguably the other elephant in the room next to COVID-19. Many candidates have chosen not to include climate change in their platforms because it is something that will not click immediately with the people, unlike illegal drugs and criminality. We can connect this to the rise of the “penal populist narrative” used by President Duterte. During his campaign his core message was that the country’s problems are rooted in the proliferation of illegal drugs. We all saw how effective this messaging is — up to this day, President Duterte is still enjoying high satisfaction ratings. This kind of narrative serves as a framework for politicians in their campaigns not just for the presidential candidates but down to the local government units. The rise of populism paved the way for single-issue candidates like our outgoing president. This is unfortunate for our country that has been plagued by a plurality of issues, including typhoons all-year round exacerbated by a changing climate. It’s time that climate change becomes acknowledged in candidates’ electoral campaigns. At the end of the day, this is our planet we are talking about; at the end of the day, what would these government officials do without a planet to live on? 

The first step in addressing the climate crisis is to acknowledge that we have a problem that is, in many ways, here to stay. To adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change, the next administration should promote transition to renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, switch to electric transportation, among so many other things, all incorporating a framework of social justice. The upcoming elections present an avenue through which we can enact change, and in the process, let’s also embrace the avenue of taking to the streets, the avenue of collective action to push for the system change we need to address the crisis impacting us today.

This article is part of the Spotlight series by YACAP’s Education Committee which talks about various issues related to climate and climate action.

Society and human life have always been entangled with other aspects of our world ecosystem that ultimately affect us sooner or later. Marine biodiversity is no exception — what goes on with humanity affects the life in our seas and oceans, and vice versa. So when we see that marine life around the world is under threat, it’s worth examining what this means for everything else on the planet — including our climate, and of course humanity as a whole.

Marine biodiversity refers to the species richness and abundance in the world’s oceans and seas. Since our world is approximately 70% water, the amount of life in the oceans is enormous. Healthy marine ecosystems are important for society since they provide services including food security, feed for livestock, raw materials for medicines, building materials from coral rock and sand, and natural defenses against hazards such as coastal erosion and inundation. It’s hard to imagine what human life would be like without all of this, especially life for the billions of people living in coastal areas around the world. However, that is exactly what’s happening in some places — entire ecosystems are losing their ability to regenerate due to human-induced changes to our environment. One of the most impacted ecosystems in this regard is the coral reef ecosystem, something very abundant in our own country..

These coral reefs are sometimes called “the rainforests of the sea”. They provide shelter for the fishes while also protecting coastlines from storm surges and strong waves. Other benefits of coral reefs include some level of ocean water filtration. Additionally, these vibrant ecosystems also help combat climate change as they are very effective carbon sinks, meaning they help regulate the level of carbon dioxide in the planet.

Unfortunately, coral reef ecosystems are severely threatened. Threats such as pollution, sedimentation (the process where water becomes cloudy), unsustainable fishing practices, and rising ocean temperatures can stress corals, leading to possible death, while others cause physical damage to these delicate ecosystems. If these threats continue without proper resolution and management, more and more reefs will be damaged. The future of one of the most productive marine ecosystems is therefore at great risk .

The Philippines belongs to the Coral Triangle, which contains 75% of the world’s coral species — most of these classified as threatened. As the ocean temperature changes due to global warming, our reefs will suffer in the long run, with an estimated 99% of all coral reefs lost should we reach a 2 degree Celsius warmer world (and we’re currently on track for 3 degrees warming). It’s no exaggeration to say that this will have a catastrophic impact on humanity, especially on those who live off the sea and its ecosystems, such as small fisherfolk. 

One of the supposed solutions to the destruction of our coral reefs is the introduction of artificial man-made reefs into our oceans. An artificial reef is a human-made structure placed in the ocean to mimic the characteristics of a natural coral reef. In the Philippines, the deployment of artificial reefs or artificial habitats has aimed to address the decline in fish production by allowing the regeneration and recolonization of degraded coral reefs and their environment. However, we are still unable to duplicate natural ecosystems with this technology, and it is clear that these artificial reefs provide only a fraction of the benefits natural coral reefs, having developed and evolved over millennia, offer. It is well within humanity’s interest to fight for the preservation of our corals and marine biodiversity at large.

After all, coral reefs, as havens for marine biodiversity, are again entangled with all the other aspects of the world ecosystem. Drastic changes in water temperature, ocean acidification, extreme climatic events and unsustainable human fishing practices have led to loss of life in marine biodiversity that weakens the ocean ecosystem and creates a ripple effect across the entire planet. ” It should alarm us that world leaders are content with words and promises and inaction that, as it stands, will almost certainly obliterate coral reefs around the world.  There’s also everything that’s going on right now in the West Philippine Sea, where thousands of hectares of coral reefs have been destroyed — an issue that deserves its own article.

Our marine biodiversity, our climate, and humanity are heavily intertwined, and it’s well within our interest as a human race to ensure that our coral reefs and marine life at large is preserved. So this means tackling issues like the climate crisis at its roots: the massive carbon emissions of the Global North and fossil fuel companies actively choosing to pollute and destroy the planet. In addition to this, we must also push to preserve the remaining biodiversity in our oceans and seek to restore biodiversity in the long term. All of this will only be possible through committed collective action that seeks to reorient society into something pro-planet and pro-people.

This article is part of the Spotlight series by YACAP’s Education Committee which talks about various issues related to climate and climate action.

by Dalena Rabacal

When we say “ang init naman sa Pilipinas!”, what does this really mean? We learned a lot about how the Sun is providing warmth to the Earth. But is what we are experiencing still natural? What, then, is causing this intense heat? At this point, we’re probably all familiar with carbon emissions and how it causes global warming, but it’s worth reviewing the basics. So let’s revisit carbon dioxide and dive deeper into one of the primary causes of our situation today. 

To begin with, we must keep in mind that carbon dioxide has always been an important part of life.  In processes such as photosynthesis, carbon dioxide acts as a raw material that fuels plants’  food production.  It is also involved in the process that provides oxygen for all of humanity and other organisms. Carbon dioxide is also a fundamental part of the Earth’s carbon cycle present in the oceans, atmosphere, soil, animals, and plants. So, how does too much of it lead to disaster? 

Ever since fossil fuels — first coal, then oil and gas — were introduced during the Industrial Revolution, human-related emissions have disrupted the natural carbon cycle. Companies and industries, driven mainly by profit, began emitting massive amounts of CO2. Unfortunately, such environmentally-degrading practice has been carried on up to this day with fossil fuels still being used for energy, transportation, industrial processes, and the (over)production of goods. Aside from factory production, our simple day-to-day lives could also contribute to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions without us even knowing. This has strained nature’s innate ability to store carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through the natural carbon sinks in our soils, forests, and seas. Disruption of the natural processes of CO2 places our present and future at risk.

However, because of the profit-oriented system at work, companies just continue to profit off of the products, goods, and services with little concern for people and planet.

Carbon dioxide was responsible for 74.4 percent of the global greenhouse gas emission in 2016. This results in potentially irreversible negative effects that are currently being experienced globally. These effects include global warming, melting of polar ice caps, warming of the oceans, intensified and more frequent natural disasters, extreme drought, forest fires, and many more. In many ways, it’s like being placed in a hot pot that’s gradually heating up. Unless we’re paying close attention, we might not notice that the pot is becoming so hot that we will die in it if we don’t do anything.

How much carbon have we emitted as one planet? To put it into perspective, six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide was emitted by the entire planet annually during the 1950s. By 1990, CO2 emission rose drastically by nearly four times to 22 billion tonnes emitted each year, with the United States and Europe accounting for 90 percent of the total record.

In the following years, China followed their steps and, likewise, showed a significant increase in their CO2 emission. Now, almost 40 billion tonnes of CO2 are being emitted by all countries worldwide (United States and Europe still accounting for one-third of global emissions), and with current trends, we have yet to reach peak emissions.  

The massive CO2 emissions of the United States of America, the European Union, and China makes them accountable for the worsening climate conditions of the vulnerable countries in the world. This further highlights why it is important for these countries to initiate immediate action to combat the climate crisis, as well as pay their debt to the most impacted countries. Hence, if we are aiming for a more sustainable solution to this crisis, change must begin from these corporations; encourage them to do big. 

The Philippines is among the most vulnerable to the climate crisis. Data shows that a lot of areas within the country will be submerged within a few years as the sea level continues to rise. Yes, it is not a fictional story of the lost city of Atlantis underwater — the City of Manila could very well be our own Atlantis.  

What is the data of the Philippines’ carbon dioxide contributions? In 2020, the recorded amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the Philippines is 127.23 metric tonnes of CO2. Most of these emissions are from combustion of fossil fuels and cement manufacturing activities. They include carbon dioxide produced during the consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring (a gas combustion device used in industrial plants such as petroleum refineries, chemical plants, and natural gas processing plants).

In 2020, the Philippines changed its goal from reducing 70% Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in 2017 to 75%. This took place when the country’s first Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) were finally authorized under the Duterte administration. NDCs are the heart of the Paris Agreement and contain each countries’ pledge to develop and achieve low carbon emission to fight climate change and to ensure resilient development. The NDC aims to transition the fossil-fuel-driven economies of countries worldwide within this decade and limit the global temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius, with the aim of limiting it to 1.5 degree Celsius. 

Did you think that NDCs could solve the Philippines’ sufferings as a vulnerable country amid the climate crisis? Think again. Although a step in the right direction has been made in submitting the NDCs, there’s still a lot to improve upon. Here’s why: For one, the vast majority of our NDCs are conditional — meaning they will not happen unless external support is provided. In fact, 72.29 of the 75% emissions reduction target is conditional.

There are two sides to this coin:  On one hand, it is true that we do need support from the international community when it comes to technology transfer and matters alike. In this case, our government must actively pursue reparations from the Global North and exact their debt to countries like the Philippines so that we can develop in line with Paris’s goals. On the other hand, the government must also prioritize climate adaptation and mitigation in its own capacity, and allocate adequate funds for these initiatives. It is clear, however, that this is far from the government’s priorities as of the moment. It’s not even just about prioritizing our pandemic response — not when so many hospitals are facing budget cuts. 

Another issue with the NDCs is the fact that some of the very few unconditional programs are problematic in their own right; one example would be the Jeepney Modernization program, which includes replacing our jeepneys with supposedly “cleaner” models (that still use fossil fuels) at the expense of the jeepney drivers and small operators. Without programs that address the needs of the vulnerable sectors such as the jeepney drivers, these supposedly environment-friendly initiatives will only become an additional inconvenience, if not outright offensive, to the Filipino people. 

Lastly, even if we had a spotless set of NDCs, monitoring them closely is a must to have an improvement in our national response to the climate crisis.  Environmental activists around the country continue to call for their respective governments to do more and are continually urging to increase the efforts to transform our society into something pro-people and pro-planet. Unfortunately, in the Philippines, environmental defenders such as our  the Indigenous peoples are being silenced and being robbed of their ancestral lands. More than the fight for climate justice, we must not be afraid and strengthen our campaign to stop the attacks on our activists. 

We have no time to lose. We cannot wait for another day, month, nor year, as every second counts when the ice caps continue to melt and the temperature continues to rise; and of course, the impacts of the climate crisis are here today, in our massive floods, droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires across the world. 

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases might be the steering wheel of the climate crisis, but we must focus on those who are behind it. Let’s continue to educate one another, get organized, and maximize all possible avenues to produce an alternative to the devastation we are experiencing today.

This article is part of the Spotlight series by YACAP’s Education Committee which talks about various issues related to climate and climate action.

by Alaina Ligot & Aldrin Adriano

Energy is the driving force that enables many of us to live in the way we do now. In schools, workplaces, and our own homes, we use energy carried in the form of electricity and fuels. We harness this power in many ways, but there are two main categories of where exactly we get energy: renewable and non-renewable energy sources. 

Renewable energy comes from natural resources or processes that replenish quickly. Common examples include hydropower and solar power. Conversely, non-renewable energy comes from resources that take centuries or even millennia to replenish. Fossil fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal — the most widely used energy sources globally — fall into the non-renewable category. 

Despite being so widespread, non-renewable energy sources are extremely unsustainable. For one, experts estimate that the world will run out of fossil fuels by 2060 — less than forty years from now — meaning that future generations can no longer rely on these sources for energy. Also, burning fossil fuels for energy, heat, or transportation, emits greenhouse gases (GHGs) that gravely contribute to global warming. Our energy sources, the climate, and our future are thus deeply intertwined, especially with non-renewables in play. 

Similarly, renewable energy has its own place in determining our future. In recent years, there has been an uptrend in renewable energy consumption — and for good reason. Converting renewables into energy has a much more positive impact on the environment compared to non-renewables. The process itself typically produces little to no GHGs, and since they replenish naturally, future generations can consistently have access to energy given that these resources are appropriately utilized. In this way, renewables take us one step closer to generating energy and consuming resources in a way that is sustainable for both the people and the environment.

Like the rest of the world, the Philippines has also seen the potential of renewable energy to benefit the economy, environment, and lives of the people. With plenty of potential benefits, energy specialists have looked into exploring and innovating renewable energy solutions. One attempt to pursue supposedly sustainable renewable energy would be Davao’s Waste to Energy (WTE) project.

The WTE program was proposed by the government to provide more energy while also attempting to address excessive waste in landfills. The project includes a waste incineration facility, which is still receiving funding from the Japanese government. According to the project specifications, the PHP 2.5 billion plant would require 800 tons of waste for its every day operations.

Another popular example of renewable energy is hydropower. After oil, coal, gas, and traditional biomass, hydropower was the fifth most used energy source globally in 2019. In the Philippines, hydroelectric power followed a similar trend, as it has addressed 20% of the country’s energy consumption in recent years. A project related to hydropower would be the Kaliwa Dam. This particular dam is a part of the New Centennial Water Source (NCWS), a project for which President Rodrigo Duterte had secured a $235.9 million loan deal from China. Aside from supposedly serving as a way of tapping into clean energy, this dam was also proposed as a “sustainable” water source for people in the National Capital Region and surrounding areas. 

Solar energy has also proven to be quite viable in the Philippines. With the country being close to the equator with large open spaces, many areas have the potential to generate 4.5 to 5.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day. Companies like Solar Philippines and Meralco have also shown interest in growing the solar power industry, with recent updates including Solar Philippines’ plan to construct a 500 MW solar park on former ranchland in Peñaranda, in the province of Nueva Ecija. 

With these recent advancements in renewable energy, it is evident that renewable energy has the potential to address issues aside from the climate and energy crises. However, although these energy sources replenish quickly, they are not guaranteed to be environmentally- or people-friendly. 

Energy sources can be renewable and unsustainable at the same time. With a lack of nuanced and educational public discussions, it can be easy and convenient to label renewable energy sources as green. However, renewable energy sources do not always result in sustainability. 

For example, if we take a closer look at the details, Davao’s WTE project does not genuinely solve the problem it is trying to address. It may seem like converting waste into energy helps with the excessive waste issue. In reality, it does not address the root cause of the problem. Landfills overflow because of overproduction, and the actual amount of waste we produce will not decrease just because we incinerate it. 

Additionally, these waste-to-energy programs do not completely eliminate excess waste either. Davao’s WTE project cannot use organic waste even when 50% of waste collected in the region is organic. Even if energy is harnessed from whatever waste is burned, this practice would add more fuel to the flame of the ongoing climate crisis. The incineration of waste is still the incineration of fossil fuels, and more greenhouse gases (GHGs) will be emitted with this seemingly sustainable energy source. 

Realistically, with this program, we would be producing the same amount of waste and burning some of it for energy with the added harm of increased rates of GHG emissions. There are alternatives to managing excess waste. A more sustainable solution would be to reduce our overall waste output (ultimately caused by systemic overproduction), direct waste away from landfills by upcycling, recycling, composting, and reusing, and implement the appropriate measures to make these practices accessible to all.

Similarly, harnessing hydroelectric energy through dams like the Kaliwa Dam could be unsustainable for the people and the environment. Hydropower facilities take a lot of space; as a result, they displace not just water levels but also people settled nearby. The nine dams in the NCWS actually stemmed from a plan for one large dam from 2009. This was the Laiban dam, and it was as sizable as it was controversial. Environmentalist groups and indigenous communities fought fiercely against the dam as it would affect 28,000 hectares of land and displace 11,000 indigenous families. After many scandals with the funding and public backlash, the original plan was shelved and revised into the nine smaller dams of NCWS with the Kaliwa Dam at the forefront. 

Even if the new dams are smaller, they still have a significant effect on the environment and people. The Kaliwa Dam alone will uproot eight villages and 1,465 families, and the NCWS project as a whole will affect 39 different indigenous communities. The diverted water will negatively affect an additional 1,200 farmers and 1,800 hectares downstream. On top of this, the local ecosystem and indigenous lands will suffer as well. By leaving these indigenous communities in the dark about the project planning, the government showed blatant disregard for the well-being of the affected indigenous people and environment. 

As for solar power, one of the main concerns would be how large solar energy farms can displace farming communities. As Filipino small farmers across the country are already experiencing land ownership issues, projects like these can end up adding an additional threat to their livelihoods. Other concerns as of the moment would include constant maintenance and the lack of adequate infrastructure to accommodate solar power.  

One viable solution to these issues would be to localize solar power production, specifically through distributed generation. Distributed generation would reduce disruptive land usage and demand for energy distribution infrastructure. It would also allow more localized energy consumption for the people, which is both efficient and appealing. However, there are a lot of infrastructure changes necessary to promote this sort of approach.

With this concept of unsustainability plaguing renewable energy, the question remains: can renewable energy still address the world’s climate and energy issues, while protecting both people and the planet?

Essentially, it can. Renewable energy technology existing today presents a clear way out of what could become a fossil fuel-driven catastrophe. However, renewable energy is not a one-fits-all solution — we still have to think critically and weigh out all the effects of projects to determine if it’s truly beneficial and appropriate for the situation. Even more importantly, these plans must consider the well-being of affected communities. 

The current profit-oriented system deepens existing inequalities between various groups, and it leaves vulnerable parties to fend for themselves. Mindlessly shifting to renewables will likely lead to the further exploitation of the Global South, where much of the minerals and materials for a green energy revolution will be extracted from. The Global North will continue to thrive in their electric cars and wind turbine farms at the expense of the most affected and vulnerable people. Continuing with the trend of irresponsibly pushing for green energy solutions will result in any possible benefits being diminished and erased. 

The climate crisis will not get any better if we simply pretend that it will get solved with greener energy. To introduce a renewable energy source, we must carefully consider the program’s feasibility with current resources and its effects on the environment, economy, and people. There is no one solution that will be applicable to every iteration of a problem; this especially applies to renewable energy. 

Becoming critical of proposed green energy programs is key to identifying what is truly a step in the right direction in terms of improving the climate situation. In the long run, we should be making decisions that promote a transition to a needs-based and sustainability-centered system, instead of relying uncritically on a shift to renewable energy solutions alone. 

This article is part of the Spotlight series by YACAP’s Education Committee which talks about various issues related to climate and climate action.