[OPINION] ‘Concrete’ solutions define another year of Marcos’ green agenda

For years, we have been demanding from the Philippine government not just promises but also “concrete” solutions, especially in issues pertaining to our climate and environment.

Well, some in the current administration have taken that too literally.

Another year has gone by in the current presidency. Once again, the green agenda has been overtaken by the many shades of gray that define the priorities of this administration.

Over troubled waters

This is not to say there are no achievements worth recognizing. A roadmap on blue carbon, which involves protecting and restoring mangroves, was finalized. Several Board meetings of the Loss and Damage Fund were properly hosted in the country, with another one coming soon. At least there is some effort to accelerate renewable energy investments as well.

But the meaningful work done on these fronts quickly lose their colors once the concrete reality sets in.

It is almost like some policymakers or their corporate allies do not like the fact that the Philippines is an archipelago surrounded by water. So, instead of letting some islands that have small carrying capacities just be islands, they want to build bridges to them. Build expressways over still-polluted rivers. Build really long bridges and more land over this bay already overfed with sand and without enough proper care.

It feels like some policymakers want to do the opposite of what must be done for a healthy ecology. Do not earthball mangroves, cut some of the remaining trees in a heated, flood-prone city, build even more roads that actually bring in more traffic, or allow development projects to encroach protected areas — but no, they are occurring anyway, in the name of “national significance” and “development.”

This is not to say these concepts are invalid or without proper basis — in this case, we specifically mean real sustainable development, not the traditional, outdated concept.

But with each report of some gray infrastructure project being authorized in known ecologically sensitive areas justified with these reasons, they start to sound like excuses behind which officials can hide to avoid accountability for their inevitable long-term ecological harm. Environmental regulations are treated as barriers to progress rather than actually enabling it, including protecting the environment and communities.

It still makes no sense for this administration to report having nearly a trillion pesos for climate action — and have most of it be for gray infrastructure projects with little added value for adaptation, and given to one agency that you will not see in almost any climate-related consultation or forum.

And it is not just hard infrastructure. With so much bad news making headlines in the first six months alone — the Senate, the oil crisis, whatever the blue bird university was doing — other issues seemed to have been forgotten by the public, despite their real impacts on entire communities.

As we speak, communities are still under threat from other development aggression projects, from destructive mining to proposed hydroelectric dams. Human rights and environmental defenders still remain in grave danger, with the killings in Negros happening only two months ago. 

There is also a super El Niño coming, which is likely to peak at the same time as when super typhoons usually hit the country in recent years. And even before the El Niño, 25 provinces and Metro Manila have already experienced droughts.  

Delays, more delays 

Another pattern that persists is that this government seems to fast-track processes for corporations, foreigners, and anyone else with a lot of money, while delays emerge if it is just about anything else.

These include the updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the most important climate plan most of the public has never even heard of. Intended to indicate the country’s pledge in reducing its climate pollution, which was previously set at 75%, its deadline has been moved a few times in the past year, the latest due to recalculations to account for the impacts of the oil crisis.

Until the NDCs are finalized, a huge part of our climate strategic updating is on pause — from the framework on enabling a just transition to a more sustainable economy, to setting up the national carbon market framework, to defining our long-term climate action pathway, which would help avoid recalculations and further reliance on fossil fuels in the first place.

All of these challenges would ultimately and disproportionately burden the most vulnerable — children and youth, women, indigenous peoples, and farmers, among others. Responding to their needs takes longer than it should, unless it is in the aftermath of disasters that opportunists use to promote their political agenda.

But we already know that, and many of us have lived that. Unfortunately, many of our leaders don’t.

Seriously, how many crises do we have to go through before these technocrats and bureaucrats learn the right lessons? The COVID-19 pandemic? The current energy crisis that once again highlighted exactly why we shouldn’t depend so much on fossil fuels? Even more of the climate crisis itself? 

At least the House of Representatives is actually trying to legislate green bills. The Senate — majority or minority, whichever is which, and with a known global climate champion in their ranks — has shown virtually no significant interest in more urgently responding to the green agenda. 

But that does not mean there is nothing to build on. Some in the government and many nongovernment stakeholders are working to ensure that prioritizing the green agenda is not just lip service. And as always, sometimes, it just comes to proper implementation.

As we commence yet another season of national budgeting, maybe this time, this government will ensure that most of the national climate budget does not go to gray infrastructure projects or just one agency that handles them. 

Maybe this time, the money will go not to the pockets of the corrupt, but directly to the most vulnerable people, to ecosystems at risk, to renewable energy projects, and to building the path to the right kind of development. We need real solutions, not just concrete ones. – Rappler.com