BAHA

The First Hazardous Waste Facility in the Philippines

2009-05-29T18:19:00.001+08:00

By Lourdes Ledesma

In 1990, President Corazon C. Aquino signed Republic Act No. 6969, also known as the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990. This Act covers the importation, manufacture, processing, handling, storage, transportation, sale, distribution, use and disposal of all unregulated chemical substances and mixtures in the Philippines, including the entry even in transit.

Even with the regulations in place, hazardous wastes (batteries, electronic junk, chemicals, paints, pesticides, etc.) are not adequately treated and are either illegally thrown in waterways or open dumps. According to a study by USAid on e-waste recycling and disposal in Asian countries, in the Philippines, almost one-half of the 400 rivers in the country are characterized as biologically dead due to contamination from industrial and residential run-off and inadequate sewerage and drainage infrastructure. In addition, the lack of a central hazardous waste treatment facility is a major obstacle to properly disposing of toxic and hazardous waste.

The electronics industry in the Philippines plays a major role in the economic development of the country. It has consistently contributed the highest export revenues since 1981. It has also promoted the rapid computerization of practically all the corporate offices in Metro Manila as well as most government agencies. Because of the nature of the growing information technology, rapid obsolescence of hardware has also contributed to the build-up of e-junk in the country. Most of this e-waste end up in open dumps and waterways, where they contribute to the pollution of the environment. TV sets, mobile phones and computers contain a lot of lead and other toxic metals, and when dumped anywhere, pollute the environment enough to affect the health of humans adversely.

For decades, developing countries in Asia and Africa have been used as a dumping ground for the toxic wastes from industrialized countries in Europe and North America. In an earlier article, I related the story of a particular town in China, called Guiyu, where the U.S., Canada, Germany and other developed nations send their e-waste to be recycled and processed by the most primitive methods by Chinese families for a daily pittance. Needless to say, the town inhabitants suffer from diseases arising from undrinkable water, unbreathable air, and toxic metals poisoning. A study of hazardous waste trade traffic showed that the Philippines, India, and Thailand have been destinations of toxic wastes dumping from industrialized countries. In December, 1999, Philippine authorities seized 122 forty-foot containers carrying infectious medical wastes from Japan. The cargo was disguised as used plastic scrap for recycling. Following a public outcry, the containers were shipped back to Japan. Subsequent investigations in Japan showed that this was a customary practice, only not known to the public. Australia before 1997 was the top exporter of scrap lead batteries to the Philippines. Lead wastes from Australia, the Netherlands and the U.S. have regularly entered Asia from the Philippines, Thailand and India. In the Philippines, a leading importer and recycler, Philippine Recyclers Inc. (PRI), was found to have serious lead contamination in the soil, vegetation, and river sediments around its factory area. It had been caught illegally dumping the toxic wastes from its factory in several open dumpsites near agricultural fields. Lead contamination was found in tests conducted by Greenpeace and health experts in the blood of children living near PRI.

Now, because of one man’s determination to address this greatest danger to our environment, the expansion of the only privately-owned integrated hazardous waste treatment facility in the Philippines was launched last April 20th, 2009 in Silang, Cavite. In a 1.4 ha. lot, Herminio Esguerra, CEO of Cleanway Technology Corporation (CTC) and the Herma Group of Companies, started, against great opposition from the local and business community, to build a secure landfill in September of 2004. He wanted to prove that saving the environment and making a profit are both viable and sustainable. Four years after Cleanway’s integrated waste-treatment facility started its business operations, it has become the Philippines’ leading integrated environmental management company that uses the most advanced technology for waste treatment and disposal. This year’s launching of a state-of-the-art expanded and integrated facility for treatment of different kinds of hazardous waste, also marked the closure of its first secure landfill and the groundbreaking of a second larger-capacity secure landfill. The company currently addresses the waste-management problems of more than 100 big companies including car manufacturers and dealers, hospitals and various industries.

Employing the latest technology and processes, Esguerra’s hazardous toxic waste facilities are in compliance with local and international environmental laws. They handle industrial, chemical, and medical wastes, treat it until no longer toxic to humans and the environment, then dump it into the secure landfill. The “secure” landfill is the highest type of landfill which complies with R.A. 9003. It is a cavity in the earth, double-lined with geomembrane and geotextiles, a material composed of reinforced fiber and wires designed to last for years. While not yet sealed, the secure landfill is designed with a drainage system for leachates that are channeled to a treatment chamber until it is stabilized and can be returned to the environment safely. At the end of this process is a fishpond where live marine animals swim freely.

What Esguerra has done for his community has been to raise awareness that an efficient disposal system of toxic wastes can be achieved, to create a cleaner world, while generating employment and boosting the local economy. The community has fully embraced the CTC facility, and Esguerra has given back to his community scholarships to deserving students, adopting schools and sponsoring other ourtreach programs such as medical missions. Already there are plans to expand these facilities to other sites, such as Cebu. As Esguerra comments, “Do business with the environment `correctly’ and for sure, profit will be the by-product. We owe it to the next generation. This is our legacy. This is not only for Cleanway and the Herma Group, but this is for all.”

What Esguerra has shown us is that if we care enough, a vision can become a reality. Do we care enough?*

Green Choice Awards (Part 1)

2009-05-25T18:09:00.001+08:00

By Alan S. Gensoli

In one or two past columns, I extolled to high heavens companies that have shown, or are making baby steps towards showing concern for the environment. In fact, what I’m really keyed up to do is publish the identities of companies who are abusing the environment, or are doing nothing about the environment despite the gazillion pesos they’re earning, and then lead a call to boycott their businesses. My lawyers tell me I could get in trouble that way. So, I’ll skin them differently. I will continue to celebrate “green companies” and hope that my readers would patronize them, which is tantamount to boycotting their competitors. WE NEED TO MAKE COMPANIES MORE RESPONSIBLE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, AND UNLESS WE PINCH THEIR POCKETS, SOME WILL CONTINUE TO “PRETEND” THAT THEY JUST DON’T GET IT. WHICH IS WORSE THAN TRULY NOT GETTING IT BECAUSE THEY’RE DUMB.

This year, “Natural Health,” a leading environment publication in the United States, launched its annual Green Choice Awards. The editors worked with Mr. Green himself, Ed Begley, Jr., star of the TV series “Living with Ed” on HGTV, in choosing 10 corporations who displayed outstanding acts of environmental care. They also chose 15 runners-up. Today, I will share with you five of the winners, and next Monday the other five. Perhaps, two Mondays from now I can also talk about the 15 runners-up who, really, are no less deserving of the recognition.

The annual Green Choice Awards is given to large corporations as opposed to Mom-and-Pops, or what we call SMEs, for the very reason that “Natural Health” magazine knows that large corporations have the wherewithal to create green technologies and make green products accessible and affordable to more people (because they enjoy economies of scale, among other reasons, I suppose). Indeed, while we applaud individual, humble contributions as critical parts of a whole, the leadership of huge corporations can allow us to leapfrog and make up for years of neglect, complacency, and denial. So, here are five of the top 10, in alphabetical order:

AVEDA: With 2,218 employees in 27 countries, Aveda’s leading brands are Green Science, Smooth Infusion, and Shampure. These beauty care products are not easily available in the Philippines, but we should know Aveda by yet another name. You see, last year Aveda delivered a revenue of $7.9 Billion to its mother company, Estee Lauder Companies. There’s a familiar brand! So, cosmetic users, pucker up with Estee Lauder! From here on, if it ain’t Estee, it ain’t pretty.

Aveda’s green focus is in the area of sourcing organic ingredients, including the 98 tons of certified organic essential oils and raw herb ingredients that the company purchased in 2008. Another raw material used heavily by Aveda is plastic. Aveda uses 100% post-consumer (meaning, recycled) packaging, thus diverting over one million pounds of plastic from landfills every single year. Aveda also buys wind-energy credits to offset 100% of the electricity used in its facilities. What does that mean? Energy used to produce every single Aveda product is paid for with wind-energy credits. That’s every single product!

Meanwhile, Aveda employees have raised over $13 Million for 70 environmental non-profit groups. (For all the Estee Lauder-brand cosmetics and perfumes used by our lady members, the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance should apply for assistance. Hey, why not?) The company also gives employees eight paid hours each year for community work. And those who bike to work, walk to work, ride the bus, carpool, or drive a hybrid all get Aveda gift certificates.

COCA COLA COMPANY: With over 90,000 employees in over 200 countries, Coca Cola earned $29 Billion in 2008. Aside from the obvious softdrink brands, Coca Cola’s family of products includes Nestea and Minute Maid. So, drink up!

The company’s green focus is in the area of reducing and recycling plastic. In January this year, Coke opened its sixth recycling plant in South Carolina. The facility has the capacity to make two billion, 20-ounce bottles each year, using recycled plastic. The beverage leader has also introduced the 38-percent-smaller bottle cap, which allows it to save 40 million pounds of plastic annually, in the United States alone. Coke’s vending machines are getting green as well, now using 35% less energy, which savings account for the elimination of 630,000 tons of emissions every year. And get this: Coke’s Drink2Wear line of clothing is sewn from used plastic bottles, in fact some five billion bottles since 2007.

On top of all that, Coke also organized Green Teams among its employees. Over at the Desna River in the Ukraine, Coke employees collected four tons of garbage and planted over 100 trees. And remember the Earth Hour last March? Two corporate headquarters switched off lighting that night, while billboards around the world turned dark.

DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: With 4,000-plus employees working in 170-plus countries around the world, the popularity of this company is attributed largely to the Discovery Channel. Thanks to Cable TV subscribers like you and I, Discovery last year raked in earnings of up to $3.44 Billion.

Discovery’s green focus is in the area of creating eco-themed programming. But we’re not talking just Discovery Channel anymore. In 2008, Discovery launched Planet Green, the first TV channel to dish out “green” programming 24/7. Please call your local Cable TV company and urge them to bring Planet Green into your communities. Discovery’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, is a showcase of environmental awareness. Wind-energy credits have been bought since 2007 to offset 100% of the office’s electricity and gas consumption. The building is lit up by 4,000 CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps). And the company reduces its carbon emissions by at least 260 tons, and saves 24,000 gallons of water each year by installing rainwater tanks. Now, if Discovery can do it, so can we trap rainwater in our own homes.

Off screen, there’s more greening happening at Discovery. Employees compete to lower electricity and paper usage, thus tripling the company’s recycling rate. Those who take public transportation or buy bikes are reimbursed, and free shoes are given to those who walk to work.

FFORD MOTOR: Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, and Volvo...these are the key brands of Ford Motor, and you ought to give these a try before you decide on your next luxury car purchase, import, or smuggle (I really don’t mean to suggest the last one, but if you have to do it anyway, choosing a “green” brand can provide saving grace). With 245,000 employees in over 40 countries, Ford rang up a whopping $172.5 Billion earnings in 2008.

Ford Motor’s green focus is in curbing greenhouse gases. Quite apparent now in the U.S. is the aggressive marketing of hybrid cars as more manufacturers have rolled out their versions and government is giving all sorts of financial breaks to those who purchase and drive them. But while most car makers have remained on the level of using renewable sources of energy, such as electricity and biofuels, Ford Motor has put the pedal to the metal in the race to hybrid domination. Ford’s hybrid car, the Escape, sports seats made from 100% post-industrial recycled fabric. By doing this alone, Ford reduces its carbon emissions by 900 tons and saves 600,000 gallons of water. Moreover, the Escape’s new engine, the EcoBoost, launched only this year, makes the car 20% more fuel efficient. In the face of an environmental emergency, I really don’t see any reason why such seats, such engine, or the car itself, cannot find its way to the Bacolod market sooner rather than later.

Ford Motor employees live up to the culture of a market leader. They have turned vacant lots in 17 facilities into habitats for local flora and fauna. They have also created walking trails to encourage walking (imagine that from a car manufacturer) and for nearby residents to visit their facilities. Meanwhile, all Ford Motor employees are given two paid days a year to do volunteer work. It’s probable then, that on any given day at Ford Motor, someone’s doing a good turn for the community - on any given day!

KRAFT FOODS: Kraft has been a mark of good quality food since I can remember, and while many of us know the company by its cheese, Kraft has entered our kitchens and lunch boxes through various other products. And this Kraft continues to do to this day. In 2008, Kraft earned $42 Billion doing business in 150 countries with 100,000 employees.

Kraft’s foresight and dynamism have brought the company to the world of coffee, where Kraft now is keen on ensuring long-term viability. And so, for this year’s Green Choice Awards, the company’s green focus is in sourcing sustainably grown coffee. And I’m not just referring to sustainable supply of coffee. I’m talking about coffee that is grown in ways that care for the environment. In 2008, Kraft Foods purchased 33,000 tons of coffee that sustains farming practices on 40,000 acres of land. More significantly for the environment, they are “Rainforest Alliance” certified coffee. Meanwhile, eight years of environmental concern have now reduced Kraft’s CO2 emissions, and energy and water use by up to 34%. Recycling rate has been pumped up to an impressive 90%.

So, remember these companies: Aveda, Coke, Discovery, Ford, and Kraft. Next time you shop, buy their brands; it’s the least we can do to thank them, and to show their competitors who have yet to do their share, that we the consumers demand that they do their share now. On Monday next week, I will tell you the other five winners of the Green Choice Awards. Since the list is in alphabetical order, and since we’ve mentioned winners up to Kraft, only companies whose names start with the letter L up to Z have a chance to be endorsed by me. If your company does not qualify, don’t even bother reading my column next week. It’ll only make you cry.

I don’t know about you, but I have a “home channel” on my TV. That’s the channel I most frequently watch. It used to be a cable news network. But with the Green Choice Awards, I’ve made a new Discovery! And this is exactly what I mean by “consumerism.” Tomorrow morning I will check my fridge and grocery cabinet and list down all the products that are in there. Every product that has a Kraft alternative should then fear. Put my money where my mouth is, that’s right! Either that, or I’m wasting my time in this advocacy.*

A Sea Without Shells

2009-05-20T18:04:00.004+08:00

By Gigi M. Campos

Spending time at the beach in Sipalay is always a welcome respite - away from the problems of city life, uncollected garbage and pollution. Walking along the shores, always gets me to think of how life is like a beach. Waves of things happen to us, some good, some bad. Do we sink or swim or end up empty and lifeless on the beach, giving up when things get tough and emptying us of hope and life like the broken shells of animals once alive? Or, are we like the shellfish sometimes swept around by waves of opinions or troubles until the tide starts to go out? Or, are we like the sand crabs who live under the sand, waiting for opportunities that could lure us from our safe little holes, then plunging out to grab whatever we can of life, love, or hope then retreating back in our holes once we think we’ve had enough of life? Or, are we like the sea gulls who fly above, enjoying the wind under our wings, diving in when we see food to eat, bobbing on the water, going with the flow of life? Or, are we like the little fish who live in the shallow waters sometimes, avoiding predators, eating when they need to, enjoying the unity of a school of other fish as they swim about exploring the currents, the underwater world, and experiencing life?

Our oceans are becoming more acidic by the day, affecting the ability of shellfish and coral to create the shells and skeletons vital to their survival. In the 1960s, Rachel Carson came out with a book “Silent Spring” which alerted the world to the problems of the insecticide DDT in the food chain. Birds of prey were particularly vulnerable, with their eggshells becoming so thin they could no longer contain growing embryos. The threat of springtime with no birdsong catapulted the world into a new awareness of ecology and conservation.

Forty-nine years on, a new threat is looming, this time in the sea. Once again the busy rhythm of people is causing an ecological crisis. Not as complicated as modeling global warming, not as simple as banning a pesticide, our newest planetary drama is called ocean acidification. It happens because of the connections between air, water, and shells.

We know that human activities, particularly the burning of coal, oil, petrol and wood, have for the past 200 years increased the amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere. While these molecules float around in the air, they act like a blanket keeping Earth warm and eventually changing the whole climate. The warming effects of CO2 have been less than they could have been, however, because about a third of CO2 from the air gets mopped up by the oceans.

What’s good for global climate change, however, is bad for the sea. When you add CO2 to sea water, it becomes more acid. And that means that the carbonate ion, CO3, gets scarcer. That might seem like no big deal, but many marine plants and animals use carbonate, along with calcium, for constructing protection and structure.

Clams, snails, urchins, corals, some algae, and many plankton all use calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to build their shells.

Marine ecologists have only just begun to investigate the potential problems that a more acid ocean might pose to creatures in the sea. What they have found so far is alarming. Tiny plankton, zillions of which form part of the basis of the marine food chain, are usually protected by a robust and complex ball of carbonate.

But when you grow them in more acid conditions, these little shells become thinner and more frail. Even more alarming, experiments with corals show that under acid conditions, some do not make a skeleton. They sit there like a jelly glob with no sign of the complex architecture that makes coral reefs so diverse and so attractive to tourists - and to fish. This isn’t just a problem for squishy marine critters. Marine aquaculture and multimillion-dollar fisheries such as mussel farming are likely to be affected.

Tourism to coral reefs is another multimillion-dollar industry, and some economies are wholly reliant on it. There is even the suggestion that a more acid ocean could be more corrosive and thus affect shipping and ports.

Our seas are growing more acid by the day. Early estimates suggested that acidity could go up 30 per cent by the end of this century. Now scientists are warning that, in the Southern Ocean, we could be seeing measurable changes within a few decades. The effects of what we have already pumped into the air are probably irreversible. There are no practical solutions or cures - no antacid for the sea’s indigestion. The only thing we can do is to slow it down.

Luckily, we already want to reduce carbon emissions and know we need to stop the invisible clouds of CO2 rising into the air. We already have mechanisms in place to change how we live and travel. Ocean acidification provides another, and perhaps a more urgent, reason for continuing on this path as fast as possible.

Luckily, we still have birds of prey. That is because people cared, listened and took action. Ordinary gardeners stopped using DDT, and eventually governments also responded. Now you can’t buy DDT and you can’t spray it around.

Geologists, who specialize in the long- term view, are beginning to call the present time a period of the anthropocene epoch. The term Anthropocene is used by some scientists to describe the most recent period in the earth’s history. It has no precise start date, but may be considered to start in the late 18th century when the activities of man first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth’s climate and ecosystems.

It is when the activities of humans are so pervasive that they will be the dominant signal in the geologic record of our time. So far, it appears that the anthropocene will be renowned for its great extinction event - a period in which Earth became so unhealthy that hundreds of species of animals and plants ceased to be. Given that acidification is to be added to the effects of coastal pollution, ongoing development, sedimentation and over-fishing, it is not surprising that our coastal ecosystems are set to crash.

We can choose to make a difference if we want to continue to enjoy the sight, sounds, smells and feel of the water, sun and sand... Think about all those millions of plankton making their complex and perfect skeletons. When we are on the road, we need to think about that exhaust, puffing out the back of every car, each little bit of CO2 heading into the air, into the sea, a little drop of poison for our planet. Each of us can make small differences. Think about what you can do, today, to save just one plankton, just one coral. Because a sea without shells is like a springtime without birds.*

Biodiesel - The New Age Fuel

2009-05-17T18:28:00.000+08:00

By Lourdes Ledesma

We are at the dawn of a new age in fuel use. And just in time, too, when our cities are being overwhelmed by fogs of pollution. Our new biofuels are biodiesel and bioethanol, sourced locally and a great boon to the livelihoods of countless of our countrymen. Allow me to tell you about biodiesel.

Biodiesel is a blend of plant oil (in the Philippines, coconut oil) and petroleum diesel fuel. As mandated by the Biofuels Act of 2006, the first stage is a blend of 1% coco-biodiesel and 99% petroleum diesel. The coconut oil is first processed so that the glycerine (taba or sebo) is first removed and replaced with methyl alcohol (methanol). In other countries the plant oils may be derived from soybean, rapeseed, canola, sunflower or jatropha, olive and palm, or from used cooking oil (vegetable or animal). In the Philippines, the biodiesel blend is marketed as B1 and has been in use since 2002. The coco-biodiesel is engineered according to fuel specifications of the Philippine National Standard (PNS) and is called Coconut Methyl Ester (CME). The World-Wide Fuel Charter (WWFC) is the official standard for fuel specifications that is accepted by most major automotive manufacturers throughout the world, and it accepts blends up to 5% for diesel vehicles.

Coco-biodiesel has unique cleansing properties that can dissolve carbon and diesel soot deposits in engine combustion chambers and declogs fuel lines and fuel injector nozzles, thus extending engine life and promoting engine efficiency. Its high lubricity enhances the efficient movement of the moving parts in the fuel pump and fuel injector unit. It restores the efficiency of old engines, too.

Because of its high cetane number and oxygen content, a more complete and faster rate of combustion of the fuel is achieved. This not only cuts down the formation of harmful gases and black smoke, which is actually unexpended energy in the form of partially burnt fuel. This translates to fuel savings and is converted to greater power and mileage efficiency. Furthermore, better acceleration response is achieved, providing motorists with full driving satisfaction. Fuel economy has two cost components, namely purchase cost (P/lt.) and performance cost (kms./lt.) While the coco-biodiesel blend may be an added cost in P/lt, its great benefit comes from kms/lt., and of course, the reduction of pollution from black smoke and harmful gases. For every liter of biodiesel blend used, 3 kg of carbon dioxide is substantially reduced in the atmosphere.

Because the coco-biodiesel blend improves engine efficiency and declogs and lubricates its moving parts, it extends the life of engines and cuts down on maintenance costs, which translates to savings for the motorists. Another plus that emerges is the resurgence of the coconut industry and the increased livelihoods for millions of Filipinos dependent on the industry.

The Philippines is the leading producer of coco-biodiesel in the Asian region. Currently the total national output is 257 million liters/year, of which 147 million liters is used for domestic consumption and the balance is exported. Chemrez Inc., one of the major producers of coco-biodiesel in the country, exports 500,000 liters to Germany, China, Chinese Taipei, South Korea and Malaysia. San Miguel Corp. is also going heavily into coco-biodiesel production.

Other major players like PNOC-Alternative Fuels Corp., are developing jatropha as feedstock for biodiesel market. Presently it is engaged in conducting feasibility studies to establish its economic viability, vis-a-vis the declining prices of crude oil in the international market. It plans to establish oil refineries in several areas of the country, too. The Dept. Of Energy has so far accredited three coco-biodiesel producers, Aside from PNOC-AFC, it has approved Senbel, Inc., and the DOST-Phil. Council for Industry and Energy Research and Development Romtron (PCIERD).

Jatropha is a drought resistant perennial, growing in marginal/poor soil, which may be suitable in less developed areas of the Philippines. It grows relatively quickly and has a life span of 50 years, producing seeds with an oil content of 37%. The oil can be combusted without being refined and burns with a clear, smoke-free flame, tested successfully as fuel for simple diesel engines. It produces nuts after 2-5 years. It has medical uses in diseases like cancer, piles, snakebite, dropsy and paralysis. India is a heavy producer of Jatropha.

Other sources of bio-diesel are rapeseed, soybean oil, palm and waste vegetable oil. These are not produced in commercial quantities in this country. Soybean is the most commonly-grown oil-yielding plant in the United States, while Europe produces biodiesel from rapeseed and sunflower oil. Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand have palm as an abundant source.

The city of San Francisco in California, U.S.A. has established a pilot plant to convert the city’s waste cooking oil from restaurants into biodiesel fuel for the city’s 1,500 trucks and vehicles. In May of 2008, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the receipt of a $1 million grant from the California Energy Commission to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to build the city’s first grease-biodiesel production facility. The plant will create three grades of biodiesel from “brown grease,” which are pan scrapings, and oil residues in grease traps in restaurants. These are collected by municipal trucks and turned into 1) biodiesel for vehicles, 2) lower grade biofuel for running sewage treatment plant diesel turbines and pumps, and 3) methane gas at the sewage plant and converting it for heating needs. In September, 2008 the San Francisco Port Commission approved construction of a $10 million biodiesel plant from brown grease. As mandated by law, all the city’s vehicles run on grown grease biodiesel fuel.

I believe this can be done on a small scale here in Bacolod. When a door closes on a good thing, windows of opportunity open for the future, if we are quick to seize it.*

Catholic Lay Forum Joins Opposition to Landfill in Felisa

2009-04-20T18:25:00.001+08:00

By Alan S. Gensoli

Last March 31st I received a copy of a document entitled, “Position Paper on Serious Danger of Brgy. Felisa Dumpsite to People of Bacolod City” signed by members of the Catholic Lay Forum of the Diocese of Bacolod. The position paper, referred to a column written by Atty. Andy Hagad for another local daily, and to a column of mine published in this newspaper, both on Jan. 5, 2009, urging the Bacolod LGU and the DENR “to transfer as soon as possible, the city dumpsite to a suitable area far from the present Barangay Felisa area where the BACIWA wells and distribution lines are located.” The paper further recommended a site in Brgy. Cabug.

I would like to thank very much the members of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod for taking up this urgent concern. This is a boost and a boon to our advocacy on Solid Waste Management (SWM). Not to look a gift-horse in the mouth, though, how I wish that this position paper arrived at my doorsteps much earlier. That it did only on March 31, the day before the city launched its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, puts me in a jam. Much as I would like to trumpet the concern of the Catholic Lay Forum, I am wont to stand down and allow the city some room to work out its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, which I totally applaud.

But, the Catholic Lay Forum is right in keeping the matter about the sanitary landfill in Felisa alive, albeit hibernating for another day.

By coincidence, last April 2nd, Jean Trebol of our alliance passed on to me some updates from Atty. Julie Carbon, GM of BACIWA. May I share these with you, but especially to the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod whose concerns may be temporarily addressed by the updates.

BACIWA has five wells in the vicinity of the open dump in Felisa - these are Wells 36 to 40. Per Atty. Carbon, Well 36 is now operational, Well 37 will be energized by CENECO in two weeks’ time (which should be around April 16). Well 39 was supposedly energized by CENECO on April 5, thereafter to become operational, and Well 40 has been condemned after it was tested and found to contain salt. Meanwhile, there was no update on Well 38 and, as with any well threatened by fecal coliform, I guess no news is good news.

If I recall right from my past conversations with Atty. Carbon, these five wells in Felisa are critical to Bacolod. I have the impression that they are the last of the Mohicans. While these five may be the later wells to be developed, this doesn’t mean that they are in addition to 35 older wells that are serving the city. Actually, BACIWA wells also dry up after some time, and some of the older wells have indeed dried up. So, to say that BACIWA has 40 wells does not mean that BACIWA has 40 functioning wells.

This should concern all of us. And it should further concern us that BACIWA has already explored the possibility of importing potable water from sources in the mountains of Murcia. This means, we’re running out of water! Murcia Mayor Sonny Coscolluela may have told BACIWA that it will cost them an arm and a leg. It’s a seller’s market, you see: Bacolodians could lose more than just an arm and a leg if their drinking water in Brgy. Felisa proves to be “fecalized”. So, when the demand is high, the price goes up, and Murcia is happy. The market is efficient that way.

Our concern shouldn’t end there. We should also be worried sick that while water supply is getting scarce, our annual population growth rate is still 2.12%. Worse, we have a squatter colony that comprises up to 60% of total population. That’s 300,000 people who may not afford to buy bottled water! If the BACIWA wells in Felisa become contaminated, we can have a cholera outbreak in our hands. Think about it.

As far as the appeal of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod for the garbage facility to be moved out of Brgy. Felisa, the chances of this happening could be remote if only for the fact that in 2008, our city already purchased a seven-hectare property, near the existing open dump in Felisa, purportedly to build a sanitary landfill. To be able to build the landfill, the city needs to get an Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR. Thus, the only chance for the landfill to be built outside Felisa, as prayed for by the position paper of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod, is for the DENR not to grant the Bacolod LGU an ECC to the Felisa property. Alas, we are talking about the same DENR that looked the other way while our LGU defied R.A. 9003 for many years.

And this brings us to a Catch 22 situation - damned if you have a sanitary landfill in Felisa, and damned if you don’t have a sanitary landfill now. Why so? Because Brgy. Felisa is an active water source, the sanitary landfill shouldn’t be there. But because the city has started collecting segregated garbage, we should already have a sanitary landfill in place. That we do not should again alarm all of us.

During the monthly General Meeting of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance last March 30, its Monitoring Committee head Norman Campos reported that they have not seen a sanitary landfill, built or being built, anywhere near Felisa. Where then will the city deliver its residual and special wastes?

Pursuant to the program of the Bacolod LGU to begin collecting segregated garbage on April 1, the city will pick up RESIDUAL WASTE and SPECIAL WASTE only. As far as I am concerned, these are the two worst types of garbage. Residual wastes are the dirtiest of the dirty - it’s a buffet of used sanitary napkins, used disposable diapers, used toilet paper, and everything else you wouldn’t want your manicure to touch. Meanwhile, special wastes are actually household hazardous wastes, such as household chemicals. Thus, these two types of waste require a garbage facility that has an impermeable lining at the bottom, to prevent juice coming from these to seep into the ground where our potable water source could be contaminated. And so now, what good is garbage segregation if there is no sanitary landfill to bring segregated garbage to? But then, too, can we allow a sanitary landfill to be built in Felisa?*

Burning Trash Won’t Make it Disappear

2009-04-15T06:15:00.004+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Gigi M. Campos

After more than eight years, the city of Bacolod took its first step towards an implementation of RA 2009 last April 1st. With this new policy of NO SEGREGATION, NO COLLECTION in place, the temptation to find other means of getting rid of garbage becomes very strong. Why? Because there are still some people who just don’t want to be bothered by the tedious task of segregating and may resort to the next easiest option - backyard trash burning. This is no longer allowed by RA2009, but in our country it has been a common method of disposing garbage, particularly in the rural areas. Many years ago when we used to live in the town of Pontevedra, I would see the household help of my in-laws religiously sweeping the dry leaves of chico, avocado and iba trees in the backyard in neat little piles and setting them to flame every afternoon. It was a common sight in many backyards.

It was also said that smoking fruit trees would ensure prolific produce when fruiting time came. Sure enough, we always enjoyed an abundant supply of fruits from just the backyard. Nobody knew of the dangers of backyard trash burning.

Burning backyard trash has been declared illegal because the burning of trash whether in a barrel, a pile or anywhere outdoors releases toxic smoke into the air. The content of the smoke emitted depends on the trash that went into the fire, the temperature of the fire and the available oxygen. Backyard trash fires can smolder and as a result produce greater amounts of harmful chemicals. Harmful chemicals can also be present in the ash from the fire.

Trash containing plastics, polystyrene (such as foam cups), CCA (Chromated Copper Arsenate) pressure-treated wood, and bleached or colored papers are the worst kind because these materials can produce harmful chemicals when burned. For example, when CCA pressure-treated wood which contains arsenic is burned, arsenic can be released in the smoke or remain in the ash.

A study by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the NYS Department of Health (DOH) and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) measured the types and amounts of many chemicals in the smoke from burning trash. For some of those chemicals, burning about 10 pounds a day of trash from a household burn barrel may produce as much air pollution as a modern, well-controlled incinerator burning 400,000 pounds a day of trash!! Emissions of dioxins and furans from backyard burning alone are estimated to be greater than for all other sources combined.

We are all at risk from trash burning. Smoke from any fire can affect our health, our family’s health and our neighbor’s health. The smoke from backyard burning is released close to the ground where people can easily breathe it. The smoke from the fire can deposit dangerous chemicals on garden vegetables and garden soil. People can be exposed to those chemicals by eating fruits and vegetables grown near the trash-fire or in garden soil tilled with the ashes. Young children may be at greater risk than adults because of their playing behaviors, their small size and their developing bodies.

The chances of developing health effects from contact (exposure) with smoke from backyard fires depends on how much smoke a person contacts, how a person is exposed (e.g., breathing the smoke or eating vegetables affected by the smoke) and how long and often the person is exposed. Some people may be more or less sensitive than others to chemicals in smoke. People exposed to smoke could experience burning eyes and nose, coughing, nausea, headaches, or dizziness. Some people find the odors produced by burn barrels disagreeable, and they may experience discomfort, headaches, and nausea. Smoke can trigger asthma attacks. People with heart and lung conditions are at greater risks for health effects. Repeated exposures to pollutants in burning smoke may occur when people burn trash on a regular basis, and this may increase the risk of chronic health problems. Of course, unattended backyard burning can also cause accidental fires.

Information from studies showed that smoke from burning trash contains particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzo(a)pyrene, dioxins, furans and PCBs. Some of these chemicals are found in smoke from any fire. Although substances such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde can cause immediate health effects with enough exposure, some chemicals such as dioxin can build up in foods and in your body. Some of these chemicals can remain in the environment for a long time and can remain on your property (for example, soil outside and dust inside your home).

There are three ways burning trash can get chemicals into our bodies — breathing the smoke, eating food contaminated by smoke and ash, and playing in areas of contaminated soil or dust. Smoke and ash can settle on fruits and vegetables. If ash is mixed into the garden soil, chemicals can be taken up by crops. Chemicals can enter milk, eggs or meat if farm animals eat contaminated feed or soil.

We need to break the habit and stop burning trash. Here are some simple tips to avoid the need to burn your trash:

Reduce - Avoid waste. Buy fewer items and select products with the least packaging.

Re-use - Buy products that can be re-used and/or come in containers that can be re-filled.

Recycle - Learn about your community’s recycling programs. Dispose of your recyclables accordingly, and urge others to do the same.

Compost - Compost plant-based kitchen and yard waste.

Segregate - The only way you can get your trash collected and properly disposed of is if your trash and recyclables are segregated.

Let’s be considerate of your neighbors and stop backyard burning. Remember, it is not only a bad idea, it is against the law!*

Green House Pa-effect?

2009-04-13T06:12:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

The mission of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance is to impel government to find lasting solutions to the flooding problem of Bacolod. Now that the Bacolod LGU has begun the collection of segregated garbage only, and since unsegregated garbage is a major cause of flooding, that mission seems to have been accomplished. Has it?

Coincidentally, too, on March 31, 2009, the day before the government launched its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, the Banat Baha TV show of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance ended its third season. Just as well, it would seem, as if to say that the Banat Baha had done its job and it was time to put the camera away. Is it?

A fortnight ago today, the alliance held its monthly general membership meeting. The accomplishments of the Banat Baha were recalled and applauded. This has been a project of so many individuals, but especially of Dr. Elsie Coscolluela, the Executive Producer, and Rene Hinojales, the host of the show. Michael Varca was the show’s producer/director/writer/researcher all rolled into one.

Customary in our monthly meeting is the presentation of committee reports. We have nine standing committees: Communications, Education, Finance, Legal, Membership, Monitoring, New Business, Secretariat, and Special Events. Let me share with you highlights from two of these reports as these are most significant at this point in time.

The Monitoring Committee, co-chaired by Norman Campos and Maite Elorde, reported on two issues that had been left unfinished, unattended since the time the Bacolod LGU fired us from the Bacolod Flood Mitigating Committee in November 2008. The construction of the floodway at Brgy. Banago is nowhere near completion. And that green house on top of the Banago Creek is still there, together with other illegal structures, squatter shanties in fact, all obstructing the water flow. Their stilts continue to collect garbage coming from their fellow illegal structures upstream, and for sure they continue to pooh pooh straight into the creek, fecal coliform and all! But of all, the green house stands proud. Mainit sa mata. With its bold color in a canvas of ashen grey and putrid brown, the green house seems to brag to the world: “Hey, look at me, I’m on top of a creek and no one can do anything about it! Not even the city government!” Bah, humbug.

Just before we were fired from the Mitigating Committee in November last, we were told that these illegal structures had already been identified and scheduled for demolition. We know none has been demolished. We also know that these are not new structures but the same old illegal structures that we talked about last year. How do we know that? Because of the green house. It has become a reference point, thank you.

Meanwhile, the floodway is also not done. The DPWH has rip-rapped some 270 meters worth of floodway. Not only is this not enough, the 270 meters are not contiguous. For some reason, those who constructed this created several giant bath tubs, now filled with stagnant, black, filthy, stenchy, yucky water with nowhere to empty? Another 500 meters need to be dug up and the Bacolod LGU has offered to do the job, after which the DPWH will construct the rip-rap. This has not yet been dug up, our Norman Campos reported.

Meanwhile, our Education Committee, co-chaired by Joel Jaquinta and Maggie Jalandoni, reported on the Solid Waste Management (SWM) seminar held for the Business Inn and Planta Centro Hotel. I wrote about this in a recent column, but I have more insight to add, especially valuable to private enterprises.

Coming out of that seminar, Joel observed that the simplified steps and procedures featured in the flyer distributed by the Bacolod LGU may not be summarily applicable to all enterprises. Perhaps, the simplified steps are applicable in most homes, but not in businesses where the size and type of operations greatly vary. For instance, a restaurant with a seating capacity of 25 and another with a seating capacity of 50 will generate different loads of garbage. In another case, a fine dining restaurant and a turo-turo will also generate different kinds of garbage.

Another area where adjustments may have to be made is in the schedule of garbage pick-ups. Enterprises should adjust to the schedule that the city has planned out. For instance, according to the government’s pick up schedule, residual wastes will be collected on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays only. What then should a busy restaurant do with its garbage on other days? A popular fastfood-type establishment using disposable materials (such as plastic bags, plates, utensils, cups and tumblers, styro food containers) will have to put mitigating measures in place to prevent itself from smelling and from being inundated with bugs and ants if it has to wait for 48 hours before the next pick up. For this reason, an SWM seminar especially designed to address the unique needs of an establishment is recommended. And our Joel Jaquinta is available for that. For a reasonable fee, of course. You may contact him through his cellular phone number, 0920-637-8557.

With these reports from our Monitoring and Education committees, these questions are once more begged: Has the mission of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance been achieved with the start of the collection of segregated garbage on April 1? Has the Banat Baha TV show fulfilled its objectives, or outgrown its purpose after three seasons? If our last monthly meeting would have it, uh-uh. There’s just so much more monitoring and educating to do. So, don’t be surprised, because when you least expect it, “Smile!”, you’re on Banat Baha camera!

A Happy Easter to all!

Clueless in Bacolod

2009-04-06T06:02:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

Last Friday, April 3, while I was losing 650 calories per hour at the Riverside Gym, I watched on their plasma-TV the week’s episode of “Joe Lib Live.” Riverside, by the way, is a member of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance and has won several national awards for its Solid Waste Management (SWM) program. So, I’m proud to say I gym there.

Back to “Joe Lib Live:” The show featured an audio recording of an interview of Brgy. Felisa Kagawad Ma. Fe Tresfuentes. The interview was in fact conducted two days earlier, on April 1, which was the start of the city’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. In the interview, Kagawad Tresfuentes said that the Alyansa Kontra Basura (ALKOBA) had formed a monitoring team to check if indeed the garbage trucks of the city were delivering residual and special wastes only to the open dump in Felisa, and only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, as City Hall had directed.

In hindsight, I think the city’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy may have started on the wrong foot. You see, while the Bacolod LGU said that it will pick up residual and special wastes on T-Th-S, it chose April 1 to launch its policy. And April 1 is a Wednesday. You will agree that if there are mistakes to catch in implementing a policy, the best time to catch them is on the first day of implementation, when the process is undergoing test. Sure enough, Kagawad Tresfuentes later informed me that on April 1 the ALKOBA monitoring team turned back around six garbage trucks because these contained unsegregated garbage. And even if they were delivering residual and special wastes, April 1 was a Wednesday. The garbage trucks were not supposed to be there on a Wednesday! Sus, my gulay! Had the Bacolod LGU told PGMA, she would have moved April 1 to a Tuesday! Or a Thursday! Even a Saturday! Kaya nga i-move ang Araw ng Kagitingan ‘yun pa kaya ang Araw ng mga Ulol?

I have no space to tell you about all the six trucks that were turned back, but two will fit just fine in this column. According to

Kagawad Tresfuentes, one of the trucks was delivering unsegregated garbage from Brgy. Estefania. This is distressing because of all barangays to be caught disobeying the orders of City Hall, it had to be the barangay of the ABC President, whose election to the ABC Presidency (automatically making him city councilor), I am told, had the blessings of the Mayor! Hello?!

The chances of Brgy. Estafania getting caught making this mistake, out of the total 61 barangays of Bacolod, is as remote as Miss Philippines winning Miss Universe! It’s not an easy mistake to commit, but you see, if you’re not careful, you can easily make a mistake when you shouldn’t be making it because you’re the leader, the shining example, the ABC President. And, if you’re really, really not careful, your mistake could end up on TV being re-run all week long. Kagawad Tresfuentes also told me that the truck driver admitted that he didn’t know about the city’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. Well, whose fault is that now?

It gets hairy. Kagawad Tresfuentes also shared that a representative of the City Environment Office (CENRO), who was also at Felisa when the ALKOBA team was monitoring, turned back a garbage truck delivering hospital waste. The kagawad said, the blood on the needle connected to the dextrose bottle even looked fresh! The CENRO representative wrote down the name of the hospital, and we hope that said hospital has been informed and will not do it again. As with the first, the driver of this truck confessed he also didn’t know about the “No Segregation, No Collection” policy.

May we know from CENRO the name of the hospital, please? Obviously, it was not Riverside. Whatever hospital it was, we should boycott that hospital. And it’s only fair that the hospital is named because it holds all hospitals suspect, when in fact other hospitals have won national awards for their SWM programs. While special waste includes household hazardous waste, hospital waste, which is hazardous, hardly qualifies as household. So please, let us not in conscience pass it off as household. That’s premeditated mortal sin.

As late as the evening of March 30, at the monthly General Membership Meeting of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, so many of our members revealed that they, too, didn’t know about the “No Segregation, No Collection” policy of the city. And by then we were less than 36 hours to April 1, the launch date of the policy. Those who didn’t know instinctively blamed their barangay captains. I was one of those who almost didn’t know.

I do not live in Brgy. Vista Alegre, but it was from the barangay captain of Vista Alegre-my cousin Tonette Gensoli-that I learned about the city government’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. If not for Brgy. Capt. Tonette, I wouldn’t have a clue even to this day. And it is for this reason that I keep on telling people that they should call their barangay captains because many barangay captains did not bother to inform their residents.

I know for a fact that my cousin roamed the streets of Vista Alegre, holding “pulong-pulongs” from one subdivision to the next. I am not shy to lift my cousin’s chair, as it were, because he has done the right thing. In fact, I would be unfaithful to my love for Bacolod if I didn’t talk about it, because Vista Alegre happens to own the largest land area of all 61 barangays in Bacolod City.

And so, if Brgy. Capt. Tonette Gensoli can hit the ground and inform residents house to house, there should be no reason why any other barangay captain cannot do the same, with less land area to cover. None of the 60 other barangay captains can now say they didn’t have enough time to go around and tell their people. You want to argue from the point of view of population density? Don’t bother, nowhere is it more dense than in Abada-Escay, the newest purok of Vista Alegre. So hush.

Frankly, I do not expect barangay captains to perform miracles, as much as I might expect Mayor Bing Leonardia and Councilor Greg Gasataya to perform miracles, because they have the wherewithal to produce them. But if I don’t know that my barangay captain doesn’t have the funds to implement environmental policies, I will end up blaming him anyway, when in fact I should blame City Hall for two reasons. First, R.A. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act) says City Hall must help the barangay financially if the barangay cannot afford to implement our environmental laws, policies, and programs. And second, R.A. 7160 (New Government Code) says that the city government is primarily responsible for implementing laws, including R.A. 9003.

We the people cannot be held clueless about the “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, especially since our non-compliance is subject to penalty, with fines and imprisonment. Unless barangay captains talk to us and convince us how their barangays’ non-compliance to the policy is not their fault, we will instinctively blame them for any problem, any hindrance to the successful implementation of the policy-and that includes our ignorance of it because they didn’t tell us about it. Believe me, Caps, if we can blame you for our laziness to segregate our garbage at home, I’m sure we will do that, too. Pity our barangay captains, but in the pecking order of things, they are found naturally standing at the crossfire, and so they could get picked on and pecked at with abandon. We need them to speak up and speak out-speak out about what support they need from City Hall, speak up about what support they need from the people. Then, I’ll be more than happy to take up their cause every Monday.*

MISSION - VISION OF BAHA

2009-04-01T09:22:00.000+08:00

BAHA
Bacolod Anti-BAHA Alliance

MISSION

Urged by the increasing threat to our lives, health and property brought about by the worsening flooding in the City of Bacolod, we, a non-political citizen’s group have come together to establish BAHA, the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, to impel our city government officials and national government agencies to once and for all utilize all the resources and laws at their disposal to solve the flooding problem in Bacolod City.

CORE VALUES AND PHILOSOPHY

As an apolitical citizen’s movement, we shall pursue our mission in the spirit of:

solidarity
openness and dialogue
commitment and perseverance
seriousness of purpose
respectfulness of our differences

OBJECTIVE

To undertake any and all necessary and appropriate action to move the Bacolod City Officials and National Agencies to STOP THE FLOODING IN BACOLOD CITY NOW.

The New Age - Biofuels

2009-04-01T05:56:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Lourdes Ledesma

When the prices of crude oil skyrocketed several years ago and stayed relatively high, the industrialized countries scrambled to find alternative sources of energy. So did the Philippines. In an earlier article, I gave a bird’s eye view of alternative sources of energy, among them, biofuels, water and wind energy, all green, as far as environment is concerned. In this article, allow me to focus on biofuels.

Alternative fuels are not based on petroleum and are desirable because they provide energy security and environmental benefits. Biofuels are produced from feedstock and other organic sources that are renewable like animal wastes, biodegradable organic wastes, such as leaves, crops, plant fibers, and animal and vegetable oils. The originator of the use of biofuels was Mr. Rudolf Diesel, when he built the first diesel engine fueled by vegetable oil. The two major types of biofuels are : 1) bio-ethanol, derived from starch or sugar from sugarcane, corn, sweet sorghum, cassava and nipa; 2) biodiesel, sourced from plant oils, such as palm, jatropha, soy, coconut and rapeseed, waste vegetable oil, and animal fats, which include, tallow, lard, and yellow grease from fish oil.

Republic Act 9367, known also as the Biofuels Act of 2006, was authored by Cong. Juan Miguel Zubiri, and was signed into law in January, 2007. This piece of legislation, considered a landmark and a model for other countries to emulate, opened the door to business opportunities as well as research and development of alternative energy sources, bringing relief to an otherwise poverty-stricken country, held captive to high fuel prices. In this legislation is a clear mandate for the government and the private sector to cooperate in developing biofuels, while setting standards for its production and use, and creating the National Biofuels Board. It mandates that all liquid fuels for motors and engines sold in the Philippines shall contain locally-sourced biofuel components as follows:

1) Within three months from the signing of this Act, a minimum of 1 percent biodiesel by volume shall be blended into all diesel engine fuels sold in the country, provided the blend conforms to standards. And within two years, the blend may be increased to 2 percent as may be determined by the NBB.

2) Within two years from the effectivity of this Act, 5% bioethanol shall comprise the annual total volume of gasoline fuel sold and distributed by each and every oil company in the country; provided that the ethanol blend conforms to standards set by the NBB.

3) Within 4 years from the effectivity of this Act, the NBB is empowered to determine the feasibility and thereafter recommend to the Department of Energy to increase the minimum percent of bioethanol to 10 percent blend by volume of all gasoline fuel distributed and sold by each and every oil company in the country. In the event of supply shortage of locally-produced bioethanol, oil companies shall be allowed to import bioethanol, but only to the extent of the shortage, as determined by the NBB.

The Biofuels Act of 2006 also provides incentives to spur research and production, such as exemption from: 1) VAT, on sale of raw material used in biofuel production, 2) specific tax on local or imported biofuel materials, 3) waste water charges from effluents from biofuel production, if used as liquid fertilizer and other agricultural purposes (“re-use”), and 4) financial assistance from lending institutions for business entities that shall engage in activities involving production, storage, handling and transport of biofuel and biofuel feedstock, including the blending of biofuels with petroleum, as certified by the DOE. The role of this government agency is the preparation of the Philippine Biofuels Program and the accreditation of biofuels producers.

Other salient features of R.A. 9367 is the phase-out of harmful gasoline additives, which when added to gasoline, increase the amount of oxygen in the gasoline blend, the prohibition and penalizing of distribution, sale and use of such fuel, also the sale and distribution of blended fuel that failed to meet set standards, false labeling of gasoline, diesel, biofuels and biofuel-blended gasoline and diesel, and diversion of biofuels, whether locally-produced or imported, to purposes other than those envisioned in this Act.

The implications of using biofuels are many: it is cheaper than fossil fuels, it is clean, in terms of lower emissions (30-60%). Carbon dioxide is likewise reduced at the rate of 3 kilos/liter of biodiesel used. According to data from the DENR, the use of the mandated 1% coco-biodiesel blend (B1) has significantly cut down carbon emissions in Metro Manila in the third quarter of 2007. Since it is biodegradable, it is safe to handle and transport, less toxic and has a higher flashpoint than petroleum diesel fuels. It is efficient, in terms of usability, as according to the Chamber of Automotive Manufacturers of the Philippines, a 2% biodiesel and a 10% bioethanol blend will not require any engine modifications in cars, pumpboats and hand tractors.

Furthermore, biodiesels extend the life of diesel engines because they are more lubricating than petroleum diesel fuels. As for being cost-effective, the savings that would accrue to our foreign exchange is substantial. The projected savings nationwide if 1% biodiesel blend is used, at a volume of 86 million liters, is $41 million. When the country shifts to 5% biodiesel, it would stand to save $205 million at a volume of 429.4 million liters. (Figures from PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation). Currently in use now in the Philippines is B1 (1% coco-diesel blend), and E10 (10% bioethanol-gasoline blend). E10 is being sold in all Seaoil stations nationwide.

The Philippines is the first country to use coconut as a source of feedstock for biodiesel. A Japanese firm is currently engaged in developing a $600-million coconut plantation project in northern Luzon. Many other major players are interested in investment opportunities in biofuel projects. A Singaporean firm, D1-BP Fuels Crops Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., has been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission to form a corporation for a biofuel project. The state-run PNOC-AFC has engaged in a project in Mindanao with jatropha as feedstock. It is assessing probable locations for plantations in several provinces, engaging in the research and propagation of seedlings, and forming joint venture/partnerships with investors, landowners and oil companies to transform land with an aggregate area of 700,000 hectares into jatropha plantations. Then it is setting up biodiesel refineries in strategic locations, for the extraction and processing of oil from jatropha. It is allocating P50 million to undertake a pilot plantation in northern Mindanao.

Feedstock for the production of bioethanol will come from sweet sorghum and sugarcane. Negros Occidental, where most of the sugarcane in the country is produced, will be leading the thrust of bioethanol production. San Carlos Bioenergy is in the process of setting up an ethanol distillery with an integrated generation power-plant. The project is funded by a consortium of banks led by the Development Bank of the Philippines, Land Bank of the Philippines, Banco de Oro, China Bank and Equitable PCI. The project cost is P1.78 billion. The government banks are mandated to provide loans for biofuel producers, blenders and transporters. The distillery will be producing 125,000 liters per day (35 million liters/year) of fuel grade ethanol, while the power plant will have a capacity of 8 MW. The distillery is located at the San Carlos Agro-Industrial Economic Zone.

Petron Corporation is expected to start offering 5% ethanol-blended gasoline within the year. Basic Energy plans to plant 10,000 hectares of idle lands in Zamboanga del Norte into sugarcane, for ethanol production. In General Santos City, Eastern Petroleum Corp. is planning to construct a P1.8-billion ethanol plant with Chinese firm Guanxi State Farm. Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri was quoted to say that San Miguel Corp. plans to invest between P16 billion-20 billion in putting up 10 ethanol plants around the Philippines. According to official data, since R.A. 9367 was enacted, investors have committed at least $2 billion in investments.

This augurs well for our country in savings, in more livelihoods for our people, and a cleaner environment, I would say. Things are looking up, don’t you think?*

Operation Boycott

2009-03-30T08:54:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

Did you see the women’s tennis finals of the BNP Paribas Open? With 25mph winds, the 16,100-seat stadium court of the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens continued to be packed with tennis fans from around the world, including the garbage mal-educados. The match between reigning champ and Serbian beauty Ana Ivanovic, and Russian challenger Vera Zvonareva, was a thrill from the get-go, what with strong winds blowing balls where they were not intended to go. But the wind blew more than just balls. Twice, the tense and highly contested opening set was interrupted by the umpire due to plastic wrappers being blown practically into the faces of the players-the first while they were playing Deuce #3 at Game 13 (both players were tied with six games apiece), and the second during the tie breaker of the set (since all the allowed deuces ended without producing a winner). So you see, plastic wrap is irritating in more ways than one!

Why was plastic wrap allowed at Indian Wells in the first place? Don’t they know that plastic wrap is not even allowed in the new wet market of Lucban, Quezon Province? And soon, perhaps also in Bacolod City? Ambitious? Hey, if Mayor Evelio Leonardia and Councilor Greg Gasataya can warn us, “No Segregation, No Collection” come April 1, after so many years of not complying with R.A. 9003 (the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000), anything can happen, including finally banning plastics in our midst and “Nicole” saying Smith didnt rape her after all.

Let me share with you these anecdotes en route to April 1, the deadline set by the Bacolod LGU for its citizens to segregate garbage.

Last week, our member, Joel Jaquinta, MSWM (that’s Master in Solid Waste Management, if there is such a thing), made a command performance for the Bacolod Business Inn and the new Planta Centro Hotel. At the request of these two establishments, Joel ran a four-hour seminar on SWM for their managers and personnel.

I learned from our Education Committee Chair, the indefatigable Maggie Jalandoni, that Joel does not even charge a standard fee. But don’t be a scrooge and take advantage of Joel’s meekness. Now is not the time to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. For his wisdom, I suggest you offer Joel a respectable honorarium plus food. Believe you me, the seminar is worth every centavo you pay him, especially considering that ignorance of SWM could get you some jail time. That’s why they say, if you think SWM knowledge is expensive, try ignorance.

What is respectable honorarium? Let us cut to the chase here. For a four-hour seminar on SWM, ignorance of which could mean imprisonment for you, an honorarium of at least P2,000.00 qualifies as respectable. If you can be more generous, it will be rewarded unto you a hundredfold, because I will mention you here in my column, and that is free advertising for you. And by the way, let’s not play tricks and try to be penny-wise in various creative ways, like packing the seminar with representatives of 100 companies to save on each company’s share of the honorarium, just because you are so successful that you have 100 companies, or you are a president of a trade association. The seminar includes a demonstration of segregation processes, and so four hours is really needed to ensure that employees of a company are well guided on procedures.

Knowing that the Business Inn and the Planta Hotel have undergone this seminar-thus proving their respect for the environment-guarantees my continued patronage of their businesses. For why should I dine elsewhere when I know that at Business Inn and Planta Hotel, people and processes are clean, sanitary, and hygienic? Moreover, undertaking the seminar hints that both hotels will be sending only residual waste to the city’s garbage facility. This show of corporate social responsibility will weigh heavily on my decision to recommend hotel accommodations to my friends, which in fact I already did when some of them came for the IBP convention last week.

Our advocacy leader, Jean Trebol, just informed me that she has already spoken to the management of The Sugarland Hotel, who likewise welcomed the idea of holding the same seminar. And so, to all my friends who often hold catered receptions in their homes, not only will you continue to delight in the chefography of Chef Pancho, now you will also be assured that the garbage that your birthday party will generate will be responsibly taken care of. Thus, by your mere choice of The Sugarland Hotel as caterer, you would have also shown your personal social responsibility. Why risk your garbage with another caterer?

How about the other hotels, resorts, restaurants, bars, and the many honky tonks? Are you ready for Wednesday, April 1? I would be pleased to print on this space the names of establishments who subscribe to SWM practices. As much as I would be happy to boycott any establishment that refuses to practice SWM.

This brings me to my point exactly: boycotting businesses that do not make worthy contributions to our community, such as practicing SWM. Consider the analogy that sidewalk vendors present. We have cried at the top of our lungs that these sidewalk vendors should be driven away, but our government has maintained that such is impossible. As a result, we have become suspicious, sometimes malicious, that the reason why this is impossible is that these sidewalk vendors are voters, and so politicians are scared to scare them away. Be that as it may, we have another ace in our sleeve. We can boycott the businesses of these sidewalk vendors, can’t we? That we do not makes us as culpable as the city officials who are unwilling to clean up the sidewalks.

It’s the same thing with businesses that will refuse to practice SWM starting April 1. If they do not heed the call of government, if they circumvent the orders of government by, say, bribing garbage truck drivers, or hiring private vehicles (such as trisikads) to pick up their unsegregated garbage in the early hours of the morning, then let’s boycott them. Last week I wrote about fines and imprisonment to penalize prohibited acts provided for by R.A. 9003. Some businesses may laugh the fines off because they can afford to pay them, or they can stomach sending their employees as their fall-guys to jail. But can they afford to close shop when we start boycotting them? It’s time we put our moneys where our mouths are.

As a marketing consultant, this idea of boycotting businesses that are not eco-friendly is close to my heart. No, I do not wish to kill businesses, but I certainly would like to grow them properly rather than blindly. If a columnist must take a stand and present a solution, then boycotting the businesses of companies that are careless about how they impact the environment, and society in general, is both my stand and my solution. And so, patience my dear reader, for you will hear this tune hummed in my column over and over again.

Back in the 70s and 80s, one of the country’s leading daily newspapers had a columnist by the name of Nanette Franco-Diyco. Her column minced no words in criticizing products and companies that fooled society in various ways, including false advertising claims. Perhaps she was feared. But for sure she was respected. She later became a top executive of J. Walter Thompson, a leading advertising agency worldwide, and upon dropping her name as my Advertising professor at the Ateneo, I landed my first job. I may be unfit to untie the shoe straps of my professor’s Ferragamo, but I am a good student and I have seen and heard how fighting for what is right in business will in the end win. Environmental care-such as segregating our garbage starting April 1-must be part of what is right in business.*

Going Green, Not Easy but Necessary

2009-03-26T08:52:00.001+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Gigi M. Campos

It’s been said so often as to seem almost a platitude: ‘Go green because it’s good for your business’. And certainly there are many high-profile examples of corporations taking measures to make their businesses more environment-friendly. But by and large, the impact of the green message on businesses remains depressingly negligible.

We need to ask why, and what can be done about it. On the positive front, more people have been alerted to the dangers of global warming and other environmental disasters than at any time in the industrial and post-industrial era. The process of educating billions of people around the globe has been hugely aided by modern communications, with green evangelists taking their message to the masses via radio, television and print publications, and now the Internet.

Al Gore may have struck more than a few uncomfortable chords with his ‘inconvenient truth’, but the war on environmental ignorance is in fact being carried out by tens of thousands of lieutenants and foot soldiers armed with nothing more than a cause.

Many are passionate young people who have moved beyond traditional media to the interactive world of the Internet. For them, the Web’s social networking sites and strategies are the perfect way to disseminate information, identify and encourage green initiatives, and generally educate tens of millions of their young peers in an intensively interactive environment. On Facebook, one of the more popular social networking sites are environmental causes like Drop the Plastic Bag, Green because You Can, Stop

Global Warming, Save our Oceans, etc.

The educating is more effective because the lessons are shared, dissected, criticized and recreated by consensus. It is education that is absorbed, not imposed. And that is a lesson that their senior counterparts in business and government could take to heart. Not in the area of green products and activities; leave that to the experts.

It takes scientists to create more effective and eco-friendly fuels and efficient hybrid cars, engineers to reduce the power and emission needs of a manufacturing process. It needs an experienced business team to convert eco-friendly innovations into commercially feasible products. And it takes visionary government officials to project a country’s needs decades into the future, and create a public transportation system that is effective, and people as well as environment-friendly. But that’s already happening.

So why do the mass of business folk, who stand to benefit from eco-friendly innovations and infrastructure, continue to drag their heels? Simply, the message hasn’t got through. And for as long as this vast majority remains uncommitted, the industrial fog will stay, both literally and figuratively.

Clearly, education is key. But education imposed in the traditional way has proven to be ineffective. Which is why it’s worth paying attention to the new-media world of our youth, where information is dynamically shared and absorbed. It could be the strategy that turns the tide.

Going green is an uphill task and not an easy decision in our world of convenience. But it takes so little to make an effort to recycle, reduce and re-use. For two years now, my colleagues and I in the BAHA Alliance have been religiously bringing katcha bags to the supermarts. Initially, some cashiers were amused at our refusal to use any of their plastic bags for our purchases at the same time curious about the messages our bags carried. But if more people adopted this habit, we will help to reduce the usage of thousands of plastic bags every day.

Businesses can also implement easy environment-friendly policies such as setting air- conditioners at a comfortable 25 to 26 deg C. For how many times have we walked into freezing malls, cinemas and hotel lobbies and restaurants?

Bacolod is far from being a green society, compared to more advanced cities. Planting trees once a year or taking your own bag to shop for groceries is a good start but is just not good enough in the long run. Education is the key. We need to spread the message of protecting our environment. The more we talk about going green, the more we share our experiences, the more we can get people involved. We just need to remember that our every action has a consequence and will have a trickle-down effect on the next generation.*

Back To Basics

2009-03-25T08:51:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Tina M. Monfort

Have you ever heard of ozone? Do you know what ozone is and why it is important in the Earth’s atmosphere?

Ozone is made of three oxygen atoms (O3). Everyone has heard of oxygen before as part of the air we breathe. Oxygen is made up of two oxygen atoms (O2). Add another oxygen atom and you have ozone. When a lot of ozone is around, a pale bluish gas can be seen. Ozone is found in two different layers of the atmosphere. The stratosphere (where many airplanes fly due to the stability) and the troposphere (where the weather occurs and which contains the air we breathe). Where we find ozone in the atmosphere determines whether we consider it to be “bad” or “good.”

Ozone in the troposphere is an air pollutant that damages human health and plants. It is a key ingredient in smog. Ozone in the

Stratosphere, however, is considered ‘good’ since it protects life on earth from the harmful effects of the Sun.

The ozone layer is situated between 19 and 48 kilometers above the earth. Ozone is formed through a reaction of oxygen with sun light. This process has existed for millions of years, but the nitrogen connections that are present naturally in the atmosphere kept the ozone levels stable. On earth, a large ozone concentration would be harmful. In the atmosphere, however, the ozone is a vital condition for life on earth. It blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun from reaching us.

The harmful effects of UV radiation or ozone depletion are well understood and include both health and economic aspects. Most notably, the more humans are exposed to UV radiation, the greater the likelihood of skin cancer. Reports suggest that a 1 percent thinning of the ozone layer can produce as much as a 5-7 percent increases in skin cancer. Other health effects include potential increased instances of cataracts and a weakening of the immune system.

In the marine food chain, fish larvae and phytoplankton near the ocean surface are destroyed by exposure to increased levels of UV radiation. Phytoplankton is the basis of the marine food chain and is also important in the production of oxygen.

In the 1970s scientists discovered that a substance, which had long been used in fridges, was dangerous for the ozone layer.

These substances were chlorofluorocarbons, generally known as CFCs. When CFCs are released, they rise and are broken down by the sunlight. The chlorine reacts instantly and destroys the ozone. For this reason, CFCs are banned in many countries.

By the beginning of the eighties scientists discovered a ‘hole’ in the ozone layer above Antarctica. This hole is not literally a hole, but an area with a lower concentration of ozone. Research has revealed that the percentage of ozone above Antarctica is generally decreasing. Ozone is now being destroyed more quickly than it can be created. When the emissions of these chemicals cease, the ozone layer will eventually repair itself. The repair will not be instantaneous. Even if all CFC emissions were immediately stopped, depletion of the ozone would continue to worsen for 15-20 years before any repair would begin. The natural rejuvenation of the ozone will be a very slow process.

Individuals can still have an impact on ozone depletion in several ways. Avoid using gas propellants of any sort, as the long-term effects of many propellants are unknown. Let us comply with the disposal requirements for old refrigerators as identified in the Clean Air Act, have automobile air conditioners serviced in a station that recycles the fluid and have air-conditioner coolant removed from auto air conditioners before disposal. Labeling requirements of the Clean Air Act will allow consumers to choose or not, those products containing, produced with or packaged in ozone-depleting compounds. Legislation has put an end to the production and ultimate use of CFCs and other compounds.

Individual action drives industrial action and the political process. Although 59 countries have agreed to end the production of many of these damaging substances by the year 2005, it is us individuals who will end the use of these substances through choices as consumers. Remember, when the buying stops, the production can too.

Let’s do our share!

Reminder: let us observe EARTH HOUR this March 28 at 8:30PM. Please turn off appliances, lights, etc. for 1 hour.*

April Fools?

2009-03-23T08:48:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

As I write this column, my celfone is ringing fast and furious ushering text messages from business owners and executives, even barangay officials, confirming their receipt of notice from Mayor Bing Leonardia and Councilor Greg Gasataya that effective April 1, 2009, unsegregated garbage will no longer be picked up. Moreover, penalties will be imposed upon those convicted of non-compliance to the city government’s directives towards Bacolod’s final and full subscription to R.A. 9003, the country’s Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. I thought this day would never come. Apparently, it will. Alleluia!

First thing’s first: As much as I have been critical of our local government in the past for its delayed compliance to R.A. 9003, it is now incumbent upon me to applaud Mayor Bing Leonardia and Councilor Greg Gasataya for this landmark step, albeit the first step, towards the implementation of R.A. 9003.

When Pres. Arroyo signed E.O. 774 last Dec. 26 and gave a new deadline of June 26, 2009 for LGUs to reduce solid waste generation by 50%, I admit I was skeptical about the ability of the present government of Bacolod City to perform. Imagine my glee now that City Hall has turned around to beat the President’s cut-off date by almost three months. If we give censure where censure is due, we must also give credit where credit is due. To ignore this accomplishment of our local government would only hold the integrity of my past criticisms suspect. And so, cheers, City Hall!

The notice came in the form of a four-page flyer, relatively brief but packed with all the needed information-needed for now, that is. You see, if Mayor Bing and Councilor Greg gave us the entire R.A. 9003 in one fell swoop, nothing could ensure resistance to Solid Waste Management more. But with this flyer, we are given just enough information to make a dent at SWM, and that’s good enough, I believe, for so long as we are all clear that this is just the beginning, and that there will be improvements and modifications along the way to SWM heaven.

I like it that the flyer includes basic descriptions of what compostable, recyclable, residual, and special wastes are, the latter really referring to hazardous wastes. There are also examples of each-all the reason for us to comply and for government to penalize us when we do not comply. I also like it that the flyer lists examples of prohibited acts and their corresponding penalties. There are a total of 16 prohibited acts listed in Sec. 48 of R.A. 9003, but the flyer includes four only, for now. The four are most applicable to our local population: Littering or throwing wastes in public places (like flicking a cigarette butt, and I suppose, even spitting), open burning of wastes (like burning our garden sweepings every afternoon, like burning sugarcane cansiaja after the field has been harvested), open dumping (like designated dumping areas in our subdivisions where we dump unsegregated garbage), and mixing of segregated garbage. The fines for these range from P300 to P500,000. And there could be additional imprisonment of up to six months.

Please do not misunderstand that just because only these four have been published by our city government you cannot be faulted for the other 12. Remember what they say about ignorance of the law. If that happens to you, it would be adding injury to insult-ignorante ka na, namultahan ka pa.

If at the time this column is published you haven’t received any notice from your barangay captain yet, call him. Or her. You need to get in touch with your barnagay officials because things need to be explained to you, such as, how to segregate garbage, what are the collection days for different types of garbage, and if you have to bring your garbage to certain pick up points central to your barangay.

One of the worst things that could happen is for you to be waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the garbage truck to collect from your house, and the garbage truck never comes, because you are supposed to take your garbage to a designated pick-up station in your barangay. Make it your business to know all these things, because if you don’t, because if you persist to be lazy, you will stink. Nanimaho ka na, multahan ka pa. Araguy.

The penalties-including fines and imprisonment-are there for a reason, the reason being, resistance to garbage segregation. We hope there will be no resistance, but should there be, the penalties will kick in. But let us be clear: The penalties are not there to threaten the worst of us. They are there to protect the best of us. Penalties are there to preserve what is right for a civilized society. And resistance to SWM, just because it is inconvenient, just because it demands extra work, just because it is outside of what we are accustomed to doing, is not right for a civilized society. Let us not protest City Hall’s April 1 deadline because we are already on borrowed time. Our compliance to R.A. 9003 is long overdue, in fact, five years overdue.

You read me right: our compliance! While before I wrote and talked about City Hall’s compliance, or the lack of it, to R.A. 9003, now that City Hall has given a deadline, now that City Hall is ready to implement in earnest R.A. 9003, the topic shifts from City Hall’s compliance to “our compliance.” That’s because per R.A. 9003, garbage segregation must be done at source. That means at home, or wherever garbage is generated.

My co-writers in the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, whose views you read on this space three times a week, have shared volumes of advice about SWM. Perhaps some of you bite your lips now wishing you clipped all that and stuck them on your fridge door. But it’s not too late to gather fresh information, and neither is SWM advice too complicated. Many, in fact, are common-sensical. Such as the first R in the 5-Rs of SWM: REFUSE plastics. Add to that the second R: REDUCE if you can’t Refuse. You can start with these two. You should, in fact, start with these two.

We in the Alliance have been pushing the use of re-usable shopping bags. We’re not saying that you should buy our katcha bag, or the green bag of SM, or any other reusable grocery bag being peddled around town. We’re simply saying that all of us have some kind of REUSABLE bag at home that may be used and reused to carry your groceries, and that we should use these instead of the “sando” plastic bags. Never mind if your bag doesn’t look like a grocery bag. Never mind that it’s actually a roll-aboard, or an old Louis Vuitton daffle, an old Coach saddle, or an old Dooney & Burke pouch. Anything at all is better than the “sando” plastic bag, because people use the “sando” plastic bag to dispose of their feces, which eventually turn up in our dumpsite, contaminating our potable groundwater source with fecal coliform!

Begin your SWM habit by refusing and reducing the use of plastics. By doing so, you would already have won half the battle, because if you REFUSE and REDUCE, then there will be less to RE-USE, less to RECYLCE, and less to ROT-which are the final three Rs of SWM.

I know, April 1 is April Fools Day. But don’t get the funny idea that Mayor Bing and Councilor Greg are just fooling around with this deadline. If I may say so myself, our local government and we in the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance have quarreled about SWM for far too long. We have debated each other. We have begrudged each other. We have worked with each other, and then divorced each other. We have come a long way to know that City Hall is serious about April 1. And so, a word to the wise: On April 1, don’t take City Hall for a fool because you will end up as April’s Fool. Be a good citizen of this city. Follow the rules. Segregate your garbage. Bacolod City is not a place for uncivilized, unkempt people. Be clean and make your mother proud of you!*

BA ‘NAG’ O - The Floodway

2009-03-20T08:46:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Agnes T. Jalandoni

At the rate the Banago floodway is going it seems it will never be finished this year. The March heat gave way to a heavy downpour last Wednesday; unusual weather this time of the year. Global warming is real and is here. It was a good thing that the rains lasted only an hour or so or else, the floods would have come again.

After the big flood of December 20, 2006 the City government and the DPWH finally decided to work together to build a floodway to ease the flooding in the northern part of the city. The plans for the Banago floodway were drawn up after many consultations since both government agencies could not agree on whose responsibility it was to solve flooding in the area. One argument was that the road in question was a national highway and the floodway would be built beside it. Therefore, it was under the jurisdiction of the DPWH. But the removal of the illegal structures and illegal structures in the area, and flood control in the city is the responsibility of the local city government. A compromise was struck. With the initial budget for the floodway released, the DPWH agreed that it would do the excavation, riprap and flooring of the first 300 meters of the floodway. The city promised to excavate the remaining 500 meters and assist in the removal of illegal structures and illegal dwellers that obstruct the waterways.

Finally by mid-2007 the project started and dragged on at a pace that would make your mother cry. Nagging or making “kulit” reached epic proportions as engineers were reminded of their meetings and the city’s legal department was requested help in the process of removing the illegal structures so that work could continue all through 2008.

Now in March 2009, how much of the work has been completed? 270 meters of the 800 meters!

What of the remaining 500 meters and the promise of the city government to excavate the remaining portion of the floodway?

We are told that the second tranche of the budget has already been released. The DPWH is waiting for the city to start the excavation. However, there is a property owned by the PNB where the floodway will cross. Both Congressman Monico Puentevella and Mayor Evelio Leonardia have said that negotiations with the PNB officials were done. Can the last 500 meters of the floodway cross the property? The rains are here to stay. The waters will rise, the floods will come. It’s crazy weather.

What’s even more absurd is the Banago project - only 800 meters - already two years in the making and still unfinished.

There is a beautiful GK Village by the floodway. Last year these newly built homes were knee high under water. Unless the flooding is controlled, construction of the new houses cannot continue.

With elections coming in May 2010 will our elected officials finally get this project done?*

In Search for Green Energy Alternatives

2009-03-18T08:44:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Lourdes Ledesma

Because of unaffordable fuel oil prices that is wreaking havoc on our economy and pockets, and because of greenhouse gases produced by factories and vehicles using it that is causing global warming, most nations are now searching for other sources of energy. Admittedly, rising oil prices rather than environmental concern is the main driving force in the mad dash for alternative fuels worldwide. The Philippines is also looking for solutions. Vehicle emissions, after all, account for up to 80 percent of air pollution in this country. It is a rough estimate that approximately 2,000 people die each year in the country’s major cities, such as Manila, Cebu and Davao, due to the effects of air pollution, according to a World Bank study. More than 9,000 Filipinos suffer from chronic bronchitis and lung ailments annually because of pollution. Towards minimizing air pollution, Congress has passed the Clean Air Act of 1999 (R.A. 9275), setting and enforcing standards of emissions of vehicles and factories nationwide.

It has also passed the Biofuels Act of 2006 (R.A. 9367), directing research and manufacture of alternative fuels, as well as setting standards for them. The Department of Energy under this law, recognizes and sets standards for the following alternative fuels:

1. Bioethanol (C2H5OH) refers to ethanol produced from feedstock and other biomass, such as sugarcane

2. Natural Gas - naturally-occurring gaseous petroleum that accumulates under the earth’s crust

3. Electricity - stored in batteries for use by electric motors

4. Hydrogen - a clean-burning type of gas

5. Automotive liquefied petroleum (LPG or autogas, also known as “propane”) - hydrocarbon gases kept under low moderate pressure as a liquid

6. Biodiesel - refers to fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) or mono-alkyl esters derived from vegetable oils or animal fats and other biomass-derived oils

The law was signed by the President in January of 2007 and became effective immediately. It mandates that all liquid fuels for motors and engines sold in the Philippines shall contain locally-sourced biofuels components, such as:

Bioethanol - shall comprise 5 percent of total volume of gasoline within two years of the effectivity of this act; increasing this to 10 percent within 4 years as recommended by the National Biofuel Board, provided that the ethanol blend conforms to standards.

Biodiesel - within 3 months from the effectivity of this act, a minimum of 1 percent biodiesel by volume shall be blended into all diesel engine fuels sold in this country, increasing this to 2 percent within 2 years, provided the blend conforms to standards.

Furthermore, as incentives, the law will not impose a specific tax on local or imported biofuels component, and the sale of raw material used in the production of biofuels, such as, but not limited to, coconut, jatrophra, sugarcane, cassava, corn, and sweet sorghum shall be exempt from the VAT (value added tax). Also, water effluents from the production of biofuels used as liquid fertilizer and other agricultural purposes considered “reuse” are exempt from wastewater charges, so long as they conform to standards of the Clean Water Act (R.A. 9275), and are subject to monitoring and evaluation by DENR and approved by Dept. Of Agriculture. Financial assistance for such projects will be accorded high priority by lending institutions.

The Daily Inquirer (May 3,2008) noted that “According to an executive summary on the Bioenergy Forum 2008 in Bangkok, the Philippines is at the forefront of biofuels development and use in the world.” The Biofuels Act of 2006 has become a model for other countries to emulate and is “decisive” and clear in its policies on the use of coco-biodiesel and fuel-ethanol.

Our government is also looking into other green energy sources, such as solar and wind power, hydropower and geothermal resources. In fact, there is already a wind energy project in Bangui, Ilocos Norte. A total of 15 windmills, each 70 meters tall and bases covering 4 square meters, provide 40 percent electric power to Bangui and Ilocos Norte. A $4 million windmill project will also rise in Cagraray Island, Albay, in Bicol this year.

Basically, a windmill is a structure that converts wind into usable energy to power homes, farms, water pumps and provide electricity for communities. Traditionally, the windmill was used to pump water and to grind grain. The earliest recorded use of the windmill was in Persia in 500 A.D. and in China in 1219. The concept of the windmill spread to Europe after the Crusades, and was refined by the Dutch. In addition to water pumping and grain grinding, they were used in Europe for powering saw mills and processing spices, dyes and tobacco. However, the use of the windmill declined in the advent of the steam engine.

In the U.S., especially in remote places, homes use windmills to provide power, and farms to draw water. Small wind generators with capacities of 10-100 Kw are widely used in every state. However, increasingly, U.S. consumers are choosing to purchase grid-connected turbines. As wind energy is governed by nature, and as wind speeds increase, turbine output increases and the amount of power purchased from the power utility also decreases. When the turbine produces more power than the house needs, the extra electricity is sold to the utility. All of this is done automatically. There are no batteries in a modern residential wind system.

In the U.S., wind power receives a tax credit for each kilowatt-hour produced, with provision for increasing inflation adjustment. Many states offer tax incentives, such as accelerated depreciation, exemption from property tax, and tax credits for wind generation with assured grid access.

There are enough windmill power systems being offered in the market for all types of needs, from residential to community-based, in the U.S., Europe and China. This is clean and green power and now is the time to consider installing it in our homes and businesses...when the cost of fossil-fuel electricity is fast spiralling upward and becoming unaffordable, besides emitting greenhouse gases. This is the time to shed the old ways and look for new pathways to the future.*

Let the LGUs Do it!

2009-03-16T08:41:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

Why ignore the LGUs? It seems to me, R.A. 95121 is trying to take the work away from the LGUs. Signed into law on Dec. 12, 2008, R.A. 95121, the Environmental Awareness and Education Act of 2008, mandates the inclusion of environmental education in all school levels ASAP.

Reading through the law, however, I observe that LGUs are not mentioned anywhere at all. What is the purpose of this tactic? If we are educating people on Solid Waste Management in a particular city or town, shouldn’t we at least let the LGU know that this is going on? Indeed, shouldn’t the LGU be on top of the effort? But with R.A. 95121, it would seem the Senate and the Lower House have given up on the LGUs, and have gone over the heads of the mayors. I hope I’m wrong. Environmental education requires the collaboration of everyone. But consider the following paragraph from Sec. 6 of R.A. 95121 just to drive my point:

“The DENR shall have the primary responsibility of periodically informing all agencies concerned on current environmental updates, including identifying priority environmental education issues for national action and providing strategic advice on the environmental education activities. The DepEd, CHED, TESDA, DENR, DOST, DSWD, and barangay units shall ensure that the information is disseminated to the subject students.”

What happened to the city and town officials? Shouldn’t we involve them also? Of course, we should. It is true that environmental education will be rolled out in the barangay level where Solid Waste Management (SWM) will be taught house-to-house. But that is not the only venue for learning. There are many more. Who will supervise the teaching in schools, the public markets, and the commercial centers and business offices? Who will tell SM City, for instance, to educate all of its employees and concessionaires? And who will run the sanitary landfill where segregated garbage will be collected? These will all have to be overseen by the LGU. Besides, the barangay captain might need financial help from the mayor.

The fact that R.A. 95121 makes no mention of the LGU should be clarified, if not completely restated. This is not just typographical. This smells intentional and could be counterproductive. For why did we elect our city officials if we are not willing to give them the full responsibility of running our city? Wouldn’t it be simpler if everything that happens in the city goes through our mayor? Remember last year when we all got stuck with the construction of the waterway in Banago? That was because City Hall and DPWH were pointing at each other...whose job is it? I think it’s only practical to make City Hall responsible for it and DPWH can assist. Otherwise, the finger-pointing is causing further delay.

At one point, I recall City Hall telling us to go talk to the DPWH. Granted that waterways are the national government’s jurisdiction and so must be properly addressed by the DPWH rather than City Hall, why can’t I, as citizen of this city, go to my mayor, air whatever legitimate complaint I have, and expect my mayor to contact the right national agency to fix the problem? Why should I be the one to knock on the doors of the DPWH? Is the DPWH as powerful as my mayor? Certainly not. I elected my mayor. I had nothing to do with that DPWH.

No wonder finger-pointing is so ingrained in our national consciousness. Even our laws, such as R.A. 95121, help perpetuate such poor values and habits. By excluding the LGU from sharing in the responsibility of implementing the law, the law obviously has less chances of success. I say, let the LGUs do the job! Because it’s their job.

I have very good reason why I want LGUs to be directly responsible for everything that happens in our cities and towns. I want the lines of responsibility, accountability, and culpability clearly drawn. And if I want my city government to answer for everything, then it is only fair that the city government is given all the power to do everything-and the funds, too! By ignoring the LGU’s influence in educating the citizenry about the environment, R.A. 95121 made a horrible mistake.

For months now I have been urging our LGU to begin the long and hard process of educating our people. And now, with R.A. 95121, I realize they’re not even empowered to educate their people?*

Environmental Problems: Preparing for the Inevitable

2009-03-13T08:40:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Gigi M. Campos

With all the talk on climate change and its far-reaching effects, environmentalists and others who speak of approaching environmental disasters are often portrayed as pansy-headed doom-and-gloomers who just don’t know how to relax and enjoy life. Yet do we really think we can live outside the laws of God and nature forever, because the technological advances we have witnessed in the last century make us think otherwise?

Without our realizing it, environmental problems can build slowly until these problems reach a tipping point, eventually causing serious harm to the inhabitants of a region - or worse, our entire planet.

There isn’t much we can do about climate change, but there is plenty we can do to change how we do things here on this earth to avoid the consequences of unsustainable activities. There are some very simple things we can do as individuals regarding the problems we face globally.

Our global economy is outgrowing the capacity of the earth to support it, moving our early twenty-first century civilization ever closer to decline and possible collapse. It is time for us to look deeper into the problem and see what steps we need to take to avoid environmental disaster, the collapse of our economy and, ultimately, the collapse of our civilization. In our preoccupation with quarterly earnings reports and year-to-year economic growth, we have lost sight of how large the human enterprise has become relative to the earth’s resources. A century ago, annual growth in the world economy was measured in billions of dollars. Today it is measured in trillions.

As a result, we are consuming renewable resources faster than they can regenerate. Forests are shrinking, grasslands are deteriorating, water tables are falling, fisheries are collapsing, and soils are eroding. We are using up oil at a pace that leaves little time to plan beyond a peak in global oil production. And we are discharging greenhouse gases into the atmosphere faster than nature can absorb them, setting the stage for a rise in the earth’s temperature well above any since agriculture began.

Can we avoid environmental disaster? Our twenty-first century civilization is not the first to move onto an economic path that was environmentally unsustainable. If we look back in history, many earlier civilizations also found themselves in environmental trouble. Some were able to change course and avoid economic decline. Others were not. We study the archaeological sites of the Mayans, Easter Islanders, and other early civilizations that were not able to make the needed adjustments in time.

Fortunately, there is a consensus emerging among scientists on the broad outlines of the changes needed. If economic progress is to be sustained, we need to replace the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy with a new economic model. Instead of being based on fossil fuels, the new economy will be powered by abundant sources of renewable energy: wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and biofuels.

Instead of being centered around automobiles, future transportation systems will be far more diverse, widely employing light rail, buses, and bicycles as well as cars. The goal will be to maximize mobility, not automobile ownership.

The throwaway economy will be replaced by a comprehensive reuse/recycle economy. Consumer products from cars to computers will be designed so that they can be disassembled into their component parts and completely recycled. Throwaway products such as single-use beverage containers will be phased out.

The good news is that we can already see glimpses here and there of what this new economy looks like. We have the technologies to build it - including, for example, gas-electric hybrid cars, advanced-design wind turbines, highly efficient refrigerators, and water-efficient irrigation systems.

We can see how to build the new economy brick by brick. With each wind farm, rooftop solar panel, paper recycling facility, bicycle path, and reforestation program, we move closer to an economy that can sustain economic progress.

If, instead, we continue on the current economic path, the question is not whether environmental deterioration will lead to economic decline, but when. No economy, however technologically advanced, can survive the collapse of its environmental support systems.

We recently entered a new century, but we are also entering a new world, one where the collisions between our demands and the earth’s capacity to satisfy them are becoming daily events. It may be another crop-withering heat wave, another village abandoned because of invading sand dunes, or another aquifer pumped dry. If we do not act quickly to reverse the trends, these seemingly isolated events will come more and more frequently, accumulating and combining to determine our future.

Nature has many thresholds that we discover only when it is too late. In our fast-forward world, we learn that we have crossed them only after the fact, leaving little time to adjust. For example, when we exceed the sustainable catch of a fishery, the stocks begin to shrink. Once this threshold is crossed, we have a limited time in which to back off and lighten the catch. If we fail to meet this deadline, breeding populations shrink to where the fishery is no longer viable, and it collapses.

We know from earlier civilizations that the lead indicators of economic decline were environmental, not economic. The trees went first, then the soil, and finally the civilization itself. To archaeologists, the sequence is all too familiar.

Our situation today is far more challenging because in addition to shrinking forests and eroding soils, we must deal with falling water tables, more frequent crop-withering heat waves, collapsing fisheries, expanding deserts, deteriorating rangelands, dying coral reefs, melting glaciers, rising seas, more-powerful storms, disappearing species, and, soon, shrinking oil supplies. Forests are shrinking for the world as a whole. Fishery collapses are widespread. Grasslands are deteriorating on every continent. Water tables are falling in many countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions exceed CO2 fixation everywhere. They are today’s clear signs of an impending environmental disaster.

The bottom line is that the world is in what ecologists call an “overshoot-and-collapse” mode. Demand has exceeded the sustainable yield of natural systems at the local level countless times in the past. Now, for the first time, it is doing so at the global level. There is an approaching “perfect storm” of global problems that we will be facing over the next couple of decades, including a peak in global oil production (“peak oil”), continued population growth, declining per capita food production, climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, unsustainable levels of debt of major economies and international political instability. It is clear we can no longer continue to remain uninvolved. We need to understand what we face and be part of the effort to get going on real concrete solutions before nature takes care of the problems for us in the most disastrous manner.*

R.A. 95121

2009-03-09T08:35:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

Just when you were beginning to understand R.A. 9003 and E.O. 774, here comes another law, R.A. 95121. Whew! But then again, to paraphrase the adage, if education is exasperating, try ignorance.

Signed into law on Dec. 12, 2008, R.A. 95121, “an act to promote environmental awareness through environmental education and for other purposes,” is officially known as the Environmental Awareness and Education Act of 2008. A copy of this law has been lounging about in my Anti-Baha roll-aboard (yes, my documents now require a roll-aboard), and I really should have discussed this law sooner. After all, education, and in this case educating the public on Solid Waste Management (SWM), is at the core of why I joined the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance. Education also, is an express concern of E.O. 774, the Executive Order Reorganizing the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change, where influencing the “mindsets” of government and the citizenry are repeatedly identified as objective of the E.O.

Education, education, education...that’s the key to environmental awareness. Indeed, all these laws, including this column, will be for naught if we do not understand and commit to memory what we must understand and commit to memory. Inhale and recall: If education is exasperating, try ignorance. Now, exhale and read on.

R.A. 95121 institutionalizes environmental education. It mandates the DepEd, the CHED, the TESDA, and the DSWD, in coordination with the DENR, the DOST, and other relevant agencies, to integrate environmental education in school curricula at all levels. This includes all classes, even those that are not mainstream, such as barangay daycare, pre-school, non-formal education, technical vocational, and professional-level. Even out-of-school youth programs are included. Even indigenous learning programs are not spared. “At all levels” means at all levels. Bravo, 95121!

A parenthetical remark: Speaking of the DSWD, wasn’t Sec. Esperanza Cabral recently in town? She gave out P10 Million to senior citizens, and promised to help the province survive the dead season since this is supposedly the deadliest of all dead seasons, deader than dead. That’s all well and good, but what about R.A. 95121, Esperanza? Is there hope that you will address your department’s role in this as well? Anyway.

When must environmental education begin? Although R.A. 95121 was signed back in December and ordered to take effect 15 days after publication in national newspapers, the deadline for the commencement of environmental education may be found in E.O. 774, Sec. 13, which states in part: “By the opening of the next school year, environmental education must have been incorporated in all levels of the school Science curriculum.” Well then, prepare to stay longer in school starting June 2009.

And what should environmental education teach us? What must environmental education encompass? Oh, plenty. We will be taught environmental concepts and principles, environmental laws (like this one), the state of international and local environment (review Al Gore, but don’t bother with Atienza), local environmental best practices (this is easy because they are few and far between), the threats of environmental degradation and its impact on human well-being (such as the presence of fecal coliform in the waters in, around, and under the open dump in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa), and the responsibility of the citizenry to the environment (like segregating your garbage) and the value of conservation, protection, and rehabilitation of natural resources and the environment in the context of sustainable development (recycling, precisely!). Right away you ask, who are they fooling to learn all these? To which I say, if the government is dead serious about the environment, they’re fooling no one. So, don’t fool yourselves that they are, because you could end up slapped a handsome fine.

If we don’t buckle down now to educating ourselves about the environment, the task of learning how to preserve our habitat will only become more daunting as years of irresponsible neglect pile up. Do we really expect for this problem to disappear? Do we really expect that our unsegregated garbage will assume to garbage heaven? Do we really expect the waters in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa, now contaminated with fecal coliform, to one day suddenly clear up and teem with flora and fauna? Without us lifting a finger? Without environmental education? If by environmental ignorance we came to this, only by environmental education can we get out of this.

To help enforce education, as I presume there will be resistance, may I suggest the following to government. Each time a citizen applies for a license, a permit, a clearance, anything at all, it must require the accomplishment of an environmental duty. In Baguio City for instance, to get a marriage license you must first plant pine tree seedlings. But let’s not limit ourselves to tree-planting, though that is certainly needed because our forest cover has been reduced to 3%, which is bad for our watershed. In addition to tree-planting, however, a company renewing a business permit should enroll its personnel in an SWM seminar and apply the learnings in the workplace. Delinquency will mean fines, and so many offenses thereafter should mean revocation of the business permit.

A note to the DENR: With E.O. 774, the task of implementing SWM was taken over from you by the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change. And now, with R.A. 95121, the task of educating the public about the environment has been removed from you and assigned to the DepEd, CHED, TESDA, and my goodness, even the DSWD. Perhaps, rightfully so, but it shouldn’ have taken the Senate and the House to pass another law when our original environment law, R.A. 9003, of which the DENR was assigned as chief implementor, already provided for the education component. Anyway, with most of the major functions reassigned to other agencies, perhaps the DENR can now proceed with monitoring non-compliant LGUs, in earnest. If not that, then what for, DENR? What else could be your raison d’etre?

In the course of my involvement with the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, I have met so many good members of the DENR team, including those working in its downline agencies, such as the Environmental Management Board, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, the PENRO, and the CENRO. I admire their professionalism and can almost feel their frustration at their leadership’s ineptitude. I am not saying that the DENR is incapable of functioning. In fact, under another secretary it very well could. If there is anything left that I can expect out of Lito Atienza, it is delicadeza, that in the face of great public criticism, in the face of his own admission of failure as evidenced by hundreds of non-compliant LGU’s eight years after R.A. 9003 was signed into law, and most of all, in the face of obvious disapproval and public chastisement manifested by E.O. 774, which empowered his boss to take over the performance of his duties, he should resign. There’s nothing more for him to do here, can’t he read that?*

Global Warming: If You Don’t Fix It, You’re Causing It

2009-03-04T08:28:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Lourdes Ledesma

I never thought much about global warming and climate change, or even connected both until I noticed that the high tide levels at my beach house seem to be higher lately than in previous years. The house is less than 20 meters from the water, and I spend a lot of time gazing at the rolling waves. In fact, when the waves come in during the windy season, they splash over the sea wall and the salt spray wilts the plants in the garden, which never used to happen before. At highest tide the sea level has crept up a few inches than the normal level last year. After seeing Al Gore’s documentary on climate change and global warming, I am alarmed. At the rate the polar caps are melting, I should start looking for an inflatable dinghy... Whenever global warming is mentioned, I instantly associate it with the burning of fossil fuels by industrialized nations as the main cause, and the acid rain it produces. But that is not all.

Fossil fuels are derived from dead plants and animals. These are coal, oil and petroleum, which when burned to create electricity, power cars and factories, and a multitude of other uses, emit “greenhouse gases” which pollute the environment, contribute to global warming, acid rain and raised temperatures; in turn causing freak weather, drought, forest fires, tornadoes, and greater floods.

When we burn garbage, we contribute to global warming. Open garbage dumps produce methane gas, which when not controlled is a major contributor to pollution and global warming. Cutting down trees which absorb the carbon dioxide we exhale likewise also cuts down the oxygen it gives out, further diminishing the oxygen we need. Translate the lack of trees in the city to higher air pollution and more cases of pulmonary ailments; and higher greenhouse gases produced. Add the diesel fumes belched by swarms of buses and cars... the high density of population, the amount of light and heat produced by homes and offices. Are we thinking of Manila as the perfect illustration? Can you see the smog layer blanketing the city from the air, before your flight touches down? Smog is the chemical emissions from cars and buses and factories that react with the heat and light from the sun that forms a visible fog over the city. It is polluted, unbreathable and unhealthy air that is daily being fed by the city’s population. Rain and wind may cleanse the atmosphere for a day or two before it builds up again.

What is our government doing to address global warming? It has passed R.A. 8749, the Clean Air Act of 1999, which for one, makes vehicles conform to more efficient standards of combustion. It has set standards for permissible emissions for factories and other institutions, and set up agencies to regulate, oversee them and enforce the law. It has also opened the door to alternative fuel research and set standards for their manufacture and use.

There is also R.A. 9003, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, mandating the closure of all open garbage dumps nationwide and the setting up of sanitary landfills. As we know, open garbage dumps are a major contributor to global warming.

The city of Seattle, in the U.S., for example, has been encouraging its residents into energy-conservation measures, such as car-pooling, using electric shuttle trams within the city, using bio-diesel fuel for its local vehicle fleets- garbage trucks, buses, and even its ferries. Incandescent lights have been replaced by energy-saving bulbs and city ordinances regulating construction have imposed stricter environmental standards in the choice and use of materials. It has also gone into alternative energy projects, such as wind power; which now supplies the city with electricity, while reducing its consumption of and dependence on fossil fuel.

New Delhi, the capital of India, used to be a smog-ridden city, with its cars and buses belching smoke. All its vehicles now use a form of alcohol-gasoline mix imported from Brazil. And now the city enjoys clean air.

What could ordinary citizens like you and me do, to lessen global warming and all its harmful effects?

1. Reduce garbage and don’t burn it. Recycle, reuse and compost it.

2. Plant trees. Have plants indoors. It increases the oxygen inside the house.

3. Don’t use plastic bags, use biodegradable bags and containers.

4. Take shorter showers, go easy with water washing dishes or fill your dishwasher.

5. Use less electricity in the house, use energy-saving bulbs, and energy efficient appliances. Unplug unused electronic devices

6. Clean the air filters of your air-conditioners and cars. Use less power. 7. Air-dry your clothes.

8. Walk, bike to the supermarket, take the bus.

9. Inflate your tires, it saves gas. Have your car serviced on time, reduce smoke belching.

10. Use “green” products in the home, kitchen and bathroom.

If everyone did his share, government officials included, this country could be a better place to live in.*

Bacolod’s Fecal Coliform Contaminates Murcia

2009-03-02T08:32:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

As many of you have read in our columns, and are beginning to read in our Sunday Flyers distributed in churches, since November 2008 there have been three tests conducted on the waters in, around, and underneath the open dump at Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa. The three water tests, commissioned by the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, the Environmental Management Board (EMB, a downline agency of the DENR), and by the BACIWA which has five pumping stations near the dumpsite, all showed the presence of fecal coliform in varying degrees.

Earth-shaking revelation, but I’m afraid the three tests are not conclusive. And this worries me. For water tests to be conclusive, they have to be conducted regularly and repeatedly for a period of one year. And for the tests to say that the water is safe for human consumption, fecal coliform must not be detected in more than 10% of the times the waters were tested. If, for instance, 12 water tests are conducted, fecal coliform may appear only in 1.2 times of the test. Beyond that, the water should be declared unsafe.

So, whose job is it to conduct these tests? And why aren’t these tests being conducted regularly? These delays will only snowball into further delays in the final construction of a sanitary landfill in Felisa, or elsewhere. I’m beginning to suspect the delays are intentional.

Considering that all three tests conducted in 2008 showed the presence of fecal coliform, it is highly probable that fecal coliform will also appear even if we tested the waters of Felisa 12 more times. So, who is benefitted if we do not conduct these water tests? Whose interests are served if we do not conduct these water tests? Certainly, not the public’s. Perhaps, those who are afraid to face reality that the waters of Felisa are irreversibly contaminated and so the sanitary landfill cannot be built there.

Allow me this scenario: Time will soon come when it is most imperative that we build this sanitary landfill, because Pres. Arroyo, as Chair of the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change, has ordered our LGU to stop dumping garbage in our open dump. Thus, our LGU must build the sanitary landfill posthaste, disregarding the need for scientific water testing - no time for that! Isn’t this situation far better than testing now and finding fecal coliform in the water each time we test? I always like to run future scenarios because I don’t want people to think us so dumb as not to have suspected the inevitable. If I’m lucky, by running future scenarios those with ill-intentions will reconsider because I have revealed them. But I tell you, I’m rarely lucky. Either that or others are just callous.

The way we in Bacolod City have neglected or tolerated water contamination by poorly managed garbage has become scandalous. A couple of weeks ago, Murcia Mayor Sonny Coscolluela invited me to join him in a pulong-pulong at Purok Tompok, Brgy. Blumentritt, Murcia town. Apparently, at the mayor’s inquest, DENR Reg. Dir. Bienvenido Lipayon sent Mayor Sonny a copy of the results of the water test conducted by the EMB, showing that water sample taken from a water pump in Purok Tompok was contaminated with fecal coliform.

Purok Tompok, which is part of Murcia, is actually located just across the open dump of Bacolod in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa. The two are separated only by the Cabura Creek, which itself has been proven highly contaminated with fecal coliform by all three water tests. So now, our garbage has contaminated the groundwater source of Murcia. Imagine what Murciahanons now have to say about us Bacolodnons? That we don’t know how to keep our garbage and fecal bacteria to ourselves, we have to infect our neighbors, too? Boy, what would our mothers say of us?

I have always wondered how fecal coliform has surfaced so prominently in all the water tests conducted thus far. Since fecal coliform is bacteria coming from human and animal feces, how did fecal coliform get to the open dump? The people who live at the dumpsite are few and far between. Their domesticated animals are even fewer and farther between. What explains the prevalence of fecal coliform then?

Plastic bags, that’s what. In many squatter settlements of Bacolod City, there are no public, let alone private, toilets. People make do with “sando” plastic bags, the kind we get from groceries and sari-sari stores. Human pooh-pooh are wrapped in these and thrown with the rest of the household garbage, to be picked up by the city’s garbage trucks, and dumped at Felisa. You wonder, are there enough squatters to produce enough pooh-pooh, to infect a four-hectare dumpsite with fecal coliform? Of course, there are. There are approximately 300,000 of them in our midst. If we had all of them stand at the dumpsite, each one would be standing on a mere 0.13-square-meter space. So yes, we have enough squatters to contaminate our open dump with fecal coliform. And then some, for Murcia!

I appeal, therefore, to all civic clubs and politicians: Next time you want to put up a waiting shed, please consider a public toilet?

And to the DENR, please conduct the water tests regularly so that we can have a reliable assessment of the water condition in Felisa soonest possible time. If our sanitary landfill is built in Felisa without a reliable hydrologic assessment, the DENR will be condemning us and future generations of Bacolodnons to unsafe drinking water. When that happens, only God can forgive the DENR.*

How PETs Can Harm Us?

2009-02-25T08:25:00.001+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

Tina M. Monfort

Much of our food and drink comes in contact with plastic everyday, but not all plastics are safe! While plastic food wraps and containers can be important in protecting our food, recent studies show that when certain plastics come into contact with food, some questionable chemicals migrate from the packaging to the food. This article will provide an outline on the different plastic containers, how some of their chemicals harm us and tips on what to use as alternatives. But first, let us review our Resin Identification Code:

Code #1 - PET or PETE (polyethylene terephthalate)

Typical Product Application: Soft drink bottles, medicine containers.

Code #2 - HDPE (high density polyethylene)

Typical Product Application: Toys, bottles for milk, water, detergent, shampoo, motor oil.

Code #3 - PVC (polyvinyl chloride)

Typical Product Application: Cooking oil, shampoo & detergent bottles, pipe & tubing, meat wrap.

Code #4 - LDPE (low density polyethylene)

Typical Product Application: Soft, flexible plastic as used in garbage bags, wrapping films, grocery bags.

Code #5 - PP (polypropylene)

Typical Product Application: Hard, but flexible. Used in ice-cream & yogurt containers, potato crisp bags, drinking straws, syrup bottles, diapers.

Code #6 - PS (polystyrene)

Typical Product Application: Rigid, brittle plastic. Coffee cups, take-out food containers, meat trays, plastic cutlery.

Code #7 - Other (including polycarbonate, nylon and acrylic)

Typical Product Application: Baby bottles

Getting to know the culprits: Dioxins, Phthalates, Bisphenol A and Antimony - Dioxins are highly poisonous even at low doses and are produced when plastics are manufactured and incinerated. Phthalates are “plasticizers” linked to a variety of birth defects and is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Most cling-wrapped meats, cheeses and food bought from shops are wrapped in PVC. The “plasticizers” are used in the manufacture of #3 PVC plastic to soften it into its flexible form. Traces of these chemicals, known as adipates and phthalates, can leak out of PVC when it comes in contact with food. Phthalates are also widely used in cosmetics and beauty products, including nail polish. Many #7 Polycarbonate bottles are made with Bisphenol A (BPA). It is the chemical used to make hard, clear plastics such as those found in baby bottles, food-storage containers and the lining of soft drink cans. BPA is also used in the manufacture of epoxy resins and various other plastics. Chemical bonds that BPA forms in plastic can unravel when heated, washed or exposed to acidic food, or as the container ages generally. This creates chemical contamination of the food or drink. Many studies have evaluated BPA as a hormone disruptor, a chemical that alters the body’s normal hormonal activity. #1 PETE plastic water bottles have been shown to leach antimony into water. It is important to remember that leaving water in any plastic bottle for a prolonged period of time allows for chemical leaching to occur.

Here are tips for Reducing Your Toxic Plastic Exposure:

1) Store your food and water in glass or stainless steel if at all possible.

2) If you can’t use glass, use any of the “safe” plastic jars. #2 HDPE, #4 LDPE, and #5 PP. Most research has not shown leaching of any carcinogens or endocrine disruptors from these plastics.

3) If you use a #1 PETE container (which is a commonly recycled type), remember they are not usually designed for re-use. Extended use will increase risk of leaching.

4). NEVER use Styrofoam cups, especially for hot drinks. Polystyrene, #6 PS, is usually found in foam containers and cups may leach styrene. Styrene, is considered a possible human carcinogen, which disrupts hormones or affect reproduction. If you use baby bottles, know that around 95% of all baby bottles are currently made of polycarbonate #7. Switch to polycarbonate-free baby bottles, like those manufactured from glass or from #5 PP, or consider using glass bottles when ever practical. And don’t microwave your baby’s plastic bottles !

5) Avoid heating food in plastic containers.

6) Avoid storing fatty food, such as meat and cheese, in plastic containers or plastic wrap.

7) Avoid plastic cutlery and dinnerware, especially when cooking or heating food.

8) Use wood instead of plastic cutting boards and spray your wooden board with a mist of vinegar, then with a mix of hydrogen

peroxide, to kill bacteria.

9) When purchasing cling-wrapped food from the supermarket or deli, slice off a thin layer where the food came into contact with the plastic and store the rest in a glass or ceramic container, or non-PVC cling wrap.

10) INVEST in a good quality, non-plastic, reusable water bottle (eg: such as a SIGG bottle. These are aluminum with an inert water based internal lining). Don’t freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.

Yes, plastics...the “miracle” of modern science. For without plastics...there are a whole bunch of things we wouldn’t have. Personally, It’s quite impossible to imagine how we can manage without these PET containers. So again allow me to give you a very brief summary of the Do’s and Don’ts, less the technicality this time.

1) Use stainless steel, both inside and out, with no epoxy finish- this is your safest alternative.

2) Glass bottles are safe although fragile.

3) Use plastics #2, 4 & 5 safely. Use #1 sparingly or if possible, do not re-use at all and stop re-using other plastic bottles once they appear worn and/or discolored. Bottles leach more with age.

4) Avoid subjecting plastics to high temperatures, which increases leaching.

Our 9 Other Dumpsites

2009-02-23T08:21:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

When I was very young, our family spent Sundays at my maternal grandparents’ house in Bago City. The weekly drive was somewhat agonizing, made tolerable only by the thought of Lola’s cooking awaiting us. I remember the rough road where the highway is now. I remember cars had no air-conditioning then, so windows were constantly rolled up and down to catch a breath or shield our faces from dust. I also remember passing by a wide open dump somewhere in Tangub. And we would hold our breaths as our red Vauxhall passed by. Whatever happened to the open dump of my childhood Sundays?

In the course of advocating Solid Waste Management (SWM), and studying our environmental law, administrative orders from the DENR, and executive orders from Malacañang, we have come to realize that the putting up of a sanitary landfill is contingent on so many things. One of these is the safe closure and rehabilitation of old open dumps. It is for this reason that in 2008 our local government applied to the DENR for an “Authority to Close” the open dump in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa. Applying for this authority requires the local government to submit a “Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan” to the DENR. Consequently, on Sept. 17, 2008, DENR Reg. Dir. Bienvenido Lipayon wrote to Mayor Evelio Leonardia granting the latter the Authority to Close the open dump in Felisa.

While we welcomed this development, we also began to wonder about the other dumpsites of Bacolod. I’m referring to the open garbage dumps that the city used in years past, all of which, by the way, were operated prior to the election of Mayor Leonardia to the mayorship in 2004. We wondered, shouldn’t these open dumps also be safely closed and rehabilitated before a sanitary landfill can be built?

Unfortunately for Mayor Leonardia, the two critical deadlines in Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, happened in and around his incumbency. According to the law, on Feb. 16, 2004 all open dumps should be closed and replaced with controlled dumps. Then, on Feb. 16, 2006 all controlled dumps should be closed and replaced with sanitary landfills. By getting himself elected mayor in 2004, and again in 2007, Mayor Leonardia assumed the responsibility of fulfilling these deadlines. Meanwhile, the city had so many other open dumps in the past that were used during the mayorships of other politicians, but which must also be closed and rehabilitated now. Fortunately for those past mayors, open dumps were not yet illegal during their terms. But they are now, during Mayor Leonardia’s. Talk about being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But then again, imagine if Mayor Leonardia fixed all of our garbage problems today, including closing and rehabilitating all past and present open dumps? He would go down in history as the mayor who swept after other mayors, and I think Mayor Leonardia would be the better for it come 2010. As they say the Chinese say, problem is opportunity.

How many other open dumps do we have, not counting the current open dump in Felisa? We have nine (10 including Felisa). According to the Ecological Solid Waste Management Plan of Bacolod City, authored by Dominic Schliebs (2003) with updates from Elizabeth Warnes (2006), the following are the nine other open dumps of Bacolod (dates in parentheses indicate period/s of use):

Villa Esparanza in Brgy. Tangub (???-Dec. 31, 1997; Mar. 30, 2001); Purok Sigay in Brgy. Singcang-Airport (Jan. 1-Aug. 4, 2008; Sept. 1, 2003-Mar. 31, 2004); Maravilla Dumpsite in Purok Fortune Towne, Brgy. Estefania (Aug. 5-15, 1998); Dinsay Dumpsite in Purok Tonggoy, Brgy. Mandalagan (Aug. 15, 1998-Mar. 6, 1999; Apr. 1-10, 2001; Aug. 13-16, 2003; Oct. 1-Dec. 31, 2003);

Javelosa/Cabansag Dumpsite in Purok Tonggoy, Brgy. Mandalagan (Mar. 7-July 31, 1999; Apr. 11-Aug. 19, 2001); Purok Sisi in Brgy. Singcang-Airport (Jan. 1-Mar. 29, 2001); Rabadilla Dumpsite in Purok Rabadilla, Brgy. Mandalagan (Aug. 20, 2002-Aug. 12, 2003); Anglo Dumpsite (Aug. 13-Sept. 20, 2003); and Lopez Dumpsite in Purok Tonggoy, Brgy. Mandalagan (Jan. 1, 2004-Jan.19, 2005).

At the start of this year, the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance inquired with DENR Reg. Dir. Bienvenido Lipayon if the DENR had issued an Authority to Close for any or all of these nine other open dumps. In a letter dated 21 January 2009, Lipayon replied in the negative. Since the Authority to Close is issued only after a submission of the city’s Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan, then we urge Mayor Leonardia and the City Council to do so for these nine other open dumps.

The reason why open dumps have to be closed and rehabilitated is to prevent seepage of garbage juice, or leachate, into the groundwater source. If you review the list of the nine other open dumps, you will notice that many subdivisions have since risen in these areas. These subdivisions have wells and water tanks, and they’re pumping water from groundwater source. Unless we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the water pumped from these groundwater sources have not been, and will never be contaminated by garbage juice, we must close these nine other open dumps.

And now, to DENR Sec. Atienza: In the Jan. 2, 2009 edition of the Philippine Star, Atienza claimed that there are still 896 open dumps in the country today. Does that figure include our nine other open dumps? I doubt it. The DENR has a record of having wrong records. For instance, if we did not raise stink about the Felisa dump, DENR thought that the open dump in Felisa was a controlled dump, because back in 2004 it gave the city a “Notice to Proceed” to operate an open dump. This proves, the DENR never monitored.

Now comes the nine other open dumps. Since the list is included in the Ecological Solid Waste Management Plan of Bacolod City, a copy of which was surely furnished to the DENR, why hasn’t the DENR reminded the city to submit its Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan for these forgotten nine? Perhaps, because the DENR never even cared to read the plan. Or, that it’s not the job of the DENR to remind LGUs. Perhaps, it is this dilemma-whose job is it?-that the new Presidential Task Force for Climate Change, which Pres. Arroyo herself now chairs, must first address.*

Why Felisa?

2009-02-20T08:19:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Agnes T. Jalandoni

I am confused. Bear with me and hear me out.

Since I started to educate myself about the importance of knowing where and how our garbage is handled, I have plowed through documents that leave me amazed at how we have allowed the non-compliance of basic guidelines spelled out by Executive Orders and ordinances. Why did our City officials choose Brgy. Felisa as our dumpsite?

Sec. 40 of R.A. 9003 the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act clearly defines the criteria for Siting a Sanitary Landfill. I am referring to the area that still has to be prepared by our city government while they close the existing open dump in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa. The Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan submitted to the DENR by the City states that this area “is a stone’s throw away from the existing dumpsite.” The existing dumpsite was the subject of controversy when the Felisa residents blocked the passage of the city’s garbage trucks last Oct. 2008. It was apparent that the residents did not want any more garbage dumped in the dumpsite, much less, the proposed landfill.

Letter (d) of Sec 40 states that - The site must be chosen with regard for the sensitivities of the community’s residents; and (e) states - The site must be located in an area where the landfill’s operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area;

If the residents of Felisa protested then they must have good reason. Moreso, if there was a protest, why did the City buy the property in the same area when there was a protest in the first place? Before the property for the landfill was purchased, an ECC or an Environment Compliance Certificate must have been secured by the City. One of the requirements to secure this certificate is the approval of the residents and the stakeholders in the area. This would have necessitated several consultations and approvals from them. Their protest on the streets was loud enough for us to hear and hopefully, pay attention.

What bothers me even more is item (e). As early as Jan. 5, 2005, before the garbage dump was officially opened, then BACIWA Manager Atty. Vicente Petierre, Jr. wrote to then DENR Regional Executive Director Vicente Paragas about the existence of five BACIWA wells near the open dumpsite. The area is a designated aquifer - a rich source of water and hence, a designated protected area. Common sense dictates you don’t put your garbage dump near your source of water! The dumpsite was opened anyway. What is even more alarming is the fact that in Oct. 7, 2008, BACIWA Manager Atty. Juliana Carbon wrote to DENR Regional Executive Director Claudio, expressing her concern over the danger of contamination of five BACIWA wells in Brgy. Felisa.

In November 17, 2008, DENR Regional Director Bienvenido L. Lipayon wrote Atty. Carbon furnishing her a copy of the Water Quality Assessment Report on the Ground Water Wells of BACIWA Pumping Station # 36 and Cabura Creek Water Sampling in relation to the Felisa Dump Site and the proposed Sanitary Landfill Facility for Bacolod. Per the laboratory result of Ground Water Well # 2 it is not advisable to be used as potable water by the end users. He further recommended that necessary measures be implemented to prevent health related problems by the usage of underground water extracted from the mentioned well # 2.

The independent water sampling studies commissioned by BACIWA also cited that the bacteria count for drinking water was above the 500/CFU ml standard. While the fecal coliform count results were more than the 1.1 standard.

Surely, BACIWA has treated the water adequately enough before it reaches our tap? Surely? Why of all places did the city put a dumpsite in the area designated as an aquifer? Why did the city continue to purchase property in the same area when the stakeholders were not consulted properly and the results of water sampling already show that the water may already be compromised? Why Felisa?*

A Dream Landfill Which is Real

2009-02-18T07:38:00.000+08:00

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Lourdes Ledesma

While the DENR is trying to make the quantum leap from open dumpsites to sanitary landfills for the whole country belatedly, let us look around at our more developed neighbor countries, how they have made it. One of the benchmarks in progressing from a third-world category to a more developed status, is how a nation handles its own trash.

In this instance, let’s look at Singapore, also an island nation, once one of the Malay States under British rule. Under the strong leadership of Lee Kwan Yew, he led his people to RECYCLE, REDUCE, and REUSE! These were the slogans that led to zero waste. But what is unique to Singapore is that they created a sanitary landfill out of two small islands and connected them with a rock embankment. Located eight kilometers south of Singapore and covering an area of 350 square kilometers, the Semakau Offshore Sanitary Landfill was built at the cost of US$370M, and can hold 63 million cubic meters of garbage, enough to accommodate Singapore’s landfill needs till the year 2045. Isn’t this great planning? The area inside is divided into 11 bays, known as “cells,” which are lined with thick plastic and clay to prevent any harmfull seepage into the sea. Since the landfill was opened in 1999, four of the eleven cells have been filled, and covered with earth and grass.

Waste from Singapore is first incinerated in the city’s four incinerators to reduce its volume. Construction material is also processed, while toxic wastes and asbestos are packaged in such a way that it cannot leak into the environment. Then it is towed to the island by giant barges. Two thousand tons of processed wastes are dumped daily into Semakau landfill. To ensure that the surrounding areas stay pollution-free, bulldozers level and compact the wastes and then top it off with fertile soil.

The decision to build a landfill outside Singapore was made in the 1990s when the previous landfill on the island had nearly reached capacity. As land in Singapore is expensive real estate, it was decided to build a new sanitary landfill in the smaller islands off-coast that would be environmentally friendly.

Engineers, scientists and environmentalists have labored over its design and construction to insure that it would be ecologically sound, safe, and that the biodiversity of the sea and other wildlife would not be harmed. What distinguishes Semakau from other landfills is that it is clean, and free of smell. Mangrove forests that were destroyed during its construction have been replanted and today they serve as biological indicators that no harmful material has leaked from the landfill. The island harbors rare plant and bird species, and corals abound offshore. Its various ecosystems still continue to flourish and today Semakau has become a tourist attraction. The Minister of Environment and Water Resources, Yacoob Ibrahim, said when he opened the island for recreational activities in July, 2005: “This is a way for Singapore to show the world that, as a nation, this is a very responsible way to manage our waste and our environment.” The message he is sending is, that trash and conservation can co-exist. Today there are guided nature walks along the island’s coast, while sports fishing and other groups also have their own excursions.

Environment Secretary Jose Atienza Jr. was quoted by Malaya after he came from Singapore to attend the Water Leaders’ Summit and address the Southeast Asia Business Forum: “There is definitely hope for the country’s garbage problem. As leaders, we are constantly searching for models that we can emulate and base our improvements upon, and Semakau landfill is one of them.” He goes on to say that: “Making the shift from open dumpsites to acceptable disposal facilities as provided for in the law is being intensified by the DENR with the support of local governments. We have already identified 211 potential sanitary landfill sites nationwide to effectively manage disposal of the country’s wastes.” Records of the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) showed that there are 16 existing sanitary landfills in the country. Nineteen landfill sites have been issued environmental compliance certificates (ECC) and are undergoing construction.

Will Bacolod City’s landfill site be issued the 20th ECC? When?*