The People vs. SM Baguio: Barking Up The Wrong Tree (Part 2 of 2)

Continued from Part 1...

The campaign by Baguio residents to save 182 Benguet pine trees from the SM Baguio expansion complex is a move too little, too late, and bears the hallmarks of double standards.

Double standard

When the MMDA earth-balled some 20 palm trees and placed them in the middle of EDSA prior to the ADB Summit last week, we didn’t see environmentalist crying foul. The same is true when the same agency earth-balled some aging trees along Quezon Avenue a few years back to give way to road widening projects. And yet, here we are in face of losing 182 Benguet pines that are not even listed as endangered or threatened by the IUCN, there is too much backlash. (Not that I'm justifying the need to cut or earth-ball them. All I'm saying here is, why defend only one specie of tree, when there are other threatened, even endangered trees out there.) And even when the facts have been explained that these trees won’t be cut, and that 50,000 saplings of Benguet pine will be planted in and around Baguio coinciding with this move, they won’t back down. I don’t see the consistency in these actions. Let alone, I don’t see where this is heading. Will it lead to civic actions to control migration in and around Baguio’s hills? Will it lead to civic effort to promote a ban on plastics and Styrofoam? Will it lead to a civic movement to stop further commercial development by other big companies? Or are they really just targeting SM on this one? I wish they could pinpoint other violators if there are. Furthermore, I hope some of these protesters won't be hypocrite enough to bash SM and shop in it afterwards.

Heritage issue, not Environmental

Thus, with the merits of their actions scrutinized, the movement to save 182 Benguet pine trees is no longer an environmental issue. It now only stands as an issue of heritage, about a local society trying to save what is left of its pride and heritage – the pine trees of Luneta Hill. Will earth-balling these trees make Baguio less worthy to be called the City of Pines? Aren’t there other groves of pine trees in this bustling, overcrowded city? Isn’t SM even trying to revitalize such status by planting 50,000 saplings?

This campaign is too little, too late. They may win the battle to save 182 Benguet pine tree, but lose the war against continuous human encroachment in other areas in Baguio City. I suggest the movement to focus their energies in other bigger issues such as controlling migration, waste management, watershed protection, creation of more protected areas in and around the city, reforestation efforts, and balancing urban development with environmental sustainability.

Human Encroachment: Isn't this a much pressing issue in Baguio City? | Photo courtesy of Flickr

Barking up the wrong tree

Baguio residents are barking up the wrong tree in this issue. I’d say enough with passing the blame on progressive companies who are simply trying to balance development with the environment. If they really want to pinpoint what’s causing the degradation of Baguio’s natural beauty, they should look at themselves in the mirror and be humble enough to admit that such degradation is their own working as well. In the end, they must commit themselves to much bigger, long-term solutions to this problem, perhaps even work with big companies on this endeavour rather than berating them. After all, neither Baguio residents nor SM wants to see this place lose its crown as the City of Pines. TSS

The People vs. SM Baguio: Barking Up The Wrong Tree (Part 1 of 2)

The People vs. SM Baguio: Do We Really Know All The Facts? (Photo courtesy of Save 182 Baguio)

 I’d like to hit a different nerve this time. And it involves going up all the way to the City of Pines.

If you’re guessing this right now, you probably got it correct. I am referring to SM Baguio’s Expansion and the on-going public campaign to stop the mall from earth-balling and cutting what’s left of the Benguet pine trees in what was once Luneta Hill.

SM is seen right now as the devil out to destroy Baguio’s natural beauty and charm. By building its first mall in the City of Pines, SM damaged what was one of Baguio’s most iconic landmarks next to Mines View Park and Burnham Park. By earth-balling and cutting the remaining Benguet and Alnus pines in the area, the mall operator cemented its reputation as one the leading environmental destructors in the country, at least according to environmentalists and Baguio residents.

However, I feel that the way environmentalists are portraying SM in such a bad light is bordering to cruelty against one company who has also committed itself to promoting environmental awareness and preservation while at the same time advocating economic progress and development. If there is a demonic entity here, Iit’s the citizens of Baguio themselves. They are the ones who allowed this kind of encroachment to happen to the city since American period. They’re the ones who promoted Baguio as the “Summer Capital” due to its cool climate and clean environment. They’re the ones who elected the local officials who in turn granted liberty to business owners, both local and foreign, to set foot in the city and build anything from inns and bars to hotels and shopping malls. They’re the ones who allowed the influx of migrants to go on unchecked without much awareness of its consequences to the city’s resources and surroundings.

When Daniel Burham and the Americans carved out Baguio’s hills to erect The Mansion, Burnham Park and the rest of what are now iconic landmarks in the city, we didn’t have this kind of public clamor. When hotels such as the old Diplomat Hotel, Hyatt Hotel, or even the new ones such as Mines View Hotel or Hotel Veniz, we didn’t hear anything to that effect. Why? Because we felt that these acts are just small that it won’t harm the environment? And now that we see something big like SM’s planned SkyGarden, we throw stones at it? This is indeed the epitome of the saying, “Ang punong hitik sa bunga, madalas pinupukol.”

To be fair to SM, it has done its fair share to promote sustainable use of natural resources such as introducing their M.O.B or “Bring My Own Bag” on Wednesdays to promote the use of cloth and recycled paper bags instead of plastic. It contributes a certain amount to environmental causes for every SM mineral bottle you buy. And now, SM is trying to balance its urban presence with natural environment by promoting green architecture, which we saw in its successful SkyGarden in SM North EDSA. Such initiatives had become models for local governments to emulate such as the successful banning of plastic and Styrofoam in places such as Tagaytay, Muntinlupa and Bacoor, and the Pasig Rainforest.

A Balance of Urban and Natural: SM Baguio's SkyGarden Expansion. (Photo courtesy of Baguio-City.net)

And in the planned expansion of SM Baguio, documents from the DENR show that the company has also committed itself in rehabilitating and preserving the city’s natural environment. According the urban forestry practitioner Armando Palijon, the expansion project will only occupy 1.1 hectares of the total 8 hectares of the Luneta Hill property. Thus, including the 1.9 hectares of the already existing mall, the entire project will only use up 3 hectares, and will leave an entire 5 hectares of open space for trees. Aside from this fact, SM has also committed itself to planting 50,000 saplings of Benguet pine and other native trees in and around Baguio as replacement for the 182 trees to be cut or earth-balled. The design of the Baguio SkyGarden itself showcases environmentally-friendly facilities such as rainwater harvesting systems and lush gardens. Both these  facts can compensate for increase in C02 levels, which environmentalists are claiming will occur once the 182 pine trees are cut.

The development of Baguio is a running train that is difficult to stop. But it's not caused by one company alone. It's caused by an opportunistic and indiffent local society which allowed the train of development to run amok, and then blame it on train itself. I know everyone might not agree with me, but the environmentalists and the others involved in this campaign are barking up the wrong tree.

To be continued...

OPENING A CAN OF WORMS (2 of 2)

BATAAN NUKE PLANT: A CAN OF WORMS?

In the wake of an impending nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, the debate  about rehabilitating and reopening the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is getting hot once more like exposed fuel rods in a nuclear reactor. Should we go nuclear or not? What are the benefits and the disadvantages? Are the benefits greater than the disadvantages or otherwise?

 

Here's my two cents on the issue.

 

As Occam's Razor has always stated: "It is vain to do with more, what can be done with less", therefore, we should not spend more for an endeavor which may open a can of worms in the future and could cause damage to the country far greater than the endeavor's advantages to our people.

The plant has been mothballed for 25 years. While designed and built to the best of standards by the Westinghouse Corporation, imagine what 25 years of weathering, wear and tear could do even to such a structure of great design and construction. Even the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant, which was designed to withstand earthquakes, did not anticipate the blow the tsunami has given it during the Great Sendai Earthquake. To reopen the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and make it completely safe from all man-made or natural catastrophes will have to entail a huge amount of money which will be paid once more by the suffering masses who are already reeling from billions in national debt from previous administrations. Let us not add insult to their injury.

And even if we rehabilitate this plant to withstand any natural catastrophe, how about human error? Have we considered that there is always room for error in the operation of a nuclear power plant? Aside from Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, there have been other nuclear disasters in history that have been caused by mere operational glitches: the Windscale Fire at Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant in England, the Chalk River Accident in Canada, and the Tokaimura Nuclear Accident in Japan, plus a dozen more. Sure we can train our personnel to be more careful and efficient, but this the first time the Philippines will be venturing in nuclear energy, let alone handle nuclear technology. There will be birth pains and operational errors which will cost our environment (because of contaminated natural resources) and the taxpayers (because of the costs of cleaning up radioactive material leaked in the environment). In our venture with nuclear energy, no matter how cheap our electricity will be, the costs of rehabilitating a dilapidated nuke plant as well as the costs of rehabilitating the environment and the public in case of a nuclear accident will always be shouldered by the taxpayers.

Therefore, is there any argument far greater than the costs of nuclear energy to our coffers and our environment? I guess there is none. Thus, I conclude that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant should not be opened. There are other cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives out there whose advantages to our environment and our people weigh heavier than the costs. Our politicians and experts should spend more money, time and effort considering these alternatives than wasting our time opening a can of worms. TSS

OPENING A CAN OF WORMS (Part 1 of 2)

TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE?

Nuclear energy is a form of energy created when atoms of two particles bombard each other and produces a chemical reaction. For the past 80 years, humanity has found ways to harness this form of energy to power its many activities --- electric power generation, vehicle propulsion and even as weapons of mass destruction.

There is no question as to how nuclear energy has benefited humanity. A lot of countries nowadays rely on this source of energy at a time when the prices of oil commodities are hiking up due to conflict in the Arab region. As compared to oil, nuclear energy can be produced in great quantities with just a small amount of fuel such is uranium or plutonium. For countries who have a plentiful supply of this element, either through natural supply or importation, they have managed to produce a steady and cheap supply of energy to power their countries economic growth. Nations such as the United States, Russia, China, Japan, United Kingdom and many more are having a nuclear renaissance.

Why can't the Philippines?

The first person to actually ask that question is former dictator President Ferdinand Marcos. In the wake of rising oil prices in the 70s due to the rise of Pan-Arabism and international terrorist networks as well as the Arab-Israeli Wars, President Marcos decided that its high time the country ventures into using nuclear energy for power generation. And thus, at Morong, Bataan, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was born. Worth $2.2 billon, the plant was built by American company Westinghouse and was completed in 1983. However, President Marcos' overthrow during the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986 has stalled the plant's opening and operation. It was eventually mothballed after the 1987 Constitution instituted a ban on nuclear technology in the country both for military or peaceful purposes, motivated by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the USSR a year earlier. Since then, the plant is under the care and maintenance of the Napocor for a cost of Php 40 million a year, aside from its debt of Php 21.2 billion in loans which was fully paid in April 2007.

Now that oil and gas prices are going up once more, triggering a domino effect of prices hikes in transportation fares and basic commodities, is it high time that we reconsider the option of nuclear energy for electric power generation? Former Congressman Mark Cojuangco believe so. In 1998, he set forward a bill in the House of Representatives calling on Congress to rehabilitate the mothballed plant so that it can pay on its own for the costs of its construction. He also reasoned that the plant could end the country's reliance on expensive and unclean fossil fuels to power our electric grids and lessen the consumers' burden of paying high electricity rates. He wants Congress to allocate the necessary funds to rehabilitate the plant ($800 million according to the Department of Energy in 2008). However, even after his term ended, the bill didn't push through. Nevertheless, Cojuangco is still adamant that the proposal will be considered in the future.

In the wake of an impending nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, the debate is getting hot once more like exposed fuel roads in a nuclear reactor. Should we go nuclear or not? What are the benefits and the disadvantages? Are the benefits greater than the disadvantages or otherwise? (To be continued)