Discretion without accountability

I highly doubt if the planned audit of environmental certificates will actually be comprehensive and fair

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is reportedly intending to start by next month a new audit, this time covering about 800 environmental permits issued to various projects. This is after the recent audit of the mining industry, which resulted in the closure and/or suspension of numerous mining operations nationwide.

I am all for a new audit, and remain supportive of DENR efforts to protect the environment and to conserve natural resources. However, I do not agree nor support how the mining audit was conducted, and in this line, highly doubt if the planned audit of environmental certificates will actually be comprehensive and fair. But, it is a start.

According to a news report quoting a DENR official, guidelines have been drawn up for the new audit, and that the initiative may start with an initial list of the “most pollutive industries.” The list reportedly includes coalfired power projects that are in operation, under construction, have not started construction but already have environmental permits, and those with pending environmental permit applications.

My fear, even during the mining audit, was that DENR may be exercising discretion without clear accountability. In the bigger sense, halting mining operations for perceived violations, imagined or otherwise, can have adverse economic implications on host communities. At the end of the day, if the community suffers economically on the back of mistaken or misplaced zeal, what is the DENR accountability to them?

Tuesday night Metro Manila suffered a major power outage affecting big parts of the metropolis and some parts of Luzon Island. From what I heard, the blackout resulted from unexplained outage at two Batangas-based power plants: the Lopez family-owned Sta. Rita and San Lorenzo power plants, both of which I believe operate on natural gas.

Two plants out and a big portion of the metropolis is without power. That’s how thin power reserves are, currently. So, if we choose to shut coal plants now, on environmental issues, with high electricity demand in the Christmas season and later on in the summer months, where should we expect electricity supply to go? Who suffers in the end?

DENR under Gina Lopez has made clear its dislike for coal even early on. What irritates me is the fact that any adverse regulatory action on coal by DENR — wheth- er necessary or simply whimsical — will have the indirect consequence of possibly benefiting non- coal power producers like the Lopez family.

Worse, power companies will still have to seek administrative and legal remedies against what they may perceive as unwarranted action against them. These remedies take time, and it is quite possible that during adjudication of the issues that they will remain suspended or closed — whether as operating concerns or as plant under construction.

Again, where does this put power supply in the near future and in the long term? For sure, this will have impact on the economy and consumers. And, if at the end of the day, the DENR is found to be remiss or to have abused its discretion, what will its accountability be to the industries, the consumers, and the economy that it has unnecessarily damaged or prejudiced?

Coal- fired plants reportedly account for 31.5% of the country’s installed capacity, and 34.2% of total dependable capacity as of end-December, with Luzon and Metro Manila as the main power users.

If we shut down coal, even temporarily, supply will certainly be short. Luzon and Metro Manila will suffer the most for it.

Frankly, I fail to understand the fixation against coal. In terms of ranking the most pollutive industries worldwide, while Big Oil may be considered top dog, the fashion industry is actually considered a major polluter, but we don’t hear DENR or other government agencies going after textile and clothing manufacturers for environmental damage.

In an August 2015 report by environmental activist group Ecowatch, which it released online, the group noted, “When we think of pollution, we envision coal power plants, strip- mined mountaintops and raw sewage piped into our waterways. We don’t often think of the shirts on our backs. But the overall impact the apparel industry has on our planet is quite grim.”

“Fashion is a complicated business involving long and varied supply chains of production, raw material, textile manufacture, clothing construction, shipping, retail, use and ultimately disposal of the garment… fashion carbon footprint is tremendous.”

“Determining that footprint is an overwhelming challenge due to the immense variety from one garment to the next. A general assessment must take into account not only obvious pollutants — the pesticides used in cotton farming, the toxic dyes used in manufacturing and the great amount of waste discarded clothing creates — but also the extravagant amount of natural resources used in extraction, farming, harvesting, processing, manufacturing and shipping.”

“While cotton, especially organic cotton, might seem like a smart choice, it can still take

more than 5,000 gallons of water to manufacture just a T-shirt and a pair of jeans. Synthetic, manmade fibers, while not as waterintensive, often have issues with manufacturing pollution and sustainability. And across all textiles, the manufacturing and dyeing of fabrics is chemically intensive.”

“Cotton is the world’s most commonly used natural fiber and is in nearly 40% of our clothing… it is one of the most chemically dependent crops in the world. While only 2.4% of the world’s cropland is planted with cotton, it consumes 10% of all agricultural chemicals and 25% of insecticides. Some genetically modified varieties, which are resistant to some insects and tolerant of some herbicides, now make up more than 20% of the world’s cotton crop.”

I am not against cotton, nor the fashion industry. Neither is Ecowatch, I believe. But, I highlight their report only to emphasize the need for us to see things from a broader perspective, and for regulators as well as the public to be open-minded and more discerning. There is much more to environmental protection and sustainable development than meets the eye. Personally, I never realized that garments and fashion can actually be considered pollutive or damaging to the environment. Neither did I consider that cotton farming has its downsides. But Ecowatch noted that in Uzbekistan, which is the world’s sixth leading producer of cotton, rivers that were diverted in the 1950s to provide irrigation for cotton production have dried up, resulting in the death of fisheries and communities relying on them.

“Over time, the sea became over-salinated and laden with fertilizer and pesticides from the nearby fields. Dust from the dry, exposed lakebed, containing these chemicals and salt saturated the air, creating a public health crisis and settling onto farm fields, contaminating the soil,” Ecowatch noted. Even the weather and climate in the area has been affected, it added.

At the end of the day, the Uzbekistan leaders in the 1950s who decided to divert the rivers to irrigate cotton farms, were ultimately responsible for irreversible damage to the environment and to the community. But, having acted and exercised discretion in line with their official duties in pursuit of what they perceived then to be the common good, there is no legal accountability to be expected from them.