A plea to Sen. Win Gatchalian: Lead the nation to its green future
Sen. Win Gatchalian is one of the hardest working members of the Senate. A successful business executive, he breathes a fresh air of professionalism in his work as a legislator. He is also known as a passionate advocate of good governance and more investments on human resources, both of which are key to the transformation of the philippines as one of Asia’s most progressive countries.
We fully agree with Senator Win on energy transition. His call for energy transition deserves the support of the whole country. Energy transition is, in fact, at the center of the climate change agenda of all countries trying to meet their Paris 2015 commitments.
He is also seen on the side of the poor and ordinary consumers. When many families were “electricshocked” by Meralco’s questionable billing statements and disconnection notices after the harsh ECQ last year, Senator Win, as chair of the Senate Energy Committee, immediately took up the cudgels for the poor consumers. He questioned the lack of transparency in Meralco’s billing operations in a time of widespread confusion and crisis.
And then last year, amid the social and economic depression caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, Senator Win surprised the nation with a stirring call to combat climate change: now, he said, is the time for the nation to go renewable. He echoed the global call of climate scientists: countries must “transition” now toward green energy, for time is limited to contain or stop the seemingly inexorable warming of Planet Earth beyond the 2.0 degree Celsius above the pre-industrial era. Note that the 2015 Paris Agreement seeks the cooperation of all countries in limiting their respective GHG emissions to a collective maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Senator Win was quoted last year as saying: “Now is the time to give renewable energy sources a boost as recent months have shown an increase in the generation of some power sources such as solar, geothermal, and biomass.” Hence, he is pushing for the Department of Energy to strengthen further the various programs in support of the renewables, including measures cutting the red tape in awarding and facilitating the installation of renewables. He also lauded the declaration of DOE for a moratorium on the establishment of new coal plants. He concluded: “The whole world is moving to energy and mobility transition so we need to keep up with the trend of generating power from renewable sources.”
We fully agree with Senator Win on energy transition. His call for energy transition deserves the support of the whole country. Energy transition is, in fact, at the center of the climate change agenda of all countries trying to meet their Paris 2015 commitments.
In this context, we are at a loss why the DOE, Climate Change Commission and even the legislature have not come out with a well-crafted energy transition program, that is, an energy transition blueprint containing clear programs for the phasing out of fossil fuels and the transitioning to the renewables. Moreover, we do not understand why, per data of the DOE, the share of the renewables has been shrinking in the total energy consumption of the country since 2010. This is ironic because the reverse is happening in many countries because the renewables—wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, biomass— have become competitive and even cheaper compared to the fossil fuels.
We are also at a loss why both chambers of Congress are now fasttracking the enactment of laws supporting the development of the natural gas industry, at the mid-stream and downstream levels, without articulating the downsides of natural gas usage. Recent studies of the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) show that natural gas is not exactly “clean” compared to coal and oil. Scientific data indicate that natural gas appears “clean” vis-à-vis coal and oil only because it hardly emits carbon dioxide; and yet, natural gas emits a different substance, methane, which is worse than carbon dioxide in trapping heat or greenhouse gas.
These UNEP findings on natural gas are the reasons why two influential voices on climate change spoke against natural gas last February this year. The President of the European Investment Bank, Werner Hoyer, declared in the EIB’S annual briefing that “To put it mildly, gas is over.” He explained: “This is a serious departure from the past, but without the end to the use of unabated fossil fuels, we will not be able to reach the climate targets.”
Another personality who spoke against reliance on natural gas and the building of additional facilities for the natural gas industry is former Sen. John Kerry, the global climate point person appointed by US President Joe Biden. Speaking in the World Economic Forum, Kerry warned investors on natural gas as follows:
“If we build out a huge infrastructure for gas now and continue to use it as the bridge fuel, we haven’t really exhausted the other possibilities, we’re gonna be stuck with stranded assets in 10 or 20 or 30 years… gas is primarily methane and we have a huge methane problem, folks.”
The problem is: do our legislators and energy planners see natural gas the same way that Kerry, Hoyer and UNEP scientists see it: a threat to humanity because it is a global warming accelerator. Don’t they see the terminals and distribution infras for natural gas becoming stranded once the Philippines and the world become green in 10 or 20 years?
Even Russia, the world’s biggest natural gas producer, is in a quandary. Its long natural gas pipelines going to Germany are on hold, partly because of the climate issues being raised by European citizens against natural gas. Hence, the Russians are now trying to develop—with the help of German and Japanese scientists —cleaner fuel alternatives such as green hydrogen that can use the idle pipe lines.
Meantime, there are debates going on in the Asian Development Bank as to whether the Bank should stop financing the development of gas plants just like what the Bank did in relation to coal projects. Even the World Bank, which is preparing the WB-IMF “spring” convention, is having some internal debates because civil society organizations worldwide are pressing the Bank and the IMF to phase out financing for all fossil fuels, including natural gas.
So what should the Philippines do?
Our answer: our legislators and energy policy-makers should heed the global call of climate scientists and green climate advocates to phase out the world’s reliance on all fossil fuels, including natural gas. Our government must flesh out a clear and doable energy transition toward the renewables. We ask Senator Win, the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, to take the lead in this undertaking, in charting a green future for the Philippines.