« A New Energy Paradigm | HomePage | Moving sustainability up the decision making tree »
05/25/2006
Climate Change Forum
A Climate Change Forum was held at the Mandarin Hotel yesterday to discuss the impacts of climate change on the Philippines and courses of action. Although climate change threatens disaster, there are solutions but we have to act now. The solutions present a whole range of opportunities for this country. The cacophony of ideas was overwhelming but a unanimous call for immediate action was the order of the day.
The global objective is not to warm the planet over 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This means capping GHG emissions at 400 parts per million which is equivalent to 450 ppm of carbon dioxide equivalent, carbon dioxide being the most virulent of the gases. Some groups say 3°C is more realistic, however, this will mean allowing emissions to grow to 580 ppm and saying that we accept the extinction of a third of our species and the deaths of millions of people. For WWF and most NGOs, this is not acceptable given that there is a chance to maintain emissions at 400 ppm depending on how fast the world can get it’s act together.
The impacts will be diverse with varying degrees of severity depending on the regions. Being an archipelago, the Philippines is in a very vulnerable position. Among the major impacts are increasingly permanent effects of El Nino and La Nina weather conditions, extreme drought, extreme rains and more violent typhoons. Sea level will rise considerably. Scientists project up to 14 cm/decade in Manila. Temperatures in the Philippines will rise by 1°C, which doesn’t seem much but will have devastating effects particularly on our agricultural sector. Fr. Jose Villarin pointed out that studies done in Los Banos proved that a 1°C rise in atmospheric temperatures will decrease rice yield by 15%.
Many people would say, “but we are not an agricultural country.” Wrong. We are an agricultural country not just by natural resource endowments, but because 70% of our population is agriculturally dependent for sustenance and livelihood. Ciel Habito presented Climate Change and National Development. According to his presentation, 45% of our economic output is services generated, industry at 35% and agriculture at 20%. However, services provide 47% of total employment, industry 16% and agriculture 37%, with 65% of our population relying on agriculture for sustenance. In other words, they may not be agriculturally employed, but they live off the land and the majority are poor.
We are ill-prepared to adapt to the abrupt changes in our atmosphere. Ciel Habito pointed out with supporting slides, that the percentage of the national budget allocated to agriculture and natural resources were flat at 8% from 2000 to 2002 and are not increasing, same with allocations for water and flood control at 1.5%, nor were allocations to social services like health, education and particularly housing and community development. Our health sectors will be stretched with increasing incidences of vector and water-borne diseases, like malaria and dengue. However, Defense has gone up to 10% as has General Administration at 13%. Dr. Habito calls for nothing less than integrating climate change into the national, regional and local development planning process. What we have to do:
1. Prepare and provision for self-sufficiency in fuel, water and food,
2. Do our part in mitigating GHG emissions: ‘De-carbonize our development’
3. Move people out of harm’s way: off the coastal areas. Incidentally, don’t invest in coastal housing.
Jaime Zobel, in his response, brought out the reality of increasing geopolitical tensions due to resource scarcity, including fuel. In my opinion, this is critical because we are very trade-dependent and are vulnerable to disruptions in global trade due to political turmoil and war. He also said that climate change was creeping up in business agendas. This is comforting given that industrial energy efficiencies is the number 1 priority solution for WWF out of 25 feasible solutions identified.
Of course, all roads lead to renewables: geothermal, hydro, small hydro, wind, solar, natural gas, ocean, biomass – we have all of these. Peter Anthony Abaya, Undersecretary in the Department of Energy presented. Currently about 48% of our electricity is fossil fuel-based, coal and oil. The rest of the mix is hydro at 21%, geothermal at 13%, natural gas at 18% and a bit of wind. We all know we are overcapacitized and paying for it. But the idea is to increase the share of renewables and reduce the share of coal and oil. Additional capacity needed, given growth targets, is about 4,000 MW.
Of course there were dissenting views on the objective and the process:
1. If the potential of renewables is developed, it would still not add up to the additional capacity needed, and are all the potential sites feasible, i.e. hydro and geothermal sites may be very isolated and too expensive to develop. We need a mix that retains coal but probably with carbon capture and sequestration, which was not discussed here. No objectives were set on a mix of energy sources.
2. Renewables policy seems bent on targeting private sector/government partnerships for large-scale, centralized generation. What about community-owned, small-scale, decentralized generation?
Although Lory Tan mentioned the need for more decentralized energy sources when he opened the forum, community-based efforts were not discussed further. (You can download Lory Tan's speech on the list of documents.) This is critical because it is an opportunity for an integrated approach to clean energy and poverty alleviation, creates self-sufficient communities and a more flexible distribution system. At my table, a representative from the local government of Cagayan de Oro gave the example of a 1 MW small hydro plant that was servicing 4 municipalities. Transmission lines directly to the municipalities would cost P3 million per kilometer, giving them no choice but to go through the grid, which was buying the electricity at a discounted price. Not a win-win situation due to lack of legislative and financial support.
Also at my table, we had an enthusiastic supporter of ethanol and sugar plantations growing sugar for biofuels. Our country’s reaction to climate change may very well follow the tragic pattern of our economic history. Once again, we may listen to the needs of the more developed world and position to lead exports in ethanol and other biofuels at the expense of our sustainability. This will subvert much needed investments that should go to food production for self-sufficiency and probably endanger the remaining forests and land that could be used more productively for the long-term. Sugar requires 10 times more water than any other agricultural crop. Is this sustainable? The shift to alternatives should be regulated to ensure the conditions for sustainable food and water production are not compromised and this means protecting biodiversity and the natural processes that support it, because this is the basis of our long-term survival.
And then we had Mirant at the table, the bad boys from the coal-shoveling energy sector. To their credit, they were there.
The forum begins a national dialogue on climate change. This was its value. The problem was that lunch was served late and people were starving.
11:00 Posted by in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (2) | Email this | Tags: Sustainable Development
Comments
hey fellas. i really really want to put a link on my page that will take my readers here. do you have any buttons or something? I can put up a text link pretty easily, but a button will be more attractive. more visits for your site! a broader audience to listen to your very important message!
by the way, have any of you ever read the uplift novels (by david brin?) i think it's a perfect fit for the wwf.
Posted by: moe | 05/27/2006
Moe, thanks for wanting to link. A button is a good idea. We will have one made and send it to you.
Havent read any novels by David Brin but will check it out.
Thanks!
Posted by: Susan | 05/29/2006