‘Being anti-mining can sound sexy but it exposes the narrow minds of people who only see one issue and close their eyes to the rest.’
THERE is a much laudable desire across the whole province of Palawan to “save” it. Save it from degradation, mainly, because Palawan is the so-called “last frontier” (although I am not too sure what it is the last frontier of).
This desire is most championed by elements of the Catholic Church, with priests in Palawan even threatening provincial board members that they will ensure the latter’s defeat in the May elections if any of the board members indicate a pro-mining stance.
To elements of the Church, being anti-mining is being pro-environment. And the more they beat their anti-mining breasts, the more thrilled they are to cloak themselves under the mantle of being pro-environment.
Mining in Palawan (as it is almost everywhere else in the Philippines) is blamed for global warming and climate change. It is blamed for the flooding that our cities and towns suffer from during heavy rains. It is blamed for polluted waters and waterways, for dried-up wells, and rivers and rice paddies inundated by sediments. Ergo, stopping mining will lead to an improvement in these conditions. So, who can oppose such a call?
As usual, though, the truth is more complex than fiction.
Palawan is a unique island. I’ve always said God wisely decided to put the greatest beaches in the north and the mineral-rich soil in the south. None of the flooding in non-mining parts of Palawan can be attributed to mining, except by the close-minded.
In fact, out of the one million-plus hectares of the land area of Palawan, not even 2 percent is devoted to mining and almost all in three towns: Narra, Brooke’s Point and Bataraza. It’s almost non-existent elsewhere. However, miners are required by law to plant 100 trees for every tree they cut, which is not the case for land developers or road builders who have to cut trees to get their job done.
Global warming is precisely a global phenomenon, with responsibility chiefly falling on four countries (China, the USA, India and Russia) which produce over half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions or GHG. Total Philippine GHG emissions production is I think 0.4 or 0.04 percent of the global total – which means that even if we shut down all GHG emission-producing activity in the Philippines you’ll still get Yolanda, Pablo, Odette, Ondoy, Rolly and the like.
Our activist priests should be exorcising spirits in the embassies of these countries if they truly care about climate change.
For the Philippines, the principal producers of GHG are power generation, agriculture, transportation and land use changes. Want to stop all power generation? All farming? All motor vehicles? All subdivision development? Be my guest.
The danger to Palawan – and to the Philippines – is not mining, which is necessary if man does not wish to return to the life of the caveman. It is – as Baguio has seen – urban sprawl and population growth. You see every one of us from the day we are born contributing to the depletion of the Earth’s resources. How many trees had to be cut for the paper we used in school, for our tables, chairs, and classrooms? How many quarries had to be developed for the cemented buildings and roads we use? Oh, and how many minerals do we use in our lifetime?
So you want to save Palawan? Study how much global-warming GHG is produced by agriculture, the province’s principal industry. Study how big the carrying capacity of the island is for the population, and maybe pass a provincial ordinance outlawing internal combustion engines (ICE) and requiring hybrids and EVs on the island.
Being anti-mining can sound sexy but it exposes the narrow minds of people who only see one issue and close their eyes to the rest. The fact is, you and I cannot live our lives without the products of mining that we use every day from our birth to our death; in contrast, we can live our lives believing in religions different from what the Catholic clergy push for.
Save Palawan, yes, and save it intelligently.
