MANGROVES sequester four times more carbon dioxide than regular trees,” the leader of the NGO was saying at the mangrove planting site, “so we are happy to have you as partners. But to be honest, we had an ethical dilemma partnering with you. But we know that while your operations destroy part of the environment, you also do your share in protecting the environment.”
I smiled. It felt like someone was giving me a birthday cake and then dropping it on the floor just as I was about to take a slice.
But I understood pretty well how many people feel about mining companies. We do disturb the environment — how else do we get to the mineral riches of the earth that are, at the very least, a few meters beneath the earth’s surface, except by moving earth and sometimes vegetation as well?
‘It’s an ethical dilemma we have to live with, every day of our lives, while doing what we can, every day of our lives, to make up for the trade-off that being alive means to Mother Earth.’
Even a kilometer or two underground?
But yes, we do our best as well in making up for the disturbance we cause; large-scale mining operations are required by the Philippine Mining Act to have a final mine rehabilitation and decommissioning plan (FMRDP) in place to implement as soon as a mining area becomes mined out. There’s also this rule that requires them to plant 100 trees for everyone that they cut. No other industry is subject to such a requirement, not even real estate companies who engage, if you think about it, in permanent land disturbance when trees are cleared and hillsides are sometimes evened out just to make way for a housing development or a “new city” that is a concrete jungle.
All these were okaying in my head when I heard my name being called forward to respond on behalf of the company. I had been given a piece of paper with talking points but they were already mentioned by a Nickel Asia Corporation (NAC) colleague at the start of the short program, so what was I to say?
I am happy that the ethical dilemma was mentioned, I said. You see, the ethical dilemma is not about corporations doing this or that — it’s about our very existence itself. Because from the time we were born, we have been using up the earth’s resources; I entered UP in 1969 as an elementary school kid and I wonder how much paper I’ve used from the 1/4, 1/2 and whole sheets of red and blue lined pad papers to the Blue Books and all, of how many gallons of ice consumed just to bathe. I added: think about it. If you have an iPhone 12 at the moment and aspire for an iPhone 19, then minerals have to be mined to produce that. If you don’t agree, then commit to the fact that your current iPhone is what your children will use and your grandchildren will use and so on because we don’t want to mine any further just to make a new iPhone.
The fact is, if we are unwilling to use the earth’s natural resources then we should go back to being cavemen. But that’s out of the question.
So, the only question is, can we responsibly use the resources? Can we do what we can to heal the environment in some way if we need to disturb it in another way?
And that’s why we are all here, I told my assembled NAC colleagues and our NGO partners. Because today, we will do what we can to help the environment.
It’s an ethical dilemma we have to live with, every day of our lives, while doing what we can, every day of our lives, to make up for the trade-off that being alive means to Mother Earth.
(And then we went off into the muddy banks of Malolos to plant the last of the 32,000 mangroves we had committed to plant as part of our commitment under the Sustainability Fun Run we simultaneously held in MOA, in Puerto Princesa and Surigao City in July of last year.)
