Will we ever have clean air?
Credit to Author: ROBERT SIY| Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 16:17:37 +0000
Clean air has huge significance for each of us; so much so that it would be difficult to put a price on it. With clean air, we would live longer. We would spend more time outdoors. We would have more active lifestyles. We would be healthier and happier. We would be more productive. And so on.
Clean air is so valuable, yet achieving better air quality sometimes seems so unattainable. Over decades, we have become resigned to breathing polluted air day in and day out, and allowing our loved ones to share in our unhealthy environment.
Though the Clean Air Act of 1999 (Republic Act 8749) sets standards for emissions from both fixed and mobile sources, we don’t have to look far to know that compliance is lacking and that the law has had little impact. Twenty years after the Clean Air Act was passed, we don’t have much to show for it. This has to change.
Filipinos are dying earlier because of worsening air pollution, and the numbers are staggering. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that close to 50,000 Filipinos die prematurely every year because of ambient air pollution (43 deaths per 100,000 population). In addition, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer are on the rise.
The dominant source of outdoor air pollution are motor vehicles. In Metro Manila, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) calculated that motor vehicles account for about 88 percent of harmful emissions. Not surprising, given that the population of motor vehicles has grown at a rapid pace, congestion has worsened, and there are more vehicles stuck in traffic every day, burning fuel.
What is worrisome is that many more commuters are spending prolonged periods of time on highly polluted transport corridors (e.g., EDSA, Taft Avenue, Shaw Boulevard), waiting in queues or trying to catch rides at overcrowded bus or jeepney stops. Because smoke-belching buses and jeepneys are major sources of pollutants, the passengers who step in and out of these vehicles are also the most exposed.
Unhealthy air all around us provides additional motivation for people to prefer a private motor vehicle.
There is the mistaken assumption that one can escape pollution by being inside an air-conditioned car.
Partly for this reason, many commuters would like to buy a car as soon as they can afford to. The sad consequence is more traffic congestion and heavier air pollution for all.
How do we win the battle for clean air? First, we should invest aggressively in low-emission mobility options. This means creating the conditions so that people prefer to travel by walking, cycling or public transport, instead of in a private car.
The more walking or cycling we do for our daily travel, the better for our environment and for our health.
In the end, we are all pedestrians. Investments in proper sidewalks, street lighting, and networks of protected bicycle lanes are relatively low-cost, quick to implement, pro-poor and highly-visible. If newly-elected mayors are looking for projects that can be delivered within their three-year terms, these are examples of inclusive infrastructure with high impact.
At the same time, more and better public transport is needed in all urban areas. To raise the quality of public transport, services should allow easy transfers to different modes, and capacity should exceed travel demand. Mass transit (trains, bus rapid transit, etc.) should be available on high-volume corridors.
The supply of public transport should be “abundant” so that commuters do not have to compete to get on a bus or train. The challenge is to raise the adequacy, convenience and reliability of public transport so that it becomes the preferred option, even for those who own private motor vehicles.
We need to review and revise the composition of our national and local government budgets so that we move away from spending that promotes motor vehicle use while increasing the allocations that support public transport, walking and cycling.
Second, we need to have a motor vehicle inspection system with high integrity. Our emissions standards make no sense unless the motor vehicle inspection system keeps unsafe and polluting vehicles off our roads. The recommendation of many experts is to have an automated inspection and emissions-testing system so that nothing is left to human discretion. Governance arrangements should ensure that such systems operate in a rigorous and fully transparent manner, with measures that prevent tampering of results. Establishing such a system on a nationwide basis should be one of the top priorities for the second half of the Duterte administration.
The current emissions standard for new public utility vehicles (PUVs) is EURO IV or better. We should consider raising this minimum standard in the coming years to EURO VI, in line with global best practices. Some countries have set a goal of having a fully-electric zero-emission public transport fleet within the next decade; the Philippines should declare a similar goal in its long-term vision.
Third, we need to accelerate the modernization of buses and jeepneys to replace old, highly polluting vehicles. The PUV Modernization Program or PUVMP was launched over two years ago, but now needs to make much faster progress. To reduce the number of polluting PUVs, the Department of Transportation (DOTr) needs more budget, more program staff, more technical assistance and more implementation support. To address DOTr’s capacity and financing gaps, external funding and technical assistance should be considered.
We need to see DOTr push the PUVMP with the same intensity that it has applied to the rail and aviation sectors. With some 200,000 old jeepneys (plus over 10,000 old buses) to replace, DOTr should aim for at least 50 percent accomplishment before the end of the Duterte administration. On high-volume corridors, where jeepneys are to be replaced by buses, jeepney operators should consolidate to become bus operators.
Today, the subsidy offered by DOTr for replacing an old jeepney unit stands at P80,000, which is small compared to the cost of a new vehicle. This low subsidy is one of the factors why some in the industry remain lukewarm or skeptical about the program. If the subsidy for surrendering old, polluting jeepneys is increased, much of the opposition to the program will dissolve; the additional financial inducement will facilitate consolidation of the many small operators and enable transformation to a new industry business model. PUVs on every route operating as one team, free of on-street competition, drivers on fixed salary and benefits, and vehicles operating in a coordinated manner to respond to changes in demand. The benefits for the commuting public, including for workers in the transport industry, will far outweigh the budgetary cost for the subsidy.
For the sake of argument, raising the subsidy to P500,000 per jeepney will require a budget of P100 billion to cover the subsidy for 200,000 jeepneys, benefitting tens of millions of Filipinos nationwide with cleaner air and higher quality public transport. If the government is willing to spend P360 billion for the urgently-needed Metro Manila Subway (capacity 400,000 passengers daily), there should be no issue with spending P100 billion to benefit over 40 million jeepney passengers daily.
Will Filipinos ever enjoy clean air? Because motor vehicles are the major source of air pollution in Philippine cities, our quest for clean air needs to focus on the transport sector. The key player here is DOTr, rather than the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). What provides optimism is the fact that the strongest advocate for clean air in DOTr is Secretary Arthur P. Tugade.
Secretary Tugade often tells the story of losing his son, Perry, only 12 years old at the time, to asthma, because the air quality was so bad. Secretary Tugade is keenly aware of the link between air pollution and premature death. His strongest motivation for being in the public service is to make sure that Filipinos will not have to suffer the same loss that he did. This tells me that we can count on Secretary Tugade to find the best way forward.
Robert Y. Siy is a development economist, city and regional planner, and public transport advocate. He can be reached at mobilitymatters.ph@yahoo.com or followed on Twitter @RobertRsiy
The post Will we ever have clean air? appeared first on The Manila Times Online.