When protests to save Cebu do more harm than good
It seems some protests “to save Cebu” in recent times, have conversations centered on the Philippine energy transition, which have been slanted heavily towards extreme ideology.
They were ignoring engineering, scientific, policy, and economic variables that should weigh more predominantly in discussions about a very technical and heavily-regulated industry such as the electric power sector.
Take for instance some activists mobilized by the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) in Toledo, Cebu who oppose the expansion of the Therma Visayas coal-fired power plant, accusing the facility of illegality (without evidence) and the sector of prioritizing “profit over health” (again without evidence).
Article continues after this advertisement
It is precisely this reliance on narrow viewpoints (as opposed to a holistic approach) which has led these kinds of groups to purport false and misleading narratives, exaggerate news reporting, misinterpret laws and policies (e.g. the moratorium on greenfield coal-fired power projects), and spook residents and even the financial markets.
It is fortunate that the community leaders of Toledo City had the good sense to set the record straight. They said there were only 25 and not 70 protesters, who were not even residents of their barangays and were resorting to techniques that betray their desperation. Moreover, their negative sentiments do not reflect that of their community, who actually coexist harmoniously with the power plant in terms of generated jobs, taxes remitted to the local government, and mutually initiated social and environmental programs.
These activists tend to do more damage than good as coordinated campaigns which disregard the reality of energy security shakes confidence in a power plant’s “social” license to operate. It also sends negative signals to investors, negatively affecting the growth of the local and even the wider economy.
Article continues after this advertisement
Contrary to the narrative being pushed by these groups, it isn’t as easy as adding more renewable energy while subtracting fossil fuels. They fail to consider the distinctive and peculiar features inherent in different energy sources or technologies, much less how it relates to the bigger picture.
Looking at the bigger picture (i.e. the whole system itself) demands any rational person to think and ask:
– How do we have a sufficient supply of electricity that can be reliably and safely accessed whenever people need it?;
– How can we lower the cost of electricity?; and
– How do we balance decarbonization with making the sector and the grid well-maintained, efficient, and future-ready?
We should also take into account specific country context and capabilities. The Philippines, as a developing economy, needs a pragmatic development of its energy system; one that supports its economic development and doesn’t sacrifice its present and future socio-economic prospects.
There should be fair and differentiated responsibilities among countries, with respect to historical emissions, financial and economic capabilities, geography, etc.
There is more to the energy transition than phrases written on a protest board or uttered by people who take to the streets to air their narrow and undeveloped views.
In the first place, we know that that isn’t even the right platform to question ideas; much less is it the rational way to convince the power industry to change their views on a very technical issue they know very well about.
What also happens is some tend to have a blind eye on real and commendable achievements by power industry players and the Department of Energy . Building on what has already been established, there are still a lot of committed power projects in new renewable energy capacities and energy storage systems in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.
With something as complex and serious as an energy transition — there are people’s daily lives and livelihoods at stake — the debate should be more holistic, pragmatic, honest, and appropriate.
(To be continued)