The Netherlands and Bhutan are two countries that do not have oil deposits, and yet they are net exporters of energy. The Netherlands because they tapped their natural gas deposits, and Bhutan because of their hydropower plants. Although I could only cite two examples, that is already sufficient proof that a country could become a net exporter of energy, even if it does not have oil deposits.
But what about the Philippines? Could we possibly become a net exporter of energy? I would say that in theory, we could become one, but on the condition that we decrease our oil imports and increase our own local power generation. That might sound like a tall order, but we do have the assets that could make it happen.
There are many countries that are now net exporters of energy,
simply because they have oil deposits. By comparison, we do have oil deposits
too, but the difference between these countries and the Philippines, is that
they have tapped their deposits, and we have not. At least, not enough of it.
Aside from oil deposits, we have rivers and waterfalls that could produce
hydropower, and we also have natural gas deposits! And on top of all these, we
also have geothermal energy sources! In others, we could really become an
energy independent country!
River rehabilitation
Whenever there are
proposals to rehabilitate rivers, it seems that the first thing that comes to
the mind of the planners is to widen the river. That is not always the best
idea because of zoning regulations, and because the lands beyond the river
easements could already be privately owned, and there may be no funds available
for expropriation. I therefore think that the more practical idea is to deepen
the river, meaning to remove the silt and whatever other deposits that might
have sunk into its bottoms.
After hundreds of years without any desilting done, it’s probably
the right time for a proper river cleanup. I am saying that, because the usual
idea for a river cleanup is to clean the river surface, which is a rather
limited and simplistic view. Even without artificial river widening, some
rivers could become wider because of erosion, which could be a problem for
private landowners beyond the river easements.
I think that the LGUs have the duty to help these private owners
so that their lands are not eroded needlessly. One sure way to prevent river
erosion is to plant freshwater mangroves around the riverbanks. That way, the
roots could stabilize the soil, and it would even bring back the fish into the
waters, probably even the crabs. Mangroves are ideal to plant because they can
adapt to high salinity just in case the water is still brackish.
Who is in charge of waste-to-energy projects?
Who is in charge of
waste-to-energy projects? Should it be the DENR, or should it be the DOE? Not
unless it is very clear as to who is in charge, this could become a game of
finger pointing at the start that could become a game of blame throwing at the
end. And in the end, nothing might even happen at all.
Somehow, someway, the DILG should also be involved, but right
now, it is not even clear how the DILG is involved, if it is involved at all.
In Metro Manila, the MMDA should also be involved, but it is also not clear how
it is involved, again, if it is involved at all. In the provinces, the DA
should also be involved with the collection of agricultural waste.
Combustible waste is the material needed for waste-to-energy
projects. Obviously, the DOE should have nothing to do with the collection of
the combustible waste, because that should be the responsibility of either the
DENR, the DILG, the DA or the MMDA, depending on where the project site is.
If only the entire process of waste management could be done
right, the first step should be waste segregation, so that the biodegradable
materials could be separated from the non-biodegradable materials. Obviously,
the combustible materials could be gathered from the latter, after the
recyclable and marketable materials are removed. Can anyone tell me who is in
charge?
Comments
Post a Comment