Skip to main content

Environment Is No Excuse to Impulsive Legislation

IT MIGHT APPEAR DECISIVE to disapprove plastic use in retail stores. It might even look consistent with the call to protect the environment, especially the waterways, from the litters of plastic.

But passing a local law to outlaw plastic betrays the impulsiveness of local legislators in making such an important ordinance without giving enough time to pinpoint the real and underlying problem of current waste management and flooding problems, and to look for well-informed alternatives that both can meet the peoples' need for cheap bags while avoiding litters in the environment.

And apparently business establishments are ignoring these local legislation for business reasons. Green bags and paper bags can be costly to produce, therefore for consumers to buy, and forcing customers to give up the use the cheaper plastic can prove an error that may cut down a big chunk of their foot traffic.

So, what really is the problem here?

No matter how you think of it, the underlying problem is not the use of plastic bags but the improper disposal of them. Plastic bags that are properly disposed ends up very well in landfills, and not in waterways to clog them up during heavy rains. And landfills can use a new technology that burns the plastic cleanly, that is, minus the toxic chemicals emitted into the air.

Will paper bags reall help in preserving the environment?

As far as I know a ton of paper manufactured requires three tons of logs to be cut down from our forests. If we have problems with life-threatening floods in our mountain areas,  it is logging of trees that brought that. And papermaking is one of the big reasons why loggers log. As a result our forest ranges gradually thin, and will eventually disappear. It can take around 10 years to replace these cut down trees. And the question is always about time. Do we have time to replace these cut down trees? As far as what we can see, there had been no serious moves to plant more trees to recover our disappearing forests.  

Claiming to use paper bag as good for the environment is like preferring AIDS for intestinal cancer. Either way the patient diesin the end. The same story goes with the environment. The choice betrays ignorance of the facts.

How about Green Bags?

The proper question here actually is this: Will the Green Bags decay like paper? If they will, then it is a better option, atlhough a much more expensive one.

And yet everyone knows that Green Bags do not decay. They behave just like plastics. And if the underlying problem of improper disposal remains, they will still be causing problems in our waterways. In fact, they can be more problematic than plastic bags, which are thinner. The thicker Green Bags can really cause serious problems once they plug the waterways.

So, what's the best solution?

The best solution is always that which addresses squarely the underlying problem. Since the problem with flooding streets came from undisciplined disposal of plastic bags, local legislators must instead inact a law penalizing those caught throwing plastic materials just anywhere (e.g. not into the public or private trash bins).

The huge difference between Singapore and the Philippines when you compare streets can be spelled in with these letters: D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E. Theirs are immaculately clean, and ours are exactly the opposite.

It is the job of the local government to discipline their own constituents if they want to solve problems like this. If Singapore can do it, why can't Talisay City, Cebu City, Mandaue City, or any local government in the country?

Apparently, the problem remains to be the lack of political will among local executives in disciplining their constituents. Plastic is a mere political scapegoat. And paper and Green Bags, political quick fixes. 

If local officials give in to mindless and impulsive legislation, who are left to think through at solving the real problem? 

At the end of the day, the headaches will remain with no real solution pursued to correct the problem. The local officers must rise beyond what is obvious and think through a solution with lasting results.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Elite" Cry-Babies?

I CANNOT IMAGINE how an operative of the Special Counter-Insurgency Operations Unit (SCOU), when caught by insurgents and subjective to the worse torture imaginable, can ever survive with their mental faculties intact. But that's exactly what's going to happen if the recent products of SCOU Training cry foul, or more specifically 'hazing,' when they are subjected to the hard realities of law enforcent that handles counterinsurgency operations. Operatives must be physically hard and mentally sturdy to survive the prospect of getting captured without squelling reserved information to the enemy. I am disappointed to hear that the recent batch of SCOUT trainees considered their physical ordeals during training as 'hazing.' Have they entertained the thought that they were in Camp Ceferino Genovia in Barangay Bahay for an exotic 45-day vacation? If they cannot endure physical pain during training, they must ship out because real life counterinsurgency work

Skirting the Issues of Bad Journalism

AMADO DORONILA of the Philippine Daily Inquirer writes today about the perceived coercion that President Benigno Aquino III made on the press in defense of his "passion for flashy cars," and for  his lifestyle as a "pampered son of a wealthy family living an unfrugal life." I encountered some confusion on how Mr. Doronila reasoned out his understanding on how frugal life is meant to be lived. Does he meant to keep the money on the vault unused simply for the sake of not spending them? That will be a suggestion for a miser's lifestyle. Aquino may have "bought," actually exchanged, a third-hand Porsche for his old BMW for approximately the same valuation of P4.5 million. In effect, there was no significant money spent for the acquisition, except perhaps a sales tax if that applied. And here Mr. Doronila concluded that the new President of the Republic is living an "unfrugal life" (did he expect Mr. Aquino to sell the luxury car he had befor

Gifts of Discounts

SECTION 13 of the New Code of Philippine Judicial Conduct (27 April 2004) stated: Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for nor receive any gift, bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Its annotation explains that: Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of money value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." The key phrase here is--"in the course of their official duties." It means that as long as a judge remains a judge of Philippine courts, this Code applies, prohibiting any receipt, directly or indirectly, from any person. The question then is: Is a discount a gift? On 3