ENVIRONMENTALISTS said the House of Representatives needs to reconsider the priority status of a Waste-to-Energy (WTE) bill, citing the need for further study to ensure sufficient protections for public health and the environment.
At the House Committee on Ecology on Wednesday, they called for rigorous examination of the bill amid disputes over the broader impact of incinerating solid waste.
Filed on Aug. 27 and currently with the House Committee on Energy, House Bill No. 4054, or the proposed Waste-to-Energy Act, seeks to promote the use of WTE technologies, positioning them as a potential solution to the solid waste problem.
WTE technologies convert solid waste into usable energy, such as electricity or heat, typically through thermal processes. In most models, plastic and other non-biodegradable waste form the bulk of the feedstock.
The proposed legislation, which is among the 44 priority bills of the 20th Congress, provides a framework to encourage the private sector and local government units to invest in WTE facilities, which are seen as a stable, local source of electricity.
Lea Guerrero, country director of Greenpeace Philippines, urged the House Committee on Ecology to act as a “neutral party” on the WTE bill, cautioning against treating it as a priority.
“I want to make a humble request to the Committee on Ecology to be a neutral party to the WTE bill, and not treat the WTE bill as a priority, but really look at examining and being a platform to really study the pros and cons of the technology,” she said.
Ms. Guerrero also cited the lack of upstream measures, such as regulations or bans on plastic products in WTE roadmaps. “When we’re talking about WTE, we are talking about plastic waste. We are not going to burn biodegradable waste. But in the roadmap presented by the (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), there is no presence of upstream measures like regulations or bans for plastic products.”
She said having local governments commit to supplying plastic waste to incinerators could also create perverse incentives that weaken waste reduction programs.
Ms. Guerrero further raised concerns about weak air quality standards and the lack of regulation for hazardous chemicals found in some plastics.
“Are we ready for incinerating plastic waste… When our air quality standards are not up to (World Health Organization) standards?” she said.
Marvelous L. Misolas, executive director of the Environmental Studies Institute of Miriam College, called for more evidence WTE is not harmful.
“We need feasibility studies, rigorous studies here in the Philippines. We don’t have studies on the harmful effects of chemicals from WTE. We are not Sweden. We are not Norway. We don’t yet have the capacity to do this,” she said.
Zero-waste advocates likewise pushed for full implementation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, instead of pursuing WTE projects.
Mother Earth Foundation chairperson Sonia Mendoza said that community-based waste reduction methods already offer low-emission solutions.
“With zero waste, segregation at source, segregated collection, composting, and recycling, there are almost no emissions. Instead of endorsing just the WTE bill, we need to endorse the implementation of RA 9003 and a true circular economy,” she said. — Vonn Andrei E. Villamiel
