|
ADMINISTRATION Sen. Miguel Zubiri is challenging fellow
Sen. Miriam Santiago and other biofuel pessimists to a
debate when Congress resumes session on January 28 even
as Zubiri charged that three big oil firms are fueling a
strong lobby against full implementation of the
country’s biofuels program.
In a
press conference yesterday, Zubiri lamented that
Santiago was apparently “misinformed” about the alleged
ill effects of local biofuel production on the country’s
food security, affirming that he would not back away
from a debate with Santiago on the issue to straighten
the facts on the Philippine biofuel program.
Meanwhile, environment watchdog Greenpeace is supporting
the move to review the biofuels law in the wake of
reports that the country’s food security is in peril
because of the expected shift from food to biofuels
production.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia climate and energy campaigner
Jasper Inventor said while bioefuels as an alternative
to fossil fuel can partially address climate change,
volatile oil prices and energy security, it is not the
ultimate solution to the pressing energy and
environmental issues.
Zubiri
told reporters: “Alam ko me umiikot na (anti-biofuel)
lobby [I know there’s a lobby going around].” He said he
received reports that “this lobby is the handiwork of
the ‘Big Three’ oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Petron)”
and that he tended to believe it “unless they can prove
otherwise.”
According to Zubiri, foreign investors are now
rethinking a planned $250-million biofuel investment on
biofuel plants in
Palawan in the wake of Senator Santiago’s warning for government to
go slow on the biofuel program.
He also
complained that the $600-million investment commitments
to boost the Philippine biofuel program that President
Arroyo got during her recent European trip is imperiled
by such statements from the senator.
“I am
asking Malacañang to make a stand in favor of biofuel to
allay concerns from foreign investors,” Zubiri added.
Greenpeace’s Inventor said: “Uncontrolled use of
biofuels can also harm the environment. There are
concerns regarding the environmental and social impacts
of increased biofuel use, clearly indicating that this
energy source must be used in conjunction with other
measures, both political and social, to be sustainable.”
He said biofuels can contribute to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
Greenpeace said this should be limited only to those
grown within the framework of sustainable agriculture
and it does not directly or indirectly lead to the
destruction of intact ecosystems.
Moreover, biofuels should not hinder the ability of any
nation to achieve food security and sovereignty, he
added.
“Biofuel
crops have land-use implications. Development of biofuel
plantations must not result in the devastation of intact
forest areas which is among the unacceptable trends
currently taking place in Indonesia,” he warned.
Moreover, Inventor said available agricultural land is a
finite resource and demand for bioenergy crops could
inevitably lead to increased competition for land
between food and nonfood uses.
Bioenergy crops should not compete with food crops in
areas or countries where agricultural land is needed to
ensure food security, he said.
Displacing biodiversity and food security needs in
developing countries in order to feed cars poses serious
moral question, he added.
“The
plan by the government to review the biofuels law is a
welcome development that can firm up needed measures to
regulate biofuel development. The government, however,
should not lose sight of the Renewable Energy Bill,
which clearly presents a better and lasting no-regrets
solution toward energy security and preventing the
impacts of climate change,” Inventor said.
“With
the urgent demand for solutions to looming energy
crisis, nothing less is expected of the Senate than the
immediate passage of the Renewable Energy Bill,” he
added. |
