EDITORIAL
Policymakers should not fall prey
to the wolf in green clothing
When a car manufacturing company launched its new lineup of “clean
diesel” cars, it proclaimed to the whole world that “Green has never felt so
right.” A few years later, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
discovered that the company had installed software to cheat emissions tests for
11 million vehicles. The automaker’s so-called clean diesel cars produced
nitrogen oxide emissions up to 40 times the legal limit. This is one of the
classic examples of the infamous “greenwashing.” 1
Like charity that soothes a guilty conscience, greenwashing has been
practiced by coastal developers pretending to innovate a variety of ways to try
and minimize their impact on natural habitats.
The University of Plymouth in the UK reported in an online article that an
international team of scientists has said the artificial structures and reclaimed
land that have resulted, are often poor surrogates for the natural environment
they replace. 2 Scientists warned that the greening of grey infrastructure should
not be used as a Trojan horse to facilitate coastal development. 3 They warned
that while green interventions may not add additional harm to the environment
when compared to the proposed development, the worst-case scenario is
simply that time, effort, and money have been spent on infrastructure that does
nothing. 4 Unfortunately, many policymakers willingly become victims to the
“wolf in green clothing.”
On the surface, the Integrated Green Grey Infrastructure (IGGI) used by
many coastal developers to get approval for their humongous projects would
seem to be a perfect solution to this age-old balancing act. If human
infrastructure can be environmentally neutral or beneficial, development would
become a less fraught endeavor. But marine life cannot live in cities, harbors,
and on sea walls adorned with artificial structures mimicking their habitats.
Marine life flourishes in its natural habitats and not anywhere else.
Although Mayor Jane Yap has publicly scrapped the unsolicited proposal
to dump and fill our Tagbilaran Bay, there are some supporters of the proposal
who keep on weeping and gnashing their teeth on social media, harping on the
foregone economic benefits the city is supposed to get from the project and
blaming those who vigorously defended the environment. These supporters
must have been assuaged with a promise of a green infrastructure.
One social media personality commented that since the project will no
longer proceed, it is time for the environmentalists to work productively
towards restoring and rehabilitating Tagbilaran Bay, especially from pollution
and industrial waste.
The Supreme Court had reprobated this line of argument when it ordered
the concerned government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve
Manila Bay. Government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of their
respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and
preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas
polluted by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official
complement, the pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national
priority it deserves if their track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier
attitude towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem
is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment.
1 https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-greenwashing
2 https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/news/scientists-warn-against-greenwashing-of-global-coastal-developments
3 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.13683
4 https://www.stormwater.com/green-infrastructure/article/21163095/a-wolf-in-green-clothing