|
IF it’s not too late, Secretary Angelo Reyes should
include in the agenda of the energy summit some matters that are far
less transient and of far greater importance to the long-term future
of the country than the current price of crude oil.
These are questions on how to
keep the economy growing and reducing at the same time the
greenhouse gases that we emit every year.
It can be done but the measures
are not painless nor costless. In order of feasibility, here are my
suggestions.
First, energy efficiency.
Improving the energy efficiency of transport, buildings, and
lighting can be done fairly quickly with indirect subsidies. For
example, by phasing out the incandescent light bulb and making the
compact fluorescent lamp affordable by exempting it from some taxes
would result in significant saving in electric consumption. By
modifying the building code, energy saving buildings and houses will
become the norm. All this can be done with tougher standards.
Second, clean renewable energy.
Wind, solar, hydro and geothermal are today the main sources.
Biomass, wave and tide will very soon become economically feasible.
Hydrogen fuel cells could become available by the middle of the
century for transportation but the price will remain high for some
time. There’s a bill in Congress on renewables. The energy summit
should take a look at it to guide the Congress on which technologies
to choose given our conditions. At the same time, the summiteers
could discuss the pros and cons of a grid system as opposed to a
decentralized energy production and distribution system.
Third, biofuels. The law on
biofuels needs another look. Sugarcane ethanol and cocodiesel are
probably not sustainable mainly because they compete with food
production. Jatropha is looking great but still needs R and D
support. The key question is which to support with subsidies.
Cellulosic ethanol might become technically feasible before very
long. This early, we should encourage our scientists to study ways
to extract ethanol from agricultural waste.
Fourth, baseload power.
Renewables are not enough to generate baseload power. We’ve still
to use coal and bunker fuel to produce the energy that our economy
requires. When can we begin to do to make the transition to nuclear
power? A nuclear reactor produces no CO2 and can deliver electricity
continuously. The downside is safety and disposal of nuclear waste.
Coal is the world’s most
abundant fossil fuel. Engineers are scrambling to perfect a carbon
storage and sequestration system (CSS) to capture the CO2 from the
combustion of coal and to store it underground. We should begin our
own experiments in CSS and in gasifying indigenous coal.
Fifth, to pay for all these new
investments in low carbon technologies, revenues have to be raised.
A carbon tax will become necessary in the near future. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates that at
a carbon price of US$20-100 per ton of CO2, renewables would be
attractive enough to account for 25 to 30 percent of global energy
supply. What would be the carbon price in the Philippines to hasten
the transition to renewables or to nuclear energy? And how should
the tax be levied and used? This should be a major item on the
agenda of the energy summit.
Sixth, population. The IPCC said
that with 6 billion people, the stress on Earth’s resources is
close to biological limits. Braking population growth will be a
solution both for energy supply and global warming. Our policy on
population management is individual choice. However, many studies
have shown that fertility decreases with prosperity. Can we
accelerate our poverty-reduction efforts so that families will
voluntarily produce fewer children?
An energy summit that will tackle
these questions will be useful to the policy maker and could open
the eyes of citizens who until now are oblivious to the consequence
of the continued burning of fossil fuels.
Two weeks ago, in a press
conference in Malacañang, Secretary Reyes said that one of the aims
of the summit is to define the country’s energy development goals
“for the next 50 to 100 years.”
I hope he meant what he said.
|
