Urban forest or vaccine facility: Why can’t we have both?

A RECENT contention about a planned mega-vaccine facility at Nayong Pilipino has sparked public outrage from both concerned parties and supporters. Environmentalists, activists and conservation experts are clashing with the government and the billionaire businessman Enrique Razon Jr. over a mega-vaccine facility to be built on the proposed site, which is part of a long-term plan for an urban forest on reclaimed land in Metro Manila. Currently, amid a precarious and endangered stage in the pandemic, where vaccination is key to reopening the economy and ultimately achieving herd immunity from a crisis as bad as post-World-War 2 — a moral and legal dilemma has surfaced on who should take ownership of the land and what should ultimately be built there.

Such a case is familiar to the ethical and psychological trolley cart dilemma. What portion of the land should be owned by who? Should we hinder the development of one of the few proposed urban forests in Metro Manila to give way to the welfare and health of the people? Is that even a question to begin with given that we are comparing the value of a person’s life of a person with potential green spaces? Would you sacrifice the future quality of life for the present quality of life? These questions may seemingly be as simple and naïve as they looks but it is definitely more complicated than it is. Many articles, photos and stories have been published that may have skewed our positions on the matter — painting both parties as either villains or heroes, yet a far nuanced and more important matter to consider is why we even had to end up with such a convoluted decision in the first place. Why can’t we just have both, and what can be done with such a fraught discussion.