Life and the environment – Part 1

Two interesting news reports yesterday; one international and the other local. The first one was about Luisa Neubauer, a 25-year-old woman who filed a case in court against the German government for its failure to have a concrete plan to reduce emissions beyond 2030 which would make their lives more difficult in the future. Which she won! Let’s discuss that next week. Also, we read yesterday about the feud over the “mega vaccination site” on Nayong Pilipino land in Manila.

Our vaccine czar, Carlito Galvez Jr., stated it is inappropriate for the Nayong Filipino Foundation (NPF) to equate the fate of 500 ipil-ipil trees with Filipino lives. This after the NPF opined that, "The abrupt cutting of close to 500 trees and other site works on the NPF property will kill the existing ecosystem. Once lost, it could take decades to recover this ecosystem. A mega vaccination facility that will destroy this ecosystem would be a disaster and a disservice to the residents of Metro Manila who need more green and open spaces."

In short, Galvez is asking, “Lives or trees?” But is this really about one or the other? Or is this a case of really insisting on what one wants. Let’s just ask a few simple questions. Which is easier, to transfer the location of the facility or to transfer or recreate an entire ecosystem? Isn’t there any other place in the entire Metro Manila where we can build the mega vaccination facility? Can’t we just do mass vaccination in existing convention facilities which they do in the US?

Does it really have to be a question of lives versus trees? Once COVID-19 is contained, what do we do with the “mega vaccination facility?” Are we expecting another global pandemic in the next years or decades? Why don’t we use existing convention facilities which aren’t even used or in full use during this pandemic? Even if the answers to these questions are “no,” isn’t there really no other area?

I have no idea on space availability nor on the state of the ecosystem the NPF is talking about, but I am convinced this shouldn’t be a feud. It’s both an economic and environmental issue, on top of being a health one, and the government should be united in evaluating the pros and cons of both, and all, sides, since we are one government. The NEDA Board might be an appropriate venue for this discussion. But one does not draw a line between ‘lives or trees.’ Do we really have to?

Why not do what the government normally does - identify and enumerate all the other options possible and available, do an honest-to-goodness evaluation on the pros and cons of each, or something like a goal achievement matrix, and come up with an agreed course of action. Unless there are no other considerations, we know nothing about, this should arrive at a mutually agreeable result. Not a feud in public, or taunting, “Lives or trees?” After all, it all boils down to saving lives, ultimately, whether at present or in the future. And trees will save lives in the future. Ask Luisa Neubauer. Or Germany’s Supreme Court.