Recently, the Senate voted to concur the ratification of the Paris Climate deal after President Rody Duterte signed the ‘Instrument of Accession,’ signifying the Philippines’ commitment to Paris Agreement.
To recall, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change seeks to reduce carbon emission and was signed by 194 countries. Our country has pledged to cut 70% of its carbon emissions by 2030 with the help of the international community.
The Senate’s concurrence signifies that we are now legally bound to the agreement. This means it is time for us to double our efforts in reducing our carbon emissions. One way of doing that is to add more renewable energy in our energy mix.
This shift has sound economic reasons, and more importantly, it has even more profound rationale: its impact on the health of our people.
Data from the Department of Energy reveals that we are still reliant on oil and coal for our energy needs. In 2014, we sourced our power from imported coal and oil by as much as 13.9% and 29.8%, respectively. The figures are even higher for 2015 as imported oil and coal accounted for 14.92% and oil was 32.79% of our energy mix.
Aside from the monetary consequences relying heavily on imported products, reliance on coal and oil for our energy needs has an impact on health of our countrymen, and therefore death rates. Coal, for one, has the largest carbon footprint among all energy types. One kilowatt-hour (kWh) of power produced from coal emits roughly 900 grams of carbon dioxide. And this has health consequences.
Data shows that shifting to renewable energy will pave the way for lesser carbon emissions. Just recently, a study revealed that in the United Kingdom, carbon emissions decreased by 5.8 percent in 2016 compared to previous year as the country’s use of coal dropped by 52% for the same period.
Aside from having a large carbon footprint, experts are now talking about another measure: “death print.”. Both oil and coal have large death prints. According to James Conca, an energy expert, and geochemist, “death print is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kilowatt hour (kWh) produced”.
Conca explains that coal, oil, and biomass are carbon particulates that result from burning and cause respiratory problems. Our internal organs, particularly the lungs, don’t respond well to these particulates. Using them has the same result as inhaling cigarette smoke: black lungs.
Just how bad are the death prints of coal and oil?
Conca’s research shows that on global average, the mortality rate of coal –computed as death divided by trillion kWh of use–is 100, 000 when 50% of energy needs are sourced from coal. It’s even worse in China, which sources 75% of electricity from coal as its mortality rate is 170,000. The US sources 44% from coal, and its coal’s mortality rate is 10,000. Conca says that China has unfortunately ramped up the building of coal in the last decade with plants that usually do not have exhaust scrubbers thus the higher death print.
Oil has a large death print, too, as its mortality rate is 36,000 for every 8% energy it supplies.
On the other hand, solar rooftop and wind power, with each contributing roughly one percent to the global energy supply, has mortality rates of 440 and 150, respectively.
In the United States, Practice Greenhealth points out that a typical 200-bed hospital that uses coal-powered energy is responsible for $107,000 a year in direct healthcare costs associated with asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, and other health problems. The organization is the leading membership and networking organization in the US for organizations in the healthcare community that have made a commitment to sustainable, and environmentally preferable practices.
Clearly, these numbers point that adding more renewable energy to the mix will both save the environment, as well as lives.
Again, as I have been saying in the past, I do not have problems with coal plants per se. In fact, I have built some of them during my days with the NAPOCOR. But I also believe in responding to the needs of our time. And studies suggest that the world needs more clean energy if we are to save the world for the succeeding generations.
References:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/18/world/2016-hottest-year/
https://qz.com/925294/carbon-emissions-in-the-uk-have-fallen-to-a-120-year-low/
http://www.rappler.com/nation/162865-duterte-signs-paris-agreement-climate-change
http://www.rappler.com/nation/162865-duterte-signs-paris-agreement-climate-change
GAAD THINKS 