A long way from clean air; PH nine years behind in standards

Don’t hold your breath for cleaner air, as the DENR has been a laggard in adopting cleaner fuel standards. A 10-fold cut in sulfur emissions has been pushed back to 2016. INQUIRER file photo

As you drive or commute to work today in Metro Manila or any other urban center in the Philippines, you will be inhaling 500 ppm of toxic sulfur, courtesy of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Five hundred parts per million is the maximum sulfur content allowed by the Euro 2 emission standard imposed by the DENR since Jan. 1, 2008.

But why blame the DENR? It was the DENR that postponed a department order requiring all new motor vehicles introduced in the Philippines to meet the Euro 4 emission standard (50 ppm of sulfur) to Jan. 1, 2016.  According to the Asia-Pacific 50 ppm Diesel Sulfur Matrix, the Philippines was implementing Euro 2 in 2009 and discussing adopting Euro 4 standards for diesel and petroleum by 2012, two years later than the original 2010 target date. Now the target date has been pushed further to 2016.

Lowering sulfur content in fuel improves fuel economy and reduces emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds. Euro 4 gasoline protects the engine from the corrosive effect of ethanol, improves power by enhancing engine lubrication and restores maximum engine performance by removing deposits. Moreover, clean air promotes the health and wellbeing of the general public. In Europe and North America, Euro 5 has been the emission standard since September 2009 while Euro 4, which will be implemented here two long years from now, was in effect over there from January 2005 to January 2009.

9 YEARS BEHIND. In other words, we are nine years behind other countries in taking action to improve air quality to safeguard public health.  According to Independent Philippine Petroleum Companies Association (IPPCA) president Fernando Martinez during his speech at the Drive Tourism Conference in Subic last month, the DENR issued in 2010 Department Administrative Order No. 2010-23 mandating that starting Jan. 1, 2008, all new motor vehicles introduced in the Philippines should meet Euro 2 (500 ppm sulfur) emission standards until December 2015.  Starting Jan. 1, 2016, light duty vehicles and passenger cars will have to meet Euro 4 (50 ppm) emission standards. The Euro 3 standard of 500 ppm will be skipped.

Since lowering sulfur content requires additional refinery processing and Euro 4 standard fuel may be more expensive to manufacture due to additional investment and operating costs for refiners, some environmentalists think that heavy lobbying by the oil majors delayed our Euro 4 timetable. But how come minor players in the oil industry like Unioil and Eastern Petroleum can and are already selling Euro 4-compliant fuel years before it is mandated?

It is not only the DENR that is lagging in so far as protecting and advancing the people’s right to a clean, healthy environment is concerned. Fifteen years ago, Congress approved Republic Act No. 8749, aka the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, providing for a comprehensive air pollution control policy. Since emissions from motor vehicles are considered worldwide as a major source of air pollution, the Clean Air Act tasked the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) with the implementation of emission standards to improve air quality for the health, safety and welfare of the general public. It also mandated the DOTC to review, revise and publish the standards every two years, or as the need arises.

AIR QUALITY. That was 15 years ago, but is the air quality today in Metro Manila and other cities cleaner? The answer is obvious. You only have to drive along Edsa and other city streets full of smoke-belching buses, jeepneys, tricycles and motorcycles to know that the emission standards set by the DOTC—if any—are ignored, if not defied. Now and then, some mulcting traffic cops or Metro Manila Development Authority traffic aides will apprehend a smoke belcher, but there is no consistent, honest enforcement of the emission standards in order to achieve clean air.

For that matter, the DOTC has failed to review, revise and publish the emission standards every two years as required by the Clean Air Act. I read the newspapers daily, but do not remember seeing any emission standards ever being published by the DOTC in the 15 years since the Clean Air Act was approved.

On the other hand, the Biofuels Act of 2006 (RA 9367) was a major step not only in lowering toxic greenhouse emissions to protect public health, but also in reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and ensuring the availability of alternative and renewable clean fuels. The Department of Energy’s circular on the mandatory use of biofuel blend increased biodiesel blend from 1 percent in 2007 to 2 percent in 2009, while bioethanol blend in gasoline increased from 5 percent in 2009 to 10 percent in 2011.

AMBITIOUS. The ambitious program to extract raw materials for biodiesel from the jetropha shrub, however, failed. It was proven to be commercially unfeasible by the bongle experiments made with the Philippine National Oil Co.’s Alternative Fuels Corp., in which P800 million was invested. The IPCCA’s Martinez says that not a single jetropha processing facility for commercial utilization has been successful.

The production of ethanol based on sugar cane is more viable, although at present locally produced ethanol supplies only 25 percent of demand with imported ethanol filling up the gap. Martinez estimates that it would take four years to set up an ethanol plant as an investor has to contend with many requirements and red tape. He adds, however, that additional capacities may come next year that can meet 50 percent of the demand.  Since ethanol is priced a bit lower than the international price of crude oil, the pump price of 10 percent bioethanol blend gasoline is not unduly affected.

THE CLEANEST. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is the cleanest alternative fuel of all. The discovery of Malampaya natural gas led to the Natural Gas Vehicle Program for Public Transportation of the DOE, with 100 CNG buses as the target. In 2011, seven bus operators shifted to CNG in support of the program. However, only 41 CNG buses are still running today because CNG supply is erratic and not assured. Is it because CNG is sourced from the Malampaya consortium led by Shell and Chevron, both of which are diesel refiners?

Despite the apparent conflict of interest, Martinez says that the IPPCA supports the DOE’s natural gas project and IPPCA members plan to invest in the retail stations of CNG. If CNG replaces smelly and particulate-heavy diesel as the fuel of public utility buses, the future of the transportation industry looks bright. And the dream of clean air may finally become a reality.