Part Two
ENVIRONMENTAL activists group Greenpeace Philippines claims the burning of fossil fuels, specifically coal, is detrimental to the environment and human health.
“Specifically, [the] traditional means of generating energy that involves the burning of polluting fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas and oil, have been scientifically proven to be extremely hazardous to the environment and to human health,” the group’s statement issued in a forum in mid-September said. “Of the three types of fossil fuels, coal has inflicted, and continues to inflict, the biggest blows to public health.”
According to documents provided by Greenpeace Philippines, the use of coal as energy source releases the most carbon dioxide (CO2) per unit of energy. Coal accounts for 43 percent of global emissions released annually from fossil-fuel combustion, with 28 percent being emitted from coal-fired power plants.
Coal-fired power plants, which are the largest producers of man-made CO2 emissions, contribute to the increase of greenhouse gas (GHG). This gas traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, resulting to increase in global temperatures.
“Experts predict that the rising global temperatures will continue to increase overall health burdens, which disproportionately affects the poorest and most vulnerable communities, resulting in the widening of current unacceptable gaps in health outcomes,” it said.
Deaths
ACCORDING to Raphael Lopez of the Health Care Without Harm Inc. Asia (HCWHA), coal-related deaths in the Visayas region every year may reach up to 650 from the current 240 should the country continue to rely on coal-fired power plants.
However, he said the estimated increase in premature deaths can be reduced.
“A track pursuing renewable energy [RE] would help reduce, if not avoid, the number of mortality,” Lopez said during the same forum.
He was referring to the HCWHA case study that sought to provide a more detailed analysis of the health impact of coal-power plants within a 1,500-kilometer radius.
By 1,500-km domain covering the areas of Southern Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao, which is home to around 97 million people.
“Considering the Philippines’s rising population, poor health outcomes and the scarcity of resources needed to adapt to the worst effects of climate change, the country should end its heavy dependence on coal as an energy source and accelerate initiatives involving renewable energy resources to meet its energy demands,” the HCWHA report said.
The WHO
ACCORDING to the World Health Organization (WHO), the burning of coal in power plants is a leading cause of smog, acid rain and toxic air pollution. The air pollutants caused by the combustion has been linked to serious damage to the human respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems.
Based on estimates done by the WHO, more than 7 million people die each year from diseases related to air pollution, making it the world’s largest single environmental risk to health.
From mining, transportation, washing, combustion and to disposal of postcombustion wastes, coal was found to have negatively-affected people’s health.
In the Philippines around one-third of the energy used to generate electricity comes from the burning of coal. Coal-fired power plants continue to be the country’s top producer of electricity since 2012, accounting for approximately 39 percent of the country’s power- generation mix.
According to the Department of Energy (DOE), the Philippines has 17 operating coal plants as of May 2015. About 29 more are to begin commercial operations by 2020.
The DOE has announced early in the year that the Philippines is looking at a dramatically increased 70-percent dependence on coal for electricity from 2030 to 2050.
Impact
THE HCWHA study also revealed that at least 12 percent of workers employed in coal-fired power plants have contracted lung diseases suspected to be due to inhalation of dust during mining operations. Fatal impact to their health includes pneumoconiosis (Black Lung disease) and silicosis, among others.
Based on an HCWHA 2016 fact sheet, energy derived from coal poses the most harmful in terms of public health-risk impact. Coal combustion results in significant air pollution and its waste contains toxic metals and radioactive materials.
“The majority of greenhouse-gas emissions include CO2, methane and short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon, come from the burning of fossil fuels,” HCWHA Executive Director Ramon San Pascual said.
Occupational health risks in coal mining and production include exposure to carcinogens, silica and coal dust, among others. Climate risks, likewise, comprise 44 percent of global CO2-emissions from fuel and methane combustion.
According to Pascual, continued investments in coal and fossil fuels for energy generation inject a massive strain in a country’s health-care system.
In 2015 an estimated $5.3 trillion, or 6.5 percent of the global GDP, went to post-tax consumer subsidies for fossil-fuel companies, including that of health costs due to air pollution.
Fossil-fuel combustion, being a major contributor to air pollution, has caused around 7 million premature deaths around the world for 2012, Pascual added.
“Air pollution is the biggest threat to health that comes from the energy sector,” he said in the same forum. “Air pollution is the leading cause of heart attack, stroke [and other major illnesses].”
Alternatives
HYDROELECTRIC, geothermal, solar and wind-energy sources comprise that of RE sources.
The HCWHA claims that small hydroelectric energy sources are less harmful to health. Although public health risks stemming from the source are not well documented, it is assumed that the impact is minimal, Pascual said.
As for its occupational health risks, workers in this area are exposed to toxic chemicals and diesel fumes. They may encounter drowning or electrocution, especially in large dams. The climate risks associated with hydroelectric energy sources involve variable climate impact from construction and operation in the area, including significant emissions from the reservoirs.
Geothermal energy is deemed to pose relatively low public health risks from air and water pollution. Occupational risks include toxic chemical exposure, injuries and silicosis. Climate risks in this RE model involve minor climate impact, with its open-loop system emitting relatively small amounts of CO2 and methane.
Solar energy, meanwhile, pose public health risks that are relatively smaller compared to the burning of fossil fuels. Health concerns here only center on the management of toxic waste during manufacturing of solar panels and end-of-life disposal.
Occupational health risks in solar-energy sources only involve injuries and toxic chemical exposure during manufacturing. Climate risks, on the other hand, are minor and stem from the manufacturing of equipment.
As for wind energy, the public health risk seen from this source only comes from the noise emitted by the turbines that can possibly contribute to stress-related illnesses. Occupational health and climate risks are also minimal.
To be concluded
Image credits: Alysa Salen