Burning2

ExecutiveSummaryThe world’s climate is changing. The burningof fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas arecreating a world where floods, droughts andextreme weather events are becoming morefrequent and severe. The impacts for humansand the environment will be devastatingunless we act to halt climate change now.This means ending our dependence forenergy from dirty fossil fuels and switching toa clean renewable energy future.

However, even though the evidence showsthat climate change is happening now andwill only get worse if we do not switchenergy paths, large multinationals andgovernments from the rich, developedcountries continue to push their dirty fossilfuel technologies on developing countrieslike the Philippines. This is despite theabundance of clean, renewable sources ofenergy in these areas.

By continuing to build new coal plants, thefuture for the Philippines looks bad. Theeffects of climate change are furthercompounded by the production of toxinsreleased by the burning of coal. Communitiesliving near existing coal plants are alreadyexperiencing the effects of this waste.

However, all of this could be avoided if wewere to move to a clean energy future. ThePhilippines has a massive renewable energyresource. It is high time we use it.

�v�

BURNING OUR FUTURE:The true costs of building coal-fired power plantsand the case for renewable energy alternatives

Written and prepared by Red Constantino and Abigail Jabines. Editor: AthenaRonquillo Ballesteros. Thanks to Anita Goldsmith for her generous help in theediting work, to Kevin Bridgen of the University of Exeter for giving priority to thisreport’s toxics technical notes, to Maan Mayo for her focused assistance in theresearch, and to Yvonne Castro/YC Publication Consultants for the great lay-out work and support.

COVER PHOTOS: Calaca Cross Action, Batangas, Philippines, Nico Sepe/Greenpeace, 2001; Pulupandan Action, Negros Occidental, Philippines, Jojo Pasana/Greenpeace, 2001

INSIDE PHOTOS: Sea-level Rise, Norfolk, East Coast England, Greenpeace; Severedrought, Brazil, Greenpeace; Severe flooding, Mozambique, Greenpeace;Alstom Action, Makati City, Philippines, Greenpeace/Jimmy Domingo, 2002; 1200MW Sual Coal-fired Power Plant, Pangasinan, Philippines,Greenpeace, 2002;“Why are we poisoning our people?”, As I see it. Neal Cruz, Philippine DailyInquirer, 2001; Calaca Coal-fired Power Plant Sampling, Batangas, Philippines,Greenpeace/John Novis, 2001; Mauban Coal-fired Power Plant, Quezon,Philippines, Balikas Aklat 7 Bilang 07, 2002; Smoke stack, Greenpeace; Stackfor report, Greenpeace; Sual fisherman, Pangasinan, Philippines, Greenpeace,2002; “29 0f 35 power deals under FVR flawed”, Mia Gonzales, Today,2002; “1.5 B utang sa bayan”, Quezon, Philippines, Balikas Aklat 7 Bilang 07,2002; Race for the Climate! Kids with Pinwheel, Manila, Philippines,Greenpeace/Jimmy Domingo, 2002; Pulupandan Action, Negros Occidental,Philippines, Jojo Pasana/Greenpeace, 2001; Race for the Climate! DragonBoat Regatta, Manila, Philippines, Greenpeace/Jimmy Domingo, 2002

CONTACTS: Greenpeace Southeast Asia Climate and Energy Campaign,Unit 329 Eagle Court Condominium, 26 Matalino Street, Diliman,• Quezon City, MetroManila, Philippines tels. (632) 434 7034, (632) 9218812 fax: (632) 434 7035 e-mail:greenpeace.philippines@dialb.greenpeace.org

PRINTING: YC Publication Consultants, mobile: (0919) 619 5519, e-mail:ycpub@pinoymail.com. Printed on acid-free seaweed paper.

Our Future 3

Philippines, we continue to favor forms of energygeneration that will mean future devastation forus all.

The Philippines is a country with abundant naturalenergy resources. This energy – from the sun, wind,and waves – can be harnessed to produce clean,renewable energy. Despite this resource and thefact that climate change is threatening thecountry at an alarming rate, the Government isintent on building new coal power plants. Such apolicy will be a disaster for Filipinos.

When fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas - are burnt, itreleases carbon dioxide (CO2) - the main human-made ‘greenhouse gas’. CO2 and othergreenhouse gases create an artificial ‘greenhouseeffect’, thickening the natural canopy of gases inthe atmosphere and causing more heat tobecome trapped. As a result, the globaltemperature is increasing, throwing the world’sclimate out of its natural balance and into chaos.

UN scientists have predicted that climate changeis set to have massive impacts on the world,including more frequent and severe extremeweather events, increased flooding and droughtsand rising seas.

Coal is the most carbon intensive of all fossilfuels. A coal-fired power plant like the 1200-MWof Sual, Pangasinan will, for the duration of its25-year contract, produce 238.4 million metrictons of carbon, equivalent to more than 575.6billion jeepneys simultaneously starting andtraveling for a kilometer.1 Burning coal for energyalso produces tremendous amounts of toxic wastesthat, over time, decimate the communities wherethese coal plants are built.

Despite this, and the well-documented potentialimpacts of climate change on the Philippines, thegovernment continues to pursue an energy policythat favors coal. The Philippine government isplanning to increase the country’s coal capacityfrom 3,825 MW to 4,025 MW by 2010.2

In contrast, the share of power derived from newand renewable climate-friendly energy isprojected to diminish from its current 30.03percent share in the country’s energy mix to 21.69percent by 2011.3

The Carbon Logic

Climate scientists project that a temperature riseof 1oC above pre-industrial levels is likely to leadto extensive ecosystem damage. Using estimatesof fossil fuel reserves produced by the IPCC, theworld’s foremost authority on global warming,Greenpeace has calculated a budget of howmuch carbon the world can extract and burnwhile limiting the temperature increase to 1oC.

To prevent extensive ecosystem damage, we canburn only around 225 gigatonnes of carbon – lessthan a quarter of known reserves. This means thatthe remaining reserves can never be burned. Atour current rate of energy use, we will have tophase out fossil fuels in the next 30 to 40 yearsand replace them with clean, renewable energysupplies.

The issue is not whether we will run out of fossilfuels, but how we constrain further explorationand use. Every new license given for oilexploration and everynew permit given forcoal plants to operatepotentially expands theamount of fossil fuelsavailable and makes thetask of staying withinthe ecological limits ofclimate change moredifficult.4

The CarbonBudget

or a country so vulnerable to thegrave impacts of climate change,why is it that we seem to be so intenton building more coal-fired powerplants? Despite the viablealternatives available in the

F

Burning4

1There is 30% more CO2 in the atmospheretoday than before the industrial revolution.The last ten years has been the hottest inhistory with 1998 being the hottest, and2001 the second hottest.

Climate change impactson the Philippines

The rich, industrialized counties in the Northproduce the majority of the world’sdangerous carbon emissions, yet the worstimpacts of climate change will be felt by thedeveloping world, including countries inSouth East Asia. The developed world mustcut its emissions now, but the developingworld must also choose a clean energypathway for future energy development.

IMPACTSof Climate Change

The

According to the UN-assembledIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), the impacts of global warming “areexpected to be greatest in developingcountries in terms of loss of life and relativeeffects on investment and the economy.” TheIPCC also states that climate change willgreatly exacerbate the disparity betweenindustrialized and developing economies.

Sea rises are expected to occur as a result ofclimate change, making the Philippines, with32,000 kilometers in discontinuouscoastlines, extremely vulnerable.5 Scientistspredict that total increases in sea levels inthe 21st century may go as high as 89 cm, afigure which seems small until one learns thatincreases of as little as 30 cm can normallycause a retreat of shoreline by 30 meters.6

Our Future 5

Philippine agriculture is also considered to beespecially vulnerable to global warming.Recent studies indicate that crop yields candrop by as much as 10 percent for every 1degree oC temperature rise (a disturbing factgiven that even nights in the Philippines arenow 2.5 oC warmer than they were 50 yearsago).7 Some studies also indicate that El Niñoevents - a naturalphenomenon notcaused by climatechange - have tendedto become morefrequent and severe inthe last few decadesbecause of globalwarming, thus placinglocal agriculturalproduction at possiblyeven greater risk.8

Human health too, willsuffer. Diseases likemalaria and dengue,already serious healthproblems here, will become more widespreadeven as government spending for healthservices are deteriorating. According tohealth experts, “[f]orty-five percent of theworld’s population live in areas wheremalaria is transmitted. With climate change,this area is expected to enlarge to include60 percent of the world’s population andbring an expected 50 to 80 million newcases of malaria each year.”

Coral bleaching is another grave cause forconcern. In 1998 a massive bleaching eventlinked to the severe El Niño event of 1997/98 was reported to have killed up to 30 to70 percent of hard corals among major reefsin the Philippines. 9 Studies indicate that aone-degree change can cause corals tobleach. Prolonged warm temperatures orshort but higher temperatures will likely lead“to significant degradation of coral healthand consequent mortality.”10 Blessed with oneof the highest levels of coral diversity in theworld, Philippine reefs contribute at least 15percent to the total fishery productionannually. Many coastal communities also

obtain their income from coral reef-associated tourism activities. The impacts ofcoral bleaching in the Philippines due torising global temperatures would thereforetranslate to significant economic losses.11

And yet the investment in dirty fossil fuelscontinues.

Climate change“isn’t just aquestion of coralbleaching for a fewmarine ecologists,nor just a questionof malaria for afew health officials -the number ofsimilar increasesin diseaseincidence isastonishing. Wedon’t want to bealarmist, but weare alarmed.”

- Dr. RichardOstfeld, Institute ofEcosystem Studies,

New York.12

5Our Future

Sea-level rise

Severe flooding

Burning6

2GLOBALInvesting in

Coal-fired power plants are lucrativemultinational and multimillion dollarbusinesses. Plants are funded by privatecapital and through a mix of public moneyleveraged from national Export CreditAgencies (ECAs) and International FinancingInstitutions (IFIs).

ECAs and other IFIs play a key role infunding the expansion of large-scale fossil-fuel power sector development plans indeveloping countries, despite the fact thatmany OECD countries claim they takeenvironmental considerations, such as climatechange, into consideration when investing in,and lending to, developing countries.

ECAs are the largest group of IFIs in theworld. They are based in OECD countriesand provide insurance and financial securityto companies in these countries that want to

Warming

invest abroad in areas deemed as high risk –primarily the developing world.

Investors in fossil fuel generating plants fromabroad have targeted South East Asia, andthe Philippines is no exception. Rather thantreating the country like an opportunity forprofit making by OECD based businesses,Greenpeace believes large IFIs and ECAsshould instead actively support the transferof renewable energy technologies above thatof harmful fossil fuelled technologies.

Billions for dirty energy

From 1993-1998, the World Bank’s $4 billioninvestment in coal-fired power plantscontributed 7 billion metric tons of CO2emissions to the global climate. Its $2 billionof coal extraction investment added another

Our Future 7

6 billion tons of CO2 to the Earth’satmosphere.13

Between 1992-1998, the Export-Import Bankof the US (EX-IM)/Overseas PrivateInvestment Corporation (OPIC) supported$5.698 billion in coal-fired power.14 Theestimated carbon dioxide emissions fromthese projects are 3.3 billion tons.

The Japan Bank for InternationalCooperation (JBIC), the biggest overseassupporter of the energy and industry sectorsof developing countries has an annualbudget of over US$ 26 billion, with roughly12 percent devoted to coal-basedtechnologies in Indonesia, Thailand, and thePhilippines.15 Its lending added 3,922 MW innew coal-fired power, producing 623,367tons of CO2 emissions or 158,941 CO2 unitemissions.16

Carbon hypocrisy

Similarly, the UK ECA, the Export CreditGuarantee Department (ECGD), is active infacilitating the building of new dirty coalplants in the developing world, despite theUK Government actively tackling carbonemissions at home and pushing for reductionsin the rest of Europe.

For example, the ECGD provided financialbacking amounting to £433,575,590 to

GEC-Alstom for its role in supplyingequipment for the Sual coal plant.

This was further backed up bythe financing activities of the

French ECA, COFACE, theExport-Import Bank of the

US (US Ex-Im Bank), theInternational FinanceCorporation (IFC) ofthe World Bank group

and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Power generating plants like Sualrepresent big business opportunitiesfor investors abroad, with littlebenefit going directly to theFilipino people. The 1200-MWcoal-fired power plant of Sual,Pangasinan is presently owned bythe US energy giant Mirant. Mirantis the largest foreign investor in thePhilippines. Mirant’s CEO has beenappointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as a member of her “InternationalAdvisory Board.”

The Sual power station is a Build-Operate-Transfer project with a total cost of $1.2billion. Sual is under a 25-year contract tosell power to the National PowerCorporation and is the largest operatingpower plant in the Philippines. It commencedoperations in 1999. Coal used at Sual issupplied by Australia, Indonesia and China.

Greenpeace activistsprotesting at Philippineheadquarters of Alstom,a major global providerof fossil fuel and pollutingcoal plant equipment.

Burning8

Dirty technology dumping

Given this financial backdrop, foreign energyinvestments in the developing world are thusheavily biased towards fossil fuels. It is alsoimportant to note that these investors – IFIs,ECAs and Transnational Corporations –dictate the terms of the construction,operation and maintenance of energyprojects. This means thatlocal communities haveno ownership over theprojects that oftenwould not even be builtin the countriessupplying the financing.For example, although the UKGovernment continues to fund the export ofdirty coal technologies in developingcountries, there has not been a coal plantbuilt in the UK since 1972.

A further example of foreign investment indirty energy investments in developingcountries is the Mauban coal plant, builtwith US support.

The Philippine corporate vehicle QuezonPower Limited (QPL) owns the 440-MW plantat Mauban. QPL is a mix of American andEuropean corporations including powergeneration firm and major owner Intergen,which is composed of Shell and the U.S.-based Bechtel Enterprises. Mauban isoperated by the controversial Covanta

Energy, which in April of this year filed forbankruptcy protection.

The US Ex-Im Bank, which funds dirty fossilfuel power projects throughout thedeveloping world, provided crucial loans forthe coal plant, amounting to $455.89million, more than half of the total projectcost. The US Ex-Im Bank also provided

political risk guarantees andthe Overseas PrivateInvestment Corporation(OPIC) of the USprovided loans for

construction and insurance.

Mauban is a Build-Own-Operate (BOO)independent power producer project with atotal cost of $828 million. QPL sells power tothe distribution firm MERALCO under a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA)contract. Construction began in 1997 andthe plant began operating in May 30,2000. The Mauban coal plant uses coalsourced from the Indonesian-based,Australian-owned firm, PT Adaro.

Climate change is a reality but if we act tosignificantly cut emissions today; we canlimit the degree of change and its effects.Greenpeace believes that governments inrich, developed countries must act now tocurb their emissions, but also apply principlesin their lending and investment support forenergy developments abroad that promoteclimate change mitigation measures. Theimpacts of climate change look set to bedevastating for countries in the developingworld and our governments must also take alead and ensure that we continue ourdevelopment down a clean sustainableenergy pathway.

The 1200-MWSual coal-firedpower plant inPangasinan.

Our Future 9

AUSTRALIA

Propagating the myths of clean coalAccording to a forthcoming report by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington,Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world. Coal is Australia’s biggestexport-earning commodity,17 with annual sales yielding AUD$8.6 billion in 1997-98,18 $9.3 billion in 1999-200019, and $10.8 billion in 2000-01. Coal accounts forup to eleven percent of Australia’s total export earnings,20 and in 1998-99, formedthirty-three percent of Australian mining commodity exports. Since 1970, Australia’sproduction has increased 400 percent, making the country the fifth largestcoal producer with 6 percent of total world output.21 The vast majority ofits coal exports have gone to fuel the economies of Asia. According to theAustralian Coal Association 1999 figures, exports of Australian coal areexpected to double by 2010, with a significant rise in the new markets ofKorea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and China.22

The Export Finance & Insurance Corporation(EFIC-Australia) continues to play a leadingrole in promoting the so-called “clean coal”technology to many Asian countries notablyChina and the Philippines. Twelve percent ofEFIC’s investment in 1997/98 were devotedto coal technologies, amounting to close toA$1 billion.23

The Philippines has been as a reliable market for Australian coal since 1995, as hasMalaysia. From an initial purchase of 499 thousand tonnes in 1995, the Philippinespurchased a total of 2252 thousand tonnes in 1999.24 This amount has fluctuated inrecent years,25 but may rise with the planned increase to coal-fired power stations.Until recently, the Philippines has used relatively small amounts of steaming coal forpower generation and industry needs. In 1992, 2.3 million tonnes of steaming coalwas used, with 0.9 million tonnes for power generation. About two-thirds of coalwas imported.26 The recent growth in coal imports was based on the commissioningof a number of new coal-fired generating units in 1999, which included 2040megawatts in the Philippines.27 The Philippines are expected to increase coal use forenergy production by more than 20 percent by 2003,28 with possible coal importsof more than 50 million tonnes of coal by 2020.29

From a forthcoming report on the global coal industry tentatively titled King Coal by the SustainableEnergy and Economy Network-Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. Image on page from a recentissue of The Economist.

Burning10

3mercury in the power station’s emissions. ThePhilippine government took up theGreenpeace challenge and conducted evenmore extensive tests. The test results of thegovernment were unequivocal: mercury wasdetected in all of the government samplingstations in amounts way higher than thosedetected by Greenpeace.31 The Calacaplant was described by Philippine SenatorSergio Osmeña III as “an environmentaldisaster I wouldn’t wish on anyone.”32

Toxin factories

Toxic emissions are present in all coal-firedgenerating activities, and are harmful tohuman health and the environment.

Coal-fired power generating plants are alsomajor producers of toxic waste. Greenpeaceissued a report in August 2001, detailing themercury emissions of coal plants. Evidencewas provided by fly ash samples taken fromthe 600-MW coal-fired power plant ofCalaca, Batangas. Mercury was detected inat least four fly ash samples thatGreenpeace sent for testing to a commerciallaboratory. Mercury is a neurotoxin so deadlythat it only takes 1/70th of a teaspoon tocontaminate a 10.11-hectare lake to thepoint that fish caught in the lake areconsidered unfit for human consumption.30

Greenpeace challenged the Philippinegovernment to conduct its own testing afterit had denied, together with the companyoperating the coal plant, the presence of

POISONINGCoal-Fired Power Plants:

the People

Burning10

FAILEDPROMISES

Communities after communities lament the hosting ofcoal-fired power plants. Often ignored due to thegovernment’s ill-advised preference for gargantuan pollut-ing power plants, the voices of the people whose lives havebeen adversely altered should serve as stark reminders ofthe great costs that come with coal-fired power projects.

Here are some of their stories, in their own words.

“Sometimes the eyesbecome really itchy. Onother times they feel likethey’re on fire. We go to thehospital regularlywhenever the wind blowsthe ash in our direction.We have difficultybreathing.”

- Nanay Marcela,housewife, Sual

The following testimonies weregathered from Greenpeace researchtrips in February, March and April2002 to the towns of Mauban inQuezon, Masinloc in Zambales, andSual in Pangasinan. Some testimoniescome from the Greenpeace researchtrip organized in February-March lastyear in the same towns and includingPagbilao, Quezon and Calaca,Batangas.

“Does the coal plantcompany listen to us? Theoperator of that powerplant think they’re gods.They probably think thatthey’re from heaven andthey can kick the saintsaround. And we here arejust mortals. We’re tired ofcomplaining.”

- Isidro Sartin,fisherman, Pagbilao.

DASHEDHOPES Ph

oto

by A

lan

Grie

g

Phot

o by

Gil

Nartea

/Gre

enpe

ace

“Wind carrying ash from thecoal plant settles on our crops andseverely stunts their growth … Weare slowly being ruined. The stringbeans from our vegetable patch nolonger grow to their usual size …It’s because of the ash from the coalplant carried by the wind.”

- Mang Virgilio Alonso, farmer, Sual

“The children are used to studying under an oil lamp. Itcould be better, I know, but we’re so used to living withoutelectricity.”

- Annalyn, housewife, Sual.An interviewer chanced upon Annalyn and her children who had justgraduated from school. Medals were hung over Nanay Annalyn’s children,proof of their good performance in class during the last school year, Annalynsays. The medals are evidence of their mother’s affections. After all, despitethe poverty of their family’s condition, like other households in their villagein Sual, Nanay Annalyn’s home in the village Baybay Norte has no electricity,and it has only been through her perseverance to guide her children thatthey have received meritorious marks in school.

“They promised before that theywould not do any dredging, butlook at the place. It’s destroyed. Thecoal plant has brought us nothingbut hardship. Life here was betterbefore the coal plant was built.”

- Tio Freddy, fisherman at Masinloc,referring to tracts of dark debris

underwater that used to be a coral reef.

“Adeng, don’t you noticesomething common with all ofus? Look at our eyes. Children,men, women. We all look likedrunkards. Its because of theash from the coal plant’s ashpond.”

- Cirilo Gakad, farmer, Sual

Phot

o by

Tru

ls G

ulow

sen/

Gre

enpea

ce

Phot

o by

Abi

Jab

ines

/Grr

enpe

ace

Phot

o by

Abi

Jab

ines

/Grr

enpe

ace

“Before, in one hour we wouldalready have a catch; nowadays,the whole afternoon will pass bywithout a single catch,”

- Ernani Lauron, resident, Pagbilao

“It is a painful, bitter situation to be in.”- Vivian Balicoco.

Vivian lives by the coast in the village and wakes upeach day peering in silence at the immense coal plantof Mauban. An interviewer recounts the exchange thattook place between him and Vivian. “Till today,households in her community have no electricitywhatsoever. Vivian hears the rumblings of the coalplant everyday, sees the smoke blooming from thesmokestack and smells the squalor of her un-energized community. At night, her children readand play with the shadows from the flame of acandle or a small flickering gas lamp while on theirright, a glowing coal plant looms. The light bathesthe power station stations grounds. Would I besurprised if bitterness smoulders in Vivian’s gut?No, I wouldn’t be surprised.”

“Since the plant was built, I’ve experienced pulling up my crab-nets andfinding all my crabs black and strange-looking. When coal spills out fromtheir stockyard, which is often, the villagers go to the coast to sweep the carbonoff the beach. Some give the carbon back to the coal plant while others just tryto bury them under the sand. Its sad. Initially, I thought someone was justcleaning squid. Then I noticed the water getting darker and darker… when Igo out of the house, I see black water overflowing from the plant site.”

- Mang Nanding Manuba, boat-maker from Mauban.

Phot

o b

y G

rrenp

eace

Int

erna

tiona

l

Phot

o by

Ala

n G

rieg

“In one village alone, the village right beside thecoal plant, more than 90 carabaos and horseshave died since the year 2000. For the poorfamilies in the village, these livestock represent theirsole source of livelihood. All the animals that diedused the Cagsiay I river for feeding and drinking.This river is right beside the coal plant. We want toknow why these deaths are taking place in suchalarming ways. Why did the animals die? Thepower plant will not tell us why. We want to knowif the coal plant’s operations or emissions areconnected to these deaths. Instead of providinganswers, the coal plant officials have merelylaughed at us.”

- Beth Mossman, NGO and community leader, Mauban

These are just a few of the testimonies from local villag-ers whose communities have chosen to host large-scalefossil-fuel power plants. The toll from the burning of coalis great and the devastation of displaced and disintegratedcommunities due to coal plant operations is immense. Itis time for the government to conduct a full-scale environ-mental and health audit of all the communities hostingcoal-fired power plants. It is high time for the governmentto act with dispatch in determining the accountability ofofficials, corporations and financing institutions respon-sible for peddling, building and ultimately operating thedirty coal plants of the Philippines.

“One needs to buy rice andfood. If lucky, we can catch a fewpieces of fish and shellfish from thesea. It’s really better to spend ourmeager income on food ratherthan on electricity from the plant,which is so expensive.”

- Nanay Anastacia, housewife, Sual

Phot

o by

Gil

Nar

tea/

Grr

enpe

ace

Phot

o by

ala

n G

rieg

Our Future 11

Based on results from the GreenpeaceResearch Laboratories in the University ofExeter of the United Kingdom, fly ash samplestaken in March and April this year from thecoal plants of Sual in Pangasinan, Maubanin Quezon and Masinloc in Zambales, revealalarming levels of mercury even higher thanthose detected in Calaca. The carcinogenarsenic was also detected along with otherheavy metals such as lead and chromium,reaffirming the long-held contention ofenvironmentalists all over the world thatthere is no such thing as clean coal.According to the Exeter laboratory analysis,“other than mercury, which almost exclusivelyescapes pollution control devices, thequantities of [the] toxic elements produced inthe fly ash are in the order of tons or tens oftons per year from each plant.”

The National Power Corporation (NPC) statesthat 99.5 percent of mercury in coal isreleased through the smokestack duringcombustion.33 Mercury has the ability totravel over 600 miles. Mercury not releasedto the atmosphere ends up in ash landfills.

The Mauban coal plant produces 252,000tons of ash per year.

Exposure to mercury is capable ofcausing severe brain damage indeveloping fetuses, tremors,mental disorders and even death.Mercury is extremely toxic. Oncereleased to the environment,mercury in coastal sediments orabsorbed by fish can beconverted into the more toxicmethylmercury. Mercury, inmethylmercury form, is the onlyknown to biomagnify, meaning, itprogressively accumulates as it goes higherup the food chain.34 According to the USNational Academy of Sciences,methylmercury exposure is a “widespread andpersistent problem … and may causeneurological problems in 60,000 childrenborn in the US each year. Coal plants are thelargest source of mercury emissions in the US,discharging an average of 43 tonsannually.35

Mercury detected in samplesper coal plant36

Mercury (Hg)concentrations

in fly ash samplesPower facility mg/kg dry weight

Masinloc 1.2Sual 1.2Mauban 1.9Calaca 0.699

A Greenpeace activist takes a sample from the ash disposal area of the notorious 600-MW Calacacoal-fired power plant in Batangas. Laboratory analysis of the samples revealed the presence ofthe deadly neurotoxin mercury.

11

Burning12

As well as mercury, samples taken atMasinloc, Sual and Mauban all containedalarming levels of lead. Lead is a hazardousmetal considered to be toxic to most livingthings. Effects range from nervous systemdisorders, anemia, cardiovascular disease,disorders in bone metabolism, renal functionand reproduction. Of special concern is theimpact of relatively low lead exposure on thecognitive and behavioral development inchildren.

Coal plants are also a recognizedsource of chromium, as samplesconfirmed. One form of this metal,hexavalent chromium (VI), hasbeen classified by TheInternational Agency for Researchon Cancer (IARC) as a knowncarcinogen.37 Significant amountsof chromium in coal plant fly ashhave been found to be present in

the hexavalent form. 38 Arsenic is also a tracecontaminant of coal. Theburning of coal produces thelargest quantity of arsenicwaste of any industry. The USDepartment of Health andHuman Services notes thatarsenic compounds as“known to be humancarcinogens.” Liver, lung andskin cancer are among thepossible effects of exposureto arsenic.39

No coal,no toxins

A resolution was filed lastyear in the Philippine Senateto investigate the dangersposed to communities andenvironments hosting coal-fired power plants in

Summary of Detected Substances in Selected Coal Plants

Analysis Method: Inductively CoupledPlasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)44

Sample Number MI02012 MI02013 MI02014

Description fly ash fly ash fly ash

Power Facility Sual Mauban Masinloc

Element mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgdry weight dry weight dry weight

Arsenic (As) 8.4 4.8 10.4Cadmium (Cd) <1 <1 <1Calcium (Ca) 6090 17195 22434Chromium (Cr) 6 49 18Cobalt (Co) 6 25 12Copper (Cu) 22 34 34Lead (Pb) 8 15 22Manganese (Mn) 122 215 308Mercury (Hg) 1.2 1.9 1.2Nickel (Ni) 6 50 16Zinc (Zn) 23 138 51

response to the toxic alarm raised byGreenpeace.41 Action has yet to be taken,but if carried out objectively, governmentinvestigations will inevitably reveal the factthat the only way to decisively address thetoxic and carbon emissions of coal-fuelledpower stations is to phase-out coal plants.

Despite all the propaganda pushing the term‘clean coal’, the fact is that there is no suchthing as clean coal. A consultant for theClean Coal Technology program sponsoredby the US Department of Energy (US DOE)acknowledged that, “To my knowledge, thereis no commercially available method toremove mercury or carbon dioxide [from thewaste streams].”42 American congressman PaulRyan stated that, “There is nothing new beingdeveloped in the clean coal technologyprogram except for new ways to squandertaxpayers money.”43

Total element quantities producedin fly ash per year (kg/year)40

Mauban MasinlocArsenic (As) 9000 3400Chromium (Cr) 10000 5900Lead (Pb) 3200 7200Mercury (Hg) 410 390

Our Future 13

4DisintegratingCommunities

immediate payment of their landcompensation claims totaling Php92 million.

Health issues and disappearing livelihoodsare the most common sources of contention.Residents close to the Sual power plantcomplain of itching skin and rashes, as wellas sore, red eyes. This experience is echoedby residents living near the Mauban plant,which has been issued with numerous noticesof violations including a cease-and-desistorder from the government. Residents believetheir symptoms stem from the presence of thenearby ash pit, which regularly clouds thevillage when the wind is blowing.

Traditional sources of livelihoods also suffer.Coal plants in the Philippines are locatedalong coastal areas where significantnumbers of people once earned their living.One local government official of Masinloc

Potential investors and developers of newcoal-fired plants typically promisewidespread employment for local residents,increased incomes for local governments, anda generally improved state of well being forthe host communities. Despite the rhetoric,the opposite generally holds true.

In contrast, complaints tend to run highamong local residents. Communitiescomplain regularly about the scarcity ofwork, the rapid decline of traditionallivelihoods, the fact that a large number ofhouseholds surrounding coal plants remainun-energized, the disappearance of incomepreviously derived from local tourism, andthe non-payment of taxes by coal plantcompanies to town and provincial treasuries.For example, in May 2002, more than2,000 protesters paralyzed the operations ofthe Masinloc coal plant demanding the

“Coal plants bringhealth problemseverywhere, notjust in Mauban.At the Pagbilao coalplant [owned byMirant], the smokedescending on thecommunity fromthe power station’schimney is like agiant bull’s blacktongue.”

- Mang Ramon.

Our Future 13

Burning14

stressed that fish and mango harvests hadboth decreased since the plant beganoperating. Esrom Elbancol, a councilor inBani, Masinloc, expressed anger at the plant,saying, “[N]ot only were they unable toprovide jobs, they also damaged our sea. Weno longer have income from seaweedsbecause they are gradually killed by the hotwater. There are no more bangus fry andmangoes.”

Elbancol firmly believes that residents inareas where new coal plants are proposedshould organize to prevent them from beingbuilt, saying, “Do not accept theirtechnology, they only cause damage.”45

Fishing is one area where local people feelstrongly that the operation of coal plantshas had a negative impact. Canisio Sofa, forexample, believes that the noise andvibrations of the plant, and the continuousoutflow of warmer water produced from the

cooling process, have all conspired todecrease the fish populations he has fishedall his life, saying, “A single casting of the netwould yield 40 kilos of fish before…Today, I’dbe lucky to get 2 kilos when I cast my net. Irecall the times when fishermen would scourthe seas near the coast and bring home abounty of shrimp fry. This is no longer thesituation today”.

Residents also believe the ash from the plantto be responsible for continually poor crops.

The damage that the plants do to locallivelihoods could possibly be offset by theswathe of new employment opportunitiestypically promised to local communities byplant owners. In reality however, the smallnumber of jobs available are concentrated inmenial labor and pay poorly, if at all.

In April 2002, for instance, almost 1,500former workers of the Pagbilao power plantstaged a protest to demand the payment ofback wages amounting to Php75 millionowed to them by the corporation operatingthe plant. According to the president of thePagbilao Union, “The average worker isentitled to at least Php22,000 each. ButMirant is giving us the merry-go-round.”46

Our Future 15Our Future

Coal Contracts

Contracts made with the operators of theseplants have also proved to be particularlyproblematic. On July 4, 2002, the Philippinegovernment announced that it hadcompleted its technical, financial and legalreview of the power contracts of 35independent power producers (IPPs) widelyblamed for the country’s astronomicelectricity costs. It found that consumers werepaying for 6,459-MW in excess and virtuallyidle power, which represented a scandalous48 percent of total installed power capacity.Sual was named as one of the five worstperpetrators.

Public outrage followed the government’sannouncement: “It is disgusting how theseeconomic leeches have raked it in and livedoff the toil of Filipinos,” said an indignantSenator Manuel Villar.47 Senator Blas Opledenounced the IPP contracts as “an act ofswindling and grand larceny of the greatestmagnitude.”48

Furthermore, despite living close to the coalplants, many local residents remain off-gridand have no access to electricity services atall. Even at Sual where many in thecommunities scattered around the plant dohave electricity services, more than 16,000people do not 49. Despite bearing thebrunt of the negative effects of the plantoperations, they receive little of thebenefits.

Robbing local governments

Despite touting their supposed involvementin the development and improvement oflocal communities, coal plant owners arefailing to pay much needed taxes to localgovernments.

QPL, the operator of the Mauban plant, forexample, gives its visitors a folder listing eachsingle trophy, medal, bottle of medicine,fiesta streamer, cash award and basketball ithas given to the host town and villagesHowever, the realty tax liability to QuezonProvince owed by QPL stands at a whoppingPhp1.5 billion. Mirant, the owner andoperator of the Pagbilao coal plant, owesQuezon province another Php1.5 billion.50

Quezon province parish priest and directorof the Social Action Center of the Dioceseof Lucena, Fr.Raul Enriquez sums up thesituation best - “The owners of the coalplants have destroyed the environment andthe livelihood of communities in the province.What they owe the local governments intaxes is actually a pittance compared to thedevastation they have left in their wake, aperverse annual consolation prize that isalmost legalized bribery. Yet even this vulgararrangement they cannot live up to. Shameon them.”

Mang Diong worksat the Masinloccoal plant as asecurity guardand earns onlyPhp208 per day(at Php49 = $1).His contract istypical of the littleemploymentoffered to otherresidents, coveringperiods of three tosix months withno assuranceof renewal.

Burning16

5WIN-WINSolutions

Promoting

The desirability of renewables become evenmore pronounced when we consider thatfossil fuels have received massive subsidiesthat have distorted the energy market andrendered fuels such as coal tremendouslyartificially cheap. External costs of coalburning – job loss, livelihood eradication andhealth hazards posed by toxic emissions, toname a few – remain unaccounted for in thepeddled price of coal-fired power stations. AUS study found that if most of the externalsocial and environmental costs of burningcoal were included in the market price,electricity generated from coal would costUS$0.30/kWh, rather than the current $0.08/kWh.52

The Philippines is ideally placed in that it hasabundant sources of renewable energy. Thepotential power of wind in the Philippines is

The energy overcapacity that exists in thePhilippines actually presents the governmentwith a unique window of opportunity toradically and aggressively expand renewableenergy development beyond the tokensupport that past administrations have so fargiven to the task. It means that theGovernment would have time to bring thenecessary renewable capacity online.

Actual excess power capacity today standsat 6,194-MW, with six more IPP plants in pre-construction and construction stage,scheduled to be operational by 2004, 2005and 2006.51 Included in the six is a 200-MW coal plant pushed by the Germanpower firm Steag AG and State PowerDevelopment Corporation (SPDC).

Our Future 1717Our Future

Comparison of atmospheric emissions of energy plants 53

CO2 SO2 Nox ParticulatesPower generation [million metric [thousand metric [thousand metric [thousand metricplants tons per year] tons per year] tons per year] tons per year]

Coal-fired power plant 1.188 0.593 1.793 0.00346Wind 0 0 0 0Biomass 0.0238 0.158 0.360 0.022Small Hydro 0 0 0 0Solar PV 0 0 0 0Solar Thermal 0 0 0 0Avoided Emissions 1.164 0.435 1.433 +0.217

The financial requirements just for the powerdevelopment side of the NEP, shows that newand renewable energy sources are projectedto acquire only 0.04 percent of the expectedinvestments while 67 percent of investmentsare projected to go to fossil fuel power plantdevelopment. 57 Based on the PhilippineEnergy Plan, the share of new and renewableenergy development is slated to decreasedrastically from 30.03 percent today to21.69 by 2011. Given the projected impactsof climate change on the Philippines (aspreviously detailed), this represents aregressive energy policy. The government isliterally burning up our future.

Renewable energy is a win-win solution forthe Philippines. It can generate the powerneeded by the country to develop even as itprotects the environment. A governmentstrategy that accords preferential policy,financial and political treatment for renew-able energy, coupled with a sustained andmore aggressive energy efficiency drive, willsend the strongest possible signal to the localand foreign business community that cleanenergy is an investment favoured over fossilfuels as far as the country is concerned. Thesesteps must go hand-in-glove with enactingand implementing measures that accuratelyaccount for the social, environmental andhealth impacts of coal-fuelled power plants.

estimated to be 70,000-MW, whichrepresents seven times the country’s presenttotal energy demand.54 Solar power isavailable almost everywhere in thecountry. Using modern high efficiencysystems, the total energy potential that canbe derived from biomass resources such asrice hulls, coconut husks and sugar canebagasse can potentially provide over10,000-MW, as increasing population andfood consumption per capita requirehigher agricultural crop production.55

The global wind industry today is recordingphenomenal growth rates of close to 40percent per year. The global solar powerindustry is booming and is today consideredone of the fastest growing industriesgenerating business worth more than $1billion. Solar energy is projected as beingable to provide 26 percent of globalelectricity demand by 2040.56 While theprice of fossil fuels around the world, such asoil, continues to rise the price of renewableenergy continues to fall.

The development of power and energyresources, the most capital intensive sectors,comprise 70 percent of the Philippines’financial requirements for the NationalEnergy Program (NEP) for the plan period2002-2011. Fossil fuels account for 63.8percent of the financing needs of the EnergyResources Development Sector. Financing fornew and renewable energy development,however, is projected to receive only 2.3percent of investments for the whole planperiod while energy efficiency receives anequally dismal 5.8 percent share of totalinvestments. Of the total investmentrequirements of the NEP, 85.1 percent isexpected to be provided by the privatesector most of which will borne by foreigncorporate and financing sources.

The total amountof energyirradiated fromthe sun to theearth’s surface isenough to providemore than 10,000times the annualglobal energyconsumption.

Burning18

Concrete steps

The government can begin its reinvigoratedrenewable energy development program inareas firmly in a position to realize theadministration’s sustainable developmentaspirations. Negros Occidental, for example,is among those that carry this potential.Boasting of 1,987-MW in potential wind and118-MW in potential biomass power,government can show the way by ensuringthat the development of provinces such asNegros, with its widespread renewableresources many of which are organic to theprovince’s economy, is renewable energy-led.58

At present, controversy is raging in theNegros province, which the French-UK fossilfuel equipment contractor Alstom Power ispushing to be built. Locals have opposed theproject for six years, and have instead beencalling for a clean energy agenda forNegros. On-grid and off-grid commerciallyviable alternatives are available forimplementation, but the political will isneeded to carry this through59.

A long-standing demand from host communi-ties is the initiation of a full-scale social,health and environmental audit of communi-ties hosting coal plants. Such an audit willalso aid in legislating laws that will requiregreater, not token, public and communityparticipation in power project proposals anddiscussions. In addition, Greenpeace recom-mends the government to:

1. Adopt national new and renewableportfolio targets and programs that willincrease by 10% the share of new andrenewable energy in the energy mix by 2011in order to mainstream the implementation ofrenewable systems. Simultaneous with this,adopt national targets that reduce the totalvolume of coal-fired power generation in thePhilippine energy plan.

2. Remove policy, institutional and marketbarriers to level the playing field and allownew and renewable energy projects andinitiatives to compete in the market. Anexample of this is giving preferential taxincentives to renewable energy technology,encouraging domestic production of solarpanels and say micro-hydro systems.

3. Institute regulatory mechanisms (especiallyto address tariff concerns) in order for the truecosts of electricity from fossils to be reflectedin the final price and for the green pricingrenewable-generated electricity to bereflected equally.

4. Push for a purely renewable energy-and-energy efficiency-based rural electrificationprogram and scrap the diesel-basedenergization and grid-extension program torural villages.

5. Enact local and national legislation thatwill give preferential treatment to thedevelopment and implementation of renew-able energy technologies and programs.

Greenpeace supports the campaigns of localcommunities, like that of Pulupandan, NegrosOccidental, whose people have been demandingclean renewable energy since 1998.

Our Future 19

6FORWARDThe Way

The Philippines has always occupied aprominently progressive place in theinternational negotiations for protecting theclimate. Such standing should serve as thecornerstone of the country’s energydevelopment program.

Scientists today are not in the middle offierce discussions over whether climatechange is happening or not. They are talkingabout how bad its effects will be. We alreadyknow the impacts of coal-fired power plantsto provinces, towns and host communities. Wealready know the tremendous economic andenvironmental benefits that can be derivedfrom using sustainable energy technologies. Itis time for the Philippines to embrace thesolutions to its current energy, environmentaland economic predicament. It is time tochoose positive energy now.

The Government must change its energyframework now. Rather than focus on all-toogeneralized macroeconomic indices, theenergy needs of each region, province andcommunity should serve as the determinantfor realistic energy generation projections.Such a framework will help establish thenecessary energy mix as well as the size andlocation of supply-side power initiatives.Equity in the utilization of energy andnatural resources should be paramount insuch considerations. The dominance ofmassive power projects, especially coal, inthe country’s energy agenda, has long beenconsidered inherently flawed and hostile tothe interests of the environment and those offuture Filipino generations.

Race for the Climate!A Greenpeace organizeddragon boat regattain April 2002 to raisesupport for the ChoosePositive Energy campaign.

1 According to studies by PLC Inc. and theU.S. Department of Energy, a new coal-firedpower plant will release between 1.96 (PLC)and 2.09 (DOE) pounds of CO

2 per kilowatt-

hour of operation. For this report, the assumptionis that any given coal-fired power plant will emittwo pounds of CO

2 per kilowatt-hour. Reference

was made to the distinguished Sustainable En-ergy and Economy Network for the methodol-ogy. Please see [http://www.seen.org/pages/db/method.shtml]. For other fossil fuel carbon emis-sion estimates, see also Gemma Narisma,“Counting Greenhouse Gases in Local Commu-nities,” Disturbing Climate, ed. Jose T. Villarin SJ,Manila Observatory, Ateneo de Manila Uni-versity Campus, Quezon City.

2 Philippine Energy Plan 2002-2011 (PEP2002-2011), November 2001.

3 Ibid. The PEP 2002-2011’s New and Re-newable Energy figures exclude geothermal andlarge hydro.

4 Greenpeace International, “Fossil Fuelsand Climate Protection: The Carbon Logic,” 1997.

5 Rosa Perez, “Responding to the Challengesof the Rising Sea,” Disturbing Climate, above. Be-cause of new data, some believe that the IPCCmay have seriously underestimated the rise insea levels. See New Scientist, February 19, 2002.

6 This has serious implications given theanticipated submergence due to climate changeof parts of reclaimed areas in Manila and Cebuand parts of Tondo, Ermita, Quiapo, Malabonand Obando. See “Climate Change in Asia:Executive Summary,” Asian Development Bank,1994.

7 Nicola Jones, “Is the UN wrong about cli-mate change leaving billions to starve?” NewScientist, November 17, 2001.

8 The National Oceanographic and Atmo-spheric Administration, as cited in Lourdes V. Tibig,“Responding to the Threats to Philippine Agri-culture,” and Nathaniel Cruz, “CC Impacts onWater Resources,” Disturbing Climate, above.

9 It is also predicted that almost all coralsacross the entire South Pacific would have per-ished by the time all data has come in regardingthe epidemic. See “Massive coral bleachingstrikes Great Barrier Reef,” [http://www.NewScientist.com] April 12, 2002.

10 Marine Science Institute of the Philippines(MSI), as cited in Disturbing Climate, above.

11 Hazel O. Arceo, Miledel Christine C.Quibilan, Wilfredo Y. Licuanan, Profirio M. Alinio,“Coral Bleaching in the Philippines,” DisturbingClimate, above.

12 Dr. Richard Ostfeld is from the New York-based Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Ostfeld wrotethe study with lead author Drew Harvell ofCornell University for the US National Centrefor Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS).The study was published in the journal Science.See [http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_611977.html].

13 Institute for Policy Studies, “The World Bankand the G-7: Still Changing the Earth’s Cli-

48 Benjamin B. Pulta, “Ople snipes at Ramosanew over onerous IPP contracts,” The Daily Tri-bune, July 14, 2002.

49 A certification from the CentralPangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. dated June26, 2002 states that only 2,742 households inSual are energized. This figure was subtractedfrom the registered number of households inSual in the year 2000 (5,444) then multipliedby the average number of members of a Filipinofamily (6).

50 Federico D. Pascual, “Read about Quezon’srow with two IPPs – and weep!” Philippine Star,May 30, 2002.

51 Neal H. Cruz, “FVR signed IPP contractsdespite oversupply,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, June25, 2002.

52 M. Law, “Facts and Fiction: Coal and CleanCoal”, Watershed, vol. 5 no. 3, pp. 29-38, 2000.

53 Burning biomass also emits CO2. How-

ever, if modern systems are utilized and thebiomass fuel is obtained from crop residues, thenthere are no net carbon emissions since treesand plants act as carbon sinks when they growback. The carbon contribution in the table is theresult of operation of the machinery necessaryto harvest, collect, and transport the biomassfeedstock to the power plant site. A hypothetical150-MW coal-fired power plant in SoutheastAsia was used in the table based on the study“The Big Switch – Renewable IPPs: An Analysisof Future Independent Renewable Power Pro-duction in the Southeast Asia Sector,”Greenpeace International, ed. by AthenaRonquillo-Ballesteros, Sven Teske and preparedby IIEC for GPI, July 1999.

54 Wind Energy Development Secretariat(WEDS). See [http://www.winrockindia.org/weds/abstract.htm].

55 Biomass Atlas of the Philippines, 2000,Philippine Climate Mitigation Program, Depart-ment of Energy and USAID. Program imple-mented by Philippine Biomass Energy Labora-tory of UPLB. See also Promotion of RenewableEnergy Sources in Southeast Asia (PRESSEA)[http://www.ace.or.id/pressea/philippines/biom-ass/background.htm].

56 Greenpeace and the European Photo-voltaic Industry Association, “Solar Generation:Solar electricity for over 1 billion people and 2million jobs by 2020,” 2002.

57 PEP 2002-2011, above.58 Negros Occidental resource assessments

based on the Green Renewable IndependentPower Producer project (GRIPP) by the Philip-pine Rural Reconstruction Movement,Greenpeace Southeast Asia, and the Interna-tional Institute for Energy Conservation.

59 According to the GRIPP project, for in-stance, a wind farm in one site alone is expectedto be able to generate a minimum of 180-MW,with biomass projects from leading sugar millsanticipated to provide at least 70-MW in thenear future. The peak demand in Negros is 113-MW.

31 The Philippine Government conductedtests based on samples taken from the coal plant’sash pond, canals, discharges to the sea, coalplant condensers and surrounding rivers. Memo-randum for the Department of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR) Secretary from theDENR Regional Executive Director for Region IV,“Technical conference report re: mercury pollu-tion in Balayan Bay”, October 4, 2001.

32 “Coal-fired Power Plants and the Menaceof Mercury Emissions,” above.

33 Memorandum for the DENR Secretary,above.

34 World Health Organization, Mercury,Environmental Health Criteria 86, ISBN9241542861, 1989.

35 “Coal-fired power plants and the Men-ace of Mercury Emissions,” above.

36 K. Bridgen and D. Santillo, “Heavy metaland metalloid content of fly ash collected fromthe Sual, Mauban and Masinloc coal-fired powerplants in the Philippines, 2002,” GreenpeaceResearch Laboratories, Department of Biologi-cal Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter UK, July2002. Calaca figures are based on govern-ment-initiated sampling and testing. See Memo-randum to the DENR Secretary, above.

37 IARC monographs, vols. 1 to 29, 1998.38 “Global metal pollution. Poisoning the

biosphere?”, Environment 32 (7): 7-11; 28-33.39 9th Report on Carcinogens, U.S. Depart-

ment of Health and Human Services, USPHS2001.

40 “Heavy Metal and metalloid content of flyash collected from the Sual, Mauban andMasinloc coal-fired power plants in the Philip-pines, 2002,” above. Total element quantitiesproduced in the fly ashes of the Mauban andMasinloc coal-fired power plants. Data calcu-lated from the composition of fly ash samplesand ash production data given in the Environ-mental Impact Statement (EIS) reports. a: basedupon fly ash constituting 85% of total ash pro-duction for the Masinloc coal plant.

41 “Jawo plans to act vs. hazards posed byenergy plants,” Tempo, September 12, 2001, con-cerning Senate Resolution No. 129.

42 “Scrubbing up,” [http://www.newscientist.com] May 22, 2001.

43 US Congressional Record, June 15, 2000.44 “Heavy Metal and metalloid content of fly

ash collected from the Sual, Mauban andMasinloc coal-fired power plants in the Philip-pines, 2002,” above.

45 Balik Kalikasan, “Coal Nightmares,” Oc-tober 1-15, 1999. See also Dr. Romana P. de losReyes, “What the people and officials say aboutthe coal power plant in their locality,” 1999.

46 Delfin T. Mallari, “1,500 former powerplant workers stage rally,” Philippine Daily In-quirer, April 28, 2002.

47 Jodeal Cadacio, “Void flawed IPP deals,sue officials, govt told,” Today, July 6, 2002.

mate for Business, 1997-1998,” [Report] Decem-ber 1999.

14 Institute for Policy Studies & Friends of theEarth, “OPIC, Ex-Im & Climate Change: Busi-ness as Usual?” [Report] April 1999.

15 Friends of the Earth, “Report No. 1: Car-bon Dioxide Emission induced by Japanese ODA/OOF”, [Report] Japan, 1998.

16 Ibid.17 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Re-

source Economies, “Coal Price Talks Heating Upas Steel and Power Producers Stake theirClaims”, Australian Commodities and Trade toAsia, vol. 1 no. 4, December 2000.

18 Asia & Pacific Review, “Australia: Review1999”, Asia & Pacific World Of Information, Oc-tober 21, 1999.

19 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Themes-Mining, Australian Bureau of Statistics website,[http://www.abs.gov.au] 2000 (accessed Janu-ary 8, 2002).

20 M. Farrow, “Welcoming Address”, 4thAPEC Coal Flow Seminar, APEC Energy Work-ing Group, Honolulu, November 11-13, 1997.

21 Coal Information, IEA, 2000 edition.22 Australian Coal Association website [http:/

/www.australiancoal.com.au].23 Coal-Watch Project Proposal, August

1999.24 M.K. Pinnock, “Responding to Coal Mar-

ket growth in APEC Regions by the AustralianCoal Industry”, 6th APEC Coal Flow Seminar,APEC Energy Working Group, Kyongju, Korea,March 14-16, 2000; G. Robertson, “Develop-ing an Integrated Energy Supply Chain: Issuesand Challenges Facing Indonesia”, The Inaugu-ral APEC Coal Trade and InvestmentLiberalisation and Facilitation Workshop, APECEnergy Working Group, Jakarta, Indonesia, Au-gust 5-6, 1997; and Joint Coal Board andQueensland Department of Natural Resourcesand Mines, Australian Black Coal Statistics 2000,Joint Coal Board and Queensland Departmentof Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane,2000.

25 Australian Coal Report, ed. L. Cummings,vol. 24 no. 1, January 2002.

26 R. Curtotti, I. Roberts and B. Fisher, “Invest-ment Requirements for Steaming Coal Suppliesin APEC Member Economies”, 3rd APEC CoalFlow Seminar, APEC Energy Working Group,Terrigal, Australia, November 26, 1996.

27 International Energy Agency, Coal Infor-mation 2001, Paris, 2001.

28 C.L. Miller, “Facilitating Investment in CleanCoal Technologies”, 2nd APEC Coal Trade andInvestment Liberalisation and Facilitation Work-shop, APEC Energy Working Group, Manila,Philippines, April 1-2, 1998.

29 C.J. Johnson, “Impacts of GHG Constraintson the Long-Term Competitive Position of Coalin Asia”, 6th APEC Coal Flow Seminar, above.

30 Greenpeace Southeast Asia, “Coal-firedpower plants and the Menace of Mercury Emis-sions,” [Report] August 2001.

Endnotes