• Sign to ban the use of plastics and styrofoam in Taguig
    The massive pollution and environmental effects of plastics need to be addressed in ALL the local government units in the Philippines. With our population of over 100M, the everyday use of plastics and styrofoam have led to devastating effects as they accumulate, clog and choke our waterways, cause deadly floodings, kill our marine animals, and pollute our rivers, lakes and seas. Because of these negative effects, hundreds of measures around the world have been taken since 2002— the year when the first national ban on plastic bags was enacted in Bangladesh— to reduce or regulate their use. So many other cities in Metro Manila and towns across the Philippines have progressed towards this movement. However the City of Taguig, still has not done anything and it is already 2019. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_lightweight_plastic_bags) To date, these are the Metro Manila cities with bans or restrictions on plastics: Muntinlupa (Jan. 1, 2011) Las Piñas (Jan. 2, 2012) Pasig (Jan. 1, 2012) Quezon City (Sept. 1, 2012, P2.00 per bag) Pasay (Sept. 1, 2012, Bags for a fee) Makati (June 30, 2013) (https://hubpages.com/politics/List-of-Philippine-Cities-Where-Plastic-Ban-is-Implemented) We call on Mayor Lino Cayetano to address this issue and finally bring Taguig at par with all the other cities and towns that have implemented banning plastics, to play its role in protecting the environment by banning single-use plastics and styrofoam.
    180 of 200 Signatures
    Created by V J Picture
  • OPPOSE COAL FIRED POWER PLANT IN PALAWAN (and the rest of the country)
    Palawan is an island that has prided itself in being the "World's Best Island", home of the UNESCO heritage sites: Tubbataha Reefs and the Puerto Princesa Subterranean National Park, not to mention its other local human and wildlife inhabitants that have benefited from the clean air, water and land from it being coal-free. Back in 2014, former president Aquino said that Palawan needs adequate energy to cater to the 10 million tourists projected for 2016. “A lot of these tourists will be going to Palawan. I am sure you are aware of all the developments that are happening here plus iyong airport, i-u-upgrade din natin. And all of that plus the upstream and downstream industries will need power. And if it’s not available, then practically we are saying, parang wala na rin iyong tourism na big industry dito or iyong growth, or projected growth." (see https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/606179/aquino-not-keen-on-coal-free-palawan) But growth at what expense? Would locals not prefer a future of clean air, clean water, clean land and thriving wildlife over throngs of tourists promising "growth and development"? And what then would tourists actually keep coming for if the island's health is compromised with an unsustainable coal plant and other unsustainable infrastructure built with a short-sighted goal in mind? But civil society movements and some LGUs have shown that we can resist this from happening. They realize that there's so much at stake, and so much we need to protect. (see https://businessmirror.com.ph/2018/08/05/lgus-going-green-rejecting-coal-projects/) Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda, who is one of the lead convenors of the civil society group Save Palawan Movement (SPM) said: “Kapag natayo ‘yan, magsisisihan na tayo sa impact. Ang hirap na nyan matanggal once that is set up. The basis that it is of national significance, with all due respect, is not sound because all they have to do is to look at the Palawan Island Power Development Plan (PIPDP). Coal is not a least cost option. Ang least cost option doon ay combination of mini hydro with diesel and bunker. We have enough power supply”. (see https://palawan-news.com/denr-gives-go-ahead-to-palawan-coal-plant/) Furthermore, the civil society group in Palawan, among others who oppose the building of new coal plants, has claimed that, apart from negating any advances we make in addressing climate change, coal power projects are dangerous to human health as it releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants, among them mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other particulates.
    1,498 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Living Laudato Si Philippines Picture
  • PLEASE SIGN UP FOR THE PETITION. STOP THE USE OF BALLOONS AT SHANGRI- LA MALL EVENT
    Promoting an event using balloons as decoration for an Underwater Adventure theme is distinctly ironic to Ocean Conservation principles. Balloons are non-biodegrable and will only end up as toxic waste in landfills .In effect it will harm wildlife, marine and terrestrial ecosystems and clog sewage systems.
    74 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Fabi Carino Picture
  • Mainstream Refilling
    A five-year waste audit by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) estimates the Philippines throws away 163 million sachets everyday. 79% of “branded” plastic waste comes from food packaging, 12% from household and 8% from personal care products. Plastics can remain for 2,000 years or longer in our natural environment. If we continue business as usual, by 2050 there could be more plastic than fish in the sea by weight. Because it is produced from petroleum-based chemicals, it could account for one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption, further accelerating global warming and deadly climate change. Government policy can be a decisive driving force for widespread transformation. The FDA Philippines safeguards public health by ensuring the safety and efficacy of food, medicine, household and cosmetics products. With the support of key government agencies such as the Environmental Management Bureau and the Department of Trade and Industry, the FDA is in a unique and powerful position to influence and transform the usage of plastic at the source through the thousands of brands it regulates. We envision that the presence of safe, appropriately regulated cosmetics and home care refilling stations that are as accessible as water refilling stations will spark a radical change in the way people and organizations consume goods and manage plastic waste. An Illinois case study showed that a single mobile water refilling station saved the equivalent of 99,000 12-ounce plastic bottles a year. In order for this transformation to take place, we raise the following three opportunities to enhance the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9711 - The Food and Drug Administration Act of 2009: FIRST: Instead of classifying refilling activities under “filling”, a manufacturing activity under AO 2016-0003 (Guidelines on the Unified Licensing Requirements and Procedures of the FDA) and Good Manufacturing Practices, we propose that a new, separate classification be developed such as “Refilling/Repacking Stations” within a retail outlet similar to how RONPD (Retail Outlets for Non-Prescription Drugs) were developed. SECOND: To fulfill the FDA requirement of protecting consumers’ health, we propose these Refilling/Repacking Station requirements: 1. Business permit 2. Sanitary permit 3. Products (cosmetics and household) for refilling must be FDA-notified 4. Authorized refilling representative trained and certified by the company to conduct safe and sanitary refilling (patterned after food establishments’ safety compliance officer) and not necessarily a pharmacist or a graduate of an allied science profession. 5. Refilling procedures to ensure the safety of refilling 6. Flat rate fee for the refilling License to Operate similar to government agencies such as Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and not based on business capital. THIRD: If the packaging to be used is the emptied product bottle, the minimum mandatory information is already in the label. The Batch No. and Expiration Date will be stamped on the label for every refill. If the packaging to be refilled will be different from the emptied product bottle, the existing minimum mandatory requirement should be displayed on the Refilling/Repacking Stations for the consumers’ information. We propose that the following be stamped/stickered on the label for every refill: 1. Product Name 2. Batch No. 3. Expiration Date 4. Special precautions to be observed (if applicable) With this proposal, we seek to bridge the policy gaps and promote a sea change in the way responsible Filipino companies and ordinary citizens use plastics - not just temporary measures, but permanent and lasting policies, structures and systems. We hope to prepare the way for more brands to become better stewards of our earth and of human health. Join our push for safe, sustainable, widely accessible refilling stations of daily household and cosmetics products! Read the full text of the petition at bit.ly/mainstreamrefilling-pdf Signed: Anna Oposa, Co-founder & Executive Director, Save the Philippine Seas Anna Meloto-Wilk, Co-founder & President, Human Nature (Gandang Kalikasan Inc.) Sonia S. Mendoza, Chairman, Mother Earth Foundation Joel Palma, President/CEO, WWF Philippines Abigail Lois P. Aguilar, Campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia-Philippines Dr. AA Yaptinchay, Executive Director, Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines Froilan Grate, Executive Director, GAIA Philippines/President, Mother Earth Foundation Sef Alba Carandang, Trustee & Vice President for Community Development, Philippine Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation, Inc. Gregg Yan, Founder & Director, Best Alternatives Campaign Angelica Mata, Founder, Zero Waste Filipina Bryan Madera, Founder, Plastic Battle Jennifer Horn, Founder, MUNI Cultural Creatives, Inc. Bryan McClelland, Founder, Bambike (Bamb Ecological Technologies, Inc.) Melissa Yeung-Yap, Founder, Got Heart Foundation, Inc. Jose Dante Albao, Executive Director, Sea Waste Education to Eradicate Plastics Binggirl Clemente, President, LAHAT Community Empowerment, Inc. Rodne Galicha, Country Manager, Climate Reality Project
    8,598 of 9,000 Signatures
    Created by Anna Oposa Picture
  • McDonald's: Prioritize Sustainability Now!
    As the biggest fast food chain in the world with 37,000 restaurants and 69 million customers each day, McDonald’s uses “nearly 2.8 tonnes of packaging every minute, representing nearly 1.5 million tonnes of packaging per year” according to Resource. Packaging is perhaps their most pressing issue. McDonald's continues to produce thousands and thousands of tons of solid wastes periodically. Not to mention, the emitted millions of metric tons of greenhouse gases from the production, transportation, and waste management of their packaging. Sources: 1. https://www.qsrmagazine.com/sustainability/how-mcdonalds-plans-fight-climate-change 2. https://resource.co/article/mcdonald-s-recycling-and-waste-management-insufficient-says-french-report-11870 Please read this Open Letter for McDonald's: https://wp.me/p6weqS-19c
    698 of 800 Signatures
    Created by Dana Marie Perez Picture
  • Clear Seas and Skies Albay
    As the universal law of gravity states, what comes up must go down. Recently, the province of Albay has been growing into the trend of releasing sky lanterns and balloons in special events (such as the most recent one held last February 13, 2019 at Legazpi City Albay). Although the activity could look beautiful for a moment, the mess it leaves can last decades affecting us and the environment around us. Albay is home to hundreds of beautiful creatures and is also declared as a UNESCO biosphere reserve, joining a list of areas around the world that are prime examples of sustainable development and biodiversity, however with our current practices, we could lose this beautiful area to pollution. For more information on the harmful effects of the release of lanterns and balloons, check out (https://www.facebook.com/105848482838036/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1318238384932367) Help us convince our officials to ban the release of sky lanterns and balloons in Albay and save what we (and the other creatures living in Albay) call "home".
    73 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Titus Canete Picture
  • STOP CEBU's La Vie in the Sky Skylanterns Release
    "I would like us all to make a serious commitment to respect and protect creation, to be attentive to every person, to counter the culture of waste and disposable, to promote a culture of solidarity and of encounter. Thank you." - Pope Francis. General Audience June 5th, 2013 "This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary." - Pope Francis (Laudato Si, 123) This activity is INTENTIONAL VIOLATION of Republic Act 9003 - mismanagement and improper segregation of waste. Likewise, of the fisheries code and wildlife act, among others. 1. What goes up must come down, and farmers in ­particular have become increasingly ­concerned that livestock might swallow a lantern's wire or ­bamboo frame, or, even worse, that fires might break out in hay barns. Elsewhere, coastguards say lanterns, which can travel for several kilometres and to an ­altitude of 1,000m before the candle burns out, are routinely mistaken for distress flares. A handful of east Asian countries, such as ­Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand, have already introduced bans, particularly in the lead up to ­major festivals. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/sky-lanterns-danger-farm-animals) 2. Countries like Argentina, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Spain, Germany, and parts of Canada and the USA have actually already banned the release of sky lanterns. (http://www.wheninmanila.com/why-we-should-not-release-balloons-skylanterns/). 3. However, the worst part of the fallout from the activity is the impact on local fauna. Reports of animals dying painfully, typically strangled by old lanterns' wires or suffocated by undecomposed paper, are frequent during this time of year. Some visitors are no doubt already aware of this, particularly following the high-profile death of an owl in the U.K. a few years ago. The bird was found suffocated and partly burnt inside the remains of a lantern... Humans are also at risk. The light emitted by lanterns sent en masse at night has been proven to be disruptive to aircraft pilots. As such, some countries like Malaysia have banned the use of sky lanterns in and around certain cities in order to prevent fatal accidents. (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2017/02/10/491229/pingxis-sky.htm) 4. Though they are undoubtedly beautiful, even the biodegradable lanterns can be incredibly harmful to both the environment and wildlife. Sky lantern litter takes quite some time to decompose, and the wire frames have been known to strangle and maim wild animals and livestock. They also pose a significant fire hazard. Not only have they caused multiple wildfires, a sky lantern was also responsible for a massive fire at the Smethwick Recycling Plant in West Midlands, England. (http://earth911.com/living-well-being/events-entertainement/environmental-impact-traditions/) 5. With Save Philippine Seas, know more about the ills and harms of sky lantern releases here: https://www.facebook.com/pg/savephilippineseas/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1318238384932367
    1,142 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Rodne Galicha Picture
  • No To Petron Depot in Pongol Balogo Pasacao Camarines Sur
    Balogo Pasacao Camarines Sur is known as one of the key player of tourism in "the summer capital of camarines sur" Pasacao, knowing that this is a tourist area putting up an oil depot that covers 2.6hctrs of land and a massive port of 800meters that could handle both inter island and international vessels would not only stop the tourism but would also Destruct the marine life, Farmers life, and the crystal clear waters of these beaches.
    171 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Jeth Ablaneda Picture
  • No to Coal-fired Power Plant in La Union, the Surfing Capital of the North!
    La Union is under threat: the construction of a 670-megawatt coal-fired power plant (CFPP) is expected to commence this year, in the historic town of Luna, which is known for its natural geophysical and cultural assets of high ecological, livelihood and touristic value. Within the 2 to 30 aerial-kilometer radius of the proposed coal-fired plant are the towns of Balaoan, known for its bountiful corn harvests and biodiverse coral gardens; of San Juan and Bacnotan, the main surfing areas; and of San Gabriel, home to Tangadan Falls (the most popular falls in Northwest Luzon) and Lon-oy Springs (a major water supply source of the City of San Fernando and suburbs). All of these will be degraded and eventually destroyed once the CFPP starts spewing toxic chemicals. Moreover, the water heated by the plant’s cooling system will blanch and damage supersensitive corals within the Darigayos Cove, known for its rich marine ecosystem (the source of livelihood of thousands of fisherfolks) and heritage structures along its white beach. We APPEAL to President Rodrigo Duterte, DENR Secretary Roy Cimatu, DOT Secretary Bernadette Romulo-Puyat, Sen. Cynthia Villar (Environment Committee), Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian (Energy Committee), DA Secretary Manny Pinol, Congressman Pablo Ortega, Congresswoman Sandra Eriguel, Governor Francisco Emmanuel Ortega III, Vice Gov. Aureo Nisce, Mayor Victor Marron and Vice Mayor Romeo Resureccion to: 1. Deny GLEDC’s application for an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) including other permits to construct and operate the CFPP. The proponents used deceit, bribery and strong-arm tactics to suppress opposition to their plan and did not fully comply with the required ECC processes as it only consulted residents in the five (5) barangays in and around the proposed 41-hectare site and excluded/ignored other towns and barangays within the plant’s immediate impact area as shown by the NO2 modelling exercise done by its own environmental consultants. Likewise, the Environmental Impact Assessment done by GLEDC’s consultants was also found to be technically deficient and misleading by other technical experts. 2. Pursue an alternative development agenda that is consistent with the Agri-Tourism Development Strategy of the Provincial Government of La Union being espoused by no less than Governor Pacoy Ortega. The proposed site and the nearby Darigayos Cove and Mt Kangisitan can instead be developed as an ecotourism zone linked with other touristic attractions of La Union. 3. Identify and develop renewable energy sources to augment the country’s power supply. As La Union has a very high photovoltaic potential, more solar farms similar to those in Batangas should be built as soon as possible.
    6,310 of 7,000 Signatures
    Created by Koalisyon Isalbar ti Pintas ti La Union (Coalition to Save the Beauty of La Union) Picture
  • No to Coal in Bohol
    Alarmed that there are sectors in the Provincial Government along with investors and power providers who are poised to endorse a backward idea of a coal-fired power plant in the island, we demand that our leaders to lead us in achieving Bohol’s Goals that include, among others, Environmental Protection and Management; and, Responsive, transparent and accountable governance. Drawing from our earlier manifesto, we echo the call, this time, taking a firm stand against whatever plans and machinations there might be to utilize coal in generating power within our province. We have united behind the following arguments: 1. THAT COAL IS DIRTY AND DEADLY. Coal damages both people and planet. Existing and proposed coal power plants in the Philippines can cause up to 2,410 premature deaths annually according to a 2015 Harvard study. Coal burning emits substances which contribute to smog, haze, lung disease, and respiratory illnesses; as well as neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals (US Energy Information Administration, 2017). Coal mining contributes to soil erosion, water pollution and loss of biodiversity. It is directly linked with climate change as it is responsible for 46% of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, inducing natural disasters. 2. THAT COAL IS COSTLY. While there is still a popular perception that coal is sold cheaply, a research by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) revealed that coal use actually brings with it additional costs that are not traditionally taken into account such as: (1) Subsidies to coal producers; (2) Air pollution estimated to cause more than 6,000 global deaths annually; and, (3) Greenhouse Gas emissions that undermine targets under the Paris Agreement on Climate. If we monetize these impacts the total cost of coal is estimated to be around USD 11 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), more than double the cost of competing renewable energy based on recent renewable auction results. 3. THAT GLOBALLY COAL IS NO LONGER A VIABLE OPTION. The recent falls in solar Photo Voltaic prices have led India to cancel new coal capacity, in addition to rising concern about the impacts of coal use on air pollution. In China, this concern led to a moratorium on new coal plants in 28 out of 31 provinces. With the tide turning against coal across the world, there is real concern that investments made today could soon be impossible to operate on environmental, public health and cost grounds, leaving a legacy of stranded power stations as the last monuments to the age of coal. (IISD, 2017) WE REJECT the proposal or plan of private or government investors in establishing a coal-power plant in the province of Bohol because it is tantamount to a violation of the existing laws and commitment for the Boholano people; WE DECLARE that renewable energy is the way forward. A 2013 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) report said that in 2011, at least 384 renewable energy service contracts were awaiting approval from the Department of Energy, equalling to 6,046 MW of generation capacity. Currently, there are 13 operational coal-fired power plants with a combined installed capacity of 4.937 MW; WE STRONGLY SUPPORT the development of renewable energy sources as the way forward for our beloved Bohol that claims to have ecological and cultural tourism as its main path for sustainable development being one of its primary economic drivers. WE ENJOIN our fellow Boholanos and residents to join us in this worthy cause to save our environment from this threat of destruction for our sake and the future generation. WE DEMAND as citizens and voters that the Sanggunian Panlungsod of Tagbilaran City and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bohol shall recognize the negative impact of coal-based power generation and the need to shift to renewable energy sources by passing Resolutions to support calls for “a moratorium on the establishment of carbon-intensive and fossil-based technologies”; and interpose its objection on any proposed coal-fired project within our province; WE ALSO URGE on the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Energy to deny any applications for coal-fired and other fossil-based power plants within Bohol; and implement the mandate for the development and use of renewable, sustainable energy sources and technologies.
    818 of 1,000 Signatures
    Created by Liza Macalandag Picture
  • Uphold the Philippine Ban on Waste Incineration
    Incineration, including so-called "waste-to-energy" (WTE) incineration facilities (i.e. burning waste to produce electricity), is neither a good way to manage waste nor to produce electricity. In fact, it is proven to be the most expensive, most polluting, most energy intensive and most inefficient way to manage waste and generate electricity: 1. Incineration is a major source of cancerous dioxins and furans, which are regulated under an international treaty, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and 2. It is also the most expensive way to produce electricity--WTE facilities cost more to construct and operate than coal or nuclear plants. But the government--through Congress and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)--are aggressively promoting WTE incineration thinking it will magically solve the country's waste problems. House Bill 2286 seeks to repeal the incineration ban in the Philippine Clean Air Act (RA 8749) and amend the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) in order to allow the entry of WTE incineration technologies in the Philippines. And the DENR is even paving the way for waste incineration, instead of of doing their duty to protect the environment. The Clean Air Act guarantees every Filipino’s right to breathe clean air and right to a healthy environment. The ban on incineration supports this. Waste incineration aside from being a major source of cancer-causing emissions, also produces particulate matter, which is identified as a leading cause of premature deaths. The bill also undermines the country’s landmark waste law, RA 9003, which calls for an ecological approach to waste management. Incinerators, and WTE incineration facilities threaten human health, pollute our air, land and water, harm our economies, contribute significantly to global warming, and fuel an unsustainable system of consumption and wasting. They have no place in an ecological waste management system, and in today's emerging circular economy. Congress and the DENR must realize that incineration is not a feasible waste treatment option. Instead, they must work toward real solutions and adopt the Zero Waste approach to waste and resource management. This can start with the strict implementation of RA 9003 which does not only save money, but also creates jobs, improves public health and mitigates climate change.
    113 of 200 Signatures
    Created by No Burn Pilipinas Alliance
  • Stop Legazpi City Flying Lantern Release
    1. What goes up must come down, and farmers in ­particular have become increasingly ­concerned that livestock might swallow a lantern's wire or ­bamboo frame, or, even worse, that fires might break out in hay barns. Elsewhere, coastguards say lanterns, which can travel for several kilometres and to an ­altitude of 1,000m before the candle burns out, are routinely mistaken for distress flares. A handful of east Asian countries, such as ­Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand, have already introduced bans, particularly in the lead up to ­major festivals. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/sky-lanterns-danger-farm-animals) 2. Countries like Argentina, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Spain, Germany, and parts of Canada and the USA have actually already banned the release of sky lanterns. (http://www.wheninmanila.com/why-we-should-not-release-balloons-skylanterns/). 3. However, the worst part of the fallout from the activity is the impact on local fauna. Reports of animals dying painfully, typically strangled by old lanterns' wires or suffocated by undecomposed paper, are frequent during this time of year. Some visitors are no doubt already aware of this, particularly following the high-profile death of an owl in the U.K. a few years ago. The bird was found suffocated and partly burnt inside the remains of a lantern... Humans are also at risk. The light emitted by lanterns sent en masse at night has been proven to be disruptive to aircraft pilots. As such, some countries like Malaysia have banned the use of sky lanterns in and around certain cities in order to prevent fatal accidents. (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2017/02/10/491229/pingxis-sky.htm) 4. Though they are undoubtedly beautiful, even the biodegradable lanterns can be incredibly harmful to both the environment and wildlife. Sky lantern litter takes quite some time to decompose, and the wire frames have been known to strangle and maim wild animals and livestock. They also pose a significant fire hazard. Not only have they caused multiple wildfires, a sky lantern was also responsible for a massive fire at the Smethwick Recycling Plant in West Midlands, England. (http://earth911.com/living-well-being/events-entertainement/environmental-impact-traditions/) 5. With Save Philippine Seas, know more about the ills and harms of sky lantern releases here: https://www.facebook.com/pg/savephilippineseas/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1318238384932367
    786 of 800 Signatures
    Created by Rodne Galicha Picture