PEOPLE POWER VERSUS POWER PLANTS
PEOPLE POWER VERSUS POWER PLANTS
When Catholic archbishops and bishops speak in one voice, especially on matters beyond the pulpit, it is usually because they sense danger—not only to faith, but to people’s lives. This is the context in which a group of Church leaders in Pangasinan, led by Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, formally opposed the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant in the province.
In their pastoral letter, the bishops warned that the project could bring “greater harm than benefit,” particularly to poor and vulnerable communities. They raised serious concerns about long-term environmental risks, public safety, and the possible displacement of families. They called on policymakers and stakeholders to unite against projects that may cause irreversible damage and insisted that development must always uphold human dignity, ecological protection, and social justice.
Their position is not new, nor is it radical. It fits squarely within the Catholic Church’s long-standing engagement in social and environmental justice, anchored today on Pope Francis’ concept of Integral Ecology in Laudato si’. The message is simple but profound: the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor are one and the same.
The bishops’ concerns deserve to be acknowledged and taken seriously.
First, public safety and long-term risk. The Philippines sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire and is battered yearly by typhoons. Nuclear power demands not only flawless engineering, but decades—if not centuries—of competent, corruption-free governance to manage waste and ensure safety. One accident, one shortcut in procurement, one compromised inspection can have fatal consequences. This is not fearmongering; it is prudence.
Second, the option for the poor. History shows that large infrastructure projects often displace communities who enjoy few of the benefits but bear most of the risks. The bishops rightly remind us that economic gains tend to bypass those living closest to danger zones, while health and livelihood losses stay with them for generations.
Third, environmental integrity. Lingayen Gulf is not just a body of water; it is a food source, a livelihood, and a shared heritage. Any threat to its marine biodiversity or surrounding agricultural land is a threat to food security and intergenerational stewardship.
Let me be clear: I am in favor of making the Philippines energy independent. Our high electricity costs and dependence on imported fuel are unsustainable. But I am against building nuclear power plants in this country. Aside from geological and climatic risks, I am deeply concerned that corruption—still endemic in many sectors—could undermine nuclear plant management. In nuclear energy, “minor irregularities” are not minor at all.
The broader context makes this debate even more urgent. The government has revived nuclear ambitions, signing a “123 Agreement” with the United States in 2024 and exploring Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are marketed as safer and more flexible. Yet even SMRs do not eliminate the unresolved problems of waste disposal, emergency response, and long-term oversight.
And hovering over all this is the ghost of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant—completed, never used, and paid for dearly by the Filipino people. It stands as a concrete reminder of how grand promises can collapse under poor governance.
This is not simply a clash between faith and technology. It is a clash of priorities. Energy security versus sustainability. Economic growth versus human dignity. Technological optimism versus the precautionary principle.
I stand with the bishops in declaring that the safety and well-being of the people are more important than anything else. The people's power must come before power plants. Development that endangers lives, livelihoods, and creation is not progress—it is a betrayal.
RAMON IKE V. SENERES
Comments
Post a Comment