SHOULD PYROLYSIS BE THE ONLY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION?

SHOULD PYROLYSIS BE THE ONLY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION?


The national government is looking at pyrolysis as a possible two-in-one solution to our solid waste problem and our need for more electricity. At first glance, this sounds like a good idea. Who would not want to reduce the garbage going to dumpsites while producing energy at the same time?


But I have a few questions.


Can pyrolysis solve our garbage problem without creating other problems, particularly air pollution and possible respiratory health effects? Before we deploy this technology nationwide, should we not require independent scientific studies, proper environmental permits, and reliable air-quality monitoring?


Cebu City has a compelling reason to explore alternatives after the January 2026 collapse of the Binaliw landfill. The city has been spending millions of pesos daily to transport garbage to Aloguinsan. Suki Trading Corp. has proposed a ₱470-million waste-processing system reportedly capable of handling up to 700 tons daily. However, the proposal has been returned for further study, including questions about its specifications and the increase from an earlier ₱250-million quotation. It has not been approved yet.


We should also learn from Dumaguete City, where a pyrolysis machine supplied by the same company was ordered to stop operating in July 2025 pending the necessary permits. Should we not examine the lessons from that experience before making larger investments?


I understand why mayors want quick, practical solutions. But should the DENR, DOST and DOH not help evaluate the technology, particularly its emissions, operating costs, safety and actual performance? Claims about producing electricity or reducing waste must be supported by independently verified results.


More importantly, why should pyrolysis be our only solution?


Republic Act No. 9003 requires materials recovery facilities (MRFs) in every barangay or cluster of barangays. These facilities are supposed to support segregation, recycling and composting. If we implement the law properly, we can recover valuable materials before considering thermal treatment.


Plastic, paper, glass and metals should be segregated and recycled whenever practical. Organic waste can be shredded and composted. Some LGUs are already using earthworms to turn compost into vermicast, a valuable organic fertilizer. Why should we send materials with commercial value into expensive machines when we can recover and reuse them?

Medical and other hazardous wastes require separate, specialized handling. They should not simply be mixed with ordinary municipal garbage and fed into a pyrolysis machine.

Of course, pyrolysis may have a useful role in processing suitable residual waste that cannot reasonably be recycled or composted. But it must meet environmental standards, and its costs and benefits must be independently established.

We must also remember that open dumps are prohibited under RA 9003. Proper waste management includes sanitary landfills for residuals that cannot otherwise be recovered. The goal should be to minimize what reaches them, not to assume that one machine can eliminate the need for every other process.


What about the money? Let us calculate the potential revenue from recyclable materials, compost and other recovered products, alongside the real costs of collection, segregation, maintenance, pollution control and disposal. Publish the figures so taxpayers can judge for themselves.

My position is simple: segregate first, recycle what can be recycled, compost organic waste, handle hazardous waste properly, and consider pyrolysis for appropriate residuals.

If Cebu City can demonstrate that its chosen technology is safe, effective and financially sound, other LGUs can learn from the results.


Let us solve our garbage problem through a complete system, not through blind faith in a single machine. Anything with commercial value is not garbage.


BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres  iseneres@yahoo.com  senseneres.blogspot.com  09088877282

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

ARE GRAB DRIVERS EMPLOYEES OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS?

  A RE GRAB DRIVERS EMPLOYEES OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS? The question of whether Grab drivers are employees or independent contractors is becoming one of the most important labor issues in the modern “gig economy.” In the Philippines, the answer remains a legal gray area. I am not yet ready to take a firm position on this matter. Like many observers, I am still waiting for clearer laws and more definitive court rulings before making up my mind. On one hand, becoming employees could benefit Grab drivers. If they are formally classified as employees, they would automatically become members of government social protection systems such as the Social Security System (SSS), PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG. That means they could receive benefits like health insurance, retirement pensions, and housing loans. Of course, they would also have to pay their own contributions, but the long-term security might be worth it. On the other hand, formal employment might also impose stricter requirements. Dr...
Read more

MUNICH HAS PROVEN THAT IT IS CHEAPER TO CONVERT TO ORGANIC FARMING THAN TO FILTER WATER CONTAMINATED BY CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

MUNICH HAS PROVEN THAT IT IS CHEAPER TO CONVERT TO ORGANIC FARMING THAN TO FILTER WATER CONTAMINATED BY CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS What kind of government is able to discover an opportunity at the crossroads of water management and agricultural policy ? Apparently, the government of Munich did. When Munich's municipal water utility, Stadtwerke München (SWM), became concerned about agricultural pollution in its drinking-water catchment, it did not simply wait for the problem to become a water-treatment problem. In 1992, it launched the Ökobauern program to encourage farmers in the Mangfall Valley to shift from conventional to organic farming.  The idea was surprisingly simple: pay farmers to protect the water. SWM compensated farmers for income losses and investments associated with converting to organic agriculture. The first 23 farms signed agreements in 1993. Today, more than 185 farmers are participating in the Mangfall Valley, farming about 4,600 to 4,650 hectares organically. ...
Read more