INCINERATION DISGUISED AS PYROLYSIS

 INCINERATION DISGUISED AS PYROLYSIS

I read some reports about the discussion of Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at Silliman University, during the Waste-to-Energy Summit held on April 30, 2026, at Golden Peak Hotel. His discussion of Dumaguete City’s experience with waste-processing equipment purchased from Suki Trading Corporation deserves the attention of every local government unit (LGU).

In May 2021, Dumaguete City awarded Suki Trading a contract worth ₱21.9 million for a pyrolysis-gasification system and other equipment intended to convert waste into useful products, including hollow blocks, pavers and organic fertilizer. By October 2021, the city was testing machines intended to process garbage into construction materials. Official city reports described an ambitious attempt to solve a longstanding waste-disposal problem.

But what happened afterward?

In July 2025, Mayor Manuel Sagarbarria ordered the pyrolysis unit, plastic extruder and densifier to stop operating until the necessary permits were secured and applicable environmental requirements were met. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had identified seven violations of the facility’s Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). These included inadequate compliance reporting, improper waste segregation and the absence of a wastewater discharge permit. The thermal-processing equipment also lacked the required Permit to Operate. 

Separately, Dr. Emmanuel and other environmental advocates raised concerns about particulate pollution. A community air-quality study reported particulate matter levels several times higher than World Health Organization guidelines during the monitoring period.

I am not a scientist, but I have a simple question: Are we solving one pollution problem only to create another?

Pyrolysis and incineration are not technically identical. Pyrolysis decomposes materials through heat in the absence of oxygen, while incineration burns waste. However, both involve thermal processes, and poorly controlled systems can create serious environmental and health risks. Depending on the waste, operating conditions and pollution controls, hazardous emissions, including dioxins and furans, may become a concern.

We should therefore demand independent testing, transparent emission data, proper permits and effective pollution-control systems before allowing these machines to operate. We should also distinguish allegations, scientific findings and confirmed regulatory violations instead of treating them as interchangeable.

I believe pyrolysis may eventually become part of our waste-management solutions. However, it must never become an excuse to avoid the hard work of reducing waste, segregating garbage and recovering useful materials.

Our waste-management value chain should begin in every household, school, market, restaurant and commercial establishment. Biodegradable waste should be composted. Reusable materials should be recovered. Recyclable plastics, glass, metals and paper should be directed to appropriate recycling systems. Properly managed Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) should support these efforts.

Thermal treatment, if justified, should deal only with appropriate residual waste and must comply with environmental laws. It should not replace waste prevention, segregation and recycling.

I also suggest that LGUs evaluate waste-processing equipment based on independently verified performance, actual operating costs, maintenance requirements, pollution-control capabilities and compliance records—not merely impressive sales presentations.

The ₱21.9-million question is not simply whether a machine can process garbage. It is whether it can do so safely, legally, reliably and economically.

I hope that, in our hurry to clean up our land, we will not pollute our air in the process. We must not allow pyrolysis to become incineration in disguise.

BY RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres  iseneres@yahoo.com  senseneres.blogspot.com   09088877282/09-26-2027

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