Krabi and Songkhla coal-fired plants? Lessons from the Philippines

Included in my research were the Calaca Power Plant in Batangas, Luzon Island (600 megawatts); the Mariveles Power Station in Bataan, Luzon (651.6 megawatts); the La Paz Coal Plant in Iloilo, Visayas Island (164 megawatts); and the Masinloc Coal Station in Zambales, Luzon (630 megawatts).

I limited my study to residents living within a quarter of a kilometre of the coal plants and randomly sampled 410 out of 3,000 households. This sampling procedure resulted in a 99 per cent confidence level in the research findings with a 6-point margin of error. Personal interviews were guided by a questionnaire tapping perceptions of coal operations’ impact on environment, health, income and life satisfaction, as well as evaluation of the value and future of coal plants.

On the environment, an average of 92 per cent of respondents felt they enjoyed cleaner air before the coal plant’s establishment in their villages. Sounder sleep, pre-coal plant, was reported by 89 per cent of respondents. A sizeable majority of 74 per cent observed that overall environmental quality deteriorated post-coal plant; only 16 per cent thought otherwise.

Health-wise, an average of 80 per cent of the sample believed that they had better health before the coal plant’s installation. Fewer illnesses, pre-coal plant, were indicated by 77 per cent of the sample. The most frequently cited health issues were lung disease, asthma, primary complex tuberculosis, cough, colds, skin allergies, cardiovascular diseases, fever, infections, headache and diarrhoea. The root cause of these diseases was the coal plant, according to 69 per cent of the sample.

As to economic well-being, the average daily income of respondents from Calaca, La Paz, and Mariveles decreased with statistical significance from 199 Philippine pesos pre-coal plant, to 105 pesos post-coal plant. 

Masinloc’s average daily income increased from 285, to 623.00 pesos post-coal plant. Statistically, however, this increase was a result of chance. In effect, there was no change in income. These results are consistent with 69 per cent of interviewees volunteering that their lives were more economically satisfying, pre-coal plant.

Life satisfaction was negatively impacted by the coal plant. Seventy per cent declared that they were happier, pre-coal plant. Only 14 per cent disagreed. Seventy per cent said that their quality of life was better, pre-coal plant. Only 11 per cent thought otherwise.

Regarding the usefulness of coal plants, 45 per cent said that these energy sources brought about more costs than benefits. Only 21 per cent saw coal plants as more beneficial than detrimental.

Asked about the future of the coal plants, 61 per cent preferred a future without them. Only 17 per cent desired a future with coal plants. Fifty-seven percent signified that if they had the power, they would shut down coal plants as soon as possible. Only 20 per cent expressed support for continued power plant operations.

In conclusion, it is my hope that environmental decision-makers worldwide consider scientifically derived data before crafting and implementing environmental policies and laws. An integral part of these processes must be grassroots consultation. 

My research reveals that only 45 per cent of households were consulted by government agencies. Participatory democracy must be ingrained in the political zeitgeist for countries to succeed in their complex search for cleaner but reliable and economically viable renewable energy that benefits the public wealth.