Total Ban Absurd!

DCHERALD AT PPI — Our Davao Catholic HERALD is now in the league of our leading newspapers nation-wide. It is now a bona fide member of the Philippine Press Institute, the national association of national and provincial newspapers composed only of publishers and editors. Fr. Ritsche Gamaya, our editor-in-chief attended the annual assembly in Manila last weekend where former President Ramos was guest of honor and speaker.

@@@@

BANNING SOFT DRINKS — I do not agree with the plan of banning the sale of soft drinks in schools. If the reason is because soft drinks are “sugary” , then ban, not only soft drinks,  but  ALL sugar-laden items in school canteens like candies, cakes, cookies, even rice (because it has high carbo that converts to glucose). The problem is NOT the   consumption of soft drinks per se. It is EXCESSIVE consumption. And it is valid on all food items, sugary or not!

I recall my grade school days in Davao del Sur. Drinking softdrinks, which then sold at P.10 centavos per bottle was a  “luxury”  for many of us in the rural areas. We had soft drinks only during special occasions like birthdays.  To many families in remote areas up to now, soft drinks are a source of unending joy and satisfation.   Never mind the rich and those who can afford ice cream, halo halo and juices.  But what about the rest not so well blessed? Should we deny them this simple joy? To take soft drinks or not should be a personal choice. But to legislate or pass a law with penalties to enforce it  on everyone  is totally  absurd!

@@@@

MINING BAN — This leads me to the issue on total ban on mining. Yes, there are environmental issues that have to be resolved when we deal with the so-called “extractive” industry.  But a TOTAL ban is also absurd (with due respects to those total ban advocates.) Mining is the only source of all metals for our cars, trucks,  cellphones, watches,  cooking “calderos” and utensils, the microphones (that we use in denouncing mining) — in fact almost EVERYTHING that we use in or daily lives.   We cannot be denouncing something but at the same time benefitting from it.  Yes, there are costs but the remedy is to mitigate those costs but not to totally ban or legislate them out! I hear some anti- mining sectors   saying mining can be done somewhere else “but please, not here” . Yes, they want to benefit from mining but let others suffer the costs, not them. Is this not plain “irresponsibility” or hypocrisy?

The whole irony is that those who oppose mining still complain about mass poverty but they will block any effort to improve the lives of the people who will definitely benefit from mining. Especially the poor indigenous communities that have long been forgotten by goverment and civilization and who will be the first beneficiaries of any progressive activities  in their own “homeland”.

@@@@

MODERN-DAY TECH — There are now modern-day technologies developed by advance countries that have benefited tremendously from mining like Canada and the US. If we have rabid anti’s here, they also have their own. And over the years, they have mitigated the collateral damage through advanced technologies and best practices brought about by long years of experience by responding to the concerns — and the continuing vigilance — of the “antis”. Of course government’s coming of age on environmental issues is a big factor. Yes, there is such a thing as “responsible mining” nowadays that can bring good things to communities.

But here back home, we have to do the basic first step:  we must strengthen the capacities of our agencies. Today, DENG, MGB and our concerned government offices  as a whole cannot as yet be totally relied upon for due diligence. There is also the issue of bad governance. Yes, we can improve on our steps to protect the present and the future. But total bans are anathema!