The Philippines and Climate Change
The Philippines and Climate Change
Change
Presently, the Philippines is one of the top ten countries considered
most vulnerable to climate change. The Global Risk Index puts the
country along with the three other Southeast Asian countries,
namely Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand and two South Asian
countries specifically Bangladesh and Pakistan in its list of 10
countries which have suffered most from impacts of climate change
in the last two decades.
The Philippines’ constant exposure severe floods, heavy rains, and
tropical storms makes it an easy candidate for the list. An average of 20
typhoons enters the Philippine area of responsibility every year. One such
typhoon as previously mentioned was Yolanda (known strongest typhoon
internationally as Haiyan) which has been recorded as the strongest
typhoon ever to hit Philippines after leaving behind nearly 7,000 people
dead and $13 billion worth of damage to property, livelihood, and
industries.
The phenomenon of climate change has been traced to an
ideological stance called anthropocentrism. An anthropocentric is
the center of the natural environment and to him or her belongs to
sole authority and privilege of doing to nature as he or she pleases.
One of the unfortunate consequences of this view is the
proliferation of an attitude which treats nature simply as
“natural resources,” that is, as objects that can be utilized
and consumed with very little or no concern at all for
their preservation.
An example of anthropocentrism in practice is a logger who
indiscriminately cut trees without regard for the care of the forest; a
fish farmer who endangers the survival of fish species with the
irresponsible installation of fish pens; or a miner who remains
unbothered when waste materials poison the water ways on which
the livelihood of many communities depend.
One example is the ethical theory called deep ecology credited to Arne Næss.
As a mountain climber, Næss saw nature not as a frontier to conquer but as an
object of reverence. Næss learned this important insight from mountain guides
in one of his climbing expeditions. He believed that a genuine environmental
ethics is one that allows the human person to see nature and other life forms as
inherently valuable whether or not they are useful for human progress.
Oftentimes, deep ecology is distinguished from shallow ecology,
which considers care for the earth as necessary only if it is in the
interest of affluent countries to do so. Another cutting edge theory
of environmental ethics is ecofeminism. Proponents of this theory
of environmental ethics is a ecological propagates subjugation and
manipulation of women.
In the mind of ecofeminists, the same exploitative culture extends
to the natural world. A struggle for liberation, therefore, is in order.
The third example of an emerging alternative theory of
environmental ethics is called social ecology whose primary
exponent is the American philosopher Murray Bookchin. In
Bookchin’s account, the physical or outer world is the nature from
which culture or the second nature develops.
Hence, there should not be any distinction between the environment and
human civilization. Using this frame work, one may see the degradation of
the rice terraces in Banaue both as an ecological concern and a cultural
problem. The same may be said about the dwindling shoreline of Boracay
due to the aggressive encroachment of commercial and leisure
establishments all wanting to have a piece of the beachfront advantage.