No idling ordinance a must
A good friend asked for legal advice regarding a neighbor with the nasty habit of idling his vehicle every day for 30 minutes. The timing is especially horrendous. The car’s engine starts its toxic emissions as soon as her family is seated for breakfast.
All they can do, for years, she said, was to close their door and windows to prevent (hopefull ) the entry of fumes and soot and distill the irritating sounds emanating from the vehicle.
“Do we have the right to file a case against the person, who has made our life miserable?” she wanted to know. Of course. Polluters must pay.
Not many vehicle owners and drivers know that by idling the engine, they emit “air pollutants including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and particles. These pollutants are responsible for a wide range of environmental and health problems, including global warming, smog, acid rain, and respiratory illnesses. In addition, pollutants in diesel emissions can cause cancer. In San Francisco… the EPA has found that air toxins are responsible for an additional 2,600 cases of cancer for every one million people in the city. Some 90 percent of this risk is the result of diesel fumes.” (https://www.nrdc.org/enterprise/greeningadvisor/ta-idling.asp)
Diesel exhaust pollutants contribute to ozone formation (or smog), acid rain and global climate change. Fine particles from diesel engines contribute to haze which restricts our ability to see long distances. (https://epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/humanhealth.htm)
NRDC, quoting the material from the EPA, further states that:
“Exhaust from idling vehicles can accumulate and pose a health risk to employees, drivers, and the community at large. Exposure to exhaust can cause lung damage and respiratory problems. Exhaust also exacerbates asthma and existing allergies, and long-term exposure is thought to increase the risk of lung cancer. Idling vehicles also waste fuel and financial resources and contribute to global warming. Idling is bad for the environment and bad for the bottom line.”
Who are at great risk from incessant idling? “People with existing heart or lung disease, asthma or other respiratory problems are most sensitive to the health effects of fine particles. The elderly and children are also at risk. Children are more susceptible to air pollution than healthy adults because their respiratory systems are still developing and they have a faster breathing rate.” (EPA)
Singapore, Canada and Hong Kong allow three seconds idling time per 60 minutes. United Kingdom and at least 31 states in the United States have also enacted anti-idling laws and regulations. It is high time for our local sanggunian to craft engine idling restrictions after a series of public consultations. The Internet abounds with materials on these laws and policies from different jurisdictions. Universities, companies and even LGUs may craft their own policies banning idling of vehicles. It is cost saving and good for the planet and people.
For citizens like my friend who are bothered by engine idling of neighbors, they can avail of the remedies under the Procedural Rules for Environmental Cases and ask the green court to stop the offending act and even claim damages. Clearly, their rights to breathe clean air, a good quality of life, health, safety and a healthful environment are seriously compromised.
They can even file a citizen suit against public officials from national agencies and local government units who have not performed or are improperly performing the mandates required of them under R.A. 8749, also known as the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. The green court can compel their compliance under a writ of continuing mandamus. The precedent of this suit is the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in MMDA v. Residents of Manila Bay (2008).
My friend’s query acutely triggered an aching pain in the heart about the law’s emptiness. It is miserably crying for no-nonsense implementation, as do other environmental laws.
Local government units (LGUs) should begin to take ownership of their principal responsibility to protect the health of constituents and initiate actions to stop the rapid deterioration of the quality of our air, water and land. Forget the magnificent edifices and commercial complexes envisioned by some local chief executives that will just add to the problem of pollution and traffic congestion in Metro Cebu. Katawhan ug kalikupan ang una, dili unya.
How many LGUs have crafted an eco-profile of the area under their jurisdiction? Eco-profile is defined as “the geographical-based instrument for planners and decision-makers which present an evaluation of the environmental quality and carrying capacity of an area. It is the result of the integration of primary and secondary data and information on natural resources and anthropogenic activities on the land…” (RA 8749)
How many local chief executives are participating in the moribund Metro Cebu Air Shed Board which has not even performed its duties, such as preparing an Annual Air Quality Status Report?
Does each LGU have “an action plan consistent with the Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards within their respective airsheds, as provided in Section 9” of the law? Why is Naga City dependent on the DENR for test results when, as host LGU to a variety of polluting industries, it has the power and the responsibility to craft air quality standards and monitor its compliance?
Before Governor Garcia makes Cebu another site for a climate change-causing-and-polluting coal-power plant, she should take pains, as an authority with clear supervisory functions, to assess how component cities and municipalities in the province performed their responsibilities under the Philippine Clean Air Act and RA 9003, aka the Ecological Solid Waste Management Law.
Just like the LGUs, my anxious friend is also not aware that RA 8749 and RA 9003 were adopted by the country as proof of its commitment to reduce global warming when it ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Alas, it is far easier to ratify a treaty than to steadfastly follow through with the commitment. It is easier to say “I do” than to live with the vow of fidelity to a public trust that a public office stringently requires.
