|
|
Post by sabretooth on Jun 15, 2005 17:58:12 GMT 8
From BusinessWorld Online
Vol. XVIII, No. 224
Wednesday, June 8, 2005 | MANILA, PHILIPPINES
The Nation
BY BEVERLY T. NATIVIDAD, Reporter
LTO to bar registration of pre-‘99 car models beginning next year
Starting next year, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) will bar the registration of car models made before 1999 in compliance with the country’s commitment to the Montreal Protocol that seeks to eradicate the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the next five to 10 years.
In line with the LTO’s memorandum of agreement with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the LTO will restrict the registration of old model cars still using CFCs in their car air-conditioning system.
The 1987 landmark international agreement called "The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer" stipulates the phaseout of production and consumption of ozone-depleting compounds such as CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform.
"Noncompliant cars will have no registration and therefore cannot be used on the road," said DENR Director Fernandino Y. Concepcion.
In a press briefing yesterday, National CFCs Phaseout Plan Project Manager Elvira S. Pausing explained that the Montreal Protocol has set aside a fund to assure compliance of the 188 signatory-countries to the agreement.
The Philippines, for instance, received a grant through the World Bank of about $30 million in 1994 specifically for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol phaseout schedule. Of this, about $10.58 million would be used to fund the national CFCs phaseout plan.
The Montreal Protocol phaseout schedule stipulates, for example, the phaseout of vehicles that use CFCs in their air-con systems by 2016. The LTO program to prevent the registration of old model cars starting next year is precisely to prepare for the 2016 schedule.
As for the importation and/or consumption of CFCs, the Montreal Protocol phaseout schedule also stipulates that the Philippines reduce by 50% its yearly consumption this year, and totally eradicate CFCs use by 2010.
According to Ms. Pausing, the Philippines is on schedule with its international commitment since it has reached the 50% level in 2004. This means that out of an average yearly consumption of 3,018 ozone depleting potential metric tons (ODP MT), the country was able to lessen CFCs use to the current level of 1,509 ODP MT.
Mr. Concepcion said should the Philippines fail to abide by the international protocol, it stands to be penalized with about $10.48 for every kilogram of CFCs not phased out according to schedule.
_________________________________
noble indeed. but crazy. they haven't even tried to implement the clean air act then this? not that im not environment friendly, its just that we're not a rich country who would throw away six year old cars!
|
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jun 15, 2005 19:46:45 GMT 8
hi! thanks for posting this. i see a lot of inconsistencies while reading through the article, but it's enough to get me started. at least, this gives me a chance to clarify whatever concerns you have over the new policy regulation over mobile air-conditioners.
i happen to be directly connected to any Montreal Protocol-related concerns. that is, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. when the Philippines became signatory to the Protocol way back 1988, we were given a phase-out schedule to eliminate all ozone-depleting substance in the country, CFCs included. i'm sure a lot of you know that CFCs have always been used as coolant for our fridge, room aircon and car aircon. i mentioned about the phase-out schedule right? well, for CFCs (because it's one of those identified as an ozone-depleting substance), we are supposed to phase-out consumption 50% by 2005, 75% by 2007 and 100% by 2010.
now for the article, please take note that the vehicles covered by the "barring of registration" are those 1999-present (as in 2005) vehicle models IF (and only IF) those vehicles have been found to be charged with CFC-12 (freon). the aircon system kse of those vehicles have been manufactured to have R-134A, which is the ozone-friendly alternative to freon. sometimes kse, vehicle owners charge their aircon system with freon because it's cheaper. what we found out was that some vehicles (mostly PUVs) have been retrofitted to be charged with freon, and not R-134A. in other words, back-conversion. the only reason why the policy was issued by LTO is to prohibit the bad practice of retrofitting. so kung bago ung tsikot mo, you shouldn't allow your service technician to put freon as refrigerant. all LTO offices have already been equipped with refrigerant identifiers so malalaman talaga what refrigerant has been charged when you will have your vehicles registered. the type of refrigerant (whether CFC-12, R-134A) have already been added in the database for vehicle registration. not for regulatory purposes, sa totoo lang. we just need to have the baseline data so we can devise the proper strategy to meet the phase-out schedule. so wag kayo matakot i-declare what refrigerant you are using. and please take note that the service to identify your refrigerant is FREE in all LTO offices. we provided the equipment for that.
kung older than 1999 model naman ang cars, don't worry. you are free to use freon. but, please note that we are also gradually reducing importation of freon and importation will stop by 2010. hence, freon-charged cars are allowed to be used only until 2016 (by then, wala na rin sigurong freon available dito sa pilipinas).
ayan, napahaba tuloy ang post ko. please feel free to reply/comment/react. if you're interested to know more, i will be at the Public Transport Forum organized by the LTO on Tuesday (June 21) sa LTO Main Office at East Avenue. I have been asked to deliver a lecture on the Ozone Science during the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabretooth on Jun 16, 2005 9:53:17 GMT 8
I saw the LIGHT! so that was all to it. thanks cheenky. Is it ok to repost your reply to my yahoogroups...nagkakagulo dun e...nobody tried to explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 16, 2005 18:18:08 GMT 8
what about all the buses!?? 1 out of every 3 buses I see is a freakin smoke belcher, there are really bad ones too, like the provincial ones going along edsa and no one does anything about it..
|
|
|
|
Post by MrsM on Jun 16, 2005 19:17:46 GMT 8
How irresponsible naman of that reporter to print something like that without doing her research and getting all the facts straight. Her title pa lang on her article will surely make hotheads specially old car owners (like me) he he he
|
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jun 17, 2005 15:16:08 GMT 8
sis, correct ka dyan. we have been monitoring news about this and seems like kanya-kanyang interpretation ang mga reporters on the policy. tsk tsk. that's basically what drove LTO to organize the Public Transport forum on Tuesday  sabretooth, no prob. the more people who are aware, better for the regulation to run smoothly when implemented. if they have any more inquiries let me know, and i'll try my best to clarify. maraming salamat!  |
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jun 17, 2005 15:22:42 GMT 8
what about all the buses!?? 1 out of every 3 buses I see is a freakin smoke belcher, there are really bad ones too, like the provincial ones going along edsa and no one does anything about it.. , smoke-belching is governed by another law - the Clean Air Act. we are just talking about the air-con system of the vehicles, not the engine. i know there's a serious problem with smoke-belching vehicles plying the road, but i personally know that there are diligent people from the government who are trying their best to address this. i refuse to believe that no one from the governemnt is actually concerned enough to do something about it. siempre, because of the overwhelming problem of air pollution, the solution should not be expected from the government only - everyone must do their part to clean the air as well. but i agree, problematic talaga mag-regulate sa mga PUVs. |
|
|
|
Post by whoopi on Jun 17, 2005 16:33:17 GMT 8
what to do with smoke belchers, PUVs or otherwise, is report them yourself and not just wait for the government to do something. when you spot a smoke belcher, it does not take much to take out your celphone and type up the plate number, vehicle type (PUB, PUJ, SUV, car, truck--basic description is enough) and location of the smoke belcher. you could report it immediately by typing <USOK> <plate number> <location> and send to 2366. or you could compile a list (i did once, and in 3 days i had 14 vehicles noted), and then when you have a lot of info already call landline 925-3333 and read it off to whoever will answer the phone. this hotline number is available Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm. it is manned by bantay kalikasan, which is under the ABS-CBN foundation, a private undertaking. be patient when you call, the number may be busy. it is the only number the BK has for reporting all kinds of environmental violations. you can report all kinds of vehicles, except unfortunately tricyles. you can report vehicles spotted anywhere in the philippines, not just metro manila. they have a caller ID, so they will ask only for your name. they do 2 things with the information you give: a) the details go into the LTO database. when a vehicle is reported 3 times by 3 different sources, they will serve a summon to the vehicle owner. b) if a location is often reported, they will send their bantay usok team there. this team is deputized to flag down any vehicle for on-the-spot smoke emission testing. depending on the degree of violation, they could either just reprimand the driver, or remove the vehicle's plate. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Jun 17, 2005 16:38:56 GMT 8
what about all the buses!?? 1 out of every 3 buses I see is a freakin smoke belcher, there are really bad ones too, like the provincial ones going along edsa and no one does anything about it.. , smoke-belching is governed by another law - the Clean Air Act. we are just talking about the air-con system of the vehicles, not the engine. i know there's a serious problem with smoke-belching vehicles plying the road, but i personally know that there are diligent people from the government who are trying their best to address this. i refuse to believe that no one from the governemnt is actually concerned enough to do something about it. siempre, because of the overwhelming problem of air pollution, the solution should not be expected from the government only - everyone must do their part to clean the air as well. but i agree, problematic talaga mag-regulate sa mga PUVs. why problematic? i believe if an LTO (or any agency concern) personnel would just stand by the side of edsa he could catch a hundred violators just within an hour if he likes..just asking. pardon me cheenky but i think we're just not serious enough...peace! |
|
|
|
Post by marcs on Jun 17, 2005 17:24:02 GMT 8
ok makikigulo na ako dito. had this heated debate na rin with cheenky coz it really pisses me off when you almost have zero visibility coz the bus infront of you is spewing so much black smoke. why oh why can't they just apprehend? isn;t it obvious na smoke belcher? per my feeble understanding, it's a bit more complicated to actually apprehend someone for smoke belching. dehins lang visual black smoke enough to catch you. whoever needs to apprehend must have one of those smoke emmission devices etc etc. thus, problems supposedly are 1.) lack of equipment to do the emission testing on a regular basis 2.) lack of qualified people to do the testing 3.) lack of cooperation from the public (yes, i've heard stories when a bus is halted for emission testing in EDSA, sobrang galit mga pasahero) so with the above in mind, why can't the law be changed to make it easier to apprehend? i mean, black smoke is black smoke di ba? (it's just sad I think coz black smoke means your engine is inefficient, fixing your smoke belching problem will actually save the company money I think . . . ) But until then, let's all just do our part siguro and report them smoke belchers ourselves! Kaya to quote whoopi: when you spot a smoke belcher, it does not take much to take out your celphone and type up the plate number, vehicle type (PUB, PUJ, SUV, car, truck--basic description is enough) and location of the smoke belcher. you could report it immediately by typing <USOK> <plate number> <location> and send to 2366. or you could compile a list (i did once, and in 3 days i had 14 vehicles noted), and then when you have a lot of info already call landline 925-3333 and read it off to whoever will answer the phone. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Jun 17, 2005 18:06:28 GMT 8
marcs, the problem is changing our mindsets.."galit ang mga pasahero" matagal ng galit ang tao hehe! unless we are running for mayor the next elections..di dapat intidihin yan..maybe next time they will learn not to patronize smoke belching PUVs for the inconvenience..hmm..why cant we think that way? how much it will cost to operate 2 units a day along edsa? ...personnel? why there are so many mmda's in pansitan sa kanto doing nothing? cant they deputize them? training? is it more complicated to operate than this pc in front of me? ..may i ask how much the government is spending annually to address air pollution related diseases? not for anything sir, but if those were the only reasons thats stopping LTO from doing its job in protecting the people from air pollution...who ever is heading that agency has no business staying there a minute longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jun 17, 2005 18:13:17 GMT 8
aww...i'm so proud of you marcs. you get the drift quite right.
tolits, as marcs said, it's not that simple to apprehend vehicles. you first have to do actual emission testing through an equipment that costs roughly half a million each unit. visibility alone can not be a basis. you know, operators can actually challenge the findings through legal means within 24 hours after apprehension so it's better to have a recorded emission test results available.
there's also the problem of lack of manpower. marami ng na-deputize ang LTO to help augment that lack of manpower - Bantay Kalikasan, the DENR, and Anti-Smoke Belching Units from each municipality within Metro Manila. All those organizations help them. whoopi already mentioned about the txt-usok. the database from those text reports is automatically forwarded to the LTO office and they, in turn, send out summons to the violators.
i'm pretty sure you have experienced biking along a very polluted road like edsa. you're lucky you are also mobile. put yourself in the shoes of those who are apprehending. they stand there for hours inhaling those noxious fumes from vehicles!!!! nakakaawa talaga. i have seen these several times already, and these are not just ordinary people or technicians. sometimes you have professionals - engineers to be exact - who do actual roadside apprehensions themselves because they have to teach technicians operate the equipment. i hear stories about bus drivers who have every intention to run down those who try to flag them for apprehension. so, of course, they also have to mobilize the lespu to assist them in their work as well.
it just makes me sad that these valiant efforts to implement the Clean Air Act do not seem to be rewarded or recognized. we can discuss about the other efforts and initiatives (both government, private and NGOs) towards cleaning the air but of course that should be a whole new thread altogether. hehe.
|
|
|
|
Post by wackodacko on Jun 17, 2005 18:25:11 GMT 8
whoopi!!!! thanks for the info..been looking for that..i heard it on the radio before but didnt save it on my phone..now i know, and those evil smoke belchers will experience the wrath of my constant reportings mwahhahaha! One time i was dying of pollution stuck behind this smoke belching bus, and it was just really bad that it was even going into my car's a/c (or maybe it was psychological) but anyways, i texted it to the "hows my driving, text LTO" thing written on the bus back but I dont think that went to the right place he he. DEATH TO SMOKEBELCHERS!!!!!!!! Type<USOK> <plate number> <location> and send to 2366. |
|
|
|
Post by styxmaster69 on Jun 17, 2005 18:25:39 GMT 8
good thing my car bought by viva films...... KABOOM!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jun 17, 2005 18:33:58 GMT 8
marcs, the problem is changing our mindsets.."galit ang mga pasahero" matagal ng galit ang tao hehe! unless we are running for mayor the next elections..di dapat intidihin yan..maybe next time they will learn not to patronize smoke belching PUVs for the inconvenience..hmm..why cant we think that way? then we should start educating the public to be more conscious in their choice of public transport. you see, while roadside apprehension for smoke-belching vehicles is mandatory and legal, it's the riding public who usually ends up cursing the apprehenders. do i need to quote how much the government loaned from the Asian Development Bank just to mobilize concerned agencies to implement the Clean Air Act? there was no allotment of funds from the government, even though there should be because it was a provision under the law. the Clean Air Act is operational because of the funds from the ADB. if you're interested to know about the health impacts of air pollution and what the government is doing about it, i'd be happy to give you a copy of the public health monitoring done by the Department of Health. the burden of cleaning the air should not be in the hands of one man alone. we breathe the same air as he does. if you feel that the person (whoever he is) is inefficient in cleaning the air that you breathe, stop complaining and do something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Jun 17, 2005 18:41:14 GMT 8
cheenky, nobody said its going to be simple..but it kinda made me think what make us so different from other countries which implemented their anti-pollution drives successfully...budget or will? ok 1m for 2 units how much more do you need...now may i ask again..how much the health dept is spending annually related to this problem? in singapore dati bawal chewing gum...when it was in effect everybody followed..even tourist..i cant imagine pinoys can successfully implement that..why? 1. manpower...how many personnel will it take to check on all gum chewers in the metro 2. training - you have to be a doctor or medical technician to test the dna on the gum to prosecute the offender. 3. magagalit yung mga gum fans..just imagine..pano ka makakadikit sa pinopormahan if you dont have fresh breath...LOL!!
all i know is vehicle owners pay P300.00 for bogus emission test..right? dont tell me you guys dont know that..may mga auto kayo..and if you are from LTO you are suppose to know it.
i always think that the proper thing to do when you were given a certain task..don't rely on others to help you out..do everything that you can to do it...its your job you do it..and if ever help comes along you welcome it but never rely on it...
opinyon lang po.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcs on Jun 17, 2005 18:53:16 GMT 8
hephephep remember guys we're all on the same side here. ;D it's a culture din talaga. i guess there;s not much sense of ownership on our natural resources. i mean, another thing that really pisses me off is when someone throws their trash out their car window. sometimes i just wanna grab that and throw it back in his car! eto basura mo! i mean, last sat there were so many people here at the island where i'm staying in japan. we were having a picnic outside. as i was looking around i was thinking, hell, back home, ang dami ng basurang nakakalat siguro kung ganito karaming tao. or when we went riding on the trail, all them hikers would actually pick up trash they find on the way. alaga talaga. whether the gov't is doing it's job or not, the thing is, what are we doing about it? (i mean, c'mon, how many of you guys actually brought your car in for registration and smoke emission?  ) so what's our next step? tolits, pre, i hear you. inaway ko na rin si Chee on this hehehe. (kayo gobyerno alang ginagaw!) ;D heck, if you think about it, as bikers we can probably do a lot, extreme case is talagang alternative means ang biking, with all the proper infrastructure (bike parking sa MRT, etc) there's the firefly brigade there's bantay kalikasan there's making it a point to all your friends that they should maintain their engines there's making it a point to all your friends not to ride smoke belching vehicles ako dala na lang brake fluid tapos hagisan ang smoke belcher hehehehe ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Jun 17, 2005 18:53:49 GMT 8
do something? duh, why do you think im posting my comments here? for fun? who should educate the people? me or you from LTO?
cursing? you stop working because u are being cursed? what kind of working discipline you people have? you should get mr. fernando's services the next time you conduct your seminar..lol!
no wonder we are going down the drain.
i rest my case.. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jun 17, 2005 19:09:07 GMT 8
tolits, i'm posting here one last time in response to you to say that i'm not from the LTO. heck, i'm not even from the government although i work closely with the DENR for the ozone project I am doing now. i'm leaving the discussion on that note. besides, i have 3 karma right now and i want it to be all-good
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Dover on Jun 17, 2005 19:20:44 GMT 8
tolits, i'm posting here one last time in response to you to say that i'm not from the LTO. heck, i'm not even from the government although i work closely with the DENR for the ozone project I am doing now. i'm leaving the discussion on that note. besides, i have 3 karma right now and i want it to be all-good cheenky, i just given you your 5th karma because you're not from the LTO ;D marcs, no problem brad, no need for away..you will gain nothing out of it..just an exchange of ideas from pollution victims..as ms. cheenky put it..we breath the same air. |
|
|
|
Post by sabretooth on Jun 17, 2005 20:34:24 GMT 8
and i've given ms cheenky the sixth karma points, because she's a good girl.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bikester on Jun 18, 2005 14:00:37 GMT 8
this is getting exciting!!
|
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jul 3, 2005 9:36:56 GMT 8
another Clean Air Act-initiated activity of the government...the move to use CNG as an alternative fuel in vehicles has been ongoing since a few years back and was explicitly mentioned in the Clean Air Act. buti na lang, may Malampaya Gas Reserve to ensure the supply Compressed Natural Gas-run buses launched First posted 12:52pm (Mla time) July 01, 2005 By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez INQ7.net PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo launched the first commercial bus using indigenous compressed natural gas (CNG) -- the government’s answer to the surging prices of oil. The buses will be powered by CNG, which will be sold at 14.50 per liter for the next seven years, 50 percent lower than diesel, which is 29.50 per liter, according to Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla. The President, together with energy officials, members of the media; Canadian Ambassador Peter Sutherland; officials of Cummins Westport, the manufacturers of the CNG engines; and the Chinese delegation, Cummins' partners in manufacturing the CNG buses, took the inaugural ride to Luneta then back to Malacañang. Lotilla said he expected the lower fuel cost to translate into lower bus fares. He added the use of this type of gas would also contribute to cleaner air. “With the fuel cost much lower, relative to diesel, we expect they will be passing on the benefit to the passengers through lower fares,” he said in a news briefing in Malacañang. The gas will be available initially at the Shell station in Mamplasan, Biñan town, Laguna province. At least 200 CNG buses will ply the Manila-Batangas route starting in August. In the coming days, CNG buses will also be seen in Metro Manila, Lotilla said. Homer Mercado of HM Transport Inc., one of the six accredited importers and operators of CNG buses, said each bus costs about four million to six million pesos. He says he owns 80 CNG buses. |
|
|
|
Post by Bikester on Jul 4, 2005 12:02:29 GMT 8
so this is good new d b?,where is the supply of CNG?Malampaya ba or we imort it pa rin?
|
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Jul 4, 2005 12:24:27 GMT 8
How about coco diesel
that would help the coconut industry na rin
|
|
|
|
Post by warlock^_^ on Jul 4, 2005 17:02:11 GMT 8
My company has been pursuing this project before dunno what happened since my batchmate who incharge with this moved to another company already, they presented this study to DoE. They were trying to get me to join the team but was really more keen on focusing on planning instead. Anyway, as he presented, the modification required for the vhicle was really minimal. The study involves also CNG refilling stations on areas around the city like your regular gas stn, cant give anymore details yet since this is what were trying to sell hehehe Bet the enforcement of no cellfone will be tight on this. |
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jul 11, 2005 19:37:04 GMT 8
so this is good new d b?,where is the supply of CNG?Malampaya ba or we imort it pa rin? hi bikester! CNG is very much indigenous, thank goodness. the Malampaya Deep Water Gas-to-Power project is off the coast of Palawan and supposed to generate a supply of clean, environment-friendly fuel slated to provide around 2,700 MW of power to Luzon for a period of 20 years starting 2002 (that's about 30% of Luzon's power generation requirements). cool huh? DOE nag-spearhead ng project and operated by Shell PHilippines Exploration BV with other joint venture partners (baka company ni warlock included  ) |
|
|
|
Post by cheenky on Jul 11, 2005 19:45:32 GMT 8
How about coco diesel that would help the coconut industry na rin would be nice to promote coco-diesel nga, to help din coco farmers from the rural areas. apparently, the business of producing coco-diesel is not so lucrative pala that's why companies (e.g., Senbel) are having difficulty sustaining the supply. but, it's being promoted in little ways naman. like, malacananag already issued an executive order stating all diesel-fueled government vehicles should have 1% coco methyl ester blend and it's actually being monitored by DOE (i hope until now). last year pa ata na-issue ung Exec. Order |
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Jul 11, 2005 20:50:43 GMT 8
For our govt to move, someone has to make money from it |
|
|
|
Post by Bikester on Jul 12, 2005 11:38:34 GMT 8
For our govt to move, someone has to make money from it allegra you are citing to sedition,u want to go behind bars hehehe.just an ot learned from DOJ sec Gonzalez. I really hope we'll get an alternative fuel,we are so dependent kc sa mga oil companies that they practically dictate everything. To save gas money we are using charcoal na nga eh in some cooking kaso,it's not good for our ozone layer din.oh man. |
|
)
)