Rule of Law 20: PNP and Rule of Men

The police -- like the Philippine National Police (PNP) -- is supposed to be the main implementer of many laws protecting the citizens' right to private property, right to life, right to liberty. Thus, the police should be in the frontline in going after law violators -- thieves, murderers, kidnappers, sex traffickers, etc. Whether big or petty crimes, the police should be upholding the laws, not violating the laws.

Below are some instances where the police are violators of several traffic or road regulations. Like no counter-flow, no obstruction of traffic, "no helmet no travel".

Below, this Makati police car doing a counter-flow, N. Reyes St. (previously Reposo St.), Bel Air Makati. I took this photo myself last December 06, 2010.

Another counter-flowing Manila police car, UN Avenue, Manila. I took this last March 14, 2011.

These traffic policemen violating the "no traffic obstruction" by obstructing an entire a north-bound traffic of Edsa, to allow some political VIPs to pass, coming from that funeral park in Guadalope, Makati. I took this inside a bus, sometime last year.

This photo I got from facebook, no date and place. The caption simply said, "Where are your helmets, officers?" Policemen violating the no helmet, no travel policy.

Today, this photo was posted also in facebook. No date and place, just being passed on by different facebook users.

Ok PNP, don't get me wrong. I recognize your role in keeping the peace in this country somehow. I am not demonizing you entirely, I recognize some of the good things that you and our policemen do. But please, please, refrain from these "we are above the law, we are the police" practices. Do not counter-flow, stop on red lights, do not park in no parking areas, do not make a left turn or U-turn in designated No left turn/U-turn areas. Learn to obey rules, big and small ones.

Many private motorists who act like you often name drop Police Major or Police General so and so when apprehended by other traffic enforcers. You start it, others follow. Ordinary motorists like us can only shake our head -- as we fork out hundreds of billions of taxes for you and many other government bureaucracies.
----------

See also:
Rule of Law 16: On the New SC Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, August 25, 2012
Rule of Law 17: Justice Without Discrimination, October 18, 2012
Rule of Law 18: Damaso and Carlos Celdran Conviction, February 04, 2013 
Rule of Law 19: How to Strengthen RoL?, March 25, 2013

EFN Asia 18: Jeju Forum's Economic Panels

* This is my guest post today in the EFN Asia website.

---------

In less than six weeks, I will fly to Seoul, then Jeju, S. Korea, to attend the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity, May 29-31, 2013. The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia will participate in one of the panel discussions on Day 2, and I will be the rapporteur for that panel.

There will be plenty of panel discussions on those 2 1/2 days forum. To accommodate them all, there will be about five simultaneous discussions on each time block. See the list of topics here.

Day 1, May 29, I plan to attend session 1-D, "Cultural Exchange and Tourism Promotion in Asia Pacific Region". To achieve more peace and prosperity in the region and the world in general, mobility of goods and  services/people should be made as free as possible. People will think less of war and conflict provocation if they see the beauty of other places and countries, if they understand the cultural practices in other places and hence, realize the need for more tolerance, to respect diversity among people. Human rights are respected in the process as people learn to be more tolerant of other people's cultural belief and practices, their social and economic aspirations. 

Then on the next panel, I plan to listen to session 2-A, Making Ideas Work: Challenges and Opportunities for Think Tanks in Asia. Many of the co-sponsors and partners of the Jeju Forum are think tanks, government and private. For me, the main purpose of think tanks, Minimal Government Thinkers included, is to explore new ways, more efficient and less costly ways, to attain a particular vision for the country, for the region, and the world. And that vision is a society where people have freedom and a peaceful environment so they can pursue more social and economic prosperity, both for the present and future generations.

Many private think tanks though are constrained by funding. That is why among the biggest think tanks in Asia and the world are government-owned ones, their funding are assured yearly from taxes. One problem here though is that their research agenda and content is subject to explicit or implicit pressure from the politicians and officials of the national government. 

On Day 2 morning, I hope to attend session 3-C, Asia-Pacific Development and the Future of Korean ODA.  I do not believe in the overall effectivity of Official Development Assistance (ODA) as it is a government to government (G2G) transfer of money and resources. If one or both is/are corrupt, then its effectivity in uplifting the lives of poor people in the less-developed country is immediately compromised if not negated. So the main beneficiaries of this G2G transfer are the politicians and officials, employees of the recipient governments. 

I think the best people to people (P2P) transfer of resources is via free trade (goods and services), more foreign investments and tourism. Nonetheless, I have to hear what the speakers have to say on the subject. There could be new things and development in this area. 

Disclosure: I was a former Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) scholar, a two-weeks seminar on "Technology and Policy" in 1996 when I was still working at CPBO, House of Representatives. I enjoyed that seminar, I learned many things, aside from the many trips, hotel transfers, nice food, mountain resort tour, and warm, friendly Korean hosts and tour guides.

Or I might skip this session and attend the session on 3-A, Coping with North Korean Nuclear Quagmire - What Options are Available? I like a quip from a friend in Korea who said, "A dog that barks loud does not bite". Exactly my sentiment, that the war mongering pronouncements by the North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un was more addressed to his countrymen, sort of saying, "My people, we will take on the mighty US and S. Korea militarily, so prepare for more hardships in life." The military confrontation is highly uncertain but economic hardships of the ordinary North Koreans will be a certainty.

A "World Leader's Session" will follow these sessions, before lunch. I think this is where past Prime Ministers or Presidents of some Asian countries will speak in a big plenary hall.

After lunch, I want to hear session 4-A, East Asian Regional Integration with ASEAN as the Driving Force. I think this is a good formulation. East Asia is actually dominated economically by the "big 3" -- China, Japan and S. Korea. But problem is that there are several lingering conflict among them. Like the on-going territorial dispute over small islands between China and Japan, which affects trade and investments on both countries. And the China "big brother" assistance to North Korea, which irritates the people in South Korea. I do not know if previous Japanese colonization of S. Korea is still a bitter memory for ordinary Koreans until now or not.

ASEAN member countries though, have few conflicting issues and have more issues and interests in common. In particular, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) that will fully materialize just two years from now, in 2015. ASEAN is about 650 million consumers: About 250 M Indonesians + nearly 100 M Filipinos + nearly 90 M Vietnamese + 68 M Thais + 62 M Myanmars + 30 M Malaysians , these six  countries alone have a combined population of almost 600 M people already. I heard one Malaysian diplomat who defined AFTA as "Agree First, Talk After".

Then, OUR session, the EFN Asia time, from 3:40 - 5:00 pm, session 5-A, Economic Prosperity in Asia: Dealing with Economic Nationalism. The line up of speakers may not have been finalized yet, but a friend from Kuala Lumpur, the President of Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), a free market think tank in Malaysia,  Wan Saiful Wan Jan, will be the moderator and I will be the rapporteur.

Wait, is there no inconsistency between session 4-A and 5-A? The former focuses on economic integration while the latter talks about economic nationalism and protectionism? Well, both are realities and happening at the same time. For instance, the Philippine economy will have free trade with its neighbors in the ASEAN but will retain its generally protectionist policy to other countries. 

In a period of global economic uncertainties and financial turmoil, the tendency of many governments is to become more protectionist, restrict imports to "protect local jobs". But what if local jobs and businesses will be more productive if they use cheaper raw materials, machines and capital goods from abroad? And by turning to protectionism, an economy loses the goodwill of other countries that have been its trade partner for many years? These are among the questions and issues that our panel speakers will tackle, directly or indirectly.

In the next round of sessions, I will most likely attend session 6-A, Unraveling the Dynamism of the Asian Economy: Patterns of Cooperation and Conflict in Trade, Finance, and FDI. This will be an appropriate follow up to sessions 4-A and 5-A. Identifying sources of cooperation and conflict -- in trade, finance and foreign direct investments. I would like to believe that in either cases of conflict or cooperation among Asian neighboring economies, the prospect of competition among themselves to attract more foreign trade, more foreign capital and investments, should be in the minds of Asian government officials. This way, they cannot be too rigid and inflexible in their policies to please local players and even local oligarchs. 

Lots of exciting panels to attend and listen to. I am getting more excited to attend the Jeju Forum.

------------

See also:

EFN Asia 14: Conference 2012 Resolution on Populism, November 21, 2012, 

EFN Asia 15: Distortions of Welfare Populism,  January 17, 2013 

EFN Asia 16: Participation in Jeju Forum for Peace 2013, March 19, 2013 

EFN Asia 17: Zubair Malik as President of FPCCI, April 05, 2013

Party List 6: Discourse with Luie Guia

Today, the President announced the appointment of two new Comelec Commissioners, lawyers Luie Tito F. Guia and Al Parreño to replace retiring Commissioners Rene Sarmiento and Armando Velasco.

Luie Guia is a friend way back in UP Diliman undergrad days in the 80s. He is also a friend in facebook, and we have exchanged ideas and debated several times, in a friendly and civil way.

Congrats Luie. I am sure you will retain your objectivity and independence in doing your work. This photo, I got it in his facebook wall, made by his other friends.

Ok, to the topic. About three weeks ago, before the Supreme Court ruled that the party list (PL) system is now open to people even if they do not represent any "marginalized sector", Luie posted his thoughts once again on the PL system, below. Posting this without his permission and I am sure that he wouldn't mind. I will post this blog article in his fb wall. Luie wrote:

I think that the true intent of the Constitution is to establish a partial proportional representation system in the House of Representative (20%) to allow even small parties (including those from "marginalized and underrepresented sectors") a better chance of being represented in the legislature. These small parties however should get enough mandate to earn seats. This is the essence of a party list system. Had the Constitution intended to establish RESERVED seat for specific sectors, it should have simply stated it considering that we have had experience in sectoral representation. The use of the term " party-list" is clearly intended to mean, first and foremost, a system of proportional representation. The Supreme Court decision in the Atong Paglaum case is, IMHO, more consistent with the true intent of the Constitution.

I replied with the following comments:

The purpose of a political party is to advance a particular political ideology, convince voters, then implement policies based on that ideology. Thus, a socialist party can have health socialism, education socialism, housing socialism, pension socialism, extend to other sectors and sub sectors. A liberal or conservative or fascist parties will also explain their respective ideologies. Those that lose means their ideology is non-attractive and/or marginal.

So when government further gives mandatory seat (at least 20% of the total seats in the HOR) to marginal groups proposing marginal or even lousy ideas, the burden is on the taxpayers and the various regulated sectors. By force and coercion, they have to finance those lousy parties with lousy politicians and lousy programs.

What particular, unique ideology is being advanced by about 10 national parties, about a hundred local parties, and about 150 party lists? There are only few political ideologies to advance -- socialist, communist, fascist, liberal, conservative, environmentalist, etc. I can count not more than a dozen. When parties expand and expand, their purpose is to dilute further the ideology-based parties and just to advance personality politics, patronage politics, clown politics, with only one thing in mind: Be in government and enjoy the tax money, perks, privileges, the power to regulate and coerce people to behave based on their grand if not idiotic central plans.

The purpose of the party list system is simply to further expand government in the Legislative branch, nothing else. The number of district based representatives is rising as a result of the rise in population.

There are NO "marginalized sectors" only marginalized individuals. Henry Sy and Fidel Ramos are senior citizens. Gloria Arroyo and Loren Legarda are women. Chiz Escudero and Bam Aquino belong to the youth sector. Danding Cojuangco is also a farmer. There are very rich and very poor individuals in all of these sectors. That is why PL is terribly wrong in theory, in concept, and is thus, terribly wrong in practice. It should be abolished in the next round of cha cha. It is a big historical mistake that only expanded corruption and rent seeking in PH society.

One more disadvantage of the PL system, additional work for Comelec. There are NO marginalized sectors and yet Comelec has to spend huge time and resources choosing which of those bogus marginalized groups are unreal or semi-real. If the PL system does not exist, Comelec can focus its resources on its original mandate of ensuring credible and honest elections from local to national positions. The number of poitical parties in the country in fact should shrink, not expand. From 300+ to perhaps only 10 or less. Marginalized groups should learn to coalesce with other marginal groups. Less ego, less opportunism, more consolidation of resources and ideology. Socialists should be proud of their ideology, not hide it in the form of hundreds of small parties.

Luie asked, “When you say the number of parties should shrink, how should that be done? Will you tell people not to organize parties because they do not espouse ideologies? who should be telling that to them?”

I replied that we can shrink the number of political parties in the PH by abolishing the PL system. This system alone results in the creation of possibly 500 new parties. After many of them were not accredited by Comelec, they simply died. Or the opportunists created new parties.

If the purpose of people in joining government is to "serve", they can actually do that even if they are out of government. Start a bake shop, a barber shop, an internet shop, etc., employ themselves, hire other people, give them jobs and make them feel useful and productive. If people are productive and self reliant, they depend less on politicians and welfare. The fact they can serve without asking for more taxes, more fees to support themselves, people already help other people keep money in their pockets.

Or if people really wish to "serve" via government and politics, let them refine and consolidate their advocacy for welfarism and populism, soft term for social democracy or socialism. If all the candidates say they want to extend "free education to college", "free medicines and hospitalization", "free housing", "free transportation" and so on, why can't they be in one political party putting candidates in all positions in LGUs, municipal councilors to Mayors to provincial board members to Governors, probably 20,000 positions for each political party. Then competing pol. parties can put up their own 20,000 candidates nationwide. Even assuming there are five of such parties, that's 100,000 politicians and candidates already nationwide. From only five parties, no need for 300+ pol parties nationwide, many of which are too weak and too focused on only 3 persons, like the PL system nominees. The PL system is simply the success of political opportunism and ego tripping by marginalized politicians with marginalized ideas and ideology.

Luie added, “Party building is never easy. It is hard work... Blaming a system that will tend to give smaller 'marginalized' parties better chance of representation for the proliferation of "opportunists" may have some basis. But I see it more a problem of implementation than of the system itself. In any case, as you pointed out, 'opportunists' eventually die."

"Party building is never easy. It is hard work." Precisely. Real "service" to voters by helping them articulate specific political philosophy that can apply to all sectors, is never easy. The multiplication of so many political parties, with special special thanks to the PL system, is an example that many politicians do not want hard work, they want short cut. They just promise all sorts of freebies, singing and dancing, and they have access to a slice of the P2 trilllion budget and rising every year.

----------------

See also:
Party List 2: Opportunism, 2004 Elections, December 12, 2005
Party List 3: Marginal Parties Should Aspire to Become Big, January 12, 2006
Party List 4: Why it Should be Abolished, August 04, 2011 
Party List 5: Why it is Wrong in Theory and Practice, September 30, 2012

Health Transparency 14: IMS-CHAT Meeting

The Coalition for Health Advocacy and Transparency (CHAT) is the umbrella organization of health and research NGOs and think tanks that gathered during the Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA)-sponsored CSOs Mapping in January 2009. Many of the health NGOs there are coalition themselves of other community and sectoral organizations. CHAT is affiliated with MeTA Philippines and is considered the civil society arm or partner of the latter.

Last week, April 12, 2013, the International MeTA Secretariat (IMS) had a half day meeting with NGO leaders that composed CHAT. About one-half of the organizations within CHAT were represented, good attendance. The IMS were composed of Tim Reed, Executive Director of Health Action International (HAI), Ms. Renee Vasbiner, Administrative Coordinator of MeTA Secretariat, also of HAI, and Ms. Deirdre Dimancesco. Technical Officer of Medicines, Access and Rational Use, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, WHO Geneva HQ. 

CHAT was led by former Bulacan Gov. Roberto "Obet" Pagdanganan and Cecile Sison of HealthWatch. Gov. Obet and Cecile are also the Chairman and Secretary General of MeTA Philippines, respectively. The big coalitions within CHAT are the Ayos na Gamot sa Abot-kayang Presyo (AGAP, or good medicines at affordable price), Cut the Cost Cut the Pain Network (3CPNet) and Medical Action Group (MAG), Woman Health, Health Action Information Network (HAIN) and COPAP, the organization of senior citizens. Everyone was given the floor to introduce themselves and the NGOs that they represent, what they do and who are their main constituency.

I introduced Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc. as an independent think tank advocating free market, less government, personal responsibility and rule of law. Our constituency are individuals and groups here and abroad, who read about any free market reforms in the country and in this case, in healthcare policies.

So we have some big NGOs and coalition of NGOs themselves that played very active roles in the enactment of the Cheaper Medicines Law of 2008 or RA 9502, groups and individuals that supported major amendments to the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) of the Philippines like institutionalizing compulsory licensing (CL) of certain patented medicines. And MG Thinkers that advocate respecting IPR as much as possible. So CHAT is a loose coalition and members recognize that.

One advantage, members say, is that there is wide range of discourse and policy options to choose when we discuss certain issues, so they benefit from such diversity of opinions and observations. But one disadvantage is that it is difficult to come up with a consensus stand or statement on some issues, like I advocate less government while many want more government involvement in healthcare. Or possible disagreement in the possible TRIPS Plus provision in the soon to be negotiated EU-Philippines Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

At this point, I spoke. I said that MG Thinkers' involvement in CHAT was a bit interesting. Many if not all of the groups that attended the CSO Mapping workshop were known groups in the IPR debate before RA 9502 was enacted into law. And I was not with them as I was writing many articles defending IPR and my articles were published in many countries like the US, UK, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, and even in some Arab countries, published in Arabic, courtesy of MG's international free market network.

That when Ms. Klara Tisocki, then of the EU and now with WHO Western Pacific Regional Office (WPRO) invited me to attend the CSO Mapping workshop in January 2009, she has read my name and my articles, and she must have wanted diversity, not monotony, of ideas among CSOs. Klara played a key role in the MeTA formation in the Philippines. And so CHAT was designed to have diversity, to allow some looseness in the umbrella organization. 

On the issue of IPR and medicines, Tim Reed of HAI showed a youtube video produced by HAI Global, about the "EU zoombies" as a result of EU insistence that stronger IPR protection on patented medicines be adopted in various EU negotiations for FTA with different countries.

Then some organization matters were discussed, like key activities for CHAT.

Last April 08, Monday or four days before the meeting with IMS, CHAT also held an internal meeting about issues to discuss. We devise a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis of CHAT. The matrix was shown and discussed by Atty. Paula "Pau" Tanguieng of AGAP. Good presentation, Pau.

It was a good meeting with the IMS, food was nice too.

I keep writing about these meetings and events as many CHAT and MeTA members tell me that although they may not agree with many of my ideas, they still look forward to my analysis, stories and photos. Just one proof that diversity is preferable to monotony. :-)

Cheers guys.
------------

See also:
Health Transparency 10: Depoliticizing Health, Corporatizing Government Hospitals, September 18, 2012
Health Transparency 11: MeTA Philippines and Multistakeholder Process, September 19, 2012 
Health Transparency 12: MeTA Philippines Dynamism, October 02, 2012 
Health Transparency 13: MeTA International Visit to Manila, April 16, 2013

Mining 14: Teddy Casino's Environmentalism

Yesterday, Teddy Casino, Senatorial candidate of Bayan Muna/Makabayan Coalition, posted this in his facebook page,

We recently challenged provisions of the Mining Act of 1995 in court.

Ang pagmimina ay dapat bahagi ng isang National Industrialization Policy para matiyak na napapakinabangan ng mga Pilipino ang ating yamang mineral, at minimal ang negatibong epekto nito sa kapaligiran at mga komunidad.
Read the full statement: http://ow.ly/k6Ibm 

http://www.teddycasino.org/casino-supreme-court-should-strike-down-flawed-1995-mining-law/

I commented on it, I wrote that “Government collects about 43% of the net revenues of big metallic mining firms. But government collects zero from small-scale metallic mining, and 9% from net revenues of non-metallic mining firms, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/03/mining-7-mining-taxation-and-government.html”

A supporter of Casino defended him, below are our exchanges:

Leon Dulce Para-Sa Kalikasan But its contribution overall is only 0.91% to GDP, 2.5% in total investments and 0.38% to total employment. At hindi lang taxation ang usapin sa large-scale mining.
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/news/nation/10114-mining-act-assailed-by-ngos-anew

Nonoy Oplas The contribution of mining to GDP is similar to raw agriculture. Chicken sold at wholesale price would cost only about P100 each on average, that's the agri share to GDP. When the same chicken is sold as litson manok and sold at P212 (Andok's or Baliwag litson), the P112 value added is counted as service sector share to GDP.

Copper, nickel, iron, when sold as ordinary stones or soil, is priced relatively low. But without these mineral products, there will be no construction and steel industry, no electricity and power industry, no tv/cellphones/radio/various electronics industry.

Leon Dulce Para-Sa Kalikasan Minerals are finite and should be utilized based only on the needs of the people, with the environmental and socio-economic concerns of communities in mind, and with a national industrialization plan in mind.

But as it stands, ores and huge profits are exported while the people are left with literally crumbs. And poison. Look at Padcal Mines in Benguet. Look at Citinickel Mines in Palawan. These are just recent cases. Paano yung long-standing and unresolved like Marcopper?

Mining by TNCs are not bringing in the revenue and safety as advertised. Mining should the public's, no one else.

Please read the article linked above in sir Teddy's caption before rehashing the tired, old lines about "no laptops if no mining."

Nonoy Oplas I read Casino's statement and it's lousy. As I noted above, tax payment by small scale metallic mining in 2010 was zero vs. P12 billion by big metallic mining, constituting 43% of their net revenues. Why is Casino silent on zero taxes, all extraction only by so-called "small scale" mining but are actually "big politicians mining".

Mineral deposits are infinite. Magma, gases and geological movement from the planet's core to the mantle up to the crust, mineralizes ordinary rocks and soil. That is why countries in the Pacific Rim of Fire have more mineral deposits than those in Africa, Europe, S. America and N. America atlantic side. A mining engineer from UP Diliman showed slides about this, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/03/mining-8-supreme-court-hearing-on-ra.html

Leon Dulce Para-Sa Kalikasan Ooh, geologists and mining engineers! Let's wait for the millions of years needed to renew minerals through the continental drift. In the meantime, let's be contented with the poverty incidences that remain highest in mining-affected communities, according to UPSE economists.

Lousy.

Nonoy Oplas I saw Rio Tuba Nickel Mining in southern Palawan. That small barrio has more shops, more cemented roads, wide street lights, a La Salle-administered private elementary and high school and it's free for all of its students, a modern private hospital and it's free for all patients. So the "poverty incidences that remain highest in mining-affected communities" is fiction story by some emotional environmentalists. A few kilometers outside Brgy Rio Tuba, even in the municipal proper of Bataraza, there is more poverty, more unemployment, zero hospital available. See the photos and you will fume more 

http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/03/mining-8-rio-tuba-mining-in-south.html

Energy Econ 9: Blowin in the Wind Folly

The mystique of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources keeps floating, mainly to help 'save the planet". It's a mystique and paranoia at the same time that drives certain energy policies in many countries to irrational levels. Like pouring lots of taxpayers money to subsidize these renewables, or jacking up the cost of electricity to households and businesses.

Here is a good situationer on global energy consumption in 2010. After all these years of pouring lots of taxpayers' and energy consumers' money to wind and solar, they have contributed only 0.5 percent and 0.06 percent respectively, to global energy consumption.

Source: Total world energy consumption by source 2010, from REN21 Renewables 2012 Global Status Report. 
Reposted in WUWT, A LOL ! press release on renewable energy from wishful thinkers at the University of Delaware

We zoom in on wind power. In Germany, period covering 1990 to 2011, capacity utilization for (a) wind about 15%, (b) solar about 10%. The other renewables have higher utilization rate.

source: NTZ, Germany’s Renewable Energy Efficiency Falls To Just Over 20% – Threatening To Ruin Country’s Competitiveness, February 24, 2013

The author, Pierre Gosselin, added,

Call it communist power management. In the communist days it took 10 men to the job of one man in a free market. On the energy market, it takes 5 green generators to do the job of a single conventional generator.
Little wonder that Environment Minister Peter Altmaier says Germany’s transition to green energy is going to cost $1.3 TRILLION dollars if the madness isn’t stopped soon.

Another graph, also in Germany, early 2013. Wind power there has an installed cap of 31,300 MW, but actual power generated was only 1,479, or only 4.7 percent. Not cool.

source: NTZ,  Germany’s Wind Performance Was Just As Bad As Great Britain’s – Sun And Wind Are Often AWOL! March 04, 2013

Is this something that one can be proud of, while paying very high energy costs? If you install a 100 MW wind or solar, you also need to install 100 MW of conventional power as back up because power from wind and solar is very erratic and unstable. If they produce only 10% or less, one must turn on the nearby conventional power, or suffer blackouts. They have that blackouts in the richest economy in Europe.

In the US, the cents per KWh cost of each energy source, break-even: (a) offshore wind 34, (b) solar thermal 26, (c) solar photovoltaic 16, (d) advance coal with CCS 14, ... conventional coal 10, natural gas 6-7,

source: WUWT,  Maryland’s “Wind Powered Welfare”, March 12, 2013

Wind at 5x the cost of natural gas and 4x of coal and other conventional power sources, is this glamorous?

The above article further noted,

The much ballyhooed Cape Wind project, off Cape Cod, is projected to have a 454 MW installed capacity. It will cost approximately $2.5 billion to build. This works out to $5,506,608 per MW. A natural gas plant generally costs less than $900,000 per MW.
Cape Wind currently has a long-term contract to sell half its output for 18.7¢/kWh. The average U.S. residential rate is in the neighborhood of 12¢/kWh.   

$1.7 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies divided by 200 MW works out to $8.5 million worth of SUBSIDIES per MW of installed capacity!!! They could build 2,000 MW of natural gas-powered generating capacity for the cost of just the subsidies…    

The $1.7 billion subsidy will be paid out over 20 years… $85 million per year… $100,000 per year per green job created ($2 million per green job)… 

No wonder why stock prices of the renewables have been declining, another case of renewables bubble burst.

And yet we are enamored with stories and promises of wind power. Like this which says, "25% of Denmark is now powered exclusively by wind."

Am curious what is the actual power generation out of Denmark's total installed cap of wind. They will be very very lucky if they get 25%. 

And the famous Bangui wind power in Ilocos Norte,

The owner of this wind farm is a renewable energy corporation owned by Vince Perez. Vince is former Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE). The Renewable Energy law was enacted during his term. When his term at DOE ended, he headed two renewable energy companies and also chaired the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in the Philippines. WWF is a strong lobbyist for more renewables, which are highly uneconomical and made "economical" only via feed in tariff (FIT) and renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Meaning we electricity consumers in the Philippines will pay even higher to subsidize those uneconomical and costly wind farms.

Ok, don't get me wrong. I have nothing against renewables per se -- wind, solar, biomass, etc. They are useful, especially for off-grid areas like remote and/or island municipalities. What I am against is forcing us taxpayers and energy consumers to subsidize these power sources. Meaning more taxes and/or more expensive electricity. People who believe that renewables help "save the planet", then let them pay the full cost of power generated, that should be fine as it allows them to walk the talk. But forcing the rest of us for this fooly is simply dictatorial.

Ohh, enjoy this photo too.

See also:
Fat-Free Econ 16: Coal, Climate and Government, July 17, 2012
Energy Econ 5: Coal Power in Cadiz, Negros Occidental, September 06, 2012
Energy Econ 6: Intolerance in Anti-Coal Hysteria, Cadiz Coal Project, September 17, 2012.
Energy Econ 7: Renewables, FIT, RPS and Climate, September 24, 2012 
Energy Econ 8: More Intolerance by the Anti-Coal Camp, September 27, 2012

PhilHealth 16: Financial Engineering to Subsidize NCDs Treatment

In a presentation during the MeTA Forum last April 10, 2013 at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) in Makati, Dr. Rizza Herrera and Dr. Liezel Lagrada of PhilHealth showed some 50 slides about the Primary Care Benefit (PCB) packages, showing only some of those slides here. PCB are outpatient services for the poor, a form of preventive healthcare to minimize incidence of the poor going to hospitals more often. I support more preventive healthcare, but I do not support the view that it's the government that should provide it for all.

PCB1 is one year old now, started in April 2012.

These packages are the equivalent of annual medical check up for clients of private health insurance or health maintenance organizations (HMOs). They even include X-ray. The hypertensive are entitled to once a month check up even though their annual premium is the same (or slightly higher?) than those who have no hypertension and are entitled to only once a year BP measurement.

PhilHealth says they have veered away from rebate mentality to capitation as payment service.  The number of participating local government units (LGUs) have been rising.

PCB1 is not portable, each family is assigned to a specific PCB1 provider, extending it to other member sectors would entail a good tracking system, both from Philhealth and from the providers.

Despite the increase in the number of PCB1 providers, there is still a big gap in the patient : health personnel ratio which greatly affects the realization of quality health care.

Intermission -- some photos that afternoon, speakers and audience....

Then the expansion to PCB 2, mainly addressed to control NCDs. My earlier discussion on PhilHealth claims for NCDs is posted below, PhilHealth Watch 15.

Health Transparency 13: MeTA International Visit to Manila

Last Wednesday, April 10, 2013, the International MeTA Secretariat (IMS) visited Manila to meet up with Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA) Philippines Council officers and members, and attend the MeTA Discussion Series on PhilHealth's primary care benefit (PCB) new packages. I am one of the members, that's why I was there.

The three visitors from IMS were Dr. Tim Reed, Executive Director, Health Action International (HAI), Ms. Renee Vasbiner, Administrative Coordinator - MeTA Secretariat, HAI, and Ms. Deirdre Dimancesco. Technical Officer, Medicines, Access and Rational Use, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, WHO HQ. 

Tim Reed here speaking during the meeting with MeTA Philippines members, headed by Chairman Roberto "Obet" Pagdanganan (former Bulacan Governor, former PITC President) and Ms. Cecile Sison, MeTA Secretary General. 

The morning meeting was mainly on internal matters, like updates on both the international and Philippines offices of MeTA. There was a brief discussion though on pharmacovigilance, presented by Dr. Mariano Lopez. It is a joint project by the Philippine College of Physicians (PCP), MeTA Philippines, and the Rotary Club of Manila, in coordination with the FDA. Gov. Obet is also the club President this rotary year 2012-13.

The plan is to conduct random drug tests from selected drugstores and hospital pharmacies in terms of drug quality and safety. Any anomaly that will be detected, FDA can quickly act. The results of the FDA laboratory test will be (1) shared among the hospital therapeutics committees to improve drug procurement on the basis of good quality drugs and/or; (2)announced to the general public with considerations for possible litigations and/or; (3)left to FDA’s discretion and regulation.

For me this is a good initiative. Civil society organizations like PCP, MeTA and some Rotary Clubs can and should initiate this kind of projects to further protect patients. One participant narrated that they conducted a similar pharmacovigilance survey in the past, and they encountered difficulty getting the support and cooperation of some government hospitals, especially those run by the LGUs. For instance, they discovered that in a provincial hospital in Bohol, an IV supplied to the hospital was improperly packaged in a mineral water bottle (!).