0 Comments
Table of Contents
Climate change is a global challenge, but energy policy is deeply local. For the Philippines, applying a rigid net-zero framework borrowed from wealthy economies is not only impractical but also risks undermining poverty eradication, economic growth, and energy security. While climate advocates often frame net zero as a universal moral imperative, the reality on the ground in developing countries is far more complex.
The Philippines contributes around 0.5% of global carbon emissions, yet it is frequently pressured to adopt the same timelines and restrictions as industrialized nations whose emissions fueled centuries of prosperity. This mismatch between responsibility and obligation is not merely unfair; it is economically dangerous.
In a press statement, the Department of Energy (DOE) explained that although coal remains a key part of the Philippines’ power mix, its total electricity generation and emissions are small compared with those of China and Indonesia. “Therefore, the Philippines cannot be reasonably compared to these larger economies, which have different energy strategies and infrastructures adapted to their specific demographic and economic conditions,” the agency stated.
Manila Times columnist Ben Kritz describes this imbalance through the idea of “subsistence emissions” versus “luxury emissions,” noting that Filipinos are still trying to secure basic electricity access while wealthy nations debate how to decarbonize air travel and data centers.
“If we look at the imperative for emissions reduction and climate action on an equitable scale, the Philippines can be described as having a ‘carbon deficit’ relative to its developmental needs,” wrote Kritz. “Energy is the linchpin of development here, as it is in most places, thus in order to make the biggest dent in poverty reduction and overall economic standards, the Philippines must focus on building its energy security — that daunting balance of accessibility, reliability, affordability and sustainability.”
For millions of Filipinos, electricity is not about convenience or lifestyle. It is about refrigeration for food and medicine, lighting for education, and power for livelihoods. Treating these needs as morally equivalent to high-carbon luxury consumption in rich countries ignores both context and consequences.
(Also read: Philippines’ Energy Outlook 2026: Reliability & Resilience in Focus)
Net zero can undermine development goals
Around 1.6 million Filipino households still lack reliable electricity access, and many more experience unstable service that disrupts daily life and economic activity.
Electricity prices in the Philippines are already among the highest in Southeast Asia. Policies that prematurely constrain dispatchable power sources risk pushing costs even higher. For low-income households, higher electricity prices function as a regressive tax that worsens poverty rather than alleviating it.
According to the World Bank, more than a billion people worldwide still live in energy poverty, without reliable and affordable electricity for basic needs like lighting, cooking, and heating. Many lack any grid connection, while others suffer frequent outages, limiting health, economic opportunity, and resilience to climate shocks and natural disasters, especially in remote and fragile regions where most people without electricity live.
In the Philippines, power outages carry steep economic costs. A 2023 study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) estimates that a single five-hour blackout can result in about ₱556 million in losses, underscoring how unreliable electricity undermines daily life and economic growth, since power is essential to commerce and industry.
Copenhagen Consensus President Bjorn Lomborg has criticized prevailing climate strategies as unrealistic and ineffective, arguing that fully implementing the Paris Agreement by 2030 could cost between $819 billion and $1.89 trillion annually, while delivering only about a 1% reduction of the emissions cuts required to remain on a 1.5°C pathway.
He points out that governments are “spending large sums of money in cutting very little emissions, mostly in rich world countries,” an approach he says delivers limited climate benefits at a very high cost. According to Lomborg, this path will not address global warming and instead “is going to harm the poor, both in the rich world and poor world,” by diverting resources away from more urgent development needs.
Similarly, Microsoft co-founder and climate advocate Bill Gates has stressed that improving human lives must take precedence over meeting abstract emissions or temperature targets. While acknowledging that the world’s poorest are the most exposed to climate risks, Gates argued that “the biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been,” underscoring the need to focus first on development, health, and basic living standards.
Lomborg also challenged the notion that the climate crisis is the foremost threat to developing nations, as this perspective overlooks more immediate priorities. Surveys conducted across multiple African countries found that concerns about climate change ranked well below pressing needs such as education, employment, healthcare, and infrastructure. He stated, “Green campaigners insist that emissions cuts must come first for the poor — when what they really need are jobs, food, medicine, and an escape from poverty.”
In short, resilience comes from wealth, and wealth comes from energy. A country that remains poor is far more vulnerable to typhoons, floods, and heat than one that grows first and cleans up later.
Grid reality check: Renewables need backup
Renewable energy plays an important role in the Philippine energy mix, but solar and wind are variable by nature. Even the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) has warned that high penetration of intermittent renewables without strategic oversight threatens grid stability.
In December 2025, parts of Northern Luzon experienced brief voltage fluctuations after cloud cover temporarily reduced output from the San Marcelino Solar Farm in Zambales, causing short-lived instability in the grid.
NGCP emphasized that it supports expanding renewable energy, but cautioned that not all technologies are equal. “Some technologies (such as wind or solar) are, by nature, variable or supply intermittently, and therefore need to be handled more carefully,” the operator said, adding that both transmission and generation systems must be properly prepared to maintain grid stability.
Similarly, a massive blackout in April 2025 left tens of millions in Spain and Portugal without power for hours, as roughly 15 gigawatts, or about 60% of the energy supply on the Iberian Peninsula, was suddenly lost, highlighting the challenges grid operators face in managing rapid swings in generation and system balance during periods of high renewable penetration.
Kritz highlighted that as renewable capacity grows, so does the need for reserve power and ancillary services. These reserves often come from expensive battery systems, which increase costs. “…the RE targets — 35 percent of the energy mix by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040 — are completely arbitrary, not based at all on what the overall energy system can or can be expected to accommodate, but rather virtue-signaling,” he wrote.
Europe offers a cautionary tale for countries considering aggressive net-zero timelines. The continent still relies on fossil fuels for roughly 70% of its total energy use, a share that has barely changed even after billions of euros poured into solar and wind projects. While renewable capacity has grown, it masks a critical reality: electricity makes up only a small portion of overall energy demand, with industry, heating, manufacturing, and transportation continuing to run primarily on coal, oil, and natural gas.
In late November 2025, Europe faced a stark reminder of the limits of weather-dependent energy as a cold snap sent heating demand soaring. During this period, wind output dropped sharply—a phenomenon engineers call the Dunkelflaute. With battery storage insufficient to meet demand, grid operators relied on natural gas, ramping generation by over 40% to prevent widespread blackouts.
In the Netherlands, unusually cold weather pushed heating needs 35% above the five-year average, exposing the limits of Europe’s renewable energy reliance. Between November 14 and 21, 2025, gas consumption surged 45%, equivalent to 0.6 billion cubic meters per day, driven by a sudden spike in residential and commercial heating demand. Gas storage proved critical, supplying roughly 90% of the shortfall, with withdrawals jumping nearly 450% to keep homes and businesses warm.
“To put the 0.6 billion cubic meters of gas into perspective, consider that the energy equivalent of that amount of gas is the daily output of 220 nuclear power plants – a number nearly five times the size of France’s entire nuclear fleet,” wrote Vijay Jarayaj of the financial news website, Real Clear Markets. “Imagine the catastrophe if Europe had achieved its net-zero goals and eliminated its gas infrastructure. There is no battery system on Earth, existing or planned, that could deploy the equivalent of 220 nuclear reactors.”
(Also read: EDC Pushes New Geothermal Projects as PH Seeks to Sustain Global Standing)
A smarter path forward
The global carbon budget dominates climate debates but hides a stark reality: the richest 1% emits in days what the poorest half takes years to produce. For the Philippines, this means a carbon deficit relative to its development needs. Demanding net-zero emissions before basic energy access is secured risks freezing inequality and causing immediate economic harm, without meaningfully affecting global temperatures.
Rejecting rigid net-zero deadlines does not reject climate responsibility. A development-focused approach prioritizes energy reliability, diversification, efficiency, and strategic deployment of cleaner technologies where practical. Transitional solutions like natural gas, cleaner coal, and future nuclear power can support stability while renewables mature.
Net zero is not wrong in principle, but it is the wrong priority for the Philippines today. Climate ambition without development realism risks harming those it aims to protect. By building a growing, electrified, and resilient economy now, the Philippines will be far better positioned to cut emissions meaningfully in the future. Energy must remain the foundation of human dignity and sustainable development.
Sources:
https://www.pna.gov.ph/opinion/pieces/926-impact-of-high-energy-costs-on-theeconomy
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/overview
https://qa.philstar.com/business/2024/07/04/2367472/ripple-effect-reliable-electricity-service
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/11/WS69128168a310fc20369a44e4.html
https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/01/11/opinion/columns/re-targets-overshoot-capabilities/2256524