Bush’s ‘compromise’

UNITED NATIONS, New York – Much of the world had been waiting for US President Bush’s immigration stance with respect to illegal entries to the US from Mexico. The other day he delivered a 17-minute speech proposing a plan that could place up to 6,000 National Guard troops along the border with Mexico for at least one year. At the same time he urged Congress to address illegal immigration in a way that, Jim Rutenberg of New York Times says, "maintains the nation’s tradition of openness."

From the stands, I look at Bush’s proposal as a human gesture to accommodate thousands of Mexicans who have crossed the US-Mexican border. Instead of just deporting them and throwing them over the border, it asked that some illegal immigrants be given the right to work in the US temporarily.

Rutenberg said Bush’s menu of proposals were "intended both to salve conservatives who have demanded concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal workers across the border and to accommodate many members of both parties (Republican and Democrat) and business groups who are seeking new ways of acknowledging the presence of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States."

"America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone," Bush said in his address which was carried by all the major broadcast and cable news networks. "We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain."

The kind act did not extend to forthcoming illegal immigrants, but only those already in the US. Tighter controls will be set up to prevent more Mexicans from jumping over the border. Bush called for increases in the number of border patrol agents and the number of beds in immigration detention centers. He endorsed proposals that would give many illegal immigrants a chance to become legal and eventually gain citizenship.

Also, he proposed a "guest worker" program giving some immigrants the right to work in the US temporarily. This call is combined with the proposal of creating an ID card system for foreign workers that would include digitized fingerprints.

No sooner had the public begun to let Bush’s proposal sink in than the US Senate voted 40-55 to reject a measure by Sen. Johnny Isakan, R-Ga.), to make allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the US continent on first securing borders against new undocumented imports.

The instant joy experienced by illegal entries in the US is threatened with evaporation once the Lower House vetoes Mr. Bush’s proposal.

The kind act of Mr. Bush to the Mexicans may have sparked some hope for a change in status in millions of illegal entries from other countries, including Filipinos.

But as has been expressed by many, Filipinos will continue to go abroad – the US, Europe, and the Middle East – for jobs which they cannot find at home. And these are not just plain workers, but also doctors and nurses, teachers and scientists, some of whom go as TNT (tago ng tago).

* * *

ONE TOPIC at the 14th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development that had me fascinated – and feeling tormented – was the health threat from indoor pollution. This threat is posed by the use for cooking of wood, dung, coal and other solid fuels on open fires or simple stoves – a daily reality for many poor people in the Philippines – in fact, for more than half of the world’s population – said a report from the World Health Organization.

According to the WHO report, every day for the next 10 years, 485,000 people would need to gain access to cleaner fuels in order to halve by 2015 the population relying on solid fuels. The report, Fuel for Life: Household Energy and Health, states that investing in cleaner household fuels can yield a seven-fold economic benefit in health and productivity gains.

Every year, the killer in the kitchen is responsible for 1.5 million deaths. Sub-saharan Africa and South East Asia are particularly affected, with 396,000 and 483,000 annual deaths, respectively. Indoor air pollution also disproportionately affects women and children. In 2002, cooking with solid fuels was responsible for nearly 800,000 deaths among children and more than 500,000 deaths among women.

The report notes that effective solutions are available. These are Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), biogas and other cleaner fuels that represent "the healthiest alternative." For example, switching from a traditional stove to an improved stove substantially reduces indoor smoke.

Dr. Lee Jong-wook, WHO director-general, was quoted as saying that "Making cleaner fuels and improved stoves available to millions of poor people in developing countries will reduce child mortality and improve women’s health. In addition to the health gains, household energy programs can help lift families out of poverty and accelerate development progress."

Here are some salient points of the report:

• On average, 100 million more homes using LPG, biogas or modern fuels for cooking would lead to 473 million fewer women, children and men exposed to harmful indoor air pollution, and 282,000 fewer deaths from respiratory diseases per year.

• The economic case for adopting practical solutions on a large scale is just as strong as the humanitarian case. For as little as six dollars, families can install better ventilated and fuel efficient stoves. Making improved stoves available to half of those still burning biomass fuels and coal on traditional stoves would save US$34 billion in fuel expenditure every year, and generate an economic return of US$105 billion every year for over a 10-year period.

• Halving the number of people worldwide cooking with solid fuels by 2015 would cost a total of US$13 billion per year and would provide an economic benefit of US$91 billion per year.

The report says that majority of these costs are borne at the household level which is also where the majority of the benefits occur. "Nevertheless, donor investments are required upfront for designing appropriate technologies, setting up local businesses, and putting micro-credit systems in place. Developing energy infrastructure in this way would not only mean less illness and death but also less time spent in collecting fuel and cooking. With more time available, children would do better at school, while their mothers could engage in child care, agriculture or other income-generating activities as a way to break the vicious cycle of poverty."

"It is a travesty that 1.5 million lives a year - many of those of children whose lives have not even started – are snuffed out every year because of needless exposure to indoor smoke. We have simple, affordable solutions; let us ensure that they reach the people who can benefit from – and live by – using them," said Dr. Maria Neira, WHO’s director public health and environment.

Now, our question is, how many poor Filipinos can afford to buy LPG? Even us a notch higher from the poor level groan and moan over the constantly rising price of the commodity.

To be sure, the multinational companies packaging LPG will benefit from an increased demand for the cooking fuel.

* * *

My E-mail:[email protected]