Will Manila Solar City Reclamation Project Cause Flooding?

Or The Pseudo-science Mumbo Jumbo of Lory Tan, WWF-Philippines President

Remember these words well the next time you encounter an environmentalist of one sort or another:

Environmentalism is a creed of mysticism. While it often tries to display a veneer of science, it in fact rejects reason and science. It regularly makes claims that are divorced from any objective evidence.

In Moral Defense of Forestry, Peter Schwartz. Posted in Ayn Rand Center, January 28, 2000

The following post further strengthens the point conveyed to me by fellow blogger and critical thinker Froi of Vincenton Post.

People should be wary about claims made by supposed authorities and media personalities.  Don’t just take their word for Gospel truth just because they’re on radio, TV, or in the newspapers.  Don’t just believe people just because they’ve got fancy titles from supposedly big deal organizations.

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

We’re no longer kids in elementary where we are expected to believe everything the teacher says.  We’re not in a church where we’re supposed to just bow down our heads and say “Amen” to everything the priest or pastor says.  We no longer live in a time when we have to kowtow to landlords

This is the blogosphere where the claims of supposed authorities and members of the establishment press are shaken out of their ivory towers and challenged on equal footing.

lory tan wwf ceo vice chairman 2

Photo from tatak digista on blogspot.

Today, up for examination is a statement from WWF CEO and Vice Chairman Lory Tan that the Manila Solar City reclamation project would worsen flooding in Metro Manila.

According to another site, Revive Manila, articles appearing in Manila Bulletin and Rappler attributed a number of statements to Mr. Tan.  In these statements, he was reported to have said:

(1) “reclamation is a risky technology because of rising sea levels and incessant rainfall. The Philippines has one of the highest sea level rises in the world and reclamation would only aggravate it.”

(2) He cites WWF studies which show that a poorly planned reclamation can create a giant bowl between Manila and the seashore.

(3) The natural slope of the bay helps drain rain water but after a reclamation, the slope is replaced by higher ground and the rain water is unable to flow elsewhere thus creating a flood area.”

The site’s author takes apart the claims made by Mr. Tan about the Manila Bay Reclamation project, point by point and appears to expose the flaws in Mr. Tan’s claims.

The first sentence of Tan’s statement smacks of the usual fear mongering ploy favored by environmentalists.  Where, before, the usual environmental bogeyman was the ozone hole, these days one hears environmentalists talking about “sea level rise” and “unusually heavy rainfall” as signs that the “end is near”.

Certainly Tan’s claims draw on the fear created by the recent flood brought about by Habagat (as well as Ondoy) all over Metro Manila and the storm surges that inundated Roxas Boulevard.  It is this fear that Tan exploits to goad people into just accepting his pseudo-science as fact.

In order not to fall into this trap, we have to examine Tan’s claim which is that “rising sea levels” and “incessant rain” automatically makes “reclamation a risky technology”.

This is premised on a number of assumptions:

1. Sea level rise is an imminent threat.  Sea-level rise is not an imminent threat, despite historical scientific data suggesting that sea-level rise may have accelerated over the past hundred years.  Sea level rise is a phenomenon measured in millimeters per year.

One useful site that one will encounter on sea level rise in the Philippines is Eco Jesuit and granting that its data as well analysis is correct, sea-level rise for the entire Philippines over a 40 year period will be 20 centimeters.

2. Present and emerging reclamation engineering technology CANNOT mitigate or overcome the threat of sea level rise.  Barring any other factors that may render Eco Jesuit’s projection inaccurate by a huge number, engineering experts planning a reclamation area can factor in this data with the intent of mitigating or even completely avoiding the peril of sea-level rise.

In the second sentence of Tan’s statement where he claims “poorly planned reclamation can cause a bowl between Manila and the sea”, it appears that he is citing a study which was not presented for scrutiny of either the author of the article or the public.  This is a patently deceptive attempt to imbue a statement with “scientific credibility” without the benefit of allowing others to scrutinize the study itself.

To examine the validity of Tan’s statement, one has to figure out how a “bowl” is created with reclamation.  If Tan really thought his statement through, he would have realized that the “bowl” he says will be created is MORE APPROPRIATE for land reclaimed from a lake or similarly depressed topography — such as was described in an article in the website of the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire.  Saying the same thing of topography with slopes that openly empties directly into the sea will NOT create a BOWL.

It also appears that Tan puts forward an assessment of the Manila Solar City as if he had seen a final plan for the development.  The Revive Manila site claims that “there is no final plan yet.” And if so, what is Mr. Tan referring to?  It appears Tan’s claim of a poor plan is WITHOUT BASIS.

Moreover, the cites that in order to create a “bowl effect” the path of storm water and floods would have to drain into a depression.  The site also presents a map from NOAH DOST showing the flooding pattern and flow of storm water in Metro Manila:

NOAH DOST Flood Map of Ondoy

The map clearly shows that the proposed reclamation site is NOT in the path of the flood water flow and DOES NOT block the path towards Manila Bay.

If at all, Mr. Tan may be talking of a different reclamation project all together and certainly NOT Manila Solar City.

The Revive Manila site itself explains:

As such reclamation works are usually constructed higher than the existing elevation, the natural grade line are altered which will indeed affect the flow and drainage patterns during rainfall events.  However, as can be seen in the map above, the proposed site of the Manila Solar City is not in the path of a flood channel or in an area prone to high floods.

Nevertheless, the Manila Solar City is not a solid mass of land but rather a series of three islands.  The gaps between the land forms were specifically intended to allow for flood waters to drain into the bay.

mgdc sunset trajectory july2

This is something you can see for yourself.

The thing with Tan and other movers of the Save Manila Bay movement is that their claims actually lack scientific basis and generally use fear tactics in place of actual facts.

In fact, when confronted with data from NOAH DOST as well as www.suncalc.net, Save Manila Bay’s other ploy is to claim that poke holes in their claims — deliberately using an emotional ploy to sidestep an issue.

However, while Tan and the others CANNOT PROVE that people have been paid to challenge their claims, EVIDENCE that MR. TAN is protecting his VESTED INTEREST can be seen every time you use a Banco De ORO ATM Machine.  At the end of your transaction, the ATM will display a solicitation for the WWF and we all know that BDO is owned by the same family that owns SM — WHICH OWNS the SM Mall of Asia which ALSO SITS on reclaimed land in MANILA BAY.  And because Manila Solar City will compete with SM MOA, could it be that Tan is acting on the BEHEST of his SM sponsors to keep competition literally AT BAY?

bdo partners with wwf

The thing is, most of the issues Tan has leveled against the Manila Goldcoast Reclamation project is also true if not MORE TRUE of SM Mall of Asia.  Why isn’t he going against SM Mall of Asia?  Ka-ching! Ka-ching!

9 Replies to “Will Manila Solar City Reclamation Project Cause Flooding?”

    1. Yup, I saw this one Monk.

      This is what Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo said in that article:

      “In a forum held at Club Filipino in San Juan City Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo, professor emeritus of the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois in Chicago said “reclamation was not a good idea due to the land subsidence that we are experiencing now.””

      “Metro Manila is subsiding rapidly, several inches every year, due to over-extraction of groundwater by the rapidly growing population.”

      and in another article, this is what he claims:

      “Rodolfo reviewed how overuse of groundwater causes subsidence and looked at the consequences and the efforts taken to control it. They looked at the physical and climatic setting of north Manila Bay’s flood-prone delta plains and the population trends that might reflect the response to the slow flooding.

      “While the sea level may rise 1 millimeter to 3 mm. per year due to global warming, the study observes that policy makers are oblivious to or ignore the principal reason for ground subsidence in Metro Manila – the overpumping of aquifers.”

      Reclamation DOESN’T involve WATER EXTRACTION and moreover, the construction of high-rise buildings involves water extraction — when they dig space for their foundation, water has to be pumped out and displaced.

      With regard to the “new fault”, these findings have yet to be validated.

      He said the fault line was near the cities of Caloocan, Malabon and Navotas.

      “We just came across it while doing another study,” he said.

      But Director Renato Solidum, of the Philippine Volcanology and Seismology, said parallel studies are being made.

      “Phivolcs has been doing interferometry also there are many observations needed to explain why there is subsidence and relate it to fault,” he said.

      With Rodolfo in the panel were Cultural Center of the Philippines chairman of the board Emily Abrera, architect Paulo Alcazaren and environmental lawyer Galahad Pe Benito.”

        1. In this case, using the peer review DOES make sense. I am saddened though that in the States, even “peer-review” is biased especially in the fields of Science. Hopefully this will not happen in the Philippines.

  1. We will get flooded, every year. They don’t solve the flood problem , first…Maybe the solar contract, brings more sales commissions…Mga swapang…

  2. I really don’t see how reclamation is supposed to cause flooding. Is the rationale behind it is that it displaces sea water that once “sat” there?

    I don’t know about being all “sciency” in my reasoning/explanation but to create a simple example, if you put a lego block in a big shallow basin with water, the water that the lego block displaces doesn’t “go over” the lego block but distributes itself to the surrounding waters, unless of course, the water level is already higher than the elevation of “land”.

    Also, Manila has been sinking since I can remember and they are now raising major thoroughfares. Blumentrit and Espana to name a few. By raising them higher than the previous elevations, the water that used to “flood” these streets during a downpour would logically go to the portions of road that have not been raised “yet”. So by logic, don’t raise the roads eventhough Manila is sinking as it sinks the unraised roads? Doesn’t add up.

    I really don’t see what all the fuss is about and why there are people against it really. I can only see opportunities here for Manila to gain from. More land (a planned unit development at that) with proper infrastructure to boot.

    The reclaimed section of land can also serve as new breakwater/sea wall for that section where it will be built. We have clearly seen that our seawalls are no longer up to par with how they should be performing as years of weathering has damage the foundations where they rest.

    For me, I really have seen no evidence/fact that would/should make this a “bad decision/move” to undertake.

    1. Actually, what the Save Manila Bay group is claiming is that the reclamation will happen across the stretch of Manila Bay along Roxas Boulevard from the US Embassy to the Manila Yacht Club.

      This is a mistaken claim since that plan actually belongs to another developer and Manila Solar City is a different development all together.

      The old plan (not Manila Solar City) would have quite possibly made a “bowl” since the new reclaimed land would be higher than Roxas boulevard, thereby preventing the flood from pouring into the sea and flood waters actually flow through part of that major avenue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.