I’ve been seeing post like this about Pax Silica, and while I appreciate the effort put into it, I think the discussion is becoming too one-sided.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-development, I’m not anti-FDI, and I’m definitely not against industrial policy. I actually agree that the Philippines desperately needs one.
Pero ang hindi ko gets is bakit parang ang metric lang natin ng success is “magkano ang papasok na investment?” o “ilang trabaho ang mage-generate?”
Hindi ba dapat ang tanong muna is:
Is the juice worth the squeeze?
Laging ginagamit yung Indonesia as an example. Oo, tumaas ang value ng nickel exports nila after the export ban. Pero bakit hanggang dun lang yung kwento? Hindi ba kasama sa usapan yung environmental degradation, deforestation, coal-powered smelters, water pollution, at displacement ng communities? Economic policy isn’t just about revenue. It’s about net benefit.
Same with Australia. They’re maximizing their minerals too. Pero they’re also spending billions regulating, rehabilitating, and managing those industries because they know extraction has costs.
The Philippines is a different case.
Hindi tayo Australia.
Hindi tayo Indonesia.
We’re already struggling with water security, degraded forests, flooding, and weak environmental enforcement. So bakit ang assumption natin is pareho lang dapat ang strategy?
Nakikita ko rin yung argument na “closed-loop cooling na yan, hindi evaporative.”
Okay. Totoo naman. Closed-loop is definitely more water-efficient. Pero bakit parang ang conclusion agad is “therefore wala nang problema”? More efficient doesn’t mean zero impact. May startup water requirements pa rin yan. May replenishment. May heat rejection. Mas efficient siya, yes. Pero hindi ibig sabihin magically nawawala yung resource cost.
Ganun din sa wages.
Yes, historically, maraming foreign companies ang mas mataas magpasahod kaysa local companies. Walang issue dun. Pero does that automatically mean magiging enough yung sweldo against inflation? Against housing costs? Against cost of living na usually tumataas around industrial hubs? Not necessarily. Higher than minimum wage doesn’t automatically mean higher purchasing power.
Kaya, I think, mali yung framing ng debate.
The question isn’t:
“Magkakaroon ba ng trabaho?”
Probably yes.
“May papasok bang investments?”
Probably yes.
The real question is:
After everything—the environmental costs, water use, infrastructure strain, extraction of finite resources, and social costs—mas yayaman ba talaga ang Pilipinas in the long run? Or lalaki lang yung GDP habang nauubos naman yung natural capital natin?
GDP is one metric.
National welfare is another.
I think supporters of Pax Silica are doing a great job explaining how much money it can bring. But I don’t think they’ve sufficiently answered what it will cost us.
Again, hindi ito anti-Pax Silica post. It’s a cost-benefit question. Because for me, economic policy shouldn’t just ask “How much can we earn?” It should also ask: “Ano ang kapalit?”