The renewable energy movement is often framed as something
inevitable—a decisive pivot from fossil fuels toward
ecological redemption
These technologies and infrastructures are regarded as symbols of progress, signaling a future where environmental protection drives societal development. Yet beneath this carefully cultivated green front lies a troubling paradox: the very technologies celebrated as remedies are, more often than not, guided by practices that cause grave environmental degradation.
From land dispossession and intensified mineral extraction, to ecosystem disruption and community displacement, it becomes increasingly evident that the resources required for “clean” energy are seldom made clean. It is within this contradiction that the true costs of the green transition begin to surface. What emerges, then, is a transition that appears green, but is far less so in its means.
A transition mired in sacrifice
The Philippines’ mining sector now aims to satiate renewable energy’s soaring demand for transition metals, such as nickel, copper, and lithium. While often lauded as “drivers” of the shift to renewable energy, the pursuit of these resources employ harmful practices such as “green grabbing.”
Jaybee Garganera, National Coordinator of Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), defines “green grabbing” as the capture of land by private entities, frequently with government support for environmental protection. However, crucial watersheds are put at risk of destruction, land is tainted with heavy metals, and agricultural produce plummets when green grabbing is chronically done.
Current operations involve not just resource extraction, but also serious reverberations on indigenous rights. As these expand, indigenous communities lose their rights to a healthy environment, sustainable development, and self-determination—particularly when projects proceed without their consent. This cycle continues as mining corporations often provide insufficient information or exclude affected communities from decision-making processes, making them more vulnerable to green grabbing and its consequences.
Perpetuating broken systems
In Brooke’s Point, Palawan, Ipilan Nickel Corporation (INC) reportedly cleared around 7,000 trees in Mount Matalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL), which houses a critical watershed that sustains nearby communities. Despite objections from the community and the local government, INC pursued its mining and tree-felling operations in the area, actions that critics say were enabled by the national government through approvals.
On paper, cases like these are meant to be prevented by laws like the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), which protects ownership over ancestral domains. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent processes, meanwhile, emphasize the importance of community consent. Furthermore, local government codes also ensure that local government units have a say in mining projects.
However, the ideals enshrined in these laws have now become outdated and ineffective. Notably, the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, the primary law governing local mining, fails to address modern environmental concerns and social challenges. “There are many new laws after 1995 na [may] direct conflict with the Mining Act, such as IPRA,” Garganera explains. As a result, this creates legal ambiguity that mining companies can exploit.
This shortcoming is further compounded by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)’s inadequacy. It lacks sufficient personnel, funds, and most importantly, the political will to address environmental abuses. As such, the agency is unable to fully exercise its mandate to protect the country’s environment and safeguard public interests.
Political ties of mining companies also raise questions about enforcement. As Garganera puts it, “When you have an industry with very close links to political dynasties… kung meron mang violation or noncompliance ‘yung mga mining projects na ito, do you think DENR will [go] after them?”
(If there is any violation or noncompliance in these mining projects, do you think DENR will go after them?)
Until regulatory agencies can operate independently of influence, legal protections for communities will remain largely symbolic.
Toward a just transition
The visible gaps and challenges of the green transition can lead many to presume that it is a lost cause—more so when the transition is exploited through corruption and used to justify dispossessing indigenous communities of their land. However, environmental activists like Garganera still strongly support a transition to renewable energy, but stronger policy reinforcements and comprehensive public discussion should be carried out, because when the trade-offs result in suffering, then it is neither a green nor a just transition.
Garganera proposes three conditions for a project to be green: the benefactors must be clear; there must be no trade-offs that result in sacrificing laws, rights, and local resources; and the steps and policies must be coherent and known by all parties. As long as the roots of greed and structural inequality remain unaddressed, such efforts of a green transition become performative rather than transformative.
Genuine green transition demands dismantling power relations, centering the common people in decision-making, and enforcing genuine accountability from all stakeholders. Through sustained civic pressure, transparent governance, and collective environmental action, the green transition can fulfill its promise without reproducing the problems and injustices it seeks to resolve.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s January 2026 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSJan2026.
